SCOTUS upholds PBA ban act

[sirs]

Notice how the author of the article makes THIS decision one of a Conservative court vs the Liberal court, completely ignoring that in it's current configuation, it's 4 liberal justices, 4 conservative justices, and 1moderate swing vote

Court Backs Ban on Abortion Procedure  
 
Apr 18, 2007
By MARK SHERMAN
Associated Press Writer        
 
WASHINGTON (AP) - 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.

The opponents of the act "have not demonstrated that the Act would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of relevant cases," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion.

The decision pitted the court's conservatives against its liberals, with President Bush's two appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, siding with the majority.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia also were in the majority.

It was the first time the court banned a specific procedure in a case over how—not whether—to perform an abortion.

Abortion rights groups have said the procedure sometimes is the safest for a woman. They also said that such a ruling could threaten most abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy, although government lawyers and others who favor the ban said there are alternate, more widely used procedures that remain legal.

The outcome is likely to spur efforts at the state level to place more restrictions on abortions.

More than 1 million abortions are performed in the United States each year, according to recent statistics. Nearly 90 percent of those occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and are not affected by Tuesday's ruling.

Six federal courts have said the law that was in focus Wednesday is an impermissible restriction on a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

The law bans a method of ending a pregnancy, rather than limiting when an abortion can be performed.


5-4 ruling
 

[modestyblase]

Well, the main issue with SCOTUS appointees isn't party lines; imo, they are all rats.

thelanguageguy.blogspot.com has excellent breakdowns of legal matters and opinions, including "witless supreme court interpretations".

I highly suggest his blog as reference for anyone who follows supreme court decisions.

Of course, idiot decisions such as this one beg the question: had *any thing else* been the catalyst for the privacy precedent roe v. wade set forth, would abortion be the issue it is today?

As it stands: do whatever you want. My personal opinion means nothing on the matter. Just don't ask me to pay for them via the government. That leaves me the option to donate as I see fit.

Now, for partial birth abortion: Prior to this silly law, partial birth abortions were only allowed in instances threatening the mother's life, or in instances of birth defects of a severe nature, i.e. spina bifida, downs syndrome, etc. should the mother choose to exercise that option.

And to really cement myself as an agente provocateuse: IF ANYONE CAN EXPRESS THEIR PRO-LIFE, ANTI-ABORTION STANCE WITHOUT USING THE WORDS MORAL, CHURCH, SANCTITY, BELIEF, RELIGION, FEELING, ETC. I will listen. I want to hear cold hard analysis, not something stemming from someone's feelings or beliefs, of which I am not under duty and obligation to give much of a expletive about. You don't want my philosophies being used to legislate to you; please don't beg, ask, or force yours onto me.

And to go even further: I would be more inclined to take the sentiments of the religious and such into consideration if I were to see real evidence that they really did care about these "unborn souls". As it stands, it does not appear that they care, it appears that they want to control others with no regard to differing opinions. What would convince me? People offering to adopt the unwanted they are forcing into existence; sincere and visible efforts to establish homes, centers, etc. for the ones aborted by the mother due to downs syndrome or spina bifida or another birth defect, generally given up because the care for a child like that is immense. I know I am too selfish to do it, and had my amniocentesis results been terrible, I would not have a daughter. So where are the people who really care? What are the signs that they do? Show me something substantial, something clear and compelling, because form my vantage point I see none.

[Amianthus]

Now, for partial birth abortion: Prior to this silly law, partial birth abortions were only allowed in instances threatening the mother's life, or in instances of birth defects of a severe nature, i.e. spina bifida, downs syndrome, etc. should the mother choose to exercise that option.

Not true.

What would convince me? People offering to adopt the unwanted they are forcing into existence; sincere and visible efforts to establish homes, centers, etc. for the ones aborted by the mother due to downs syndrome or spina bifida or another birth defect, generally given up because the care for a child like that is immense. I know I am too selfish to do it, and had my amniocentesis results been terrible, I would not have a daughter. So where are the people who really care? What are the signs that they do? Show me something substantial, something clear and compelling, because form my vantage point I see none.

Just because you are too selfish to do it, or too lazy to find the services, does not mean it is not being done. How many examples of groups willing to provide free adoption services for unwanted children would you like? How many examples of groups providing free health care to children with birth defects would you like?

[modestyblase]

How many examples of groups willing to provide free adoption services for unwanted children would you like? How many examples of groups providing free health care to children with birth defects would you like?

One match of those services-well, not adoption per se as there is no guarantee that those seeking a child will choose someone with downs syndrome, but clinics or care centers for spinabifida, etc kids, and more importantly those ready and willing to adopt what will be such a struggle-I'd like one ex. to match each Planned Parenthood center. Show me that they care. I've looked and what I see is very poor, in both amount of places and money.

[Amianthus]

I'd like one ex. to match each Planned Parenthood center.

How many Planned Parenthood centers are there?

[_JS]

And to go even further: I would be more inclined to take the sentiments of the religious and such into consideration if I were to see real evidence that they really did care about these "unborn souls".

