Abortion Ruling, Supreme Court 4/18/07

[amicus]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/18/scotus.abortion/index.html


By Bill Mears
CNN Washington 


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- "...The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a law that banned a type of late-term abortion, a ruling that could portend enormous social, legal and political implications for the divisive issue.

The sharply divided 5-4 ruling could prove historic. It sends a possible signal of the court's willingness, under Chief Justice John Roberts, to someday revisit the basic right to abortion guaranteed in the 1973 Roe v. Wade case.

President Bush, who signed the law in 2003 and appointed two of the justices who upheld it, said the prohibition "represents a commitment to building a culture of life in America." "Today's decision affirms that the Constitution does not stand in the way of the people's representatives enacting laws reflecting the compassion and humanity of America," he said in a statement released by the White House.

At issue is the constitutionality of a federal law banning a rarely performed type of abortion carried out in the middle-to-late second trimester.

The legal sticking point was that the law lacked a "health exception" for a woman who might suffer serious medical complications, something the justices have said in the past is necessary when considering abortion restrictions.

In the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy, the key swing vote in these divided appeals, said the federal law "does not have the effect of imposing an unconstitutional burden on the abortion right." He was joined by his fellow conservatives, Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Roberts...."

(partial article, see link)

This is not an 'in your face' thread, nor intended as a 'flame' to excite emotions and I fully expected to see that someone else had already made note of the event.

However, there are two distinct and many other aspects of this issue. I represent what is a minority on this forum of acknowledging that human life begins at the instant of conception and that life is a guaranteed and protected right under the Constitution of the United States.

amicus...

 

[CharleyH]

I have no comment other than I think abortion decisions are best left to women and not courts or men.

 

[buxxxom]

I try, really try, not to have an opinion about abortion. I'd rather use my breath arguing for availabliity of birth control, but I can see a situation where a mother of several children of various ages loses her life because of the unavailability of a medical procedure necessary to save her life. It saddens me. Sorry if this doesn't sound coherent, but I typed it quickly before I lost my nerve.

 

[Just-Legal]

I have no comment other than I think abortion decisions are best left to women and not courts or men.

I agree.

 

[Liar]

Legal ins-and-outs confuse the bejezus out of me. Can someone explain to me, in baby language, please, what was decided?

That Federal Law X is constitutional. And that Federal Law X makes some sort of specific abortion procedure illegal. Is that it?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Legal ins-and-outs confuse the bejezus out of me. Can someone explain to me, in baby language, please, what was decided?

That Federal Law X is constitutional. And that Federal Law X makes some sort of specific abortion procedure illegal. Is that it?

The procedure is gruesome, and deals with viable fetuses on the threshold of birth. The late Sen. D.P. Moynihan, a respected Dem, called it "uncomfortably close to infanticide." Agree or disagree with the law, to find this procedure very disturbing and worthy of banning you do not have to hold a religious belief that a fetus from the moment of conception has rights equivalent to born human being. I'm uncomfortably ambivalent about it, myself.

BTW, the CNN article in the OP contains this, which I think is politicized hype: "The ruling sends a possible signal of the court's willingness, under Chief Justice John Roberts, to someday revisit the basic right to abortion guaranteed in the 1973 Roe v. Wade case." It does no such thing. Instead, it recognizes that this procedure is highly problematic under any ethical standard. That doesn't mean that the court might be willing to revisit Roe - just that this decision has nothing to do with that.

 

[FatDino]

Legal ins-and-outs confuse the bejezus out of me. Can someone explain to me, in baby language, please, what was decided?

That Federal Law X is constitutional. And that Federal Law X makes some sort of specific abortion procedure illegal. Is that it?

Yep.

In the case Roe v. Wade 1973, the Court held that abortion was permissible until the point at which the fetus became viable (can survive outside the mother's womb, this is approximately the 28th week of pregnancy).

Now the Court just banned a specific type of late abortion (I would think some time before the 28th week) and people are saying this may lead to reopening the Roe case.

(I just hope I explained it right )

 

[Alexandra1979]

Yep.

In the case Roe v. Wade 1973, the Court held that abortion was permissible until the point at which the fetus became viable (can survive outside the mother's womb, this is approximately the 28th week of pregnancy).

Now the Court just banned a specific type of late abortion (I would think some time before the 28th week) and people are saying this may lead to reopening the Roe case.

(I just hope I explained it right )

It didn't ban it so much as let it be banned. I'm a bit on the fence over this one, unlike most abortion issues, where I am solidly pro-choice. This is a bit different, like Roxy said.

 

[cantdog]

I don't see where the federal government has any business legislating in this area at all.

 

[R. Richard]

I have no comment other than I think abortion decisions are best left to women and not courts or men.

I would edit your comment to "a woman and her doctor."

JMHO

 

[angelicminx]

I also think that abortion decisions should be left to the woman and her doctor. As with other areas of what I consider to be personal decisions, I believe legislature should just butt out.

I don't think this ruling paves the way to reopening Roe vs. Wade. I do think it will be reopened at some point, but not simply because of this.

I don't think late-term abortions should be performed, except in rare circumstances. For a doctor to perform a late-term abortion for someone who just put it off in the hopes that 'the problem' would just 'go away' is just wrong, in my opinion. Performing a late-term abortion to save the mother's life is completely different. Again, not something legislature should decide. There are too many variables.

 

[amicus]

That abortion should be a woman's decision is a position held by many.

Another position, also held by many, is that abortion is the taking of an innocent life.

How do you resolve those differences?

amicus...

 

[cantdog]

I don't have to resolve them. The Constitution has nothing to say about this issue, and the Supremes should butt out.

 

[Seattle Zack]

The question to ask these hypocrites is, "So how many foster children do you have in your home?"

Of course, they fluster and have no answer. Much like ami. Hundreds of thousands of children are waiting to be adopted in this counry. If they truly cared, as they profess, to value the "welfare of the children" above all else, then you would see a lot of happy babies. Unfortunately, many of these babies are a little brown.

The right to life for white kids whose parents want them to have the baby. Kind of a strange victory, if you want to call it that, ami.

 

[Vermilion]

Yep.

In the case Roe v. Wade 1973, the Court held that abortion was permissible until the point at which the fetus became viable (can survive outside the mother's womb, this is approximately the 28th week of pregnancy).

Now the Court just banned a specific type of late abortion (I would think some time before the 28th week) and people are saying this may lead to reopening the Roe case.

(I just hope I explained it right )

Of course one would have to bear in mind that babies who only reach 24 weeks have now been kept successfully alive.
Whether that's a good thing or not I don;t want to comment.

When late-term abortion is a health issue then I think the health of the mother should be considered above that of an unborn child, but when it's just because someone kept putting it off and putting it off, then I have to own that I am somewhat more than ambivalent.

As for abortion previous to this then I would echo what others have said and say that that should be the decision of the people involved (both mother and father) though as it's the woman's body she should ultimately have the ruling decision.

x
V

 

[Chantilyvamp]

I also think that abortion decisions should be left to the woman and her doctor. As with other areas of what I consider to be personal decisions, I believe legislature should just butt out.

I don't think this ruling paves the way to reopening Roe vs. Wade. I do think it will be reopened at some point, but not simply because of this.

I don't think late-term abortions should be performed, except in rare circumstances. For a doctor to perform a late-term abortion for someone who just put it off in the hopes that 'the problem' would just 'go away' is just wrong, in my opinion. Performing a late-term abortion to save the mother's life is completely different. Again, not something legislature should decide. There are too many variables.

What angel said...

For myself I would not ever have one, but for friends and others..if they so chose I'll support them and even go with them and hold their hand. It is their choice. I cant imagine it ever being banned again. I could see in my head if it did all the women/kids having back-room abortions again and possibly losing their life because of the situation some politician put them in.

 

[SlickTony]

I don't think anyone should have an abortion past the 1st trimester--the earlier, the better. However, I have little patience with the idea that "life begins at conception." No, the potential for life begins at conception.

A large percentage of conceptii don't ever come to anything--they fail to develop, and then are passed out with the menses without the woman even knowing that anything had happened.

So I suppose that if she sincerely subscribes to the idea that life begins at conception, any time during her fertile years, that she is sexually active and not on the Pill, she should perform some kind of funeral service over all her used tampons and pads, just in case.

 

[Liar]

That abortion should be a woman's decision is a position held by many.

Another position, also held by many, is that abortion is the taking of an innocent life.

How do you resolve those differences?

amicus...

Unless they're held by the same person, it's an artificial dilemma. You pick one or the other as your opinion. Which most people do.

But to minimize the need for this conflict to happen: Active, if not pro-avtive, pre-conception policy. Birth control for every teen and adult out there. Solid sex-ed in schools. Free condoms on every college campus and high school. Free birth control medication for everybody.

But then of course, for many, that is also "the taking of innocent lives". Eeeevery speeerm is sacreeeed...

 

[amicus]

Liar...et al...it is really very simple.

I you 'believe' in God or the almighty collective and accept the tenets of your faith, then your beliefs are dictated by ideology.

Position one.

If you use your mind and seek honest answers to questions of import, then one must begin somewhere.

That 'somewhere' is human ethics and morality.

If you seek a logical process of determining values, you will arrive at a point where you must face some basic a priori issues.

That is to say, self evident or axiomatic truths that will provide you with a foundation upon which to build your ethical and moral system and guide your behavior as an independent human with free will to choose.

If you work at that you will come down to one basic and fundamental truth.

Human life is the arbiter of all values.

If you can't follow that...you can't follow anything.

amicus...

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I don't see where the federal government has any business legislating in this area at all.

That's an argement against Roe. Which would simply mean that each state would have it's own law - it would be legal in some and not in others.

Probably the biggest problem with Roe is the way it has perverted our politics. Most Americans are ambivalent about this issue, but GOP and Dem primaries are largely won or lost on the basis of it, because groups on either side who are passionate about it have become extremely active poltically. One thing I would love to see is weasely GOP state legislators who are "solidly pro-life" because that's how you win GOP primaries have to actually be accountable for that position. Right now it's meaningless, because they can't vote to ban it in thier state. When they were "shooting with real bullets" and could, they would have to justify themselves to all the more socially liberal GOP-leaning women in their districts, not just the Right to Life primary activists. No Roe would create a different dynamic, and a healthier one for our democracy.

 

[christabelll]

One: I completely agree it is the womans choice and she must decide with her doctor and or partner what she wants/needs to do.

Two: As with most other governmental "controls". Its MY body. NO one has the right to tell me what to do with my body.

Three: Mid to Late term abortion is horrific in and of its self. However there are circumstances that can and do arise, although not commonly, that require such a drastic measure. MY heart goes out to those women /couples who are faced with this terrible ordeal.

Four: Abortion is not a form of birth control. However, there are women who use it as such. There are safer more viable means to prevent unwanted pregnancy, and they should be universally available to all who want them. Including the education that goes with it.

five: While the potential for life begins at conception only something along the lines of 20% ever make it to birth. Each egg/sperm combination is brand new. It is has never happened before in this formation. All kinds of things could and do go wrong with this experiment created by nature. Most women never realize it (as was stated before) except for maybe an unusually painful period. Another portion realizes it just in time for nature to take its natural course and spontaneously abort (miscarriage). Sometimes it takes a bit longer for nature to decide if this combination works or not and mid to late term miscarriages do occur up to and including still birth. So until the "baby" is born it is not viably "alive". Not to say its not living, just not "alive". It doesn't stop the broken hearts and hopes, and it most certainly doesn't mean it shouldn't be treasured. Hard choices regardless of the circumstances.

Six: Safe and legal medical practices for everyone should be available. Regardless of religious beliefs. This is one area that the courts need to keep their mitts off of. And the church needs to keeps its mitts off of it too.

Seven: Women who choose to have a mid to late term abortion for other than health reasons should be taken out and beaten soundly... (NOt really but somebody needs to have their head examined for choosing this particular method of ending an unwanted pregnancy) A few more months will bring a child into this world that another couple desperately wants. There is no harm in having the child and putting it up for adoption. THese days there are many methods to how this is done and they should be considered as the only viable option. (IMHO)

ANd for myself....mother nature was unusually capricious with me... 11 miscarriages before I was able to carry to term. 7 of those eleven I had to have D & C's to keep from bleeding out. If the science and trained skills hadn't been available I would have died with the second one. I am seriously PRO CHOICE even though for myself it wasn't an option I wanted to chose.

 

[Vermilion]

One: I completely agree it is the womans choice and she must decide with her doctor and or partner what she wants/needs to do.

Two: As with most other governmental "controls". Its MY body. NO one has the right to tell me what to do with my body.

Three: Mid to Late term abortion is horrific in and of its self. However there are circumstances that can and do arise, although not commonly, that require such a drastic measure. MY heart goes out to those women /couples who are faced with this terrible ordeal.

Four: Abortion is not a form of birth control. However, there are women who use it as such. There are safer more viable means to prevent unwanted pregnancy, and they should be universally available to all who want them. Including the education that goes with it.

five: While the potential for life begins at conception only something along the lines of 20% ever make it to birth. Each egg/sperm combination is brand new. It is has never happened before in this formation. All kinds of things could and do go wrong with this experiment created by nature. Most women never realize it (as was stated before) except for maybe an unusually painful period. Another portion realizes it just in time for nature to take its natural course and spontaneously abort (miscarriage). Sometimes it takes a bit longer for nature to decide if this combination works or not and mid to late term miscarriages do occur up to and including still birth. So until the "baby" is born it is not viably "alive". Not to say its not living, just not "alive". It doesn't stop the broken hearts and hopes, and it most certainly doesn't mean it shouldn't be treasured. Hard choices regardless of the circumstances.

Six: Safe and legal medical practices for everyone should be available. Regardless of religious beliefs. This is one area that the courts need to keep their mitts off of. And the church needs to keeps its mitts off of it too.

Seven: Women who choose to have a mid to late term abortion for other than health reasons should be taken out and beaten soundly... (NOt really but somebody needs to have their head examined for choosing this particular method of ending an unwanted pregnancy) A few more months will bring a child into this world that another couple desperately wants. There is no harm in having the child and putting it up for adoption. THese days there are many methods to how this is done and they should be considered as the only viable option. (IMHO)

ANd for myself....mother nature was unusually capricious with me... 11 miscarriages before I was able to carry to term. 7 of those eleven I had to have D & C's to keep from bleeding out. If the science and trained skills hadn't been available I would have died with the second one. I am seriously PRO CHOICE even though for myself it wasn't an option I wanted to chose.

That was a really clear and sensible explanation of a topic that is incredibly emotive.
Congratulations on finally becoming a Mum
x
V

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

First, I agree with this specific court decision. If the fetus is "viable" then a C-Section might be a better choice if there is a genuine health risk to the mother.

On the larger question of Roe v Wade, I find it more than disgusting that the religious right has the gall to stack the U.S. Supreme Court with their personal political choices only because those nomenated agree with their position on abortion and non-regulation of big oil, then point their fingers at the pre-ordained decisions coming from that court, while screaming, "See? I told you we were right!"

It's not good law. It's exactly what Roberts told the Senate Judiciary Committee he would never allow - Making law from the bench, not determining what the law means, as clearly stated as the job of the Judiciary Branch in U.S v Richard Nixon.

Pisses me off.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

First, I agree with this specific court decision. If the fetus is "viable" then a C-Section might be a better choice if there is a genuine health risk to the mother.

On the larger question of Roe v Wade, I find it more than disgusting that the religious right has the gall to stack the U.S. Supreme Court with their personal political choices only because those nomenated agree with their position on abortion and non-regulation of big oil, then point their fingers at the pre-ordained decisions coming from that court, while screaming, "See? I told you we were right!"

It's not good law. It's exactly what Roberts told the Senate Judiciary Committee he would never allow - Making law from the bench, not determining what the law means, as clearly stated as the job of the Judiciary Branch in U.S v Richard Nixon.

Pisses me off.

<-----thinks JJ should become a lawyer!

 

[Vermilion]

<-----thinks JJ should become a lawyer!

Well... lawyers do need to be tough and argumentative, sounds like the perfect job for her
x
V