| Author |
Message |
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
 Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:21 pm Supreme Court to hear late-term abortion case |
|
| Quote: | Supreme Court to hear late-term abortion case
By Bill Mears
CNN
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court wasted little time jumping back into the contentious abortion issue, agreeing Tuesday to review the constitutionality of a federal law banning a controversial late-term procedure critics call "partial birth" abortion.
The case could provide a judicial sea change with new Justice Samuel Alito, who joined the high court January 31, replacing Sandra Day O'Connor.
O'Connor, the first woman on the high court, was a key swing vote for a quarter century, upholding the basic right to abortion.
The views of Alito, a more conservative jurist, could prove crucial in the new debate.
A federal appeals court had ruled against the government, saying the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 2003 was unconstitutional because it did not provide a health exception to pregnant women facing a medical emergency.
'Health exception'
The outcome of this latest challenge could turn on the legal weight given past rulings on the "health exception."
In states where such exceptions are allowed, they include the possibility of severe blood loss, damage to vital organs or loss of fertility. And doctors would be given the discretion to recommend when the late-term procedure should be performed.
The federal law has never gone into effect, pending the outcome of more than two years of legal appeals.
The issue of late-term abortions is not new to the high court, and earlier precedents could play a key role when the justices review the federal ban.
In 2000, the justices threw out Nebraska's version banning the "partial birth" procedure. Using an earlier legal standard, the court concluded 5-4 that the state law was an "undue burden" on women because it lacked the critical health exception.
Despite that ruling, the Republican-controlled Congress -- backed by the Bush White House -- passed its own version three years later.
'Act of hostility'
The Planned Parenthood Federation of America was quick to denounce the court's decision to hear the case, calling it "a dangerous act of hostility aimed squarely at women's health and safety."
"Despite 33 years of Supreme Court precedent that women's health matters, the court has decided it will once again take up this issue," Cecile Richards, the organization's president, said in a written statement.
"Health-care decisions should be made by women, with their doctors and families -- not politicians," Richards added. "Lawmakers should stop playing politics with women's health and lives."
Since the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion, various states have tried to place restrictions and exceptions on access to the procedure, prompting a string of high court "clarifications" over the years.
South Dakota's state Senate plans to vote Wednesday on a controversial bill to ban abortion in nearly all cases -- except to protect the life of the mother.
The high court last month passed up a chance to issue a major ruling in a separate abortion-related case.
In a unanimous but narrow ruling written by O'Connor, the last opinion she authored, the court concluded that a federal appeals court went too far by blocking enforcement of a New Hampshire law requiring minors to notify their parents before receiving an abortion.
Justice Department urged review
On the federal late-term abortion law, the Justice Department urged the justices to accept the case, saying the lower courts viewed the issue incorrectly.
"That decision overrides Congress's carefully considered finding, following nine years of hearings and debates, that partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve a mother's health," Solicitor General Paul Clement said in a legal brief.
Abortion rights groups have been vocal on the issue, tying the case to last month's confirmation of Alito.
"Today's actions by the court are a shining example of why elections matter," Richards said in the Planned Parenthood statement. "When judges far outside the mainstream are nominated and confirmed to public office by anti-choice politicians, women's health and safety are put in the danger."
Planned Parenthood and other groups opposed Alito and launched an aggressive media blitz.
The federal late-term abortion case will likely be argued in the fall.
Find this article at:
http://us.cnn.com/2006/LAW/02/21/scotus.latetermabortion/index.html |
-------signature-------
|
|
|
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
| Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:22 pm |
|
| Quote: | | A federal appeals court had ruled against the government, saying the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 2003 was unconstitutional because it did not provide a health exception to pregnant women facing a medical emergency. |
I support the partial-birth abortion ban. I just read what it actually is.
| Quote: | | An abortion in which the person performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus and completing the delivery. |
-------signature-------
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Tue Feb 21, 2006 6:10 pm Re: Supreme Court to hear late-term abortion case |
|
| Quote: | | Since the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion, various states have tried to place restrictions and exceptions on access to the procedure, prompting a string of high court "clarifications" over the years. |
My favourite passage. 
It makes the governments and their lawyers sound like they're little children trying to poke the boundaries of their parents' rules.  Gah, this is why lawyers annoy me so much. The loopholes! The loopholes!
Why not just make it legal to have an abortion only on a Tuesday of February which falls only a leap year, between the hours of 1-2 AM?
|
|
|
PrankishSmart
Rear Admiral
Joined: 29 Apr 2002
Posts: 4779
Location: Hobart, Australia.
|
| Wed Feb 22, 2006 2:06 am |
|
It will only increase the number of backyard 'coathanger' abortions.
