Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New Abortion Ban Ignores Court (Double-Bagger Baby Killer Barf Alert!!!)
Omaha World-Herald ^ | June 22, 2003 | Priscilla Smith

Posted on 06/22/2003 2:12:10 PM PDT by 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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; crr; donstenberg; leroycarhart; omahaworldherald; priscillasmith; stenbergvscarhart
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-73 next last
To: Carthago delenda est
You won't find "gigging" either.
41 posted on 06/22/2003 9:17:49 PM PDT by hocndoc (Choice is the # 1 killer in the US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkooldBiDaStayt
Being a person doesn't make you a citizen. Being protected from killing by a third person doesn't make you a citizen.
42 posted on 06/22/2003 9:23:28 PM PDT by hocndoc (Choice is the # 1 killer in the US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SkooldBiDaStayt
Ok, sorry about that. I guess we don't agree on the issue. But I believe that life is paramount. I'm against welfare like any other republican and what needs to be done is to stop illegitimacy and the acceptance of illegitimacy, holding the fathers accountable, etc. There are plenty of people who want to adopt but can not do so because of stringent laws and a lack of babies. I also believe no culture can call itself "civilized" while it murders it's most vulnerable--the unborn.

So, in order to get rid of the welfare state we should allow abortion? I don't agree with that. I think by lowering taxes and by helping the economy, more people will work, pay taxes and have medical insurance and will plan their families accordingly. Abortion was outlawed when there was no welfare around before FDR and LBJ and we were still able to care for them.
43 posted on 06/22/2003 9:27:41 PM PDT by Coleus (God is Pro Life and Straight http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/notify?detach=1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: SkooldBiDaStayt
Point out how easily a bad doctor can sterilize them. >>>

Believe it or not, that tactic does work the best while doing sidewalk counseling at abortion mills and pointing out other health risks to the females entering. They respond most favorably to that and not the aborted baby pictures.
44 posted on 06/22/2003 9:35:00 PM PDT by Coleus (God is Pro Life and Straight http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/notify?detach=1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Golden Gate
It's an old term, the 9 month pregnancy (actually 40 weeks) is traditionally divided into 3 month phases.
45 posted on 06/22/2003 9:35:05 PM PDT by hocndoc (Choice is the # 1 killer in the US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SkooldBiDaStayt
Life and liberty are rights of all human beings, not just the ones who are in power or favored by those in power. Remember the prologue to the Declaration of Independence, which is the foundation of the justification for breaking away from Great Britain and colonialism.
46 posted on 06/22/2003 9:38:03 PM PDT by hocndoc (Choice is the # 1 killer in the US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: SkooldBiDaStayt
You pay for the abortions through tax monies that go to Planned Parenthood and law enforcement for the FACE laws. You paid for the Supreme Court to hear the RICO case against the Operation Rescue leader. You pay for fire, police and other city services for the abortion clinic. You probably paid quite a bit toward the educationof the doctors and nurses in the clinic, and you definitely paid for any regulatory functions such as the Board of Medical Examiners and State Health agencies.

If you live in Texas, at least, you pay for the lawyer and court costs for all girls asking a judge to exempt them from having to notify their parents that she is having an abortion.
47 posted on 06/22/2003 9:46:46 PM PDT by hocndoc (Choice is the # 1 killer in the US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: hocndoc
Wasn't it initially divided into trimesters because the likelhood of miscarriage occuring decreases significantly, after the first trimester? Or, is it just a division of the development of the baby, into three specific stages?
48 posted on 06/22/2003 9:47:01 PM PDT by Pan_Yans Wife (Lurking since 2000.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: SkooldBiDaStayt
I believe it would be a little bit harder to prove the date of conception than to show the place of live birth.
49 posted on 06/22/2003 9:54:51 PM PDT by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Comment #50 Removed by Moderator

To: SkooldBiDaStayt
Got garrulous when you did decide to post, eh?
51 posted on 06/22/2003 10:00:40 PM PDT by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

Comment #52 Removed by Moderator

To: Pan_Yans Wife
I honestly don't know the origin, but I think it's just one of those traditions.
53 posted on 06/22/2003 10:10:01 PM PDT by hocndoc (Choice is the # 1 killer in the US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: SkooldBiDaStayt
You do realize that if it is legally a child at conception that the 14th amendment would give that baby citizenship as readily as it would your unborn child, right?

