New Abortion Ban Ignores Court (Double-Bagger Baby Killer Barf Alert!!!)

Omaha World-Herald ^ | June 22, 2003 | Priscilla Smith

[Carthago delenda est]

The writer is one of the lawyers who in 2000 successfully argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Stenberg vs. Carhart, in which the court struck down a Nebraska law against the procedure ofter termed partial-birth abortion.

On June 4, the U.S. House of Representatives approved a bill banning so-called partial birth abortions - just three years after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a similar Nebraska ban. The bill, which is similar to one already passed by the Senate, is expected to be signed by the president shortly.

Proponents of the bill have been working overtime to give the impression that the only people who could oppose such bans are extremists. The reality, however, is far different. No fewer than 50 federal and state court judges in 21 lawsuits - judges appointed by Democrats and Republicans alike - have examined what these laws actually do and have held that they are unconstitutional.

In Stenberg vs. Carhart, the Supreme Court - the final arbiter of what our Constitution protects - ruled that Nebraska's law had two fatal flaws. While its supporters had claimed the law would ban only one post-viability method of abortion, the court ruled that it actually would ban the safest and most common methods of abortion starting at the beginning of the second trimester of pregnancy - long before fetal viability.

In addition, the court ruled that the law's failure to make any exception to protect a woman's health violated one of the core principles of Roe vs. Wade - that states cannot endanger women's health. A ban without a health exception, the court held, would endanger women because it would prevent the physician from performing the method of abortion that was the safest for a particular woman. Rather than fixing this fundamental defect, Congress simply added a "finding" that the banned procedures are never warranted for health reasons. In cases stretching back to 1803, however, the Supreme Court has consistently held that lawmakers can't just ignore rulings they dislike by adopting their own "findings."

As counsel to Dr. LeRoy Carhart - the Bellevue physician who challenged the Nebraska law - and as part of the team of lawyers that successfully challenged similar statutes in 13 other states, I am experiencing a kind of legal deja vu. The Supreme Court's decision in Carhart was the culmination of a 6-year battle and resolved these issues. So why are we now faced with the prospect of going back to the courts on the exact same issues? Because supporters of this bill have simply chosen to ignore the court's decision.

The new federal bill suffers from the same two flaws that doomed Nebraska's law, as if Stenberg vs. Carhart never happened. Once again, rather than limiting the ban to a single procedure, the sponsors have written a ban so broad that it would criminalize the safest and most common methods of abortion starting at the beginning of the second trimester. Even more remarkable perhaps, the sponsors have completely ignored the Supreme Court's holding that any ban must contain a health exception. In essence, its authors have put a new coat of paint on a condemned house and are hoping that no one notices.

Why would the sponsors promote and President Bush pledge to sign an unconstitutional bill? It's hard to escape the conclusion that their real purpose is to erode further the legal protections for women's right to control their bodies and lives. And that they are restarting the legal battle in hopes that, by the time the fight over this new bill reaches the Supreme Court, the court's composition will have changed. With the current Congress and president, anti-choice activists are optimistic that, in the event of an opening on the court, any new appointment would tip the balance against the right to choose abortion.

The Center for Reproductive Rights is poised to fight this law once more. With Supreme Court precedent on our side, I am confident that we can win in the lower courts. However, just like my opponents, I am all too aware that the appointment of a new justice could spell the end of Carhart and Roe vs. Wade, both of which are currently hanging by a one-vote majority.

• Smith is director of the Domestic Legal Program of the Center for Reproductive Rights.

[Carthago delenda est]

$500 to the first person who can pinpoint the words "abortion" or "fetus" anywhere in the U.S. Constitution.

[rmgatto]

The american abortion movement will be featured along with the third reich, stalin, pol pot, and the chinese cultural revolution on the History Channel's
"Unspeakable Modern Crimes against God and Mankind" week. It can't come too soon.

An estimated 42 million children killed since 1973. You can either be with those of us who think it is mass murder or you are against us. No equivocation is possible.

---

[jwalsh07]

5th and 14th Amendments.