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Sat Feb 25, 2006 2:02 pm |
|
| PrankishSmart wrote: | | It will only increase the number of backyard 'coathanger' abortions. |
So this is your "great" alternative?
Thats like saying we shouldn't have a law against killing, because then people will simply do it against the law, hidden from authority figures.
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:22 pm |
|
| Quote: | | PIERRE, South Dakota (AP) -- State lawmakers voted Friday to ban nearly all abortions in South Dakota and sent the measure to the governor, who said he is inclined to sign it. |
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/24/dakota.abortion.ap/index.html
Good news, I'd say.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
| Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:50 pm |
|
a ban like that i am totaly againt. The ban on late term i support though
|
|
|
PrankishSmart
Rear Admiral
Joined: 29 Apr 2002
Posts: 4779
Location: Hobart, Australia.
|
| Sat Feb 25, 2006 9:45 pm |
|
| Founder wrote: | | PrankishSmart wrote: | | It will only increase the number of backyard 'coathanger' abortions. |
So this is your "great" alternative?
Thats like saying we shouldn't have a law against killing, because then people will simply do it against the law, hidden from authority figures. |
The difference is that if their not done by a doctor then the mother is at great risk (such as coathanger abortions). Legal or illegal, it's going to happen anyway, it will just be different just like everything that is legal or illegalised. At least if the law is legal the mother can live through it, if it is illegal, both mother and unborn might die.
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Sat Feb 25, 2006 9:57 pm |
|
So because a couple of people are idiots we need to make it legal to appease them? It sounds like we're rewarding people because they're spoiled and decide to take a baseball bat to the mother's stomach. Sickening acts.
I understand what you're saying, but it still seems wrong.
|
|
|
PrankishSmart
Rear Admiral
Joined: 29 Apr 2002
Posts: 4779
Location: Hobart, Australia.
|
| Sat Feb 25, 2006 11:16 pm |
|
I'm not talkign about a couple of people, but mothers that do want an abortion, law or no law, will get it one way or another. Late term is not right indeed. But morals aside, all that making a law against it will do is open up more dangerous abortions and some people might even make a business out of it. Just take a look at the world today. Unless your living in a basement you would see exactly what i'm saying and would agree that a law against would ultimately do more harm than good.
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Sat Feb 25, 2006 11:42 pm |
|
I understand what you're saying, but rewarding scum like that is not the way. I support abortions for either rape victims or if the mother's life is in danger, but no other case. If she shoves a coat hanger into herself because she wants to be free for a weekend at cancun, then I don't care. She is scum for doing that. As is the guy who wacks his g/f in the belly with a baseball bat. Rewarding them is not the answer. Thats like a bunch of people go on a killing spree because they dont like the anti-killing laws. They demand the right to be able to kill a few people every so often. Would you give them that?
|
|
|
PrankishSmart
Rear Admiral
Joined: 29 Apr 2002
Posts: 4779
Location: Hobart, Australia.
|
| Sat Feb 25, 2006 11:48 pm |
|
Abortion is a entirely different thing to someone going on a killing spree and I don't think that needs a reply to explain why.
I don't see how a law that provides the possibility for abortion is rewarding the mother. There is nothing at all 'rewarding' about a abortion. If anything, people who start to make a business providing the 'safest means' to carry out an abortion while the act is illegal will be the ones being rewarded and laughing all the way to the bank.
Stop thinking in idealist terms for a minute.
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Sun Feb 26, 2006 12:00 am |
|
First of all, try to learn how to have a civil conversation. We're discussing something, nothing more. I'm not thinking in idealist terms. You obviously don't even know what that means.
Abortion is different than a killing spree? Really? How so? If abortion is so "good", then why do people oppose it? Maybe something is wrong eh?
How it rewards the mother? What? You want me to break it piece by piece for you?
A) Mother gets mad that abortions are illegal
B) She decided to take matters into her own hands
C) Coathanger is used
D) People like you want abortions brought back because some people are ignorant and evil
E) Abortions are brought back and the mother is happy
F) Thus, she is rewarded
Got it now?
So because people do it illegaly, we need to make legal. To ensure its not done illegaly?
It reminds me of a Bill Maher joke on drugs.
"Its wrong to be baked on your way to Las Vegas, but not when you're IN Las Vegas. Because thats the way they want it to work. Let the professionals *expletive* you up. Is that it?"
