And so it begins
Feb. 21st, 2006 09:24 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ebonlockSometimes I just really hate saying "I told you so":
Justices to Weigh Late-Term Abortion Ban
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will consider the constitutionality of banning a type of late-term abortion, teeing up a contentious issue for a newly-constituted court already in a state of flux over privacy rights.
The Bush administration has pressed the high court to reinstate the federal law, passed in 2003 but never put in effect because it was struck down by judges in California, Nebraska and New York.
The outcome will likely rest with the two men that President Bush has recently installed on the court. Justices had been split 5-4 in 2000 in striking down a state law, barring what critics call partial birth abortion because it lacked an exception to protect the health of the mother.
But Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who was the tie-breaking vote, retired late last month and was replaced by Samuel Alito. Abortion had been a major focus in the fight over Alito's nomination because justices serve for life and he will surely help shape the court on abortion and other issues for the next generation.
Alito, in his rulings on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, has been more willing than O'Connor, the first woman justice, to allow restrictions on abortions, which were legalized in the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.
The federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act prohibits a certain type of abortion, generally carried out in the second or third trimester, in which a fetus is partially removed from the womb, and the skull is punctured or crushed.
Justices on a 9-0 vote in a New Hampshire case reaffirmed in January that states can require parental involvement in abortion decisions and that state restrictions must have an exception to protect the mother's health.
The federal law in the current case has no health exception, but defenders maintain that the procedure is never medically necessary to protect a woman's health.
Even with O'Connor's retirement, there are five votes to uphold Roe, the landmark ruling that established a woman's right to an abortion.
Alito's views "are not going to change the outcome of the central principle of Roe v. Wade," said John Garvey, the dean at Boston College Law School. "In some ways, these are tokens or markers in ... a symbolic tug of war."
Bush has called the so-called partial birth abortion an "abhorrent practice," and his Supreme Court lawyer, Solicitor General Paul Clement, had urged justices not to delay taking up the administration's appeal.
The case that will be heard this fall comes to the Supreme Court from Nebraska, where the federal law was challenged on behalf of physicians. Doctors who perform the procedure contend that it is the safest method of abortion when the mother's health is threatened by heart disease, high blood pressure or cancer.
So basically anti-choicers and politicians are trying to tell doctors that this procedure is never necessary to save a mother's life. That's right, religious zealots deciding what is and is not sound medical practice. Another stunning example of the fundie war on science that this administration seems to embrace with open arms. Step right up and get your faith based medicine.
Justices to Weigh Late-Term Abortion Ban
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will consider the constitutionality of banning a type of late-term abortion, teeing up a contentious issue for a newly-constituted court already in a state of flux over privacy rights.
The Bush administration has pressed the high court to reinstate the federal law, passed in 2003 but never put in effect because it was struck down by judges in California, Nebraska and New York.
The outcome will likely rest with the two men that President Bush has recently installed on the court. Justices had been split 5-4 in 2000 in striking down a state law, barring what critics call partial birth abortion because it lacked an exception to protect the health of the mother.
But Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who was the tie-breaking vote, retired late last month and was replaced by Samuel Alito. Abortion had been a major focus in the fight over Alito's nomination because justices serve for life and he will surely help shape the court on abortion and other issues for the next generation.
Alito, in his rulings on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, has been more willing than O'Connor, the first woman justice, to allow restrictions on abortions, which were legalized in the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.
The federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act prohibits a certain type of abortion, generally carried out in the second or third trimester, in which a fetus is partially removed from the womb, and the skull is punctured or crushed.
Justices on a 9-0 vote in a New Hampshire case reaffirmed in January that states can require parental involvement in abortion decisions and that state restrictions must have an exception to protect the mother's health.
The federal law in the current case has no health exception, but defenders maintain that the procedure is never medically necessary to protect a woman's health.
Even with O'Connor's retirement, there are five votes to uphold Roe, the landmark ruling that established a woman's right to an abortion.
Alito's views "are not going to change the outcome of the central principle of Roe v. Wade," said John Garvey, the dean at Boston College Law School. "In some ways, these are tokens or markers in ... a symbolic tug of war."
Bush has called the so-called partial birth abortion an "abhorrent practice," and his Supreme Court lawyer, Solicitor General Paul Clement, had urged justices not to delay taking up the administration's appeal.
The case that will be heard this fall comes to the Supreme Court from Nebraska, where the federal law was challenged on behalf of physicians. Doctors who perform the procedure contend that it is the safest method of abortion when the mother's health is threatened by heart disease, high blood pressure or cancer.
So basically anti-choicers and politicians are trying to tell doctors that this procedure is never necessary to save a mother's life. That's right, religious zealots deciding what is and is not sound medical practice. Another stunning example of the fundie war on science that this administration seems to embrace with open arms. Step right up and get your faith based medicine.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-02-22 03:39 am (UTC)I've grown tired of trying to interest people in taking part in their own government. Walter Cronkite was correct when he said: "We have a populous that is too ignorant to run a functioning democracy."
We cannot even get people to vote.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-22 04:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-22 03:58 am (UTC)I hope not. :(
Either way, in the end the neo-cons (neo-convicts?) will lose. Once abortion is made illegal, I think a few things will happen (in no particular order).
Fist, I think there will be a crisis of medical ethics in cases where the mother's health is critical. This is powerful pressure. I cite the current execution case as evidence.
There will also be extreme pressure put on state agencies to deal with the increase of babies to take care of. You can force someone to have a child, but you can't force them to take care of the kids. They will go to adoption and will begin the downward spiral of both the child and the agency. We have enough trouble finding suitable parents to adopt to begin with. This is partially because of the selfishness Americans show when it comes to children -- They will spend fortunes on artificial impregnation to ensure their child carries their DNA. Adoption is simply not an option up for consideration for this majority of people.
In any event, there will be a crisis that will force the reversal of any enacted laws. No matter how you feel about abortion, the current point of view does not allow for "legitimate" abortions in the cases of rape, health, etc. I am confident of this.
It's sad that people may have to die for reality to set in. :(
Somewhere in heaven, Terri Schiavo is rolling her eyes.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-22 04:53 pm (UTC)The problem I have with the medical crisis theory is that it's doctors who have been bringing these cases against the law in the first place. Doctors who are trying to save their patients' lives, and they're being shrugged off. How do you argue with someone whose response to, "But these procedures are only used to save the mother" is "No, that's not true"? They not only don't understand the medical necessity of late term abortions, they refuse to even consider it.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-06 05:37 am (UTC)I hadn't considered the point you bring up. I'm not current with litigation surrounding the issue. It sounds like an imbalance of power who has already made up their minds and are unwilling to look at facts.
If facts cannot be argued on their merit, then we are heading down a very, very bad road. I may have to do some reasearch into the possible causes of the Dark Age. I'm certain that this would make the list (not abortion, but the perversion of religion and science).
We'll see how this year plays out. This is going to be a very important year for politics and may determine the course for the next Presidential election.