[MHGinTN]

The proud defender of killing the womb-bound states, "The Center for Reproductive Rights is poised to fight this law once more. With Supreme Court precedent on our side, I am confident that we can win in the lower courts. However, just like my opponents, I am all too aware that the appointment of a new justice could spell the end of Carhart and Roe vs. Wade, both of which are currently hanging by a one-vote majority." I suppose it has skipped her notice that the rite of preborn child slaughter stands merely because of a one vote margin, thus it is not set in stone that such a ruling is in fact ethical or moral, but the proud defender of the indefensible charactewrizes the evil as if it were moral and ethical simply because a court allows it presently. The same was said of slavery, and we all know what a heinous 'institution' that is.

[rwfromkansas]

"The new federal bill suffers from the same two flaws that doomed Nebraska's law, as if Stenberg vs. Carhart never happened. Once again, rather than limiting the ban to a single procedure, the sponsors have written a ban so broad that it would criminalize the safest and most common methods of abortion starting at the beginning of the second trimester. Even more remarkable perhaps, the sponsors have completely ignored the Supreme Court's holding that any ban must contain a health exception. In essence, its authors have put a new coat of paint on a condemned house and are hoping that no one notices."

Who is this moron. If the SCOTUS strikes down the law with this logic, I will call for the impeachment of every justice ruling against it because they don't have the brains of a 5-year-old if they strike it down. I am serious about their lack of brain capacity, too. If anything, this bill will only cause doctors to switch the methods of late term abortions.

George Tiller in Wichita is doing another late term procedure instead of PBA as it is and says this law means nothing. He is an abortion doctor and I think he knows the loopholes.

Instead of banning all late term abortions, like some House members wanted, this bans only one specific type of late term abortion, partial birth abortion.

This idiot is truly a moron, and so will be the Justices, if they think this bill will be able to ban more than just one narrow procedure.

This bill is a joke.

[jwalsh07]

It's not a joke, it's a small step in a big battle.

[baseballfanjm]

SkooldBiDaStayt, member since June 22, 2003. Hmmmm.

[MHGinTN]

'FreedomCalls' wasn't getting the proper respect with that handle, so it came back in another incarnation.

[rmgatto]

Kidnapping, counterfeiting, threatening the president are all federal crimes, among others. Why not abortion? Is this really a state's rights issue, or is it an issue of national values?

[MHGinTN]

An alive baby in the womb is a human being, regardless of the Mother's religious beliefs. As the Declaration of Independence states, 'endowed by our Creator with ... LIFE, then liberty, then the pursuit of happiness.' This isn't about citizenship, it's about the right to remain alive and not be slaughtered on your preferred altar of specious choice. Killing an alive individual human being is not a 'reproductive choice', even if you want with all your heart for it to be, to insure an escape for irresponsible behavior.

[jwalsh07]

You should stop conflating issues. I have written my Congressman to have him rescind the law that bestow citizenship on the those born here to "illegals".

I have also written him to support the overturning of Roe and Doe because there is no Constitutional basis for either.

I write him frequently to align with forces who would stop the insanity of aborting American children while opening the gates of America to an unnaturally high number of immigrants taking their rightful places.

In no case has he taken my advice.

Now a question for you. If you justify abortion by money being taken from you, then why limit it to any trimester? In fact why limit it to the unborn?

[John Beresford Tipton]

" I have written my Congressman to have him rescind the law that bestow citizenship on the those born here to "illegals"."

"I write him frequently "
"In no case has he taken my advice"

Hint- perhaps he has heard of:
"Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

and therefore you Congress Critter, whatever his other failings, knows that he cannot "rescind the law that bestow citizenship on the those born here to "illegals'".

Please let us know when your Congressman starts taking your advice,
for that will be the time to truly worry.

[jwalsh07]

Yhe Constitution is an amendable document. And hubris can be overcome with an AA type plan.

Good Luck John.

[grania]

The bill, which is similar to one already passed by the Senate, is expected to be signed by the president shortly.

Not soon enough. I sure hope it's done before summer recess. Wouldn't want it to be forgotten about and have events and/or elections get in the way.

Message to GWB...if you delay the signing and something happens to stop the ban from being put into effect, you're not going to talk your way out of that one. It can't wait for another election cycle...it's too important.

In fact, it should've been done before the trip to the Middle East!