Quite possibly.
www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/18/scotus.abortion/index.html
The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a law that banned a type of late-term abortion, a ruling that could portend enormous social, legal and political implications for the divisive issue.
The sharply divided 5-4 ruling could prove historic. It sends a possible signal of the court's willingness, under Chief Justice John Roberts, to someday revisit the basic right to abortion guaranteed in the 1973 Roe v. Wade case.
President Bush, who signed the law in 2003 and appointed two of the justices who upheld it, said the prohibition "represents a commitment to building a culture of life in America."
"Today's decision affirms that the Constitution does not stand in the way of the people's representatives enacting laws reflecting the compassion and humanity of America," he said in a statement released by the White House.
At issue is the constitutionality of a federal law banning a rarely performed type of abortion carried out in the middle-to-late second trimester.
So it begins.
Landmark abortion ruling by SCOTUS?
-
Lord Mhoram
- Lord
- Posts: 9512
- Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2002 1:07 am
-
High Lord Tolkien
- Excommunicated Member of THOOLAH
- Posts: 7390
- Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:40 am
- Location: Cape Cod, Mass
- Been thanked: 3 times
- Contact:
Re: Landmark abortion ruling by SCOTUS?
I think it began when babies brains were being scrambled just as they were coming out of the birth canal.Lord Mhoram wrote: At issue is the constitutionality of a federal law banning a rarely performed type of abortion carried out in the middle-to-late second trimester.[/i]
So it begins.
Or when parents of 13 year olds aren't notified if their girls get an abortion.
A few checks and balances on the abortion free for all is a good thing, imo.
https://thoolah.blogspot.com/
[Defeated by a gizmo from Batman's utility belt]
Joker: I swear by all that's funny never to be taken in by that unconstitutional device again!
[Defeated by a gizmo from Batman's utility belt]
Joker: I swear by all that's funny never to be taken in by that unconstitutional device again!
-
Lord Mhoram
- Lord
- Posts: 9512
- Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2002 1:07 am
Yep, this is a major change, and I think it's a good thing.
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." - PJ O'Rourke
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
-
wayfriend
- .
- Posts: 20957
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:34 am
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 4 times
Yeah, it was a "free for all". But I'm tired of going to all those abortion parties, the abortion fairs were pretty tiring. And now that you can get abortions at Wal-Mart, it's not as glamorous anymore. I here the big celebrities aren't getting seven, eight abortions a year anymore, abortions aren't the new lipo any more. Glamour hasn't had a trendy abortion story in months. It's good we're cutting back. It was a free for all.
.
-
High Lord Tolkien
- Excommunicated Member of THOOLAH
- Posts: 7390
- Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:40 am
- Location: Cape Cod, Mass
- Been thanked: 3 times
- Contact:
Over 1 million abortions a year in the US since 1972 (low average from numerous sources) sounds restrictive to you then?Wayfriend wrote:Yeah, it was a "free for all". But I'm tired of going to all those abortion parties, the abortion fairs were pretty tiring. And now that you can get abortions at Wal-Mart, it's not as glamorous anymore. I here the big celebrities aren't getting seven, eight abortions a year anymore, abortions aren't the new lipo any more. Glamour hasn't had a trendy abortion story in months. It's good we're cutting back. It was a free for all.
Sounds like total carefree abandon to me.
https://thoolah.blogspot.com/
[Defeated by a gizmo from Batman's utility belt]
Joker: I swear by all that's funny never to be taken in by that unconstitutional device again!
[Defeated by a gizmo from Batman's utility belt]
Joker: I swear by all that's funny never to be taken in by that unconstitutional device again!
-
Mistress Cathy
- <i>Haruchai</i>
- Posts: 745
- Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 7:32 pm
- Location: Around the world....
-
wayfriend
- .
- Posts: 20957
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:34 am
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 4 times
Just what's new about it.Jove wrote:Do we really need to re-hash the abortion issue yet again?
For instance, this new ruling is based on the non-medical testimony that the abortions in question are never medically necessary, despite the outrage of doctors who say it is, and wonder why medical testimony was not admitted.
It is also the first ruling that admits of no medical necessity exeptions. Not because there are none, but because they are "too few to be considered". As opposed to the opinion expressed in Roe v. Wade, which said that any law which did not allow for medical necessity, even if only one woman was affected, was unjust.
.
-
Mistress Cathy
- <i>Haruchai</i>
- Posts: 745
- Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 7:32 pm
- Location: Around the world....
Heh.Just what's new about it.
Well, the statistics support this. I remember that Cail has posted the link some time agao to the statistics of women who have abortions and reasons behind them. The "medical necessity" reasons are too few to be considered. In other words, they are rare.It is also the first ruling that admits of no medical necessity exeptions. Not because there are none, but because they are "too few to be considered".
-
wayfriend
- .
- Posts: 20957
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:34 am
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 4 times
Not too few to the woman who needs a medically necessay, but illegal, abortion.Jove wrote:The "medical necessity" reasons are too few to be considered. In other words, they are rare.
I'm not so sure I like the precident of "fewness" being used in US jurisprudence. "It's okay, it doesn't affect too many people" doesn't sound like a legal argument on any level.
.
-
[Syl]
- Unfettered One
- Posts: 13021
- Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2002 12:36 am
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 1 time
In short, I agree with the dissenting opinion, but I also think the court will be less favourable to restrict abortion outside of this issue. *shrug* I don't see this as being a big deal.
