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

Skip to comments.

FOX NEWS: SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION BAN
Fox News Channel ^ | 18 April 2007 | Fox News Channel

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 ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; bashrudy; bush; cultureoflife; duncandoughnuts; gop; helphillarywin; infanticide; pba; presidentbush; prolife; republicancongress; rudyisbad; scotus; slamonrudy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 921-933 next last
To: Spiff
Ron Paul is disappointed too. See my previous post here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1819286/posts?page=133#133

141 posted on 04/18/2007 7:46:31 AM PDT by HoustonTech
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pillut48
This is what you get with the likes of ... Sam “Hirohito” Alitio on the court

Well that's kind of racist, from the DU crowd. Fire the DU poster...

142 posted on 04/18/2007 7:46:41 AM PDT by Swanks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv

The federalism concerns were not directly at issue in this case, so it would have been inappropriate for the Court to issue the ruling you suggest. Furthermore, there is absolutely zero chance the current Court would strike down the ban based on those concerns, even if that question were directly presented to the Court.


143 posted on 04/18/2007 7:47:04 AM PDT by NinoFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: deputac

I’ll give him some praise today.


144 posted on 04/18/2007 7:47:25 AM PDT by zendari
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: deputac
“AP reporting 5-4 decision, Kennedy came over.”

Kennedy is standing at the edge of eternity and he took off his short vision spectacles. Perhaps he stared out in the distance and didn't’t like what he saw waiting for him on the other side.

145 posted on 04/18/2007 7:47:26 AM PDT by Pete from Shawnee Mission
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Spiff
I logged on to FR this morning, expecting the usual depressing news highlights.

Instead, I received a wonderful consolation!

God bless Justice Kennedy, and God have mercy on those who continue to approve of this ghastly crime of abortion.

146 posted on 04/18/2007 7:47:27 AM PDT by Deo volente
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: deputac

If congress can use the commerce clause to ban a particular abortion procedure ( a ban which I presume overrides any state law ) then by this SCOTUS ruling, congress could ban ( or allow ) any procedure. This ruling seems to take at least some power out of the hands of the states.


147 posted on 04/18/2007 7:47:34 AM PDT by ConstitutionandFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Spiff

Did anyone know they were ruling on this again?


148 posted on 04/18/2007 7:48:09 AM PDT by DungeonMaster (Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: deputac
Haven’t heard why Kennedy would have a change of heart on this issue.

I don't have any links, but my impression is that Kennedy was never really strongly pro-abortion. I have read that he is kind of wishy-washy and tended to be influenced by Sandra Day O'Connor.

149 posted on 04/18/2007 7:48:18 AM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv

I agree. This ban should have been struck down as an undue expansion of the commerce clause. Congress has no business legislating this issue. Stenberg should have been reversed and that would have allowed states to make their own decisions (hopefully with all 50 states banning it). As much as I want partial birth abortion to be banned, I am having a really hard time seeing how this was an issue for Congress to take up.


150 posted on 04/18/2007 7:48:51 AM PDT by bcbuster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

Comment #151 Removed by Moderator

To: NYRepublican72

Uh, I didn’t make it out to be a broad expansion of Roe. Please learn to read.

The Court REJECTED the trimester framework of Roe in Casey. That is now DEAD, DEAD, DEAD. The Court instead used the undue burden standard. In many cases, that is considered to be a weaker standard than what once existed. For a better understanding, please read Casey, and then read Justice Kennedy’s dissent in Stenberg to see his understanding of the opinion he helped craft in Casey.


152 posted on 04/18/2007 7:49:04 AM PDT by NinoFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: ConstitutionandFreedom

Basically partial birth abortion was legal yesterday, but is illegal today.

Bout time Bush did something to validate my reasoning for voting him in. Thanks W!!


153 posted on 04/18/2007 7:49:07 AM PDT by Outraged At FLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Paul_B

Is this the beginning of the end for the Third Term Holocaust in America?

Props to Kennedy this time. Still, we could really use another conservative jurist on the SC in the next term.


154 posted on 04/18/2007 7:50:04 AM PDT by Comparative Advantage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv

Looks like Thomas would have struck it down if the commerce clause question came up. Here’s a quote from his concurrence:

“I also note that whether the Act constitutes a permissible exercise of Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause is not before the Court. The parties did not raise or brief that issue; it is outside the question presented; and the lower courts did not address it”


155 posted on 04/18/2007 7:50:35 AM PDT by bcbuster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Outraged At FLA

God Bless George W. Bush. I knew and have always believed in him. The little ones who had no chance, once again, will have a fighting chance for life.

Wonderful Wonderful day!


156 posted on 04/18/2007 7:50:51 AM PDT by JFC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: deputac

You are correct. It will not stop abortions, it only means that the women who want one can’t be lazy. They will have to get off their fat asses and get in earlier instead of waiting until the last possible moment.


157 posted on 04/18/2007 7:51:15 AM PDT by Enterprise (I can't talk about liberals anymore because some of the words will get me sent to rehab.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ConstitutionandFreedom

Wickard v. Filburn started the damage back in the 1940s. It’s been downhill ever since. The feds have been taking stuff away from the states for almost half a century now.


158 posted on 04/18/2007 7:51:31 AM PDT by deputac (NYPD & FDNY: The Other Twin Towers of New York)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: LisaFab

AMEN!


159 posted on 04/18/2007 7:51:37 AM PDT by tutstar (Baptist Ping list - freepmail me to get on or off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: adorno
Stevens has been on the edge of leaving for the past two years now.
He's not going to leave until Bush is out of office.

He may not want to, but he's pretty old -- and Ginsburg's health isn't the best. "Man proposes, God disposes," as they say.

160 posted on 04/18/2007 7:51:59 AM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 921-933 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