Posted on 06/03/2005 4:59:00 PM PDT by Crackingham
A Virginia law banning a type of late-term abortion is unconstitutional because it lacks an exception to protect a woman's health, a divided federal appeals court ruled Friday. The decision by a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ruling by U.S. District Judge Richard L. Williams of Richmond.
The Center for Reproductive Rights challenged a law passed by the 2003 Virginia General Assembly that bans a procedure generally performed in the second or third trimester in which a fetus is partially delivered before being killed. Anti-abortion activists call the procedure "partial-birth abortion." The Virginia statute called it "partial-birth infanticide."
Williams blocked enforcement of the Virginia law on July 1, 2003, the day it went into effect, calling it a "no-brain case." Six months later, he granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and declared the law unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court struck down a similar Nebraska law in 2000 because it did not contain a health exception, the appeals court noted.
"Because the Virginia Act does not contain an exception for circumstance when the banned abortion procedures are necessary to preserve a woman's health, we affirm the summary judgment order declaring the Act unconstitutional on its face," Judge M. Blane Michael wrote in the majority opinion, which was joined by Judge Diana Gribbon Motz.
Judge Paul V. Niemeyer said in a scathing dissent that the Virginia statute differs substantially from the Nebraska law because it makes it a crime to kill a "human infant who has been born alive, but who has not been completely extracted or expelled from its mother."
Niemeyer wrote: "The majority's opinion is a bold, new law that, in essence, constitutionalizes infanticide of a most gruesome nature."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Once we get the world back in order we really do have to seize these people and incarcerate them for the remainder of their natural lives.
They are simply too dangerous to be left free.
we really do have to seize these people and incarcerate them for the remainder of their natural lives.
Actually, for the murder of 44 million, keeping them alive
really isn't an option, I think a pair of foreceps driven
into the back of their skulls would be some how appropriate.
You have no idea how I intend to incarcerate them. It comes under the prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment" in our Constitution.
We've worshiped the god of freedom and ignored the God of creation. No wonder some areas of the world want no part of "democracy". This is what it gets you - a bunch of Godless narcissists. I don't blame them.
Both Clinton appointees - what a shock.
Can someone direct me to that?
That's one of the reasons I want to keep these people around for awhile after they are incarcerated. They're all a bunch of totalitarians not worthy to sit in the seats of judgment of this great country.
The fascist mindset of these people is breathtaking.
Niemeyer wrote: "The majority's opinion is a bold, new law that, in essence, constitutionalizes infanticide of a most gruesome nature."
They have now moved from the realm of activism to anti constitutional fascism declaring human beings fair game for murder after birth. Disgusting.
The District Court Judge said this was a "no brain" case, yet the three-judge panel drawn from the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals was split 2 to 1. Not quite a "no brain" case.
With a split decision, this will undoubtedly be appealed to the entire 4th Circuit. Then, assuming our side comes up short, we will appeal it to the U.S. Supreme Court. (If we win with the entire 4th Circuit, the other side might not appeal, so as not to provide the opporunity which I will describe below.)
By this time in the future, it is possible that other Circuit Courts will have ruled on this issue, possibly some differently from others. Also, by this time, President Bush will have nominated a successor not simply for Chief Justice Renquist (a conservative), but also for at least one of the moderate or liberal justices on the Supreme Court, tilting the balance on the Court to the right.
In looking at this case, the Supreme Court would be able to consider afresh the principles laid down in Roe v. Wade, and partly amended in Casey.
This is why we've been playing the game all these years.
Let me give this a little historical perspective. Following the Dred Scott decision, Abraham Lincoln said that he believed the decision to be wrong, and would seek to overturn it, in the course of time, through the political process. This would take decades. But, the political process would have been infinitely better than the alternative. Lincoln also said that until Dred Scott was overturned, it was the law of the land, and as such he would abide by it.
Being as we are now this close in our quest, let me just say, fellows, we are not going to fail for not going the remaining distance.
Sounds like they got the right guy for the job then.
Its not simply a matter of conscience, it's a matter of constitutionality now. They violate the 14th Amendment. Killing a baby postnatally is murder, pure and simple. They should be impeached and jailed.
What makes her a Nazi? And what evidence do you have that she would imprison you for criticizing federal judges?
So exactly how many people are the two of you talking about incarcerating and/or killing?
I don't wish to kill anyone.
The government appealed the decision and won at the appellate level. They ordered her to deliver a reversed ruling to the folks who decided she was no longer a good servant.
Did you think she was some kind of Liberal or something? ROTFLMAO.
That's exactly what I don't understand about you. You see totalitarian streak in some, I repeat some liberals, but you fail to see that you're exactly the same. When you start talking about killing and gulags for liberals (aka anyone who disagrees with you) you're no different at all.
For clarity, the incarcerating was directed at you, and the killing bit was directed at tet68. I combined my response to both you.
Less than 44 million.
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.