"It is not the literal past that rules us, save, possibly, in a biological sense. It is images of the past. Each new historical era mirrors itself in the picture and active mythology of its past or of a past borrowed from other cultures. It tests its sense of identity, of regress or new achievement against that past.”
-George Steiner
-George Steiner
The most telling comment I've heard on this ruling came from a doctor, who basically said, "Partial-Birth Abortion is not a medical term. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do with this."
“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”
-- James Madison
"If you're going to tell people the truth, you'd better make them laugh. Otherwise they'll kill you." - George Bernard Shaw
-- James Madison
"If you're going to tell people the truth, you'd better make them laugh. Otherwise they'll kill you." - George Bernard Shaw
-
taraswizard
- <i>Haruchai</i>
- Posts: 514
- Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 6:06 pm
- Location: Redlands, california
- Contact:
Most likely OT and not adding to your ongoing discussion
OK, so on Friday's, April 20, Bill Maher's HBO show, there's this British, not living in Britain, fellow who is associated with National Review (not Andrew Sullivan if you're asking), he and an African American lady, given name Amy, were the conservatives on his talking panel. His point about this ruling is why are Americans so crazy about this issue, he continued by saying the Europeans have got this matter sorted out by prohibiting pregnancy termination procedures after 20 - 24 weeks. (Also, he said in his opinion all terminations are wrong)
I'm not even sure why this should be such a big issue?
Even the women I know who have had abortions for non medical neccessities would never consider a "partial birth abortion".
As long as the "except for medical neccessity" statement is included is anyone actually interested in being able to have a partial birth abortion by choice?
Even the women I know who have had abortions for non medical neccessities would never consider a "partial birth abortion".
As long as the "except for medical neccessity" statement is included is anyone actually interested in being able to have a partial birth abortion by choice?
I Never Fail To Be Astounded By The Things We Do For Promises - Ronnie James Dio (All The Fools Sailed Away)
Remember, everytime you drag someone through the mud, you're down in the mud with them
Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass...
It's about learning to dance in the rain
Where are we going...and... WHY are we in a handbasket?
Remember, everytime you drag someone through the mud, you're down in the mud with them
Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass...
It's about learning to dance in the rain
Where are we going...and... WHY are we in a handbasket?
-
wayfriend
- .
- Posts: 20957
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:34 am
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 4 times
I agree with this 100%. That's why it is significant that there is NOT a "except for medical necessity" statement included. It makes me "actually interested".sindatur wrote:As long as the "except for medical neccessity" statement is included is anyone actually interested in being able to have a partial birth abortion by choice?
Also, there is pure hypocracy. Any ruling that involves believing that it is never medically necessary, AND that it not medically necessary in a significant enough cases -- AT THE SAME TIME -- should be turning out all of the people who don't like hypocracy and have to speak out against it where they find it.
.
that is THE issue with this federal ruling, though. there are already a number of states that have partial-birth abortion bans, that were not in jeopardy, but do have an exception for cases where the mother's life is in danger. this ruling by the supreme court allows for a federal law that will now supercede those state laws.sindatur wrote:I'm not even sure why this should be such a big issue?
Even the women I know who have had abortions for non medical neccessities would never consider a "partial birth abortion".
As long as the "except for medical neccessity" statement is included is anyone actually interested in being able to have a partial birth abortion by choice?
The other thing is that about the only folks who found that it was never medically necessary were the folks writing the law. One of the main reasons that it went to the Supreme Court was because of that Congressional "Finding," which was at odds with the medical communities own findings.
“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”
-- James Madison
"If you're going to tell people the truth, you'd better make them laugh. Otherwise they'll kill you." - George Bernard Shaw
-- James Madison
"If you're going to tell people the truth, you'd better make them laugh. Otherwise they'll kill you." - George Bernard Shaw
What does the Court have to do with ruling on something being a medical emergency or not? Isn't the responsibility of Drs?
I Never Fail To Be Astounded By The Things We Do For Promises - Ronnie James Dio (All The Fools Sailed Away)
Remember, everytime you drag someone through the mud, you're down in the mud with them
Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass...
It's about learning to dance in the rain
Where are we going...and... WHY are we in a handbasket?
Remember, everytime you drag someone through the mud, you're down in the mud with them
Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass...
It's about learning to dance in the rain
Where are we going...and... WHY are we in a handbasket?
even in states as right-wing as GA had a stipulation in their partial-birth abortion bans that allowed for the mother's health to be taken into consideration by the Dr. the new ruling makes it illegal for the procedure even if the mother's life is in danger, so it takes the call out of the Dr's hands.sindatur wrote:What does the Court have to do with ruling on something being a medical emergency or not? Isn't the responsibility of Drs?
Understood, I was responding to Plissken saying the Court had decided their was no medical neccessity despite the medical community saying there is. If a law says there is never a medical need, then we have to challenge the law, if a law says, except in medical neccessity, the judge can't rule on that medical neccessity, IMHOPeven wrote:even in states as right-wing as GA had a stipulation in their partial-birth abortion bans that allowed for the mother's health to be taken into consideration by the Dr. the new ruling makes it illegal for the procedure even if the mother's life is in danger, so it takes the call out of the Dr's hands.sindatur wrote:What does the Court have to do with ruling on something being a medical emergency or not? Isn't the responsibility of Drs?