Appeals courts uphold abortion finding

Associated Press ^ | February 1, 2006 | Larry Neumeister

[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. 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.

[Lunatic Fringe]

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

[ken5050]

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

[digger48]

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".

[digger48]

perhaps if if read "woman's health life"

[moonman]

"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.

[Zack Nguyen]

"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.

[Zack Nguyen]

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.

[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.

[moonman]

"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!"

[EternalVigilance]

'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.

[Lurking Libertarian]

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.

[EternalVigilance]

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.

[Raquel]

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.

[jwalsh07]

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.

[Raquel]

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

[Raquel]

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

[Lunatic Fringe]

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.

[Raquel]

PING

[Lunatic Fringe]

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.