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 ...
A hundred years of state laws in the United States prohibiting abortion killing prior to Roe were not part of a legal system??
Cordially,
How can life be a "side issue"? If you have no right to life, how can you have the right to liberty?
On what basis can you argue that you have the right to liberty, when you accept that the value of life is in the hands of human authority to determine? What is your claim to freedom?
People who had committed no crime could be sentenced to death?
“It is possible to be pro-life and not be a political conservative.”
So, I have to ask - would you automatically vote for Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey, a staunch, pro-lifer who is otherwise leftist to moderate on many other issues of great import to most conservatives over a more hard-line conservative who wasn’t as strongly pro-life as Smith?
Before answering, here are some of Smith’s (most recent I could find) ratings:
“F” from Citizens for Tax Justice (career)
“D+” National Rifle Association (2006)
42% National Taxpayers Union rating (2005)
92% Family Research Council (2005) Dobson’s group.
73% Public Interest Research Group (2006) founded by Nader
43% American Land Rights Assn. (2006)
60% American Conservative Union (2005)
71% National Organization for Women (2005)
75% National Education Association (2005)
100% Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) (2005)
Further, according to Wikipedia, Smith voted with the Dems on 5 of the 6 bills proposed during Pelosi’s 100 Hour Plan. The only bill he voted against concerned embryonic stem cell research/funding.
Again, Smith is perfect on abortion - but on most other issues he is liberal to moderate. Would you vote for him over a harder-line conservative who was not perfect on the abortion issue? I would. In a minute.
For the record, I am not supporting Rudy, which is what some will think as a result of this post. I am supporting Fred Thompson, should he enter the race - and Duncan Hunter if Fred opts to not enter. Further, I am overjoyed at the Supreme Court ruling banning PBA and I think Roe should be overturned.
As Drama would say.....”Victory!!!!!!!”
Sigh.. I don’t think you’ve said anything I disagree with. Of course a human being is human being from the point of conception.
The question was: is there a stage at which a human being is not yet a person, and thus not yet entitled to the full rights of personhood?
The answer to that question is not obvious to me. Fetal development timelines do not answer it. Fetuses may dream and cry, but that doesn’t answer it either. (Puppies dream and cry). I don’t really have the patience to debate this point, as I think it ultimately boils down to belief or disbelief in the soul, which is the domain of religion.
I support the pro-life position because I’d rather live in a society that views all human life as sacred, even if i find that view irrational.
P.S.: Okay, I was wrong to call embryos unicellular. I should have said “zygote at the moment of becoming diploid” i.e. conception.
What would it be then? A dog? A cat? A toaster?
An unborn child can only be a human being at a particular stage of development. Why would a person only be accorded the right to life at a specific stage of development? And if the right to life could be accorded on this basis, this so-called right wouldn't really be an unalienable right attached to personhood. It would be an arbitrary bestowal of legal protection.
Some of you wonder why the federal government should be making any laws or the appellate court having any jurisdiction on this issue in the first place, especially if you don’t believe in the “right to privacy” under the U.S. Constitution.
No can argue that there is an implied right to life for the individual under the constitution, especially if they argue for an implied right to privacy.
For both sides of the argument see: U.S. Const., 5th Amend. (”No person shall be held liable to answer for a capital . . . unless on a prsentment or indictment of a Grand Jury . . . nor be deprived of life . . . without the due process of law . . .”).
See also, as listed to relative import: 4th Amend. (”the right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures . . .”); 1st Amend. (” . . . to make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . . abridging the freedom of speech . . .”); and, U.S. Const. Preamble (”. . . to promote . . . the general Welfare, and to secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves . . .”).
Moreover the right to life can be restricted; capital punishment being the most extreme restriction sanctioned by society, and all three branches of government; the legislative, the executive and the judiciary.
Additonally, few will argue that are not several bases upon which one can plausibly at least argue for an implied right to privacy (supra).
Thus, stare decisis will probably result in maintaining legitimacy of the right to privacy, leaving the issue of whether the Court further “chip” away at Roe v. Wade utilizing the following standards applied and dicta stated by the Court in today’s ruling:
*******************************
“We assume the following principles for the purposes of this opinion. Before viability, a State “may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy.” [Casey at} 505 U. S., at 879 (plurality opinion). It also may not impose upon this right an undue burden, which exists if a regulation’s “purpose or effect is to place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.” Id., at 878. On the other hand, “[r]egulations which do no more than create a structural mechanism by which the State, or the parent or guardian of a minor, may express profound respect for the life of the unborn are permitted, if they are not a substantial obstacle to the woman’s exercise of the right to choose.” Id., at 877. Casey, in short, struck a balance. The balance was central to its holding. We now apply its standard to the cases at bar.”
***************************************
“Whatever one’s views concerning the Casey joint opinion, it is evident a premise central to its conclusion—that the government has a legitimate and substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life—would be repudiated were the Court now to affirm the judgments of the Courts of Appeals.”
