Supreme Court turns down appeal over abortion counseling

I guess that the USSC figures that since they get away with un-Constitutional gun laws, now they can start dictating how and when we do things to our bodies.

Actually the SC doesn't care what you do to your body. Neither do we. We are concerned however about what you do to your babies body.

(And before you bring it up, someone being raped does not justify that someone committing murder of an innocent person)

Not even one positive reason was mentioned for the right of women to have information before consenting. The consumer would have more protections if she wanted to purchase Avon products then what the writer thinks she should have if she purchased an abortion.

Exactly! These people against informed consent are probably the same types that say that Beretta Firearms "tricks" people into thinking the gun isn't loaded because there is no "loaded indicator".

A translation:

Supreme Court turns down appeal over (baby-killing)abortion counseling

Associated Press / SFGate

Posted on 02/24/2003 11:02 AM EST by RCW2001

(02-24) 07:23 PST WASHINGTON (AP) --

The Supreme Court turned down an appeal over a requirement that women get in-person counseling before they can (kill their baby) have an abortion, a case that could have reopened the emotional question of when restrictions on (baby-killing) abortion become unconstitutional.

The court did not comment in rejecting Monday's appeal from women's health (baby-killing) clinics and (a baby-killer) an abortion doctor in Indiana, who argued that the face-to-face meeting is too onerous. A lower court judge had found that the requirement would (save 10 to 12 percent of babies destined to be killed) deny abortions to an estimated 10- to 12 percent of women who wanted them.

The high court's action probably means the Indiana law will (start saving some babies) take full effect for the first time since the state legislature passed it eight years ago.

The law requires (baby killers)abortion providers to tell women about medical risks and alternatives to (killing their baby) abortion at least 18 hours before the (baby is killed) procedure, and to give the information in person. Currently, women get the information over the phone.

The high court has allowed states to place a variety of restrictions on (killing babies) abortion, including waiting periods and requirements for "informed consent," in the 30 years since the Roe v. Wade ruling that allowed legal (baby killing) abortions.

The court has also cautioned that (baby-killing) abortion restrictions cannot go too far, and the Indiana (baby-killing) clinics said a lower federal appeals court flouted that warning when it cleared the way for in-person counseling last year.

The high court has not considered requirements like Indiana's, which (baby killers) abortion providers and (baby killing)women's organizations said (will save poor babies and save those babies that would be born in rural areas) is particularly unfair to poor women and those who must travel from rural areas.

In practice, the law requires women to make two clinic appointments at least a day apart (before killing their baby), opponents said, which can be difficult for any woman who would have trouble explaining her absence to an employer, husband or boyfriend.

(baby-killers) Abortion providers and many (baby-killing) women's organizations have long opposed state efforts to delay (baby killing) abortions or require the distribution of (truthful information) certain information beforehand. Such measures can intimidate or frighten women (into lettng their baby live, or even falling in love with their baby), opponents said.

Opponents of the Indiana law pointed to research in Mississippi and Utah that showed (10 percent of babies were saved) abortion rates dropped by about 10 percent after those states required similar in-person counseling. That does not necessarily mean women opted to have their babies, because a significant number traveled out of state to (kill their baby)have an abortion, lawyers for the Indiana (baby killing) clinics wrote.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the in-person counseling rule constitutional last year. The law does not create too great a burden for women, in part because it (allows the baby to be killed) would waive the requirement in a medical emergency (, as determined by the baby killer).

The case is A Woman's Choice(to kill)-East Side Women's Clinic v. Newman, 02-935.

baby at five months

I couldn't understand the reaction that I got from you guys until I went back and read what was actually posted by me. Part of what I thought I was posting somehow was deleted.

I don't believe in abortion at all. I consider it murder, with all of the consequences that that entails.

However, there is justifiable murder in the sense that if the Mothers life is at stake, an abortion may be necessary to save her life. That is a tragic undertaking, but sometimes needed and I can live with that.

What I worry about is the control of the "state" over a woman's/families affairs, and the interference by the state with the practice of her doctor.

I just feel that the abortion issue, in and of it'self, is something that the Federal govt has no business in. There are already laws on the books against 'murder'.

If I had my way, abortion "doctors" would be killed on sight.

now they can start dictating how and when we do things to our bodies.

It's not about the mother's body but about the baby's body. Two separate bodies...get it?

If you don't then how about this: Don't force the baby and nobody will force you.

Supreme Court Clears Way for Abortion Restrictions(More extensive version)

Congratulations! Now that's what I call good medicine!

However, there is justifiable murder in the sense that if the Mothers life is at stake, an abortion may be necessary to save her life. That is a tragic undertaking, but sometimes needed and I can live with that.

Agreed. This is the only valid time for abortion. Sometimes we are faced with an either/or type of medical decision.

I just feel that the abortion issue, in and of it'self, is something that the Federal govt has no business in. There are already laws on the books against 'murder'.

Exactly. Now if we can just get those laws enforced.

If you'd have said it that way the first time we all would have agreed with you. The "it's the woman's body and she should be able to do what she wants with it" argument is classic pro-abort speech and should be avoided at all costs by sensible people.