Enjoy an Ads-Free ASFN - lighter and faster too! Become an ASFN-Contributor and help support the site.
Go Back   Arizona Sports Fans Network > Other Stuff > Politics and Religion

Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.


Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old April 18th, 2007, 07:56 AM   #1
Dback Jon
Random Encounter
 
Dback Jon's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2002
Location: Chandler
Posts: 24,137
A$FN: 49,214

U.S. Supreme Court upholds Partial-birth abortion ban


WASHINGTON - 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 Wednesday'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.

"Today's decision is alarming," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in dissent. She said the ruling "refuses to take ... seriously" previous Supreme Court decisions on abortion.

Ginsburg said the latest decision "tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists."

She was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.

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.

In 2000, the court with key differences in its membership struck down a state ban on partial-birth abortions. Writing for a 5-4 majority at that time, Justice Breyer said the law imposed an undue burden on a woman's right to make an abortion decision.

The Republican-controlled Congress responded in 2003 by passing a federal law that asserted the procedure is gruesome, inhumane and never medically necessary to preserve a woman's health. That statement was designed to overcome the health exception to restrictions that the court has demanded in abortion cases.

But federal judges in California, Nebraska and New York said the law was unconstitutional, and three appellate courts agreed. The Supreme Court accepted appeals from California and Nebraska, setting up Wednesday's ruling.

Kennedy's dissent in 2000 was so strong that few court watchers expected him to take a different view of the current case.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
__________________



R.I.P Tim Minnick

The KING of Cards
Dback Jon is offline  
Old April 18th, 2007, 07:57 AM   #2
Dback Jon
Random Encounter
 
Dback Jon's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2002
Location: Chandler
Posts: 24,137
A$FN: 49,214
Mixed feelings on this. I don't have a huge issue with banning this procedure, but it will not stop any abortions.

Conservative judicial activism, though...
__________________



R.I.P Tim Minnick

The KING of Cards
Dback Jon is offline  
Old April 18th, 2007, 08:14 AM   #3
Donald
NFC West Champs!
 
Donald's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Doused in Gatorade
Posts: 31,694
A$FN: 2,872
Send a message via MSN to Donald
Good, it's a ridiculous "procedure" and I have little respect for anyone who would support it. And no, I don't have any areas of grey on that one...abortion in general..areas of grey. Partial Birth Abortion...sick and wrong and that's it. So is dismembering the fetus in the womb...I'm sorry, but when it comes down to that stuff you are talking about "life" whether you think a group of cells is life and that justifies your stance one way or another...you don't dismember a group of cells.

And Ginsburg can STFU...previous cases merely set precedence...they aren't magically correct and are the model for future decisions..otherwise what is the point of even hearing the case if past decisions are the standard to live on. The court is a living entity, just like the Constitution...the court is NOT set in stone.

Quote:
Ginsburg said the latest decision "tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists."
The procedure is also, IMO, in conflict with basic human rights. That's your court's job to weigh...stop whining because you didn't get your way on this one.
Donald is offline  
Old April 18th, 2007, 08:16 AM   #4
Mulli
Count of Montefisto
 
Mulli's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Northwest Gotham
Posts: 24,586
A$FN: 322,102
Kobe Bryant, champion of basic human rights, also applauded the Court's decision.

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists should also STFU? STFU? Come on now.
__________________
Mulli is offline  
Old April 18th, 2007, 09:03 AM   #5
40yearfan
Takin' a bite outa the Niners
 
40yearfan's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Buckeye, AZ.
Posts: 24,194
A$FN: 7,001
I find no problem with this. It's a barbaric practice. If you want an abortion, do so before the fetus is 12 weeks old. That's not too much to ask of anyone contemplating abortion.
40yearfan is offline  
Old April 18th, 2007, 09:08 AM   #6
nidan
The Terminator
 
nidan's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2002
Location: Scottsdale
Posts: 15,312
A$FN: 12,489
This is nothing more than the first step.

