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

Skip to comments.

Appeals courts uphold abortion finding
Associated Press ^ | February 1, 2006 | Larry Neumeister

Posted on 02/01/2006 4:41:30 PM PST by Raquel

Feb 1, 3:24 AM EST

Appeals courts uphold abortion finding

By LARRY NEUMEISTER Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK (AP) -- Two federal appeals courts declared a law banning a type of late-term abortion unconstitutional, saying it lacks an exception for when a woman's health is in danger.

The rulings on the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act are expected to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, recently reconfigured with two new justices appointed by President Bush. A similar case from Nebraska already has been appealed.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California and the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan issued the rulings Tuesday within hours of each other.

"We are reluctant to invalidate an entire statute," 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote. "However, after considering all of the obstacles to our devising a narrower remedy, we conclude that such is our obligation."

Abortion rights activists see the 2003 law as a fundamental departure from the Supreme Court's 1973 precedent in Roe v. Wade.

The law banned a procedure known to doctors as intact dilation and extraction, and called partial-birth abortion by abortion foes. The fetus is partially removed from the womb, and the skull is punctured or crushed. The procedure is generally performed in the second trimester.

President Bush signed the ban in 2003, but it was not enforced because of legal challenges in several states. The Bush administration has argued that the procedure is cruel and unnecessary, and causes pain to the fetus.

Chief Judge John M. Walker, a relative of former President George Herbert Walker Bush who serves in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, said the application of the statue "might deny some unproven number of women a marginal health benefit."

"Is it too much to hope for a better approach to the law of abortion - one that accommodates the reasonable policy judgments of Congress and the state legislatures without departing from established, generally applicable, tenets of constitutional law?" Walker wrote.

The New York decision affirmed a 2004 ruling by a judge who upheld the right to perform the procedure even as he described it as "gruesome, brutal, barbaric and uncivilized."

The 2nd Circuit ruling Tuesday was marked by an unusually sharp dissent by Judge Chester J. Straub, who said he believed Congress' determination that the procedure was never medically necessary to protect a women's health was well founded and supported by a lower court ruling.

"Allowing a physician to destroy a child as long as one toe remains within the mother would place society on the path towards condoning infanticide," he said.

Justice Department spokesman John Nowacki said government lawyers were reviewing both rulings and declined to comment further. In the past, department attorneys have said the procedure is inhumane and "blurs the line of abortion and infanticide."

A federal judge in Nebraska also has ruled the ban unconstitutional. 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.

Attorneys for the Planned Parenthood Federation, which brought the lawsuit heard in California, praised the ruling.

"Even though the supporters of this law purported to be banning one particular abortion procedure, the law as the court found would in fact chill doctors from performing virtually any second trimester abortion," said Eve Gartner, senior staff attorney for Planned Parenthood and lead counsel in the 9th Circuit case.

---

Associated Press writer Dan Goodin contributed to this report from San Francisco.

© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.

Purchase this AP story for reprint.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: 2ndcircuit; 9thcircuit; abortion; pbaban; ruling
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last
Of course Planned Parenthood lawyers know exactly which venue to pursue when trying to keep their lucrative infanticide alive. San Francisco and New York County Appellate Court Judges do not represent the ideals of our great Nation. We must step out and be heard! Let your elected officials know that you do not support partial-birth abortion, and you are angry that the ban has been tied up in litigation since 2003. We are the majority on this issue, now act like it.
1 posted on 02/01/2006 4:41:31 PM PST by Raquel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Raquel

Sorry. I think if a woman's health is in danger from the pregnancy then abortions should be allowed.


2 posted on 02/01/2006 4:43:48 PM PST by Lunatic Fringe (North Texas Solutions http://ntxsolutions.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Raquel

Sounds like the circuit courts have punted to the newly configured SCOTUS..


3 posted on 02/01/2006 4:43:57 PM PST by ken5050 (Ann Coulter needs to have children ASAP to pass on her gene pool....any volunteers?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lunatic Fringe

the problem with that is, all they have to do to determine if it is detrimental to the womans health is say "she just can't mentally handle having a baby right now".


4 posted on 02/01/2006 4:50:02 PM PST by digger48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lunatic Fringe
perhaps if if read "woman's health life"
5 posted on 02/01/2006 4:51:42 PM PST by digger48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Raquel
"The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California and the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan issued the rulings Tuesday within hours of each other."

OK ... here's the deal for Appeal Court Justices. If your rulings are overturned by the United States Supreme Court, you are automatically demoted 1 court level down. After 3 wrong rulings, along with the 2 more demotions downward, you are dismissed as a judge, even for dog shows.

