Court backs abortion ban
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:17:53 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Court backs abortion ban
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Do you agree w/ the ban?
#1
Yes (R)
 
#2
No (R)
 
#3
Yes (D)
 
#4
No (D)
 
#5
Yes (I/O)
 
#6
No (I/O)
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 11

Author Topic: Court backs abortion ban  (Read 380 times)
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: April 18, 2007, 04:18:25 PM »

YES ! (R)

Court backs abortion ban

By Mikki K. Harris, USA TODAY
This was the first time the court banned a specific procedure in a case over how — not whether — to perform an abortion.

  A GLANCE AT 'PARTIAL BIRTH'
 
Wednesday's Supreme Court action upheld a ban on a form of abortion denounced by opponents as "partial birth abortion."

While the procedure is intended for abortions after 21 weeks of gestation, abortion rights groups argue that the ban is so broad that it will prevent other procedures done earlier. They also contend it is often the safest procedure for a women.

But opponents of the method say that because it is done late in pregnancy it can amount to infanticide.

The procedure is formally known as dilation and extraction and is also referred to as late term abortion, D&X or Intact D&X. It involves dilating the cervix and removing the fetus.

Common side effects for most women include nausea, bleeding and cramping which may occur for two weeks following the procedure.

Possible alternatives include dilation and evacuation, a procedure usually used between 15 and 21 weeks of gestation; labor-induction abortion or, rarely, a procedure described as like a mini-caesarian.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, of 1.3 million abortions in 2000, the most recent data available, 2,200 involved this procedure.

Associated Press
 
 
By Joan Biskupic, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled for the first time that governments can ban a particular abortion procedure, in a decision Wednesday that emphasized the value of fetal life over a woman's right to end a pregnancy.
The 5-4 decision, upholding Congress' ban on a method critics call "partial birth" abortion, made plain how a single change in a justice can change the law of the land.

The ruling, which marks the first time the court upheld a law that did not have an exception for a mother's health, immediately energized both sides of the abortion debate and was invoked by candidates looking ahead to the 2008 presidential campaign.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote for the majority, said government may use "its regulatory authority to show its profound respect for the life within the woman."

Dissenting justices, who called the decision alarming, said the majority was weakening the right to abortion first established in 1973. Wednesday's ruling reversed the court's 2000 decision to strike down state bans on the procedure.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who spoke for dissenters and took the unusual step of reading her statement aloud, noted that Kennedy said some women might regret a decision to have an abortion. "The court shields women by denying them any choice in the matter. This way of protecting women recalls ancient notions about women's place in society."

The abortion method, known as intact dilation and evacuation, involves dilating a woman's cervix to allow most of the fetus to emerge into the vagina intact. A doctor then suctions out the fetus' brain to collapse the head and allow delivery.

Kennedy said physicians differ on whether the method is medically necessary and wrote that, "The court has given … legislatures wide discretion to pass legislation in areas where there is medical and scientific uncertainty."

While the court rejected a challenge to the law outright it said that a pregnant woman could still mount an individual challenge to the law.

Kennedy was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Alito succeeded Justice Sandra Day O'Connor last year. When a state ban on the procedure was before the justices in 2000, they struck it down. O'Connor cast the deciding vote.

"This ruling flies in the face of 30 years of Supreme Court precedent and the best interest of women's health and safety," said Planned Parenthood's Eve Gartner. Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice countered that "this is a monumental victory for the preservation of human life."
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: April 18, 2007, 04:21:59 PM »

Debate begins over Supreme Court abortion ruling
Gun control may be a topic that many presidential candidates want to stay away from, but in recent decades abortion has always been a subject of great debate in campaigns.

So watch for comments from the presidential contenders to this morning's 5-4 Supreme Court decision upholding a nationwide ban on the disputed procedure that is often called a "partial-birth abortion."

On Deadline has more on the story, the reaction of some interest groups and excerpts from the ruling. Also, there is a news story here.

We'll pass along any statements from the presidential candidates and others involved in the political debate over abortion as we get them.

Update at 4:15 p.m. ET. Richardson:
"Today the Supreme Court took a dangerous step backward in regard to Americans' rights to personal choice and privacy," said New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a Democrat. "I am concerned, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated so clearly in her dissenting opinion, that this vote could be the beginning of 'an effort to chip away a right declared again and again by this court.' I sincerely hope that is not the case. As president I would safeguard women’s reproductive rights and medical privacy for all Americans."

Update at 3:45 p.m. ET. Dodd:
"Throughout my career I have believed that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare," reads a statement from Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn. "I am deeply troubled by today's Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of the Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003, a decision which will needlessly endanger women's health throughout the country. I voted against this legislation in 2003 because it did not include an exception to allow this type of medical procedure when a mother’s health is at risk. ... While I am disappointed by today's decision by the Supreme Court, it has renewed my pledge to continue to support a woman's right to reproductive choice."

Update at 2:15 p.m. ET. Clinton:
"This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman's right to choose and recognized the importance of women's health," said Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., in a statement just e-mailed to reporters and posted here. She adds that: "As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade in 1973, this issue is complex and highly personal; the rights and lives of women must be taken into account. It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito."

Update at 1:50 p.m. ET. Hunter:
"Today's ruling signals to lawmakers, advocates and the general public, that there is clear support for the rights of the unborn," said Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.

Update at 1:15 p.m. ET: Obama:
"I strongly disagree with today's Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women," Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said in a statement just released by his campaign. "As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman's medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient. I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman's right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women."

Update at 12:40 p.m. ET. Romney:
"Today, our nation's highest court reaffirmed the value of life in America by upholding a ban on a practice that offends basic human decency," Republican Mitt Romney said in a statement. "This decision represents a step forward in protecting the weakest and most innocent among us."

Update at 12:30 p.m. ET. Giuliani:
One of the most-watched for responses is likely to have been that of Republican Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor who repeated again this month that he believes abortion is "an individual right and a woman should make that choice."

His campaign just released this from the candidate: "The Supreme Court reached the correct conclusion in upholding the congressional ban on partial birth abortion. I agree with it."

Update at 12:25 p.m. ET. Brownback:
"I am very pleased that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled to uphold the ban on partial birth abortions," said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan.  "This ban was enacted to put an end to one of the most grotesque forms of abortion, and it is completely in line with the respect for life that is at the very heart of our Constitution. This is a great step forward for our nation's citizens, born and unborn."

Update at 12:15 p.m. ET. Tancredo:
"Today the Supreme Court put an end to this barbaric practice of infanticide," said Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo. "One can only hope this is the first step towards ending the tragedy of abortions."

Update at noon ET. Edwards:
"I could not disagree more strongly with today's Supreme Court decision," Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards said in statement just released by his campaign. "The ban upheld by the court is an ill-considered and sweeping prohibition that does not even take account for serious threats to the health of individual women. This hard right turn is a stark reminder of why Democrats cannot afford to lose the 2008 election. Too much is at stake -- starting with, as the Court made all too clear today, a woman's right to choose."

Update at 11:40 a.m. ET. McCain:
The first presidential candidate to get a statement to us is Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

"Today's Supreme Court ruling is a victory for those who cherish the sanctity of life and integrity of the judiciary. The ruling ensures that an unacceptable and unjustifiable practice will not be carried out on our innocent children. It also clearly speaks to the importance of nominating and confirming strict constructionist judges who interpret the law as it is written, and do not usurp the authority of Congress and state legislatures. As we move forward, it is critically important that our party continues to stand on the side of life."

Update at 11:35 a.m. ET:
Our first e-mail press release is from the liberal People for the American Way:

"Today's 5-4 decision is further proof that the confirmation of right-wing nominees to the Supreme Court has disastrous consequences for Americans' rights and liberties," says PFAW President Ralph Neas.

The next one in: "We are grateful to God today that moral sense has prevailed at the court. This has been a long time coming and shows great promise for the future. Make no mistake, this is the beginning of the end for Roe v. Wade," said Rev. Rob Schenck, president of the National Clergy Council.

Then the controversial Operation Rescue weighed in: "This is the first legal crack in the crumbling Roe v. Wade foundation, and is the first, necessary step toward banning the horrific practice of abortion in this nation," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman.

Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., was an original sponsor of the ban on the procedure. In his statement, he applauds the "important ruling on partial birth abortion. It upholds the will of the American people and confirms the ban on this horrible abortion procedure."
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.04 seconds with 13 queries.