Advertisement
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070...abortion_25
For the first time since the court established a woman's right to an abortion in 1973, the justices upheld a nationwide ban on a specific abortion method, labeled partial-birth abortion by its opponents.
The 5-4 decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy 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.
The law is constitutional despite not containing an exception that would allow the procedure if needed to preserve a woman's health, Kennedy said. "The law need not give abortion doctors unfettered choice in the course of their medical practice," he wrote in the majority opinion.
Doctors who violate the law face up to two years in federal prison.
---
Possibly a very troubling precedent.
For the first time since the court established a woman's right to an abortion in 1973, the justices upheld a nationwide ban on a specific abortion method, labeled partial-birth abortion by its opponents.
The 5-4 decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy 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.
The law is constitutional despite not containing an exception that would allow the procedure if needed to preserve a woman's health, Kennedy said. "The law need not give abortion doctors unfettered choice in the course of their medical practice," he wrote in the majority opinion.
Doctors who violate the law face up to two years in federal prison.
---
Possibly a very troubling precedent.
posted by:
|
San Francisco
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: And so it begins: Supreme Court upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act
Wed, April 18, 2007 - 2:03 PMtroubling on many levels. if only the fact that for the first time, non medical establishments are making critical medical decisions.
this isn't about "abortion" when and where,but about what medical procedure should be used. isn't that for the AMA to decide? Or even teh FDA or other medical bodies?
if teh procedure is safe, then it should be in my Doctor's "little book of tricks", cause as a pregnant woman - i would want to know that if anything goes wrong, my doc has all the possible options to save my life, and my health, open to him.
one main reason PBA (as it were) is done, is in cases where the woman stands to lose her ability to have another child due to damage of the uterus or the vaginal canal. right... so it's not common use, but it's used. i guess these judges know better than doctors, what is "in teh woman's best interest".
why even have AMA reviews of medical procedurse any more. just run them by some lawyers serving God. that should be enough. -
-
Re: And so it begins: Supreme Court upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act
Wed, April 18, 2007 - 7:24 PMI was watching the PBS news and there was specific wording in the majority ruling that was quite disturbing. It made reference to government's moral and ethical right to set laws governing abortion and the concerns of the unborn infant.
The door appears to be left wide open for more laws to be written. -
-
Re: And so it begins: Supreme Court upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act
Wed, April 18, 2007 - 7:31 PM -
-
Re: And so it begins: Supreme Court upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act
Thu, April 19, 2007 - 9:38 AMThere is another very odd peice in this law... let me look for it, and i'd like anyone else's comments.
news.findlaw.com/hdocs/doc...003s3.html
(c)(1) The father, if married to the mother at the time she receives a partial-birth abortion procedure, and if the mother has not attained the age of 18 years at the time of the abortion, the maternal grandparents of the fetus, may in a civil action obtain appropriate relief, unless the pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff's criminal conduct or the plaintiff consented to the abortion.
====
that is tucked deep into the law. does this bother anyone else? It seems to me to say that if a woman decides on this abortion (said now, illegal abortion) the FATHER has rights to sue the doctor.
the FATHER???????
-
-
Re: And so it begins: Supreme Court upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act
Fri, April 20, 2007 - 2:37 PMI'm no lawyer or legal scholar.
However the wording appears to left opening to interpretation by lower courts and it forcing many more cases to appear the Supreme Court level to pick away at Roe and Casey. -
-
Re: And so it begins: Supreme Court upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act
Fri, April 20, 2007 - 2:42 PMHowever the wording appears to left opening to interpretation by lower courts and it forcing many more cases to appear the Supreme Court level to pick away at Roe and Casey.
==
well, yeah. i figured Roe will not fall. it will just be nibbled at, till it's got all teh force and effect of a gentle rainstorm on searing hot pavement. -
-
Re: And so it begins: Supreme Court upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act
Fri, April 20, 2007 - 4:47 PMThe nibbling undermining stuff is all what Hegel means when he talks about dialectic process. The opposition thing never opposes full force. It just takes little bites until the opposing thing collapses.
Ideally, we get a synthesis. That's what Hegel thought on paper anyway. -
-
Re: And so it begins: Supreme Court upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act
Fri, April 20, 2007 - 5:01 PMThe wording is so open that it could be argued that it redefines a fetus as a person. This would obviously be a huge change in many areas of US law.
I have seen other legal (law professors) commentators say this very same thing.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
