Skip to comments.Pro-abortion forces challege Michigan partial birth abortion ban
Posted on 03/03/2005 7:38:50 AM PST by PrincipledObjection
LANSING -- The American Civil Liberties Union and two abortion rights groups have filed a federal lawsuit to stop a new state law aimed at banning a controversial procedure that critics call partial-birth abortion.
The law, set to take effect March 30, was approved by the state Legislature last June. Hundreds of thousands of voters signed petitions to allow the bill to become a law with only the approval of the House and Senate, both controlled by Republicans, after Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm vetoed the original legislation.
The ACLU, the Center for Reproductive Rights and Planned Parenthood Federation of America filed the lawsuit Tuesday in federal court in Detroit. The groups argue that the law is unconstitutional because it could be interpreted as a ban on all abortions and does not allow exceptions for all aspects of a mother's health, including her mental health. Granholm has said she expects the measure to be struck down in court.
This is the state's third attempt at stopping the abortion procedure referred to by medical organizations as "intact dilatation and extraction," or D&X. Previous state laws were struck down by federal courts in 1996 and 1999.
"The Michigan Legislature continues to thumb its nose at women's health, not to mention the federal Constitution," said Linda Rosenthal, one of the attorneys in the case. "The federal courts of this state have twice struck down these dangerous and sweeping abortion bans."
Rosenthal said the groups also are asking for a preliminary injunction to prevent the law from taking effect later this month while the court considers the case.
The law being challenged is different from the previous attempts because it does not ban a specific procedure. It defines the moment a person is legally born as when any part of a fetus is expelled from a woman's body.
Ed Rivet is the legislative director for the Grand Rapids-based Right to Life of Michigan who helped write the new law and thinks it is constitutional because states have a right to define the moment of birth. He said he wants to see the new approach considered by a court because efforts to ban specific abortion procedures have run into problems.
"We're ready to play it out in court," Rivet said.
The Rev. Mark Pawlowski, CEO of Planned Parenthood of South Central Michigan, said the law could prevent doctors from treating a miscarriage.
"This radical law goes far beyond any other legislation in the country, threatening women's ability to obtain even a first-trimester abortion," Pawlowski said in a news release.
The lawsuit was filed by the three groups on behalf of Northland Family Planning Clinic Inc., Summit Medical Center, Planned Parenthood Mid-Michigan Alliance, Planned Parenthood of South Central Michigan and a group of individual physicians.
The Act defines the moment "birth" as the moment the baby leaves the mother's body, which would effectively prohibit abortions where a child is partially delivered out of her mother's body. While Michigan's previous attempts to ban partial birth abortions have been struck down in court, they failed because they banned a specific procedure. By defining the moment where one receives the full legal rights of a person, this act raises some different legal questions, and has a good chance of making its way to the United States Supreme Court.
The Act, whose legislative version was vetoed by Governor Jennifer Granholm, was then passed through a citizens' initiative called The People's Override; over 460,000 Michigan citizens signed petitions to make this law, surpassing all previous records for participation.
History is in the making, here.
any person that supports this barbaric act shouldnt be allowed to continue to use oxygen......demonic idiots.
I can not understand why a woman would wait 6,7,8 months or longer before she decides her child is not a baby.
God help them
Bump for Life
And why would a person who has not demonstrated themselves responsible enough to take proper measures to ensure that they did not become preganant in the first place be the best person to determine the fate of the pending child? By failing to take proper prophylatctic measures in the first place, they have demonstrated they lack the capacity for assessing long-term impact of their actions, and consequently should not be deemed responsible enough to make this decision themselves.
Is this more of that common ground Hillary and Ellen Goodman were talking about?
APO2, do you know if MI has a statute on how far into a pregnancy a woman can abort?
"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realm" Ephesians 6:12
Help me figure out what point you're trying to make. I just don't get it.
That persons who have already demonstrated that they are irresponsible and seem to lack the capacity for how their actions will impact on them long-term, may not be the best judge of how an abortion will impact on their long-term mental health. As when they engaged in unprotected sex and did not consider potential consequences, they may also lack the capacity to realize long-term mental and emotional effects of dealing with the problem through an abortion. Hope it clarifies.
in ancient israel,the people incurred God's wrath when they sacrificed their children to the Canaanite god,Molech.
satan has always had a special bloodlust for infants.
I do not support any abortion either, and I don't understand how a woman or doctor could murder a fully formed baby. It is sick. I wonder how some of these people live with themselves afterword. Scary to think that this kind of evil lives among us.
I believe that "informed" should mean just that--knowing all of the relevant facts. A woman seeking to terminate her pregnancy should be made aware of when unique DNA is created, and what that actually means. She should be made to see (NOT given the opportunity--made to see) a 3D ultrasound of the child growing within her. In addition to the "counseling" she might be offered at the abortion clinic, she should be made to speak with two women: one who has had an abortion and suffers no psychological side effects and one who has had an abortion and lives with the anguishing, horrific mental and emotional subterfuge which follows in the majority of cases. Guess which woman is easier to come by?
Unfortunately, women facing unplanned pregnancies get counseling ONLY from an abortionist, someone who has absolutely no interest whatsoever in a woman's well-being. All they see are $$$.
I agree, many who seek abortons have become desensitized that they do not recognize (or care in some cases) that which resides in them is a human life; I wonder how many of them know that the Roe in Roe Vs Wade - 1)has come out fiercely against abortion and says that she was used by abortion rights feminists and 2) never had the abortion the case was concerning and that potential abortion is now a happy and healthy adult.
It is called, "RAGE."
And the idiot libs wonder why Pres. Bush won 19 of the 20 fastest growing counties! If they continue killing their off-spring, we won't have to worry about liberals in future generations.
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.