***************************
In a powerfully moving statement of how individuals view partial birth abortion, using emotional imagery rarely seen in a judicial opinion, Justice Kennedy also wrote the following in today’s opinion:
“Intact D&E gained public notoriety when, in 1992, Dr. Martin Haskell gave a presentation describing his method of performing the operation. Dilation and Extraction 110-111. In the usual intact D&E the fetus’ head lodges in the cervix, and dilation is insufficient to allow it to pass. See, e.g., ibid.; App. in No. 05-380, at 577; App. in No. 05-1382, at 74, 282. Haskell explained the next step as
follows:
” ‘At this point, the right-handed surgeon slides the fingers of the left [hand] along the back of the fetus and “hooks” the shoulders of the fetus with the index and ring fingers (palm down).
” ‘While maintaining this tension, lifting the cervix and applying traction to the shoulders with the fingers of the left hand, the surgeon takes a pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. He carefully advances the tip, curved down, along the spine and under his middle finger until he feels it contact the base of the skull under the tip of his middle finger.
” ‘[T]he surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull or into the foramen magnum. Having safely entered the skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening.
” ‘The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents. With the catheter still in place, he applies traction to the fetus, removing it completely from the patient.’ “ H. R. Rep. No. 108-58, p. 3 (2003).
This is an abortion doctor’s clinical description. Here is another description from a nurse who witnessed the same method performed on a 26-week fetus and who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee:
” ‘Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby’s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby’s body and the arms—everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus... .
” ‘The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall.
” ‘The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby went completely limp... .
” ‘He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.’ “ Ibid.
********************
Thus, I believe that the current composition of the Court, or perhaps with an addition of a strict constructionist replacing either one of the today’s four dissents, may decide in the future that:
1- A fetus has a “right to life” which triumphs over the mother’s right to privacy, absent an unreasonable danger to the life of the mother, with reasonableness being defined as greater risk of morbidity over and above typically experienced by a woman giving birth at that age; or,
2- A fetus, once viable, will have a “right to life,” which triumphs over the right to privacy, absent an unreasonable danger to the life of the mother, being defined as greater risk of morbidity over and above typically experienced by a woman giving birth at that age, .
I believe that the “health of the mother” will soon be discarded as being void for vagueness, or simply as being outweighed by the fetus’s right to life.
The advances in medical science will further act as an accelerant to this evolving position.
Moreove the Court cited to Casey for the following 3 concerns:
So?
And, yes, I think Ginsberg and Stevens would long since have retired if McCain or Rudy were president the last 8 years... They KNEW Bush was going keep his word about USSC nominations, and the longevity of their ‘legacy’ depends on their replacements.
I would predict far more “constitutionalist” judges being appointed by either of those two than would be appointed by Hitlery or O’Dumbo or sKedwards ... who would ... and judges appointed by either just might restore abortion back to the states. Certainly the Demodogs favorites would not.
If it comes down to a Rat or a Moderate I’ll look at the moderate.
Since Roody Ghouliani is a flaming radical butt-crust liberal he could never be the moderate choice I could consider as an option.
Thank you George W. Bush. You make it a priority and you came through in the end. God Bless you, sir.
Of course, the AP leads with “The Court’s conservative majority.” I’ll bet they’ve never described a pro-abortion decision as coming from the court’s “liberal majority.”
I'm willing to vote for a social moderate (Romney) but not a morally bankrupt RINO (Giuliani).
It's simple if the Republicans want my vote, then they will choose wisely in the primary. If they fail to choose their own leader wisely, then they will suffer the consequences in November 2008. I am letting it be known early and often that Rudy is not acceptable to me or to the millions of solid evangelical and pro-life catholics who are similarly inclined. Rudy cannot win without the Pro-Life Catholic and pro-life evangelical vote. It might only amount to a shift of two or three million votes, but I suspect that if we refuse to cow-tow to the RINO's who are no better than the democrats in shoving morals aside in order to consolidate power, then we, as a people, are not worthy of a great president. We will get the government we deserve come next November. Choose wisely in the primaries.
Try to be realistic in your answer.
The MSN has sold all of us on the idea that only Rudy can win. The reality is that Rudy simply can't win. He will not get my vote in either in the primaries or the general election. If he can win without me, then more power to him. But I will not be casting my vote for him to obtain that power.
Allelulia!
I never expected to see such good news on Free Republic today. It’s a proud day to be a conservative. I’m glad I worked for President Bush and helped to get him in the White House. The man has been a God send for pro-life. He kept his promises to us. This decision helps us to chip away at the travesty that is Roe vs. Wade.
Now we just have to keep working to overturn that horrible decision and get an amendment to protect life from conception in this country. It would be great if this country could be like Ireland in regards to abortion. We must keep working to ensure a solid conservative gets into the White House. We don’t need any RINOs, especially no Rats.
It’s a proud day to be an American conservative. God has blessed America! On a side note, it is so exciting to see the liberals over at the DUmp and Daily Chaos with their panties in a bunch and fraught with rage.
Does this ban being upheld, in any way lead us to the possibility of a right to life for the unborn federal law?
Can it now be argued legally that because the unborn have a right to not be aborted by the PBA procedure that they may legally be entitled to further rights, they do not have legally 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.