I believe the 14th amendment says "born or naturalized". That's pretty brutal as far as a precise and self defining term goes. That was the pivot of the Roe ruling, wasn't it, the 9th amendment perviewed throught the 14th amendment's specification of "born" removing legal protection for the unborn?

54 posted on 06/22/2003 10:10:05 PM PDT by William Terrell (People can exist without government but government can't exist without people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
LOL Legally, it would have to be pretty specific, wouldn't it? How many women religiously mark X's on their calendars to pinpoint when they are ovulating?
55 posted on 06/22/2003 10:11:56 PM PDT by Pan_Yans Wife (Lurking since 2000.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: SkooldBiDaStayt
I'm not sure if you meant to, but you have pointed out something with this line of reasoning that we all should keep in mind when dealing with court decisions and the arguments put forth to sustain them when under challenge -- the tactic of introducing a plethora of side-issues generally causes the court to consider the reputation of itself at the expense of the merits of the challenge and the overall noise drowns out the dissenting voices.

All too often, courts will leave tough decisions to those they know must follow, if for no other reason than to ensure their place in history as a team-player.

I predict that the next appointee to the SCOTUS will fall somewhere between Stevens and Scalia.

There will be a good chance for us to see the first Hispanic nominee; just think what that would do for the voting bloc.

56 posted on 06/22/2003 10:16:41 PM PDT by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: SkooldBiDaStayt
You offered, "My personal belief as to whether it is murder is that in order to be murder, it has to be a human being and in order to be a human being it must be able to reasonably maintain homeostasis without outside help. It also must have a sentient mind."

How do you reconcile the many states that have fetal homicide laws? If it's not a human being, it isn't homicide, is it ...

The embryo implanted in the uterine lining is actually maintaining better homeostasis through its self-constructed (not mother constructed) placental organ than a crib-bound infant.

If I give you sufficient pavulon and flurothane you will cease to be sentient while I maintain your breathing via a ventilator.

To stop the lifetime begun at conception, you would have to kill the alive human being (even if by neglect in a petri dish or D&C of the uterine lining or dialation and dismemberment or dialation and extraction with evacuation of the cranial region via cannula and suction) ... which is what (abortion) you appear to favor as the way to deal with difficult societal problems.

57 posted on 06/22/2003 10:42:54 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: SkooldBiDaStayt
I apologize for the assumption.
58 posted on 06/22/2003 10:47:26 PM PDT by baseballfanjm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SkooldBiDaStayt
I for one don't want to pay into a socialist welfare scheme to support more single mothers. Me either. What happened to teaching a little responsibility to our children instead of 'anything goes'?

Many of you once you've outlawed abortion will look around, get all teary eyed and cry like good socialists "WILL SOMEBODY THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!!" Then we'll be wallowing in more socialism, but no child will be left behind.

Nope. Hey, I'm raising two grandkids because of my beliefs. I have already put my money where my mouth is.

It is about morality for you, it's about money for me and when I have one, money for my family.

It's about money for me, too. Money I pay in in taxes which the state requires, money which will be used to counsel for and perform an act I consider to be murder most foul. Yet you would contend I have no right, moral or otherwise to dictate how the money is used which would be forcibly taken from me were it not surrendered, in order to murder infants in the womb.

I don't want to be forced to support the children that will be brought into the world because of your squeamishness about abortion.

When abortion was not readily available on demand, there was a cultural bias against having children out of wedlock, and people were more careful about concieving children. Not to worry, now, you can always vacumn the little bastard out later--in shreds? Why not simply avoid the situation in the first place? No incentive.

The rich will be able to fly out to the Netherlands to get an abortion, while Jane Doe from the trailer park will have to have her baby.

I guess Jane Doe fron the trailer park will just have to live a more virtuous life (or at least more careful) then. Just because someone has little money does not mean they are lacking in virtue. The rich have always had options not available to the rest of us, and are often worse off for it.

59 posted on 06/22/2003 11:06:53 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: SkooldBiDaStayt
It's okay to kill a baby if one opposes social welfare?
60 posted on 06/22/2003 11:56:31 PM PDT by skr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-73 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson