Posted on 04/18/2007 5:51:40 PM PDT by LdSentinal
This is why presidential elections matter even if and when you don't particularly like one candidate or the other. The re-election of George W. Bush in 2004 begat the nomination to the United States Supreme Court of Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. and Justice Alito's ascenion to the High Court last year begat today a landmark abortion ruling that anti-abortion advocates have pushed to get for years. You can spin this any other way you want but in the end it comes down to a simple matter of personnel. Justice Alito was willing and able to go in the law where his predecessor, former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wasn't. And, as a result, doctors in this country now may be sent to federal prison for performing a type of abortion procedure even if those doctors believe that a woman's health would be jeopardized by not having the procedure. As the late, great Kurt Vonnegut might have said: so it goes.
Today's sharp 5-4 ruling in Gonzales v Carthart signals a new era in abortion law. With this precedent on the books, legislators in states around the country now can (and will) come forward with similar or slightly different bans upon various types of abortion procedures. We even may see that long-anticipated full, frontal challenge to Roe v. Wade (although opponents of that ruling still don't yet have the solid votes necessary to knock it out of the box). The woman's "health exception," which until today had survived all sorts of legal scrutiny, now is effectively gone and along with it an important line of defense for abortion rights advocates.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.washingtonpost.com ...
The "new era" will not last past 2009, unless we put conservatives in office.
We can always stick him in the Department of the Redundancy Department if that doesn’t work out.
Charles Krauthammer on Brit's program pointed out how very limited this victory is--it bars one particularly barbaric procedure, but allows the baby to be killed by other means that are nearly as gruesome.
“If Rudy, Mitt, or John are elected, they will most likely give us a Stephens (appointed by Ford), a Souter (appointed by Bush 41), or maybe, if we’re lucky, a Kennedy (appointed by Reagan).”
which is why we need to vote for a true conservative in the primaries - not these guys (Rudy, Mitt or John).
Vote in the primaries, and bring your conservative friends.
Check my tagline.
Since I’m interested in knowing how readily it is known and discussed on FR, I can provide no more help. But here’s one clue. A more significant ruling re Federalism and the Tenth.
“I’d like for this author to put forth one single example of when a partial birth abortion is necessary to ensure the health of the mother.”
fyi:
I refer the Senator to the State of Kansas where they have to report the reason for a partial-birth abortion; 182 were done last year, or the year before, and of those 182, none—zero—were done because of a problem with the child or a physical problem with the mother. They were classified as mental health.
So I suggest to the Senator that those in the abortion industry themselves say this is the typical procedure on the typical baby. There may be—and there are—a small number of cases that are late-term where you find out the child within the womb has a fetal abnormality and may not live. I just suggest—and you used the term—where is the brainless head? Where are the lungs outside the body? I will just say I will be happy to put a child with a disability up there. But, frankly, I don’t see the difference in my mind—and I am not too sure the public does—with respect to that being any less of a child.
It is still a child, is it not? Maybe it is a child that is not going to live long, but do we consider——
LINK TO ENTIRE TRANSCRIPT: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/863886/posts
And IF one were to read Roe v. Wade alone and take IT literally, because it contains no broad definition of a woman’s health, then the absolute right of a woman to obtain an abortion ends with the first trimester. During the third trimester the state is allowed to ban abortions. The problem is that Doe vs. Bolton—which aimed to overthrow the rather liberal George Abortion law—basically took away the right of the state to ban abortions. So on this medical procedure alone is the state barred from regulating the medical practice of a physician who cannot even practice medicene generally except with their consent. Nutty law.
I thought it was about Kennedy.
He’s the one who flipped on his opinion.
Sad to say, but such words are all too common among the womenfolk in my family, and not a few of the menfolk.
Yes, you can and even be published, I guess. Whatever one’s position could be on abortions in general, partial birth can not be supported. It’s a murder shielded by a legalistic trick that baby is not fully emerged.
Mother’s health, btw, would be much less stressed if she would just proceed with the birth at that point...
...which is why we need to vote for a true conservative in the primaries - not these guys (Rudy, Mitt or John).
Points well-taken. We are definitely on the same page. Even Reagan was forced to take a third-stringer once, and that did not work out well. I don't believe Rudy, Mitt, or John can even hold a candle to Ron so we need to find someone better.
Hunter would be good, but I am not certain that he will garner the name recognition necessary to win. So far, it would seem like Fred may be our best hope.
Nope. I have as a physician tried to think of anything that could cause this procedure to be done for the life or health of the mother and have come up with NONE. The only reason to not deliver the child alive at the point it is killed is to KILL it. It is that simple. This is a step in the right direction but just a small step. It only make a certain procedure illegal not 3rd trimester abortions.
Boo hoo. Get used to it, Cohen.
Correct me if I am wrong, but this is the first ruling in about 3 decades that went the Constitutional way. Thats pretty amazing.
Duncan Hunter has either won, or was one of the top three, in a number of straw polls, even though he was outspent in $$ 20-1.
I like Fred, too, but after doing much research, I like Hunter best, but could be content with Fred.
It’s still early, so anything can happen.
Just hope the three front runners, don’t stay front runners for long, as they are the worst.
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.