Pro-Life/Pro-Baby ping!
Please FReepmail me if you would like to be added to, or removed from, the Pro-Life/Pro-Baby ping list...
Posted on 02/21/2006 7:30:45 AM PST by LouAvul
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will consider the constitutionality of banning a type of late-term abortion, teeing up a contentious issue for a newly-constituted court already in a state of flux over privacy rights.
The Bush administration has pressed the high court to reinstate the federal law, passed in 2003 but never put in effect because it was struck down by judges in California, Nebraska and New York.
The outcome will likely rest with the two men that President Bush has recently installed on the court. Justices had been split 5-4 in 2000 in striking down a state law, barring what critics call partial birth abortion because it lacked an exception to protect the health of the mother.
But Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who was the tie-breaking vote, retired late last month and was replaced by Samuel Alito. Abortion had been a major focus in the fight over Alito's nomination because justices serve for life and he will surely help shape the court on abortion and other issues for the next generation.
Alito, in his rulings on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, has been more willing than O'Connor, the first woman justice, to allow restrictions on abortions, which were legalized in the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.
The federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act prohibits a certain type of abortion, generally carried out in the second or third trimester, in which a fetus is partially removed from the womb, and the skull is punctured or crushed.
Justices on a 9-0 vote vote in a New Hampshire case reaffirmed in January that states can require parental involvement in abortion decisions and that state restrictions must have an exception to protect the mother's health.
The federal law in the current case has no health exception, but defenders maintain that the procedure is never medically necessary to protect a woman's health.
So long O'Connor!
Uhhh?? Yeah...33 years ago...
Supreme Court to take on Abortion?
I can hear the wails and gnashing of teeth from the pro-infanticide now. Yummy! tears of unimaginable sadness, mmmm!
Can't wait to jorce the 9th Circuit to uphold abortion restrictions.
How on earth did WitchBerg vote in favor of this, considering that she thinks the age of consent should be 12?
The bill would allow the method if it was ever necessary to save a mother's life. I guess MSM does not consider life or death a 'healt exception'.
Stare Decisis...Ginsberg is going along with Supreme Court precedent that holds that the fetus' ability to live outside the womb ("viability") is one determining factor on whether the state can regulate abortion...for partial birth abortions, clearly the fetus is viable, and therefore, the state may regulate.
(2/18/2006) South Dakota Abortion Ban Passes Committee
Could crumble Roe v. Wade
PIERRE, South Dakota, Feb. 17 /Christian Newswire/ -- The South Dakota Senate State Affairs Committee passed legislation this morning that will ban abortion in that state. HB 1215 moved out of committee with a vote 5 to 2 and will now face a final vote in full Senate sometime next week, likely by Thursday.
The South Dakota House already has overwhelmingly approved the measure that will make South Dakota the first state to ban abortion since the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that decriminalized abortion on demand in America. It is hoped that Governor Mike Rounds will sign the legislation, which will likely face a challenge in the Federal Courts.
“We are proud of the state of South Dakota for taking a leadership roll in what is becoming a movement to challenge head-on the facts of Roe that we believe were wrongly decided in 1973,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman, who was present a today’s historic vote.
Five other states, Indiana, Georgia, Tennessee, Ohio, and Kentucky, have introduced similar abortion bans, which are currently working their ways through the state legislatures.
“What we are seeing is the beginning of a revolt in the states that no longer wish to tolerate the shedding of innocent blood on their soil,” said Newman. “We are encouraged that we are seeing the beginnings of a movement that will soon put an end to abortion in America once and for all.”
“We will do everything in our power to network with the pro-life, pro-family organizations across the nation to make available to the state of South Dakota every resource to fight this expected litigation,” said Rev. Patrick Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition, who was also present at today’s vote. “We are literally seeing the foundations of Roe v. Wade crumble.”
www.Dakotavoice.com
ping
But the bill does contain an exception for the life of the mother, although I don't see how killing the baby when it is half way out would preserve the life of the mother.
Ironically, if abortion law could be held to the terms of Roe v. Wade, great advances could be made. Blackmun himself admitted that he enever intended to grant an unlimited liscence to abort. It is that damned "health" exception that is the problem, since "heath" can mean whatever any attending physician wants it to mean.
I thought the "health" exception had to do with "life and death" matters.... From your post, I assume I have it wrong?
..may the silent screams be turned into the laughter of happy living children...
"I can't imagine why any doctor would want any part of such a barbaric and heinous murder." Uhh, money?
Please FReepmail me if you would like to be added to, or removed from, the Pro-Life/Pro-Baby ping list...
Thanks for the ping! :)
And how much do they normally charge for this? Just curious.
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.