6 posted on 02/01/2006 4:55:36 PM PST by moonman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Raquel
"Allowing a physician to destroy a child as long as one toe remains within the mother would place society on the path towards condoning infanticide," he said.

Well said, Judge Straub. I am afraid that we are there already.

7 posted on 02/01/2006 4:55:55 PM PST by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lunatic Fringe
Sorry. I think if a woman's health is in danger from the pregnancy then abortions should be allowed.

If the woman's life is in danger, I agree. However, the partial-birth procedure is never medically necessary. In the article Judge Straub mentions this.

In addition, I think the whole "women's health" issue is a sham. No one will stop a doctor from aborting a baby in an emergency room if that is what is required to save a life. But that is the issue - PBA is never required.

8 posted on 02/01/2006 4:58:04 PM PST by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: digger48

Then you put it into the law an exception for the "physical health" of the mother. And in any event, such legal minutae is for judges and juries to decide whether "depression" or "stress" is a legitimate defense.


9 posted on 02/01/2006 5:02:49 PM PST by Lunatic Fringe (North Texas Solutions http://ntxsolutions.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Raquel
"Two federal appeals courts declared a law banning a type of late-term abortion unconstitutional, saying it lacks an exception for when a woman's health is in danger."

Back during the very first vote on partial birth abortions, I believe in 1994, there were 10 of the nation's highest respected doctors appearing before the Senate committee. A Republican Senator (Hatch, I believe) asked something very similar to, "Under what circumstance would a woman's life be in danger if a tri-semester fetus were removed from the mother alive instead of killing it first?"

The question went down the line to each of the 10 doctors and each one responded, "NEVER!"

10 posted on 02/01/2006 5:04:31 PM PST by moonman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lunatic Fringe

'Health of the mother' exceptions will allow every abortion being committed now to continue being committed.

Don't fall for such a transparently phony ploy.


11 posted on 02/01/2006 5:05:05 PM PST by EternalVigilance (www.usbordersecurity.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Raquel
Of course Planned Parenthood lawyers know exactly which venue to pursue when trying to keep their lucrative infanticide alive. San Francisco and New York County Appellate Court Judges do not represent the ideals of our great Nation.

This law was also struck down by other federal appellate courts, including the one in Nebraska.

12 posted on 02/01/2006 5:07:42 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moonman
The question went down the line to each of the 10 doctors and each one responded, "NEVER!"

Yep.

C. Everett Coop, the Surgeon General under Ronald Reagan, a lifelong obgyn, said that of the tens of thousands of babies he delivered in his career, there wasn't one that required killing the child to save the life of the mother.

13 posted on 02/01/2006 5:08:51 PM PST by EternalVigilance (www.usbordersecurity.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Lunatic Fringe

The issue here is partial-birth abortion. It means exactly what it says. The infant is halfway out of its mother's womb, and the Doctor inserts a needle into the neck of the child killing it. There is no disputing this. If you think this is o.k, then you are in the minority. My suggestion is to do a little more research into the subject, and you'll find that legalized abortion is hurting women, and the main stream media don't want you to know about it.


14 posted on 02/01/2006 5:11:37 PM PST by Raquel (Please pray for the end of abortion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lunatic Fringe
Then you put it into the law an exception for the "physical health" of the mother. And in any event, such legal minutae is for judges and juries to decide whether "depression" or "stress" is a legitimate defense.

In what country would this be? In America legislatures make the laws. So wherever the heck you hail from where judges and juries make laws you can have it.

15 posted on 02/01/2006 5:11:52 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ken5050

You're right there -- just not sure if the SCOTUS is ready.


16 posted on 02/01/2006 5:13:22 PM PST by Raquel (Please pray for the end of abortion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Thanks for the info, Lurking. What's your position?


17 posted on 02/01/2006 5:16:33 PM PST by Raquel (Please pray for the end of abortion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Many women find out after they become pregnant that their bone structure presents serious risks to their pelvis and spine during childbirth.

Banning this procedure for ALL cases of the woman's health, even those way out in left field, isn't right.


18 posted on 02/01/2006 5:18:22 PM PST by Lunatic Fringe (North Texas Solutions http://ntxsolutions.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Northern Yankee; NYer

PING


19 posted on 02/01/2006 5:19:10 PM PST by Raquel (Please pray for the end of abortion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

I never suggested judges and juries MAKE laws. I said judges and juries (and lawyers for that matter) help interpret and apply the law. That's what the courtrooms are for.


20 posted on 02/01/2006 5:22:05 PM PST by Lunatic Fringe (North Texas Solutions http://ntxsolutions.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 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