Nothing short of a total ban is the eventual objective of the people who pushed this. As has been demonstrated before on this board, the anti abortion groups has no interest in negotiation on the subject.

It's not like this procedure is done often or lightly, I wonder how you will feel if a woman dies because she couldn't get this procedure ?
__________________


DogTv
nidan is offline  
Old April 18th, 2007, 09:11 AM   #7
Dback Jon
Random Encounter
 
Dback Jon's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2002
Location: Chandler
Posts: 24,137
A$FN: 49,214
Quote:
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.
This reasoning really bothers me. Something can be ruled constitutional if it only affects a few people, but would be unconstitutional if it affected a lot of people?

Either it is constitutional or not. Number of people affected should not be an issue.
__________________



R.I.P Tim Minnick

The KING of Cards
Dback Jon is offline  
Old April 18th, 2007, 09:12 AM   #8
Donald
NFC West Champs!
 
Donald's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Doused in Gatorade
Posts: 31,694
A$FN: 2,872
Send a message via MSN to Donald
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dback Jon View Post
This reasoning really bothers me. Something can be ruled constitutional if it only affects a few people, but would be unconstitutional if it affected a lot of people?

Either it is constitutional or not. Number of people affected should not be an issue.
I agree with that.
Donald is offline  
Old April 18th, 2007, 09:13 AM   #9
Donald
NFC West Champs!
 
Donald's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Doused in Gatorade
Posts: 31,694
A$FN: 2,872
Send a message via MSN to Donald
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulli View Post
Kobe Bryant, champion of basic human rights, also applauded the Court's decision.

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists should also STFU? STFU? Come on now.
No Mulli, I said Darth Vader Ginsburg should STFU and stop whining.

Donald is offline  
Old April 18th, 2007, 09:16 AM   #10
Mulli
Count of Montefisto
 
Mulli's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Northwest Gotham
Posts: 24,586
A$FN: 322,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald View Post
No Mulli, I said Darth Vader Ginsburg should STFU and stop whining.

She will stop when Kobe stops raping.
__________________
Mulli is offline  
Old April 18th, 2007, 09:22 AM   #11
Rivercard
Happy days are here again
 
Rivercard's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Is everything
Posts: 8,823
A$FN: 8,373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dback Jon View Post
Mixed feelings on this. I don't have a huge issue with banning this procedure, but it will not stop any abortions.

Conservative judicial activism, though...
Rivercard is offline  
Old April 18th, 2007, 09:27 AM   #12
Donald
NFC West Champs!
 
Donald's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Doused in Gatorade
Posts: 31,694
A$FN: 2,872
Send a message via MSN to Donald
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulli View Post
She will stop when Kobe stops raping.
did you take your energee pills today or something?
Donald is offline  
Old April 18th, 2007, 09:29 AM   #13
Mulli
Count of Montefisto
 
Mulli's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Northwest Gotham
Posts: 24,586
A$FN: 322,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald View Post
did you take your energee pills today or something?
Sorry D-dogg. I am having Al Gore blowout issues after the election.
__________________
Mulli is offline  
Old April 18th, 2007, 09:36 AM   #14
Donald
NFC West Champs!
 
Donald's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Doused in Gatorade
Posts: 31,694
A$FN: 2,872
Send a message via MSN to Donald
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulli View Post
Sorry D-dogg. I am having Al Gore blowout issues after the election.
Are you growing a big gruff beard and staying at oxford?
Donald is offline  
Old April 18th, 2007, 09:39 AM   #15
Mulli
Count of Montefisto
 
Mulli's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Northwest Gotham
Posts: 24,586
A$FN: 322,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald View Post
Are you growing a big gruff beard and staying at oxford?
And crying a lot.

You going back to that damnable avatar doesn't help.
__________________
Mulli is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Tags
darth vader, john paul


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Sitemap:1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:42 PM.