Court Backs Ban on Abortion Procedure

Oct 30, 2006
1,466
2
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.

The opponents of the act "have not demonstrated that the Act would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of relevant cases," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion.

The decision pitted the court's conservatives against its liberals, with President Bush's two appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, siding with the majority.

It was the first time the court banned a specific procedure in a case over how—not whether—to perform an abortion.

Abortion rights groups have said the procedure sometimes is the safest for a woman. They also said that such a ruling could threaten most abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy, although government lawyers and others who favor the ban said there are alternate, more widely used procedures that remain legal.

The outcome is likely to spur efforts at the state level to place more restrictions on abortions.

More than 1 million abortions are performed in the United States each year, according to recent statistics. Nearly 90 percent of those occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and are not affected by Tuesday's ruling.

The law bans a method of ending a pregnancy, rather than limiting when an abortion can be performed.




Article after jump.
 
Murder.........

I don't know how any self respecting Doctor could look himself in the mirror after doing this procedure.
Perhaps one who had to abort one that suffered from this or maybe this. Because had this law been in effect, the ruling of this court would have not allowed my ex wife to have an abortion. Because THAT is what she was carrying in her womb. It's called "anencephaly" and I wouldn't wish the decision we faced on my worst enemy.

Why after 12 weeks? Well...even though we are the godless evil liberals, we really really wanted a baby. At the time, my wife was on extended duty bringing up a TDD center in California and wasn't able to get in for the happy fun sonogram until after 12 weeks. It was at that time that we discovered that our child had no brain, and would not live more than a few minutes after birth.

If you want to put your wife thru the mental anguish of knowing that she is carrying what the medical community lovingly refers to as a "monster", more power to you. I'm sure some of the bible thumpers will be happy to tell me that it was God's punishment for being a liberal. But....because the world ain't always as black and white as some people think it is, so I don't support any laws on banning abortion. It's an issue that should be dealt with with the person and their God...not lawmakers. FWIW - We made peace with our God.
 
Perhaps one who had to abort one that suffered from this or maybe this. Because had this law been in effect, the ruling of this court would have not allowed my ex wife to have an abortion. Because THAT is what she was carrying in her womb. It's called "anencephaly" and I wouldn't wish the decision we faced on my worst enemy.

Why after 12 weeks? Well...even though we are the godless evil liberals, we really really wanted a baby. At the time, my wife was on extended duty bringing up a TDD center in California and wasn't able to get in for the happy fun sonogram until after 12 weeks. It was at that time that we discovered that our child had no brain, and would not live more than a few minutes after birth.

If you want to put your wife thru the mental anguish of knowing that she is carrying what the medical community lovingly refers to as a "monster", more power to you. I'm sure some of the bible thumpers will be happy to tell me that it was God's punishment for being a liberal. But....because the world ain't always as black and white as some people think it is, so I don't support any laws on banning abortion. It's an issue that should be dealt with with the person and their God...not lawmakers. FWIW - We made peace with our God.

A terrible tragedy KC to say the least, and even though we banter back and forth my heartfelt condolences to you.

With that said my cousin on my Dads side had a child born with 'down syndrome' and they were and still are blessed richly because of it. I learned thru other relatives that it was known early on he would be retarded and require lifelong care even when he was in the womb, but because of their religious convictions they could not/would not consider throwing this child away.

Im glad you were able to find peace with your GOD!
 
A terrible tragedy KC to say the least, and even though we banter back and forth my heartfelt condolences to you.

With that said my cousin on my Dads side had a child born with 'down syndrome' and they were and still are blessed richly because of it. I learned thru other relatives that it was known early on he would be retarded and require lifelong care even when he was in the womb, but because of their religious convictions they could not/would not consider throwing this child away.

Im glad you were able to find peace with your GOD!
Thank you local12. Trust me...had they said downs syndrome...I'd have a kid with downs syndrome. Had they said missing an arm or a leg...I would have had that one. But without a brain...did I ever really have a child? For the record, I am a Catholic and I do not believe in abortion as a form of birth control. But I don't like bans because it might affect people like me.
 
Thank you local12. Trust me...had they said downs syndrome...I'd have a kid with downs syndrome. Had they said missing an arm or a leg...I would have had that one. But without a brain...did I ever really have a child? For the record, I am a Catholic and I do not believe in abortion as a form of birth control. But I don't like bans because it might affect people like me.

God Bless you and yours!
 
I remember you discussing this before,KC...but I believe in many other cases the procedure is done without regard to quality of life issues for the child.

Its my understanding this is a great way to harvest stem cells.....
 
I remember you discussing this before,KC...but I believe in many other cases the procedure is done without regard to quality of life issues for the child.

Its my understanding this is a great way to harvest stem cells.....


I am not very well versed on the ins and outs of embyonic stem cells but give that most of the talk I have heard is about embryonic stem cells, harvesting stem cells from a new born does not seem to fit the profile. I am not sayig it is not dobne but given the thousands if not tens of thousands of embryos laying around in nitrogen at clinics, there seem to be far easier and plentiful supplys available.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/HEALTH/07/11/stem.cells/
 
Maybe if its sole purpose was to make embryo's for a baby parts factory.
Well...lets see...we fertilze an several eggs and create little human lives. We get lucky and the first one takes. What do we do with the rest of them? I mean, the purpose we made the embryo was to bring forth a child...but they didn't really need 10. And it's a fairly expensive procedure to try to fertilize just one at a time. They weren't made as a "baby parts" factory....so do we ban it, despite the fact that a family got the kid they wanted?
 
Conception and full term abortion are two different worlds and you know it.Check the legal definiton of when an embryo has attained 'legal standing' as a human being and then go from there.

If you have an issue about throwing away eggs maybe we should issue an edict about male masturbation....

:blink:
 
Conception and full term abortion are two different worlds and you know it.Check the legal definiton of when an embryo has attained 'legal standing' as a human being and then go from there.

If you have an issue about throwing away eggs maybe we should issue an edict about male masturbation....

:blink:
Um....the male doesn't produce any eggs. And considering quite a few die hard abortion opponents believe that "life begins at conception", is life that is conceived in a test tube not worthy of the same protections as one conceived in a more normal manner?
 
Whether die hards believe onr thing or another,the legal definition is the way of the land.And if they're tossing eggs....whats the difference,can't make one without the other yet.
 
Back
Top