Posted on 02/01/2006 8:04:44 PM PST by neverdem
Two federal appeals courts yesterday upheld rulings that the Partial Birth Abortion Act, passed by Congress in 2003 but barred by the courts, is unconstitutional because it does not include an exception when the health of a pregnant woman is at risk.
The rulings, which came on the same day from three-judge panels in the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York, and the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, were substantially based on a United States Supreme Court decision in a Nebraska case in 2000. In that case, the Supreme Court found that any abortion ban must include an exception allowing a procedure that involves a partly delivered fetus after the first trimester of pregnancy, known among opponents as partial birth abortion, when alternative methods could endanger the woman's health.
Since the appeals court for the Eighth Circuit, in St. Louis, reached a similar conclusion last July, the three legal challenges nationwide to the abortion act have now been affirmed on appeal. This month the Supreme Court several times postponed deciding whether to hear the Eighth Circuit case.
The Second Circuit upheld the challenge, brought by the National Abortion Federation, on the narrowest of grounds, and did not strike down the act. Instead, the appeals court gave both sides 30 days to offer recommendations on how to remedy the failings in the law.
One of the three judges, Chester J. Straub, dissented. He wrote that he does not believe a woman's right to end her pregnancy under Roe v. Wade in 1973 "extends to the destruction of a child that is substantially outside her body."
The Second Circuit chief judge, John M. Walker Jr., wrote in a concurring opinion that precedent forced him to rule against the act "no matter how personally distasteful the fulfillment of that..."
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I thought they did ... but I wasn't sure
Oh..........and welcome to FR.
btw, the bill DID include an exception for the health of the mother.
I don't have the details at hand (and I have a frighteningly poor memory), but this isn't accurate.
If a guy has a "part" of himself inside a woman, can we kill him? This is the rationale for PBA.
Assuming Alito joins the conservative, the law should be upheld by the SCOTUS. Kennedy supports Roe, but I think he also supports reasonable restrictions such as the PBA ban.
Crotches are not specifically protected, however the person to which it is attached is.
Remember something about "Life, Liberty, etc?
I didn't say it's justified. In fact, I called it "brutal and sickening", or words to that effect. What I said is that in most of the cases where people do late-term abortions, it's because there are serious fetal abnormalities and they don't want to carry the pregnancy to term. I feel a great deal of empathy for anyone in that position.
Unfortunately, exceptions for the LIFE of the mother are very different than exceptions for the HEALTH of the mother. "Health" of the mother can and does include "mental health", which opens up a whole 'nother avenue.
PBA's, [as heard from those who perform them (Tiller, et al)], are often performed on girls/women who "don't want a kid right now/can't afford it/forgot, again", and very rarely on those whose pregnancies are "at risk", either by fetal abnormality or risking the life of the mother.
With the number of c-sections going on now due to the trial lawyers, doctors will by cut you open at the drop of a hat because it is far safer than actually delivering a child vaginally.
So the doctor would have to claim that the scar from the incision was the 'health' of the mother reason for avoiding giving birth and instead killing the baby and extracting it vaginally (which again, is far more dangerous).
All we need is for this to get back to the Supremes and Sandy O'Connor won't be around to bail out the justices of death up there and we can have a 5 judge majority to establish that killing babies during birth is NOT a constitutional right even using Roe as a standard.
With regard to the health of the mother issue, I agree that it's very uncommon. I'm sticking to my guns that the example mentioned above is a good reason to keep reasonable protections for mom in the law. Not the recommendations that Pelosi, et al made, but reasonable protections.
Also, I'm sticking to my point about fetal abnormality being a significant reason for a very large number of late-term abortions. Most non-invasive anomoly screenings, such as ultrasound aren't done until 18-22 weeks. Again, I'm not saying that it's right, I'm saying that it's a major factor.
If a baby has to be about 2/3 born already before you kill it, that is almost the same as giving birth to a live baby. Either way the baby is going to be born alive or dead. I don't see how the proceedure could any way be used to justify protecting the life of the mother. If anyone knows otherwise let me know, but I don't see how a partial birth abortion can save the life of the mother.
Your 'reasonable protections' are anything but reasonable. They are a loophole that is so big you could drive a truck through it....in fact, the existence of that loophole would allow all current abortions to take place.
I don't buy it. But even if it were true, it would be a wicked practice, wouldn't you say? Ever known any handicapped kids, gooper?
You don't even know what "reasonable protections" I've suggested. I know this, because I haven't enumerated any of them -- frankly, I haven't even considered what they should be other than to say that there should be protections in cases where mom's life is in danger. All I've said is that the stuff Pelosi recommended goes way too far.
People want the life of the mother to be protected. The abortionists want a "health" exemption because the word health can be expanded to mean anything, including "mental health" which can include:"I want to abort my child because I feel like it and I'll be happier once it's aborted. Since I'll be happier, I'll be in better mental health!"
I don't buy it. But even if it were true, it would be a wicked practice, wouldn't you say?
I've said as much. It's a brutal practise. I don't support it -- and especially not in cases like the one you were baiting me with, such as retardation and Downs syndrome. But I can definitely empathize with what those parents are going through.
In the past, the term "health of the mother" has been used by the left when "life of the mother" has been the exception most conservatives are willing to grant. It has already been stated, however, that "health" could include mental health, such as the mother would suffer some mental anguish if she had this baby. It is a loophole left solely for the reason of allowing abortion to continue if a doctor can subscribe any "health" issue to having the baby. Very sad I think, but the right needs to hammer on letting people know that they are willing to protect the mother's life, but need some limits on what they call her "health."
FR: ALl abortion, all the time!
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.