View Full Version : Huh?

06-01-2004, 06:09 PM
Judge: Bush Abortion Ban Unconstitutional

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - In a ruling with coast-to-coast effect, a federal judge declared the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional Tuesday, saying it infringes on a woman's right to choose. U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton's ruling came in one of three lawsuits challenging the legislation President Bush signed last year. She agreed with abortion rights activists that a woman's right to choose is paramount, and that is therefore "irrelevant" whether a fetus suffers pain, as abortion foes contend. "The act poses an undue burden on a woman's right to choose an abortion," the judge wrote. The ruling applies to the nation's 900 or so Planned Parenthood clinics and their doctors, who perform about half the 1.3 million abortions done each year in the United States. Federal judges in New York and Nebraska also heard challenges to the law earlier this year but have yet to rule. Planned Parenthood lawyer Beth Parker welcomed the ruling, saying it sends a "strong message" to the Bush administration "that the government should not be intruding on very sensitive and private medical decisions." In a statement, the Bush re-election campaign said: "Today's tragic ruling upholding partial birth abortion shows why America needs judges who will interpret the law and not legislate from the bench. ... John Kerry's judicial nominees would similarly frustrate the people's will and allow this grotesque procedure to continue." Justice Department spokeswoman Monica Goodling said the government "will continue to devote all resources necessary to defend this act of Congress, which President Bush has said 'will end an abhorrent practice and continue to build a culture of life in America.'"

The Kerry campaign had no immediate comment.

The law, signed in November, represented the first substantial federal legislation limiting a woman's right to choose an abortion. Abortion rights activists said it ran counter to three decades of Supreme Court precedent. It a banned procedure known to doctors as intact dilation and extraction, but called "partial-birth abortion" by foes of abortion. During the banned procedure, the living fetus is partially removed from the womb, and its skull is punctured or crushed. Justice Department attorneys argued the procedure is inhumane, causes pain to the fetus and is never medically necessary. A government lawyer told the judge that it "blurs the line of abortion and infanticide."

Abortion proponents argued, however, that a woman's health during an abortion is more important than how the fetus is terminated, and that the banned method is often safer than a conventional abortion, in which the fetus is dismembered in the womb and then removed in pieces.

In her ruling, the judge said it was "grossly misleading and inaccurate" to suggest the banned procedure verges on infanticide. Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, the chief sponsor of the House bill, said the banned abortion method "has no place in a civilized society," and predicted the Supreme Court would decide the outcome.

"Regardless of this decision from San Francisco, partial-birth abortion remains a horrific practice that snuffs out innocent life seconds before the baby takes its first breath," Chabot said.

The measure, which President Clinton had twice vetoed, was seen by abortion rights activists as a fundamental departure from the Supreme Court's 1973 precedent in Roe v. Wade. Abortion advocates said the law was the government's first step toward outlawing abortion. Violating the law carries a two-year prison term.

Late last year, Hamilton, a Clinton appointee, and federal judges in New York and Lincoln, Neb., blocked the act from being enforced pending the outcome of the court challenges. They began hearing testimony March 29. Doctors have construed the Supreme Court's decision in Roe. v. Wade to mean they can perform abortions usually until the 24th to 28th week after conception, or until the "point of viability," when a healthy fetus is thought to be able to survive outside the womb. Generally, abortions after the "point of viability" are performed only to preserve the mother's health.

The Nebraska and New York cases are expected to conclude within weeks. The outcomes, which may conflict with one another, will almost certainly be appealed to the Supreme Court. The New York case was brought by the National Abortion Federation, which represents nearly half the nation's abortion providers. The Nebraska case was brought by a few abortion doctors.

The U.S. Supreme Court had overturned a Nebraska partial-birth abortion law because it did not allow the banned procedure even when a doctor believes the method is the best way to preserve the woman's health. Congressional sponsors said the ban would outlaw only 2,200 or so abortions a year. But abortion providers testified the banned method can happen even at times when doctors try to avoid it, such as when they attempt to remove the fetus from the womb in pieces. They warned that the law could be used to ban almost all second-trimester abortions, which account for about 10 percent of all abortions in the United States.

edit: To add this link to the story..... (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040601/D82UEQC00.html)

06-01-2004, 06:25 PM
So unless the woman was forced to have sex against her will, she had a choice when she consented to that. So I guess not only is the woman's right to choose paramount so is the woman's right to avoid the consequences of her initial choice. And the fetus can go to hell before it gets any rights much less choices. i/expressions/rolleye.gif

06-01-2004, 06:28 PM
couldnt people at least put them in an orphan home or something? at least give the fetus a chance to live.

06-01-2004, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by: cheesestar
couldnt people at least put them in an orphan home or something? at least give the fetus a chance to live.

No, because that would be too inconvenient for the mother.

Ugh. This world is SCREWED UP.

06-01-2004, 06:53 PM
but isnt getting an abortion more inconvinient?

Usually Lurkin
06-02-2004, 06:27 AM
Killing babies is wrong, and everyone knows that this is baby killing.
This is a judge acting deliberately against the will of the people. It's a friggin dictatorship.

And isn't this the same judge that agreed it's ok to force Christians to adopt Muslim names and to recite Muslim prayers in public school?

06-02-2004, 01:11 PM
I am all for womens rights.......

but I am also for babies rights....

06-02-2004, 03:28 PM
The dreaded abortion thread

06-06-2004, 12:37 PM
There is two viewpoints you can take on this: one is pro-life, and the other is "pro-choice". This really doesn't make any sense to me, being that the innocent child has no choice as to whether or not it is killed. So really, they should just be calling it pro-death, because that's what it is. Maybe that would help turn people off to killing their own children.

06-06-2004, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by: FishForLunch
The dreaded abortion thread
There's nothing dreaded about the random abortion thread.

As a extreme leftist, I must say that if it pisses conservatives off, I must be in favor of abortion even if it could mean that my feet might end up a little toasty when I pass away.

06-06-2004, 03:02 PM
I have to say Murph... I love reading the majority of what you post, but that is by far your most idiotic post during your tenure here, (and with your oft-subjective posts, Im sure others would argue)...

You know my stance on this, as I devoted TWO threads to it once before... To make your choice on such a MAJOR issue based on how it pisses other political groups off is completely asinine, (I am not even going to go into your comment regarding hell)!

06-06-2004, 05:08 PM
Methinks you are not noticing murphs tongue firmly in cheek. I think... i/expressions/face-icon-small-confused.gif

06-06-2004, 05:10 PM
However one comment about this and all abortion arguments. The pro-abortion groups should look in a mirror, they would see the pro-gun lobby tactics staring back at them. Neither group is willing to compromise one twit. However the gun lobby does have the constitution on their side.

But common sense left these arguments quite a while ago.

06-06-2004, 11:16 PM
Originally posted by: dude1394
Methinks you are not noticing murphs tongue firmly in cheek. I think... i/expressions/face-icon-small-confused.gif

I sure didnt see any "tongue firmly in cheek" in his statement... What proof do you have that he was being facetious??? However, I am quite a bit touchy on this subject... I have family ties to this issue and frankly, I do not take it lightly!

If in fact you WERE joking Murph, my appologies; however, if you were serious, my comment was right on!