Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

(Lincoln Nebraska) Judge Says He May Block Abortion Ban
WINS News ^ | 11/5/03

Posted on 11/05/2003 11:38:41 AM PST by areafiftyone

LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) -- A federal judge said Wednesday he likely would issue an injunction blocking implementation of the federal ban on certain late-term abortions, just as President Bush signed the measure into law.

U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf commented after a three-hour hearing on a lawsuit brought by abortion-rights supporters.

"It's probably likely I'm going to issue an injunction," Kopf said.

However, the judge indicated his ruling would likely would apply only to Dr. LeRoy Carhart of Bellevue and three other physicians who perform abortions and who filed the lawsuit.

"I doubt it will be nationwide," he said. But the other doctors are licensed to practice in Alabama, Georgia, Iowa, New York, South Carolina and Virginia, meaning Kopf's ruling potentially could extend to those states.

Bush signed the measure into law Wednesday at a ceremony in Washington, saying that for years, "a terrible form of violence has been directed against children who are inches from birth while the law looked the other way."

Kopf had expressed serious reservations about the new law during the hearing, saying, "It seems to me the law is highly suspect, if not a per se violation of the Constitution."

He said the law appears to have a "serious vagueness problem," and that the congressional record of debate on the bill did not reflect an objective presentation of facts.

The judge also said he was concerned that the ban makes no exception for doctors to consider the mother's health.

During the hearing, lawyers on both sides of the issue argued their cases.

"If the act takes effect, physicians across the country will risk imprisonment for providing abortion care in accordance with their best medical judgment," said Priscilla Smith, an attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights, which filed the lawsuit.

During a break in the hearing, Carhart said he was encouraged by Kopf's initial comments.

"I think he will be concerned with women's health. That's his ultimate goal, and that's our ultimate goal," Carhart said.

The new law would ban certain types of abortion procedures on fetuses that are roughly 14 weeks or older that abortion opponents call "partial-birth abortion."

Supporters of the measure contend it applies only to a procedure done late in pregnancy that is never necessary to protect the health of the mother. Bush spokesman Scott McClellan has said the president believes the procedure is "abhorrent."

Under the new law, a woman could not undertake the procedure even if her health was at risk or the child would be born with ailments.

It was a challenge by Carhart that led to the Supreme Court overturning Nebraska's so-called partial-birth abortion ban in 2000. The high court said the law and others like it passed by other states were an "undue burden" on women's rights.

Kopf ruled in that case that Nebraska's ban was unconstitutionally vague.

Smith said the new act has the same two flaws that led Kopf to strike down the Nebraska law.

It fails to include any exception where a doctor could perform such a procedure to preserve the health of the mother, she said.

And she said it defines partial-birth abortion "so broadly as to ban the safest and most common methods of abortion starting at least at the beginning of the second trimester of pregnancy."

Assistant Attorney General Peter Keisler said in court briefs that the act addresses the problems that doomed the Nebraska law, and that Congress "has plainly sought to avoid legislating against common, safe methods of abortion.

"Moreover, the interests Congress seeks to advance, not only in protecting life that is mere inches from being entirely outside the womb, but in preventing the coarsening and confusion of society, are substantial and worthy of deep consideration and substantial deference by this court."

During Wednesday's hearing, Justice Department lead attorney Anthony Coppolino told Kopf that he should show deference to Congress' findings that the abortion procedure has not been studied enough to prove it's necessary.

"I'm mindful of the court's concerns ... but we ask that you give consideration to the deep concerns that were expressed by Congress," Coppolino said. "It is an abhorrent and useless procedure."

Kopf replied by voicing his concern that he could find no record that any doctor who performs abortions in the second and third trimester testified before Congress on late-term abortions.

"Where were the docs who do this procedure?" Kopf asked. "Isn't that important if Congress was really interested in knowing about this procedure?"


TOPICS: Breaking News
KEYWORDS: pbaban2003
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-90 next last

1 posted on 11/05/2003 11:38:42 AM PST by areafiftyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
Who the hell do these judges think they are?

