Posted on 04/18/2007 7:14:49 AM PDT by Spiff
Edited on 04/18/2007 8:48:59 AM PDT by Lead Moderator. [history]
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court upheld the nationwide ban on a controversial abortion procedure Wednesday, handing abortion opponents the long-awaited victory they expected from a more conservative bench.
The 5-4 ruling said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Give it a rest. Bush still has a veto pen to block any such bill for the next couple of years.
Very true but don't forget Congress in that mix. All SCOTUS has done* is uphold the constitutionality of a law, a law that any Congress can overturn if there is a veto-proof majority or a complicit POTUS that desires to do so.
*not to diminish the importance of this decision, though.
Amen and pass the collection plate...The longer I live the more I see the importance of the judiciary...Legislatures will come and go, but how laws are interpreted - or in some cases re-invented - has serious, lasting impact.
That's not how I read Roe (granted that was a while ago). If my faulty memory is still good, Roe took more of a balancing test approach where the rights of the fetus were taken into consideration, a right vested in the states to make reasonable laws restricting abortion in the second and third trimesters. As time progressed, the states had more and more power to restrict the practice of abortion.
This decision makes sense in the framework of Roe v. Wade. I am sure once the decision is released, the majority will cite Roe in making their case upholding partial birth abortions.
Wasn't Casey about parental notification?
One detail from the story puzzled me, though:
It was the first time the court banned a specific procedure in a case over how — not whether — to perform an abortion."...the court banned...?
(By the way, anyone interested in wading into the muck at DU to see if anyone is accusing the Supremes of using the VT shootings as cover for the announcement of this decision?)
Meaning the Constitution has been made whatever the majority of Supreme Court Judges says it is.
You don’t believe in shadows lurking in the Constitution either.
...and now will be overturned by an act of the Democrat Congress, UNLESS we continue to have Presidents who will veto such an act!
(Thanks for the info.)
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
WONDERFUL NEWS!!!!
I’m sure it is tucked somewhere underneath the Commerce Clause legislation. The Congress critters love that area to pass their laws over us. If this was the clause though, it’s the first time I can remember in decades where it came in handy for a good cause.
Bush appointees. So how are they for a legacy?
Amen!
Harry and Nancy will be deeply saddened.
Radio reporting that the US Supreme Court specifically rejected the “health of the mother” concerns in it’s ruling.
This appears to be a -very- strong ruling and would explain why it was close.
There appears to be very little “wiggle room” on this decision.
Don’t discount the influence of Chief Justice Roberts. Situations like this are exactly why Bush appointed him as Chief Justice. Under his influence, the close ones will go our way.
You need to read Casey to see how it treated Roe and its trimester framework. The focus now is on the undue burden standard.
BTW, while you are correct that Roe, Casey, etc., aren’t going anywhere with the current Court, one vote more on the Court could very well put the central holding of Roe in doubt.
I admit - I ventured over there. Nothing on the VT shootings, but great sadness overall.
Oh - and general ignorance, but that’s a requirement over there.
Thanks Nino! This is defintiely a big decision. It does raise some interesting federalism issues. I’ll have to go pull the majority opinion.
The Commerce Clause has been abused by the Congress to federalize way too many things, nationalized speed limits in the '70s, the 21 year old drinking age, etc. You name it and the Congress has used it to expand their powers at the expense of states rights. It's unfortunate.
Don't knock it -- the left has made enormous strides that way, chip by chip, sort of like Chinese water torture! I'd rather have a big miracle too . . . but whatever works! :-)
Comments so far by the DUmmies who love dead babies:
http://tinyurl.com/2z9d3v
The partial birth abortion ban can be easily distinguished from Roe. Roe protects first trimester abortions, not those in the later stages. Partial birth abortions are more necessary as the pregnancy progresses into those later terms. States can regulate as a woman's pregnancy progresses under Roe v. Wade. I agree with you on both points - that Roe is unlikely be overturned anytime soon and that this case is clearly distintuisable from Roe.
While I think Roe represents remarkably bad law - in the sense of reasoning from precedent - I do think the fundamental reason Roe will endure is that it represents something close to the practical compromise the majority of Americans want on abortion: not too readily available as a general matter because I don't think anyone other than a NOW activist thinks abortion is just wonderful, but not illegal if I (or my daughter or girlfriend or wife) 'needs' one.
Roe was and is bad science as well, but the three 'trimester' compromise Roe represents our ambivalence - early enough on in a pregnancy most people (not being philosophically or religiously consistent) are not deeply troubled by an abortion; as the pregnancy progresses the matter gets more difficult; and, at some point, most people see it as unacceptable.
So, as I see it, the question is not whether something like Roe will stand as a compromise, but whether the post-Roe decisions that vastly expanded the right to an abortion will stand. I would not be surprised if we ended up in 5-10 years in a position much closer to the situation shortly after Roe than where we are now.
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.