Sounds to me like thats all you want. To ensure that the professionals do it and not some kid with a coathanger.
|
|
|
Birdy
Socialist
Joined: 20 Sep 2004
Posts: 13502
Location: Here.
|
| Sun Feb 26, 2006 7:21 am |
|
This is.. unbelievable!  I always saw America as the land of nothing but possibilities, and now they come up with something like this?
| Quote: | | "Health-care decisions should be made by women, with their doctors and families -- not politicians," Richards added. "Lawmakers should stop playing politics with women's health and lives." |
Exactly. Why should people up high, with almost no contact whatsoever with the REAL society, decide what's good for women and what's not?
| PrankishSmart wrote: | | The difference is that if their not done by a doctor then the mother is at great risk (such as coathanger abortions). Legal or illegal, it's going to happen anyway, it will just be different just like everything that is legal or illegalised. At least if the law is legal the mother can live through it, if it is illegal, both mother and unborn might die. |
Precisely!!
Why can't we just give women the choice, the possibility to do it, and leave it up to them. I can't understand why they want to control how people live, I just can't grasp that fact. Why do they want so much control? Why not let people live how they wanna live?
-------signature-------
Nosce te ipsum
|
|
|
charlie
American Soldier
Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 598
Location: In The United States
|
| Sun Feb 26, 2006 7:23 am |
|
In my opinion, it is wrong and women don't have the right to take a life in their own hands. They shouldn't sleep around if they don't want to have a baby. Women think abortion is the only solution when it is not.
|
|
|
PrankishSmart
Rear Admiral
Joined: 29 Apr 2002
Posts: 4779
Location: Hobart, Australia.
|
| Sun Feb 26, 2006 7:27 am |
|
| Birdy wrote: | | Exactly. Why should people up high, with almost no contact whatsoever with the REAL society, decide what's good for women and what's not? |
Thats pretty much what I was getting at. It's just that the government wants ultimate control. How can a fat 60 year old politician decide what he thinks is best for a 18 year old rapist victim.
The ones making the rules are not the ones who have ever been in the situation.
|
|
|
Birdy
Socialist
Joined: 20 Sep 2004
Posts: 13502
Location: Here.
|
| Sun Feb 26, 2006 7:36 am |
|
| PrankishSmart wrote: | | Birdy wrote: | | Exactly. Why should people up high, with almost no contact whatsoever with the REAL society, decide what's good for women and what's not? |
Thats pretty much what I was getting at. It's just that the government wants ultimate control. How can a fat 60 year old politician decide what he thinks is best for a 18 year old rapist victim.
The ones making the rules are not the ones who have ever been in the situation. |
Right. I even notice it here in the Netherlands, I think every country has it. But over here it's about stupid little things if you compare it with this. I think it's just ridiculous. I don't care if your pro-choice or not, I think even America should have the possibility.
-------signature-------
Nosce te ipsum
|
|
|
charlie
American Soldier
Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 598
Location: In The United States
|
| Sun Feb 26, 2006 7:37 am |
|
Again, my wife was raped and she didn't abort the baby. She didn't punish the baby for the sins of the father. Yeah her ex-boyfriend tracked her down and harmed her and she lost the baby. But, she wouldn't kill an innocent baby cause of selfish reasons. There is always adoption cause there are plenty of couples that can't have a baby that want to raise a child. There are people that say adoption is not an option cause it is hard. People just don't how to go about it the right way. Adoption is the best choice to assure a baby will not be murdered and yes it is murder.
|
|
|
Leo Wyatt
Sweetest Angel
Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Posts: 19045
Location: Investigating A Crime Scene. What did Quark do this time?
|
| Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:47 am |
|
I agree with you Charlie. But let's not bring that painful non-selfish thing up again unless I do. Well not today, cause it is the same month I lost the baby , after I got raped years ago,so memories.... thank you. 
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Sun Feb 26, 2006 10:58 am |
|
| Birdy wrote: | This is.. unbelievable! I always saw America as the land of nothing but possibilities, and now they come up with something like this?
| Quote: | | "Health-care decisions should be made by women, with their doctors and families -- not politicians," Richards added. "Lawmakers should stop playing politics with women's health and lives." |
Exactly. Why should people up high, with almost no contact whatsoever with the REAL society, decide what's good for women and what's not?
| PrankishSmart wrote: | | The difference is that if their not done by a doctor then the mother is at great risk (such as coathanger abortions). Legal or illegal, it's going to happen anyway, it will just be different just like everything that is legal or illegalised. At least if the law is legal the mother can live through it, if it is illegal, both mother and unborn might die. |
Precisely!!
