Skip to comments.
Court: abortion law unconstitutional
MSNBC.com ^
| 1/31/2006
| AP
Posted on 01/31/2006 12:54:25 PM PST by Jhohanna
SAN FRANCISCO - An appeals court ruled Tuesday that the federal law banning 'partial-birth' abortion is unconstitutional, saying the measure is vague and lacks an exception for cases in which a womans health is at stake.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 9thcircuit; 9thcourt; abortion; murder; partialbirth; pbaban; prolife; ruling
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-180 next last
To: linda_22003
The Supremes don't tend to take cases that several lower courts have agreed with each other about.You better check the Supreme Courts docket Linda. PBA is on the claendar right now. And judging by Kennedy's dissent in Stenberg v Carhart there will be 5 votes to stop the murder of late term babies.
21
posted on
01/31/2006 1:05:08 PM PST
by
jwalsh07
To: jwalsh07
If I missed that, I'm sorry. I'd appreciate a link. Thanks.
To: Jhohanna
"unconstitutional" is such a buzz word for liberals. Everything seems to be unconstitutional these days...
23
posted on
01/31/2006 1:06:28 PM PST
by
dubie
To: Jhohanna
lacks an exception for cases in which a womans health is at stake.That's because with PBA, it's not necessary to include one. And these judges know it. There is NEVER ANY need to EVER do a PBA on ANYONE.
24
posted on
01/31/2006 1:07:03 PM PST
by
agrace
(Where were you when I founded the earth? Tell me if you know so much. Job 38:4)
To: chimera
I don't know a true mother who wouldn't give her life so that her child could live anyway.
To: Vicomte13
26
posted on
01/31/2006 1:07:28 PM PST
by
jwalsh07
To: Jhohanna
An appeals court ruled Tuesday that the federal law banning 'partial-birth' abortion is unconstitutional Another good argument for overturning Roe V. Wade. How can anyone in their right mind claim killing full term babies is a constitutionally guaranteed right? This is considered a right of "privacy?"
27
posted on
01/31/2006 1:07:36 PM PST
by
Casloy
To: msnimje
See, this is the exact news that I think needs to get out there, is that it only can serve HARM. *sigh* *hug* I just want to go cry now.
Jeez. You would think with as many childless women like me out there that WANT children, NEED them in their lives... we might get a chance to talk to one stupid girl and save a baby's life. But do you think they are trying to put in a plan for that??? But no, they deliever a child that cannot live on its own and justify killing a living human. What on EARTH is this world coming to?
28
posted on
01/31/2006 1:08:31 PM PST
by
Jhohanna
(Born Free)
To: msnimje
29
posted on
01/31/2006 1:08:49 PM PST
by
agrace
(Where were you when I founded the earth? Tell me if you know so much. Job 38:4)
To: Shalom Israel
*gah* I don't think they could think that far out. :(
30
posted on
01/31/2006 1:09:21 PM PST
by
Jhohanna
(Born Free)
To: chimera
I cannot think of a single reason why this would need to be performed - not a ONE. I mean, they even separate Siamese twins as babies now, so that's no excuse. I agree with you that especially the 9th district is run by idiots. I can attest to that. *sigh*
I always knew that abortion would become a very slippery slope. And now with technology the way that it is, there is a way to give and save life at any point! Babies being born at 18 weeks can survive, so what is the need to murder them as they take their first breath? *cry*
31
posted on
01/31/2006 1:11:56 PM PST
by
Jhohanna
(Born Free)
To: Jhohanna
and lacks an exception for cases in which a womans health is at stake. When are the knuckleheads going to learn to put these clauses in, so that these anti-abortion laws do'nt keep getting swatted down?!
To: AmericaUnited
Whoops! I didn't realize this was a partial birth abortion law. Cancel that last post.
To: Jhohanna
Replying to myself here, but oh well..
Just a thought... as a strongminded and willed woman, I retain the notion and belief that it is a woman's right to choose her fate. However, I am so utterly pro-life, that I can't possibly be considered pro-choice. My stance has always been that the decisions to be made are between you, the father, and your conciense. And what Gods you believe in. God knows I could NEVER choose death. But if I could do anything, it would be to help people know what their choices could MEAN.
34
posted on
01/31/2006 1:14:14 PM PST
by
Jhohanna
(Born Free)
To: AmericaUnited
35
posted on
01/31/2006 1:14:42 PM PST
by
Jhohanna
(Born Free)
To: Vicomte13
However this comes out at least we don't have to worry about Sandy O'Connor's mood anymore.
36
posted on
01/31/2006 1:16:11 PM PST
by
kjo
To: AmericaUnited
That's what I wondered at the time. The legislation was certainly drafted by lawyers, who understand how to write legislation. One wonders if they wanted to LOOK like they were doing something effective, without actually affecting the status quo. When the courts turned it back, they'd still be able to say, "But we tried, it was the darn activistjudges!"
But I'd have to be cynical, to think that.
To: AmericaUnited
But how could you do that on scientific grounds? I mean, if there are no health issues, if the "health of the mother" is not at stake in PBA, then how could you put such an "exception" in? What would be it's basis, on medical grounds? If the child is 99% delivered, how can anything you would do to the child at that point have any impact on the health of the mother?
The pro-aborts know this. That's why they keep bringing it up, and the idiot courts go along with it. It is a stealth tactic to keep the gruesome practice of PBA around, because they know if that is banned, then the rest of the house of cards that is the pro-abortion "argument" rapidly crumbles, on logical grounds alone. So they throw in this conundrum, this Gordian Knot of "health exception", insisting that it be placed into these laws, knowing that it cannot be because it has no basis in reality. Truly a world gone mad, if you ask me.
38
posted on
01/31/2006 1:19:09 PM PST
by
chimera
To: linda_22003
"The Nebraska ruling was upheld in July by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and has been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court."
I guess you didn't read the story.
It is on the docket and awaiting Alito. Well, Alito is here and Congress did a good job drafting it. Now we wait and see.
39
posted on
01/31/2006 1:21:25 PM PST
by
jwalsh07
To: jwalsh07
"And judging by Kennedy's dissent in Stenberg v Carhart there will be 5 votes to stop the murder of late term babies."
Thanks for the case reference. Very good. I'll go look it up.
I'm praying that the 5 Catholic boys up there (Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito) will do the right thing here.
40
posted on
01/31/2006 1:21:38 PM PST
by
Vicomte13
(Et alors?)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-180 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson