The power to ordain and establish implys the power to regulate jurisdiction and other powers of these courts. 
Posted on 08/02/2003 10:39:40 PM PDT by Uncle Bill
Not likely. This bill doesn't stop "late-term" abortions, it theoretically stops SOME "partial-birth" abortions. But it also states that Roe v. Wade is good law & should not be overturned. This PBA thing is a bone thrown to social conservatives, with the hope that we'll squeal with delight & forget the issue, but it's obvious the Senate plans to go no further in the future.
I can tolerate an incremental approach, but this is a dead-end approach.
Do you know that it wont?
How so?
That's funny, on my screen Bill's post includes the *entire text*. One wonders what additional context there could be.
I believe Bill has posted correct information ,. but even if you are right , what you posted is a hole large enough to drive a truck through
And it then told the "providers "exactly how to get around it
This law will not prevent one late term abortion. The "providers " will simply use one of the loopholes ,or use one of the old fashioned ways to murder an unborn child.
This is not worth the paper it is printed on
It is the sense of the Senate that-- (1) the decision of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)) was appropriate and secures an important constitutional right; and (2) such decision should not be overturned.
How can the GOP Senate act to abridge what they have explicitly called "an important constitutional right"? If they do so, they are liars and hypocrites. Name one instance in which the Republicans have gone back on their word in order to do the *right* thing?
But that's exactly what they did in this very bill.
What's your point?
My point is that this "bill" was throwing the Religious Conservative a bone. It is a political document written for 2004 . There will be millions more babies dead by late term abortions when the bill appears in campaign adds
The fact is that neither party want the abortion fight to end. they both have a dog in this fight
Not at all. The PBA bill is consistent with Roe v. Wade. The decision specifically allows gov't restrictions in the latter trimesters.
The power to ordain and establish implys the power to regulate jurisdiction and other powers of these courts.
Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Well Jim, either Rick Santorum is trying to put one over on us or UncleBill & Co. are trying to put one over on us. Which is more likely? [Rhetorical question, we already know the answer.]
The reason the bill is so carefully worded is simply to withstand constitutional challenge from the SCOTUS. The text is drafted in a fashion that makes it impossible for the current SCOTUS to invalidate it without either flatly contradicting itself or fashioning a new pretext out of whole cloth. The hard core pro-aborts on the Court will do whatever is necessary, but IMO the flippers are unlikely to go along with the Ginsburgs. I'd characterize this effort as a job well done.
It's pretty clear from the Finding of Facts section that the Senate included the "when the life of the mother is endangered" exception only because the Supreme Court recently declared a similar ban unconstitutional for lack of same. The Findings of Fact section also make it clear that Congress agrees with the AMA and 99.8% of obstetricians not on Planned Parenthood's payroll that PBAs are NEVER required to save the life of the mother.
If an abortionist tries to rely on the mother's life exception, the compelling and unambiguous Congressional findings on the subject will be part of the record before whatever court faces the issue. Any abortionist who performs an PBA from now on will be gambling his freedom on the luck of the draw in getting a lefty judge assigned to his case who'll accept his bogus exception excuse in the face of overwhelming medical evidence and these Congressional findings. As Clint Eastwood would say, the question for the PBA performing abortionist is "Do you feel lucky?"
The bill also includes a civil damages section that allows parents to sue physicians for injuries, including psychological injuries, incurred during PBAs. This section creates a financial incentive for otherwise erstwhile allies in the culture of death (i.e., greedy trial lawyers) to devour their own for a change. It's an in terrorem clause for abortionists that hits them right where they live. I like it.
Instead of focusing on these sections, the author of this hit piece and his dupes focus on a legally meaningless resolution of the Senate affirming the Supreme Court's decision Roe v. Wade. To borrow Mercuria's phraseology, this is the real "Potemkin" section of the law. Actually my preferred legal phraseology for this insertion is "BFD." This section adds nothing to the law, it takes away nothing from the law. It is simply included as a political figleaf for the pro-abort RINOs who otherwise might have balked at passing a PBA ban. If they had held out for Mardi Gras beads, that would have cost more, plus we might have had to endure the spectacle of RINO women in the Senate like Snowe and Specter topless. [Coulter joke]
The gratuitous praise for Blackman's folly in this section is almost the perfect insult. Generally speaking, one expects Supreme Court decisions to stand on their own merit without the need for Stuart Smally-like affirmations from other independent branches of government. When referees make calls, they don't usually solicit approval from the players. It speaks volumes to the insecurity and uncertainty of Roe's defenders that they think this sort of lip service adds any legitimacy to that dubious decision. It's almost as if they believe Harry Blackman is reading this somewhere and saying "You like me, you really like me."
We can agree with the naysayers on these points: The bill doesn't ban all abortions. It doesn't overturn Roe (Congress CANNOT overturn Supreme Court decisions.) It doesn't even ban all third-trimester, only the most horrific ones, unspeakably gruesome procedures notorious for their singular savagery and barbarism. It doesn't mark the end of Roe v. Wade, but it is a start. After 30 years of legalized slaughter of innocents, even a small victory is cause for hope. "This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."
The peculiar institution of slavery wasn't abolished overnight. The Emancipation Proclamation specifically declared slaves free only in those states that were in insurrection with the government that issued the proclamation. Is there any doubt how the author of this article would have characterized the Emancipation Proclamation or the Republican president who signed it?
The defeat of the Evil Empire didn't happen overnight either. The first setback for Communism in the Cold War seemed insignificant at the time. The liberation of Grenada was similarly ridiculed as was the Republican president who engineered what seemed like a relatively miniscule setback in the inexorable march of Communism. Grenada was followed by major Communist setbacks in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Afghanistan, Angola, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, East Germany and elsewhere.
In the larger scheme of things, the curious timing of second-guessing from certain quarters not heretofore known for their unflinching pro-life views should come as no surprise. No century has a monopoly on malcontents or myopia.
It doesn't even ban all third-trimester, only the most horrific ones, unspeakably gruesome procedures notorious for their singular savagery and barbarism.
Can you show me a doctor that says he can't do a D&X without exposing the navel? Can you show how this bill will ban D&E's, which are just as gruesome as D&X's?
Thank you!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.