More than that the Church also cares about women who have had abortions and are having difficulties dealing with that. Project Rachel

Pregnancy Services This is Oregon's, it depends on local diocese, but almost all offer this support as well as homes for teenage mothers and other charities.

NCPD offers grants to families with disabled children

[modestyblase]

Yes, but usually Church care comes with conversion strings attached, along with a hefty dose of religious guilt that these girls may or may not have been carrying before they asked for assistance; in either case, there are some who, for those reasons, would never seek that help, given its strings.

I have yet to see the help being offered at a public and visible level, as is the case with planned parenthood. I have to see that before I have any respect for anti-abortionists.

Also, why has no one taken me up on arguing a political issue without mixing morals into it?

[_JS]

Yes, but usually Church care comes with conversion strings attached

On the contrary, it is very rare that the Church calls people to convert. Social charity is simply a matter of duty.

Also, why has no one taken me up on arguing a political issue without mixing morals into it?

Because it is not a "political issue" simply because you claim it to be. I could claim that pregnancy should be viewed as nothing more than an economic transaction, but why should I expect anyone else to agree?

[modestyblase]

I'm not the one claiming it is political-I am responding to those who have made it political. I find non-issues irritating, be it abortion or gay marriage. No one advocating legislating against either of those issues, many of whom support the political action and response in regards to these issues, can effectively present their case w/o mentioning religion, beliefs, morals, etc.

As for pregnancy being a financial transaction, though I had never considered it that, I can see that point of view. Anything that occurs between any two or more adults, from pregnancy to prostitution, is their business, not mine.

I suppose the rest of the nation is just more secular(cough, cough)in its charitable approach than the churches in Dallas. Part of the reason the pregnant or the homeless don't take advantage of charities in this city is due to strings being attached. I doubt this metroplex is alone in this regard.

[Amianthus]

I have yet to see the help being offered at a public and visible level, as is the case with planned parenthood. I have to see that before I have any respect for anti-abortionists.

Well, in the Charlotte Yellow Pages, there are a bunch under the category "Pregnancy Counseling & Info". I've seen flyers in thrift stores, restaurants, grocery stores. I've seen billboards and signs on the streets. How much more "public and visible" can it get? Television is expensive, and I don't see why Planned Parenthood advertises on TV anyway. I guess they have too much money. However, I have heard ads for pregnancy counseling and adoption services on radio.

[Amianthus]

Part of the reason the pregnant or the homeless don't take advantage of charities in this city is due to strings being attached.

Or, at least that's what their opponents claim.

Have you actually checked what the "strings" really are?

[_JS]

Part of the reason the pregnant or the homeless don't take advantage of charities in this city is due to strings being attached. I doubt this metroplex is alone in this regard.

That's probably true. Of course there are many reasons people don't take advantage of charity. Sometimes such places are rife with thievery and assault. Sometimes people feel unwelcome or unworthy. The variables are too many to count here.

I'm not the one claiming it is political-I am responding to those who have made it political.

This is a representative Republic, the people have the ability to make multiple issues into political issues, do they not?

For many of us, abortion is the termination of life. So yes, it is a moral issue and yes there is a scientific and legal aspect to it as well. There are very few of us who can say that at some point a life forms in the womb.

[modestyblase]

I have serious pride issues. I also hate feeling like I burden someone. When my ex-husband left my daughter and I homeless(I only had a part-time job at the time), I did check substantially into options for shelters and financial assistance-I didn't want to burden friends or family. The shelters ran by or backed by the churches required that I attend counseling generally group and individual both, and the only girl I met at one of the shelter not succumbing to the pressure was bitter and told me to pursue other options. Government assistance in Texas is laughable at best. Had it not been for a friend of mine putting two and two together, and my social network supporting me, I've really no clue where I or my daughter would be today. But, as it stands, from personal experience, the church or religious based assistance has too many strings. None were ones I wanted to be strangled by.

As for the homeless, I've worked in food shelters as a volunteer. There is plenty of pamphlet-waving going on. I don't like enduring that as a healthy and secure person; I can see why it would thoroughly nauseate the homeless.

As for the counseling: pushing that as a requirement as opposed to an option is as vulgar as pushing agendas through charity.

So, yes, I have checked their strings, out of dire necessity. What I found was more awful, really, than what I had heard about.

JS: This is a representative Republic, the people have the ability to make multiple issues into political issues, do they not?

Whatever the ability is, it does not negate a responsibility. That responsibility includes keeping morals in their respective place-NOT in politics and most certainly not in law.

[Lanya]

From this article:
"The procedure at issue involves partially removing the fetus intact from a woman's uterus, then crushing or cutting its skull to complete the abortion.

Abortion opponents say the law will not reduce the number of abortions performed because an alternate method — dismembering the fetus in the uterus — is available and, indeed, much more common."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070418/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_abortion;_ylt=Al_bKadpGeCCG_MgXUIIbFPMWM0F?

See? Compassionate conservatives.  It's all good, simply dismember the fetus.

Shoot me now.

[Amianthus]

See? Compassionate conservatives.  It's all good, simply dismember the fetus.

I sincerely doubt that conservatives, compassionate or not, are recommending either procedure.