2 posted on 11/05/2003 11:40:34 AM PST by Bikers4Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bikers4Bush
According to MSNBC, he just did block it!!!!! Pres. Bush says he will "vigorously defend" the bill he just signed. BA$TURD Judge!
3 posted on 11/05/2003 11:42:01 AM PST by Ragirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
I'd bet this judge is against the death penalty for murderers.
4 posted on 11/05/2003 11:43:23 AM PST by drypowder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
Two branches down, one to go.
5 posted on 11/05/2003 11:43:52 AM PST by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ragirl
Since when can judges block laws that the federal government approve and create???
6 posted on 11/05/2003 11:44:13 AM PST by rintense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
A federal judge said Wednesday he likely would issue an injunction blocking implementation of the federal ban on certain late-term abortions, just as President Bush signed the measure into law.

Can some one explain to me why he is a Judge

Sounds like he has ALREADY made up his mind before the law was signed

7 posted on 11/05/2003 11:45:22 AM PST by Mo1 (http://www.favewavs.com/wavs/cartoons/spdemocrats.wav)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
BURN IN FREAKING HELL JUDGE MORON!!!
8 posted on 11/05/2003 11:45:26 AM PST by Charlie OK (If you are a Christian, please drive like one!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
"It's probably likely I'm going to issue an injunction," Kopf said.

No longer likely.....HE JUST ISSUED AN INJUNCTION BLOCKING THE NEW LAW. Shesh, another out of control judge and we can't get any appointed to the Federal bench because of the wimpy republicans.

9 posted on 11/05/2003 11:45:37 AM PST by 1Old Pro (ESPN now has 4 little wimpy sissies left. I'm switching back to FOX.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THESE UNELECTED JUDGES?
10 posted on 11/05/2003 11:45:37 AM PST by WinOne4TheGipper (Using Occam's Razor to shave the hairy beast of liberalism...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bikers4Bush
Democratic Appontees.
11 posted on 11/05/2003 11:45:45 AM PST by jsbankston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone; Mich0127
That's BullSh*t; there is NO WAY anyone could possibly have standing to sue here!
12 posted on 11/05/2003 11:46:14 AM PST by jmstein7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
" The judge also said he was concerned that the ban makes no exception for doctors to consider the mother's health."

The baby's all the way out already, except for the head. How'd this guy get out of the 3rd grade?

13 posted on 11/05/2003 11:46:23 AM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rintense
1786
14 posted on 11/05/2003 11:46:24 AM PST by jsbankston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: rintense
Since the 19th Century -- Dred Scott decision was the second time a law was ruled unconstitutional (1857).
15 posted on 11/05/2003 11:46:45 AM PST by You Dirty Rats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: All
He is also the Federal judge that sided with atheist in dispute over Ten Commandments

16 posted on 11/05/2003 11:47:46 AM PST by areafiftyone (Democrats = the hamster is dead but the wheel is still spinning)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
Exactly.
17 posted on 11/05/2003 11:47:49 AM PST by Bikers4Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
The Honorable Richard G. Kopf
Chief U.S. District Judge
586 Robert V. Denney Federal Building
100 Centennial Mall North
Lincoln, NE 68508
(402) 437-5252
(402) 437-5681 Fax
richard_kopf@ned.uscourts.gov
18 posted on 11/05/2003 11:47:51 AM PST by Pokey78 ("I thought this country was founded on a principle of progressive taxation." Wesley Clark to Russert)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats
I'm sure all the Dems that railed against Judge Moore will pounce on this guy.
19 posted on 11/05/2003 11:48:02 AM PST by Democratshavenobrains
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: will1776
Based on what I recall the case law say, this is a proper reading. The SC needs to change its prior rulings for this bill to survive.

His limited application of the injunction will probably be expanded by other courts.

20 posted on 11/05/2003 11:48:02 AM PST by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-90 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson