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 ...
It's right next to the right to sodomy clause.
Between the clauses that point out that Congress has the right to regulate how much water my toilet can flush, and is mandated to buy a set top converter for poor people who can't afford one when HDTV becomes the broadcast standard.
Apply the same logic to death row and you can suck the brains out of them as long as at least 1 foot is within the prison.
Good point. Prisoners are suing right now because they think 'lethal injection' is 'cruel and unusual' punishment, not even having their brains sucked out.
46,000,000 aborted
She should use a mirror and watch them crush the skull - that should do something to her mental health.
It sure would be nice to make progress against this abomination, but I suspect we won't. I predict that in 10 years we will add gay marriage to our list of sins in this country.
It's wrong 100% of the time, unless the mother will die because of it (which medically happens almost never).
I have no 'empathy' with people who decide that life will be too hard for them if they have to raise a handicapped child, so they say, "Go ahead, kill my baby. Suck his brains out. It's better than having to deal with him and mess up my schedule."
I'm not saying that I don't empathize with having to raise a child with 'abnormalities'..........but that is a far cry from empathizing with anyone who takes that child's life.
It is never, never, NEVER acceptable.
>> If the mother's life was in danger ... then a C-section could be preformed<<
Oh but then she would have that ugly scar!!!!
I love my scar! I would do it all over again if I could. My C-Section scar is my eternal connection to my youngest, God love her!!!
When I look in a mirror, it reminds me of her.
(These people are animals.)
The mother may well be in danger, and inducing labor may be a substantial medical benefit...but after the dangerous part of the birthing process has been completed, holding the baby in and turning it around so you can get to the base of the skull to get in and mangle its brains, thereby killing it does not in any way decrease the danger. At the point they begin the part of the procedure that is different from just giving birth, all they have to do is step out of the way and the birthing is done.
The WHOLE purpose of this procedure is to dodge infanticide laws.
If a guy has a "part" of himself inside a woman, can we kill him? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Many a man has been killed for just that reason 8 0 )
:-} You're bad....
but in a good way.
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.