| Author |
Message |
Jeff Miller
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 22 Nov 2001
Posts: 23947
Location: Mental Ward for the Mentaly Unstable 6th floor, Saint John's 1615 Delaware Longview Washington 98632
|
 Fri Aug 27, 2004 11:26 am Judge Revokes Partial-Birth Abortion Ban |
|
| Quote: |
Judge Revokes Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
By LARRY NEUMEISTER
Associated Press Writer
Judge Richard Casey sits for a portrait with his dog, Barney, in this April 8, 2004 file photo, in New York. In a highly anticipated ruling, Judge Casey found the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional Thursday because it does not include a health exception. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer, File)
NEW YORK (AP) -- A federal judge declared the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional because it does not contain an exception to protect a woman's health, something the Supreme Court said is required in laws prohibiting types of abortion.
U.S. District Judge Richard C. Casey issued his ruling Thursday - the second such ruling in three months - even as he called the procedure "gruesome, brutal, barbaric and uncivilized."
The law, signed last November, banned a procedure known to doctors as intact dilation and extraction and called partial-birth abortion by abortion foes. The fetus is partially removed from the womb, and the skull is punctured or crushed.
Louise Melling, director of the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project, said her group was thrilled by the ruling.
"We can only hope as we have decision after decision after decision striking these bans, saying they endanger women's health, that the legislatures will finally stop," she said.
On June 1, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton in San Francisco also found the law unconstitutional, saying it violates a woman's right to choose an abortion. A judge in Lincoln, Neb., has yet to rule. The three judges suspended the ban while they held the trials.
The three verdicts are almost certain to be appealed to the Supreme Court.
"We are in the process of the appeal of these issues now," Attorney General John Ashcroft said Thursday.
The government has already appealed the San Francisco ruling, said Monica Goodling, a Justice Department spokeswoman.
The ban, which President Clinton twice vetoed, was seen by abortion rights activists as a fundamental departure from the Supreme Court's 1973 precedent in Roe v. Wade. But the Bush administration has argued that the procedure is cruel and unnecessary and causes pain to the fetus.
At trials earlier this year, doctors testified that of 1.3 million abortions performed annually, the law would affect about 130,000, almost all in the second trimester. Some observers suggest the number would be much lower - 2,200 to 5,000.
In his ruling, Casey said that there is evidence that the procedure can have safety advantages for women. He said the Supreme Court had made it clear that "this gruesome procedure may be outlawed only if there exists a medical consensus that there is no circumstance in which any women could potentially benefit from it."
At another point, Casey wrote that testimony put before himself and Congress showed the outlawed abortion technique to be a "gruesome, brutal, barbaric and uncivilized medical procedure."
Casey, who was appointed to the bench by President Clinton in 1997, was considered by some observers to be the best legal hope for the law's supporters.
"We were on pins and needles on this one," said Gloria Feldt, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "The judge was very aggressive in his questioning and very transparent in his articulation of his personal views on the matter. Fortunately, he chose to uphold the law."
� 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. |
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Fri Aug 27, 2004 11:33 am |
|
How the hell isn't partial birth abortion murder? You can't use the argument that it's merely a "fetus", and is unborn. The baby is usually half way out, then they break it's back, and many other horrendous things. It's so damn sick.
Last edited by Theresa on Fri Aug 27, 2004 11:44 am; edited 1 time in total
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Jeff Miller
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 22 Nov 2001
Posts: 23947
Location: Mental Ward for the Mentaly Unstable 6th floor, Saint John's 1615 Delaware Longview Washington 98632
|
| Fri Aug 27, 2004 11:38 am |
|
Don't shoot me I'm just the poster of the topic  . I won't post my views on this because I'm not really informed about it. I just remember talking about abortions before and this seemed alittle important.
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Fri Aug 27, 2004 12:45 pm |
|
It's so disgusting that anyone would consider doing such a thing as this at all. As the judge said, it's barbaric.
-------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
|
|
|
Kyre
Commodore
Joined: 15 Mar 2002
Posts: 1263
|
| Fri Aug 27, 2004 5:04 pm |
|
Louise Melling sounds like a lovely woman, doesn't she?
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Aug 27, 2004 6:02 pm |
|
My goodness! This is horrible! The judge is a bast***! It IS MURDER! The baby is ALREADY POPPING out, for cripse' sake! It's horrible!
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Fri Aug 27, 2004 6:07 pm |
|
Ech . . . I agree that aborting a fetus should not be done. An undeveloped embryo, maybe. But never a fetus.
|
|
|
1/1
Rear Admiral
Joined: 12 Apr 2002
Posts: 3311
Location: La La Land
|
| Fri Aug 27, 2004 6:15 pm |
|
Aww, that is horrible. 
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Aug 27, 2004 6:17 pm |
|
| 1/1 wrote: | | Aww, that is horrible. |
For all my beliefs, it's EVIL.
