Skip to comments.FOX NEWS: SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION BAN
Posted on 04/18/2007 7:14:49 AM PDT by SpiffEdited on 04/18/2007 8:48:59 AM PDT by Lead Moderator. [history]
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court upheld the nationwide ban on a controversial abortion procedure Wednesday, handing abortion opponents the long-awaited victory they expected from a more conservative bench.
The 5-4 ruling said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Praise be to God. Hey, we’re trying down here Big Guy.
I've read that about two thousand partial-birth abortions are performed each year.
If they are inappropriate, they know who has done it.
The “personhood” of the unborn is not recognized in U.S. law so if the Court is to rule on that basis then U.S. law first needs to change in that regard.
FYI: This Macchiavellian ends-justify-the-means approach to the law inevitably turns around and bites you in the butt when it’s your pet issue on the other side of a ruling..
But I will grant you that the Supremes have so contorted the law in the past 40 years that this is all just tilting at windmills.
PS. A federal government that doesn’t have the power to tell the states to ban a procedure also doesn’t have the power to tell the states to un-ban a procedure...
THEIR our many of us who have been bashed been called Bushbots ect. I am proud to have been on the right side of this issue with My PRESIDENT.
I love President Bush, and continue to pray, support and encourage him. When the world is against him, he has always been strong and God will bless him and continue to bless our country with this type of decession.
To reiterate, Casey explicitly rejected the trimester framework. That’s no longer good law on the federal level.
Furthermore, it also changed the standard used for analyzing abortion laws from a stricter standard to the not-as-strict “undue burden” standard. The Court declined to overrule the central holding of Roe, but it did weaken it in that case.
I frankly don't hold out any hope that abortion will ever be outlawed anywhere in this country again. It's possible that if Roe v Wade is overturned, and it reverts back to the states, there will be states that will severely cut back the opportunity for abortion, but I think it will always be there, at least in the first trimester.
The best I can hope for is that it is limited to REPORTED rape and incest and in the event that the LIFE of the mother is threatened. That is where most folks in this country are right now with regards to abortion anyway. They don't want to seem hard hearted toward a woman in what they perceive as an impossible situation, and they don't like the idea of abortion as back up birth control.
Amen to that. This is where the rubber meets the roads when it comes to life issues. I am very please today that Al GVore/John Kerry is not our President.
And we MUST keep praying for him, and for another choice for the SC. It could turn the tide in this holocaust of the slaughter of the unborn.
Thanks to all the Republicans that made this happen.
this is why elections matter. we must win in ‘08 to continue the progress.
Hallelujia and amen.
I believe historically it came about when the Supreme Court found an overwhelming (and overwhelmingly vague!) federal "privacy" right in a birth control sale case. I forget the name of the case at the moment, but Roe depended on it.
The rationale (and the one Ron Paul used to vote for the ban when faced with the same quandry) is that the Supreme Court wrongly federalized the issue of abortion when it decided Roe v. Wade. Therefore, Congress has the right to legislate abortion law and pass laws and initiate legal action to lessen the scope and effect of Roe, only so long as that decision exists.
It’s worth noting that quite a few Democrats voted with the GOP on this one, too. It’s kinda funny how you don’t seem to hear much about that.