Posted on 10/15/2007 4:32:14 PM PDT by Spiff
From the westlaw case summary:
410 U.S. 113
The Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Blackmun, held...subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester the state may regulate abortion procedure in ways reasonably related to maternal health, and at the stage subsequent to viability the state may regulate and even proscribe abortion except where necessary in appropriate medical judgment for preservation of life or health of mother.
“With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the ‘compelling’ point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical **732 fact, referred to above at 725, that until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health. Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like.”
“With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the ‘compelling’ point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion *164 during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.”
Again, I’m sorry, but you’re simply wrong to say there can be no regulation. You went to far. Even your post “such a pitifully minor ‘regulation’ that it did not count” acknowledge it’s regulated, though you discount the extent to which it’s regulated. Moreover, you completely misstate the Court’s opinion of these regulations. The Court, particularly the dissenters in those cases, find this to be intrusive and not a minor regulation.
From the westlaw case summary:
410 U.S. 113
The Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Blackmun, held...subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester the state may regulate abortion procedure in ways reasonably related to maternal health, and at the stage subsequent to viability the state may regulate and even proscribe abortion except where necessary in appropriate medical judgment for preservation of life or health of mother.
“With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the ‘compelling’ point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical **732 fact, referred to above at 725, that until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health. Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like.”
“With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the ‘compelling’ point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion *164 during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.”
Again, I’m sorry, but you’re simply wrong to say there can be no regulation. You went to far. Even your post “such a pitifully minor ‘regulation’ that it did not count” acknowledge it’s regulated, though you discount the extent to which it’s regulated. Moreover, you completely misstate the Court’s opinion of these regulations. The Court, particularly the dissenters in those cases, find this to be intrusive and not a minor regulation.
The holding:
“Measured against these standards, Art. 1196 of the Texas Penal Code, in restricting legal abortions to those ‘procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother,’ sweeps too broadly. The statute makes no distinction between abortions performed early in pregnancy and those performed later, and it limits to a single reason, ‘saving’ the mother’s life, the legal justification for the procedure. The statute, therefore, cannot survive the constitutional attack made upon it here.”
Good luck getting 3/4 of the states to ratify it.
I’m sure there’s some way he could pander more, but I’m at a loss to name it.
I thought R v W outlawed third trimester abortions, no?
No, it ruled that states could restrict 3rd trimester abortions provided they weren't necessary to protect the woman's health. Subsequent decisions ruled that this exception had to include "mental health," which in effect makes it impossible to outlaw 3rd trimester abortions, since it's very easy to claim an abortion is necessary for "mental health."
Yes, but you’ve got to read all of the cases. Read the parental notification cases. Read the partial birth abortion cases. The general rule is that you can’t regulate abortion, and that is what Roe has been held to say. Of course, there are exceptions to every rule. Eventually, the courts found a watered down parental notification law they could uphold (to save themselves from being tarred and feathered) and eventually, they found a partial birth abortion law they could uphold, but not without throwing out a bunch first. The exceptions in the case of the “right” to abortion have been very few and far between.
This is why Romney ultimately gets the nomination. Republicans are *not* going to nominate pro-choice (READ:anti-life) Ghouliani.
Ultimately, though, it is pretty much impossible for a state to outlaw 3rd trimester abortions.
Second and third. But now it has been expanded to the point where it covers everything up to and including the moment of birth, with the partial birth abortion decisions.
Pardon me... It did not “prohibit” second and third trimester abortions. It merely said that the goverment could not regulate abortions in the first trimester.
I’ll take it....bury Roe v Wade in an unmarked grave
Got any examples from this current '08 race?
Or is this more RDS (Romney Derangement Syndrome) talking points?
“This week Mitt Romney says...”
ROFLOL!!
I’ve heard Romney stick to his stands on these issues in front of hostile New Hampshire voters (probably independents or Democrats) who challenged him directly. One group, for example, pushed him to commit to supporting the Fair Tax. He said he had major problems with it and would want his people to thoroughly vet it before he would agree to back it. I have seen him on many C-SPAN appearances campaigning in New Hampshire, Iowa, and elsewhere. His message and his answers to questions have been consistent.
I’ve read the cases.
“The general rule is that you can’t regulate abortion, and that is what Roe has been held to say. Of course, there are exceptions to every rule.” Ok, first it was you couldn’t regulate abortion at all, now you’re shifting the language a bit.
“Eventually, the courts found a watered down parental notification law they could uphold (to save themselves from being tarred and feathered) and eventually, they found a partial birth abortion law they could uphold, but not without throwing out a bunch first.” Again, parental notification is not the only restriction. 24 hour waiting periods. Late term abortions. Procedures used. You’re ignoring additional regulations, let alone the explicit text, which I cited, that says you can regulate later during term as viability emerges.
“The exceptions in the case of the ‘right’ to abortion have been very few and far between.” That’s a reflection of legislature a) not trying to limit it, and b) when doing so not using the right language.
As O’Connor wrote in a recent opinion, as technology pushes the viability threshold sooner and sooner, the right to life will increasingly dominate. Even the first trimester is starting to be thought up for grabs.
Glad to see you’ve modified your position to realize that there is no absolute ban on regulating abortion.
The opinion’s plain language permits later term regulation, so I don’t know to whom you refer when you say it was interpreted as de facto prohibition on abortion. But you’re 100% correct that Casey had a major impact, as did other cases:
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services
In this case, the Court upheld several abortion restrictions, and modified the Roe trimester framework
Gonzales v. Carhart
On April 18, 2007, the Supreme Court handed down a 5 to 4 decision upholding the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the term “partial-birth abortion” in the act pertains to a procedure that is sometimes called “intact dilation and extraction” by the medical community.[2] Under this law, “Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.” The law was enacted in 2003, and in 2007 its constitutionality was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart.
The bottom line is, this statement, “Roe v. Wade stands for the proposition that abortion CAN’T be regulated” is entirely false. It can, as expressed in Roe (see my excerpted passages), and has been, see cases above.
He is only a Conservative now because of his desire to be President. Sorry...he is no Conservative to me.
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.