And even an extremely Liberal person that I know is apposed to that kind of abortion, and she's "pro-choice."
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Fri Aug 27, 2004 11:06 pm |
|
| Jeff Miller wrote: | | Don't shoot me I'm just the poster of the topic . I won't post my views on this because I'm not really informed about it. I just remember talking about abortions before and this seemed alittle important. |
I was clearly responding to the article, as you hadn't said anything...
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Sat Aug 28, 2004 12:25 am |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | My goodness! This is horrible! The judge is a bast***! It IS MURDER! The baby is ALREADY POPPING out, for cripse' sake! It's horrible! |
How can you say he's a bastard for upholding what so far, is the law? I don't agree with this form of abortion, and neither does he. It's his job.
-------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
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Aug 28, 2004 12:29 am |
|
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | | My goodness! This is horrible! The judge is a bast***! It IS MURDER! The baby is ALREADY POPPING out, for cripse' sake! It's horrible! |
How can you say he's a bastard for upholding what so far, is the law? I don't agree with this form of abortion, and neither does he. It's his job. |
What! You don't understand--he's NOT upholding the law! He's ruling AGAINST it! The law is that Partial Birth Abortions are ILLIGAL! ILLIGAL! (I know I spelt that wrong, but whatever) But he DOES agree with it--he DOES!
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Aug 28, 2004 12:32 am |
|
| Quote: | | U.S. District Judge Richard C. Casey issued his ruling Thursday - the second such ruling in three months - even as he called the procedure "gruesome, brutal, barbaric and uncivilized." |
I know it says that, but he wouldn't rule in favor of it if he really didn't like it.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Sat Aug 28, 2004 12:40 am |
|
His ruling said that it was "unconstitutional". Which, appears to be true, according to the structure of the act in question.
And you could say that about anything couldn't you? "He says it but doesn't mean it", blah blah blah. There really isn't anything to prove that he doesn't, 
-------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
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Aug 28, 2004 3:43 pm |
|
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | His ruling said that it was "unconstitutional". Which, appears to be true, according to the structure of the act in question.
And you could say that about anything couldn't you? "He says it but doesn't mean it", blah blah blah. There really isn't anything to prove that he doesn't, |
It is NOT unconstitutional. Where in the Constitution does it say "You have the right to kill a baby when it's coming out of the woman's body?" It is NOT unconstitutional!
And YES I CAN say that because ANYONE who would rule against the ban HAS to truly support it.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Sat Aug 28, 2004 3:55 pm Re: Judge Revokes Partial-Birth Abortion Ban |
|
| Quote: | | NEW YORK (AP) -- A federal judge declared the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional because it does not contain an exception to protect a woman's health, something the Supreme Court said is required in laws prohibiting types of abortion. |
| Quote: | | In his ruling, Casey said that there is evidence that the procedure can have safety advantages for women. He said the Supreme Court had made it clear that "this gruesome procedure may be outlawed only if there exists a medical consensus that there is no circumstance in which any women could potentially benefit from it." |
That's what the act says, and it would appear that he's right. I don't see how it couldn't be safe for women. It's probably safer than other types of abortion. None of which I agree with.
It's his JOB to rule against things which appear to be unconstitutional, it doesn't have to be his opinion, for him to support it.
-------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
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Aug 28, 2004 4:04 pm Re: Judge Revokes Partial-Birth Abortion Ban |
|
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | Quote: | | NEW YORK (AP) -- A federal judge declared the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional because it does not contain an exception to protect a woman's health, something the Supreme Court said is required in laws prohibiting types of abortion. |
| Quote: | | In his ruling, Casey said that there is evidence that the procedure can have safety advantages for women. He said the Supreme Court had made it clear that "this gruesome procedure may be outlawed only if there exists a medical consensus that there is no circumstance in which any women could potentially benefit from it." |
It is NOT unconstitutional. It is evil and he is just saying that because he doesn't want it to not happen. And "exception to protect a woman's health" my butt! They could just as well abort the fetus sooner. In my opinion he is PRO-Partial Birth Abortion.
That's what the act says, and it would appear that he's right. I don't see how it couldn't be safe for women. It's probably safer than other types of abortion. None of which I agree with.
It's his JOB to rule against things which appear to be unconstitutional, it doesn't have to be his opinion, for him to support it. |
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Seven of Nine
Sammie's Mammy
Joined: 16 Jun 2001
Posts: 7871
Location: North East England
|
| Sat Aug 28, 2004 5:13 pm |
|
I disagree with this form of abortion, however, there does need to be a clause for health reasons. If the mother's life is at risk, and this form of abortion is the only option, then it should be allowed. However, for any other reason it shouldn't be carried out.
(I'm pro-choice, but only before 8 weeks- after that it's been proven that the baby has some sense of life.)