Why can't we just give women the choice, the possibility to do it, and leave it up to them. I can't understand why they want to control how people live, I just can't grasp that fact. Why do they want so much control? Why not let people live how they wanna live? |
The real thing is though, there is no "choice" to be made in this issue. I mean, I suppose there is, just like there is the "choice" that I could go murder someone later this evening. That choice though, is against the law, and so should having an abortion. For many, if not all purposes, the women should not have a choice, because it is not their life that they are going to be taking. They do for one thing though, have the ability to choose whether or not they want to have sex, and last time I checked, the government didn't regulate that choice.
And controling how they live? I don't know about that. If perhaps you mean governing though, and making laws, then that's their job. We elect them, and then they create laws to protect, further, and enhance Americans' rights, three of which are God given, and the government can not obstruct. These three rights are life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. Allowing abortion tramples on all three of these rights.
|
|
|
Birdy
Socialist
Joined: 20 Sep 2004
Posts: 13502
Location: Here.
|
| Sun Feb 26, 2006 11:09 am |
|
| Puck wrote: | | The real thing is though, there is no "choice" to be made in this issue. |
That is your point of view, your opinion.
| Quote: | | I mean, I suppose there is, just like there is the "choice" that I could go murder someone later this evening. |
Again, some percieve it as murder, some people don't.
| Quote: | That choice though, is against the law, and so should having an abortion. For many, if not all purposes, the women should not have a choice, because it is not their life that they are going to be taking. They do for one thing though, have the ability to choose whether or not they want to have sex, and last time I checked, the government didn't regulate that choice.
And controling how they live? I don't know about that. If perhaps you mean governing though, and making laws, then that's their job. We elect them, and then they create laws to protect, further, and enhance Americans' rights, three of which are God given, and the government can not obstruct. These three rights are life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. Allowing abortion tramples on all three of these rights. |
Well, in that case, I never want to live in America.
How about people who don't believe in God? How about them? As you say, three rights are God given.
I disagree. I think people should have the liberty to get an abortion if they want to. The baby is in the women's body, I think she should have a say in what's to happen.
-------signature-------
Nosce te ipsum
|
|
|
Kasey
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 20 Jun 2005
Posts: 287
Location: Somewhere
|
| Sun Feb 26, 2006 11:22 am |
|
I disagree strongly.
A woman doesn't have a right to kill a baby. This is just cruelity in my opinion. I am a 15 year old, lets say that I had sex without my Aunt Deb's consent. It is my fault and my responsiblity and I shouldn't have open my legs up. I never had sex before, but if I did and got pregnant, I would give it up for an adoption or My Aunt will baby sit while I get a job, cause there is a better way.
-------signature-------
My site
http://chat32.proboards61.com
|
|
|
WeAz
Commodore
Joined: 03 Apr 2004
Posts: 1519
Location: Where you aren't
|
| Sun Feb 26, 2006 2:19 pm |
|
| PrankishSmart wrote: | How can a fat 60 year old politician decide what he thinks is best for a 18 year old rapist victim.
The ones making the rules are not the ones who have ever been in the situation. |
Thats what happens in almost all rulemaking. The person making the rules has never experienced what hes making rules about.
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Sun Feb 26, 2006 6:28 pm |
|
I like how the pro-"choice" people don't listen to anyone else but each other.
| Birdy wrote: | | That is your point of view, your opinion. |
Just like that is YOUR point of view too. Why is your opinion better than mine? It isn't.
| Birdy wrote: | | Again, some percieve it as murder, some people don't. |
And some people do. Your point?
This is not a simple matter of choice.
"The government wants control!!!!"
What kind of stupid control is this? Ultimate control would be not letting women to vote. Not letting them have certain jobs. Not letting them be able to leave their homeworld and gain profit. Etc.
Did you ever stop to think that out of ALL the things that the evil government could regulate, its the one thing that lets you kill a life? Hhmm? Made that connection yet?
| PrankishSmart wrote: | | How can a fat 60 year old politician decide what he thinks is best for a 18 year old rapist victim. |
Um....I've already stated that I, and many other people that support a ban on abortions, support abortions for rape victims, incest, and when the women's life is in danger.
|
|
|
WeAz
Commodore
Joined: 03 Apr 2004
Posts: 1519
Location: Where you aren't
|
| Sun Feb 26, 2006 6:34 pm |
|
I personally don't consider it to be taking a life. If the abortion occurs when the fetus has no human form, and is just a growing ball of cells, then I believe it should be legal. An abortion under those circumstances is not the taking of life. You are simply destroying a ball of cells in the body.
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