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Sat Aug 28, 2004 5:19 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | It is NOT unconstitutional. It is evil and he is just saying that because he doesn't want it to not happen. And "exception to protect a woman's health" my butt! They could just as well abort the fetus sooner. In my opinion he is PRO-Partial Birth Abortion. |
That's the only reason that it's been banned, is because they said that it was a "potential health risk to women." Can't you see that that isn't the truth, and therefore it's banned for a reason that doesn't even exist?
Your opinion? You don't have any facts to say otherwise. I'd be more inclined to believe what he says about himself, than you.
Last edited by IntrepidIsMe on Sat Aug 28, 2004 10:43 pm; edited 1 time in total
-------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
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Aug 28, 2004 6:09 pm |
|
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | [quote=Republican_Man"]It is NOT unconstitutional. It is evil and he is just saying that because he doesn't want it to not happen. And "exception to protect a woman's health" my butt! They could just as well abort the fetus sooner. In my opinion he is PRO-Partial Birth Abortion. |
That's the only reason that it's been banned, is because they said that it was a "potential health risk to women." Can't you see that that isn't the truth, and therefore it's banned for a reason that doesn't even exist?
Your opinion? You don't have any facts to say otherwise. I'd be more inclined to believe what he says about himself, than you.[/quote]
No, it was banned because it's MURDER. Health risk to woman? NO. That's "why it would happen."
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Delta Quad 2003
Section 31 Guardian
Joined: 29 Jun 2004
Posts: 3164
Location: Earth
|
| Sat Aug 28, 2004 9:09 pm |
|
I don't know about the rest of you, but I agree 1 billion% with RM. IT IS MURDER!!! How could anyone allow a FETUS to be killed as it is basically coming out. AHHHHHHH!!! I don't even want to start on this, I wont be able to stop.
-------signature-------
Caboose - I can't feel my face.
Church - Shut up caboose!
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Aug 28, 2004 9:11 pm |
|
| Delta Quad 2003 wrote: | | I don't know about the rest of you, but I agree 1 billion% with RM. IT IS MURDER!!! How could anyone allow a FETUS to be killed as it is basically coming out. AHHHHHHH!!! I don't even want to start on this, I wont be able to stop. |
Actually, it's technically NOT a fetus. It's a full-blown baby! When it comes out, it's not a fetus--it's a baby.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Delta Quad 2003
Section 31 Guardian
Joined: 29 Jun 2004
Posts: 3164
Location: Earth
|
| Sat Aug 28, 2004 9:14 pm |
|
I am sorry for being in such a.............MAD mood that I mistook the terms. Abortion, to me, is wrong in ALL terms. In the rare occasion that the woman is actually AT risk, I can understand, but most of the time they aren't! But as RM sad, taking a FULL BLOWN BABY, and KILLING it, how is that NOT murder. I may just be stupid, but someone PLEASE explain this to me.
-------signature-------
Caboose - I can't feel my face.
Church - Shut up caboose!
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Aug 28, 2004 9:15 pm |
|
| Delta Quad 2003 wrote: | | I am sorry for being in such a.............MAD mood that I mistook the terms. Abortion, to me, is wrong in ALL terms. In the rare occasion that the woman is actually AT risk, I can understand, but most of the time they aren't! But as RM sad, taking a FULL BLOWN BABY, and KILLING it, how is that NOT murder. I may just be stupid, but someone PLEASE explain this to me. |
It's alright, but I agree with you as well as your agreement with me ( ) 100%!
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Sat Aug 28, 2004 10:53 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | | It is NOT unconstitutional. It is evil and he is just saying that because he doesn't want it to not happen. And "exception to protect a woman's health" my butt! They could just as well abort the fetus sooner. In my opinion he is PRO-Partial Birth Abortion. |
That's the only reason that it's been banned, is because they said that it was a "potential health risk to women." Can't you see that that isn't the truth, and therefore it's banned for a reason that doesn't even exist?
Your opinion? You don't have any facts to say otherwise. I'd be more inclined to believe what he says about himself, than you. |
No, it was banned because it's MURDER. Health risk to woman? NO. That's "why it would happen." |
Please point out where in the act that it says that it's murder.
| Partial Birth Abortion Act Ban wrote: |
(2) Rather than being an abortion procedure that is embraced by the medical community, particularly among physicians who routinely perform other abortion procedures, partial-birth abortion remains a disfavored procedure that is not only unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother, but in fact poses serious risks to the long-term health of women and in some circumstances, their lives. As a result, at least 27 States banned the procedure as did the United States Congress which voted to ban the procedure during the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses. |
That was the reason it was banned, becasue it was a health risk to women. Since it's NOT a health risk to women (according to the judge), it's unconstitutional to keep the ban in place.
-------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
|
|
|
|
|
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
