Actually I believe that most moderate Republicans while pro choice are not necessarily pro partial birth abortion, or whatever you want to call it. There has always been that split, we moderate Republicans just haven't really had a viable candidate to support in quite a while due to the primary process and who controls it. The argument from the liberals as I understand it is this is the first step in overturning RvW, just as the NRA views any gun legislation as the first step in the nail in the coffin of the 2nd ammendment. More rational people I believe do not buy into this fear mongering and can think for themselves on these issues. I am proud to be one of these more rational people.

__________________

The universe grows smaller every day and the threat of aggression by any group anywhere can no longer be tolerated. There must be security for all or no one is secure... - Klaatu

Agreed. Most pro-choice people I know similarly get very hesitant and/or oppose that procedure. It is for late term foetus abortions, and a sizeable percentage of people who are pro-choice severely limit their approvals or totally oppose such abortions. This particualr procedure also plays a hypertechnical game with 'birth' with the argument being that a person is not technically 'born' unless the person is fully out of the birth canal. This is viewed as a cruel and frivolous distinction for something that just has all the obvious signs of infanticide.

__________________
James Hoban. Irish Architect. Member of the Royal Dublin Society. Hoban designed and built the White House and based it upon the top exterior and interior two floors of Leinster House, then known as Kildare House, which is now the current Irish Parliament building. He was also a supervisory architect of the US Capitol Building.

If it's about the late term aspect of partial birth abortions, then why don't they define "late term" and ban that?

This is my main issue with partial birth abortion. In the majority of cases in which the method is used, it is used on later term pregnancies. But THAT is the issue. If there is ONE instance in which a pregnant womans life can be saved by whatever method and this method is deemed by her doctor to be the best option for her, then we have a new argument don't we? Who has the greater right to life? As it is, a complete ban on any method of abortion which is safe for the mother, is hypocritical - they are all horrible.

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

My uncle is a retired obstetrician.

__________________
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

President George W. Bush, 8-5-2004

Carolina Politics Online

THIS IS REAL HOPE AND CHANGE!

By the way, I think my argument will be used with this decision as precedent, to undermine R v W.

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

Not every elected Republican is anti-abortion, and not every elected Democrat is pro-choice. In fact, recently more Democrats were elected with anti-abortion or moderate views on the subject, and the party generally has returning to "big-tent" on the subject. Also, I bet you that most pro-choice Democrats and Republicans in office will wipe their brows in relief that the SCOTUS lifted that off their necks. Now they can say they would appoint pro-choice SCOTUS candidates but to the extreme pro-choicers they can say that this issue was already resolved by the court and was only a particularity of great controversy and not the main point of debate.

This particular practice was an albatross that anti-abortion candidates used to hang on pro-choice candidates that many did not want. Pro-choice candidates are often stuck between a rock and a hard place trying to fend off anti-abortion opponents whilst getting pro-choice support that often comes from groups, like NARAL Pro-Choice America, that seem to go too far in the other direction as to what they think ought to be legal. IMO, a noticeable minority of the nation opposes abortion except for certain limited circumstances such as threatening the life of the mother. From there they get more pro-choice but only to certain limits. Some would oppose it except for threatening the life of the mother, but also allow it for rape or incest. Early detection of fetal deformity and other complications get mixed opinions. Others are pro-choice only in the first trimester of pregnancy. Few, IMO, go so far as late term abortions unless the mother's life is threatened. And insofar as this procedure, it almost makes no sense why the foetus just couldn't be removed by ceasarian section or induced birth, and it smacks of infanticide couched in cynical and cruel technicalities of when a person is deemed
'born' in order to get away with it legally. Most, IMO, won't oppose its illegality.

__________________
James Hoban. Irish Architect. Member of the Royal Dublin Society. Hoban designed and built the White House and based it upon the top exterior and interior two floors of Leinster House, then known as Kildare House, which is now the current Irish Parliament building. He was also a supervisory architect of the US Capitol Building.

There are some (on both sides) who view this as a first step to overturning RvW. There are many who opposed this law and dislike this opinion because for the first time since roe an antiabortion law with no "health of the mother" exception has been judged constitutional. The college of obgyns claims this procedure is sometimes the best choice for the health of the mother. Congress substituted their own judgement for the doctors and the supremes said that's OK.

__________________
The most important political office is that of private citizen.
Louis D. Brandeis - First Jewish Supreme Court Justice

Clearly your opinion was not the one held by congress or by 5 of the 9 Justices. Just because people disagree with you does not mean that they have devious hidden agendas.


But it DOESN'T have to do with the stage of pregnancy!!! You yourself said that this procedure can be done at different stages. The law clearly focuses on a specific procedure, not a specific stage of pregnancy.
That's neither an argument nor an opinion, it's merely an observation about the wording of the law.
And I think I have every right to consider this procedure particularly brutal. If only because the doctor must be looking directly at the fetus' head when he kills it. But that was never presented as the reason why this procedure was special and should be banned.


Again, I object to the notion that just because I (and the majority of the court) disagree with your views we must therefore be utterly illogical and have come secret agenda. I'm not sure how we can discuss this if you assume any disagreement it completely illogical and merely the result of a disguised ploy.

And (once again), I never made the case that the brutality of this procedure alone justified its being banned. Please stop refuting an argument I haven't attempted to make.

Don't eat your hat; it isn't healthy.
I consider staring at the exposed head of a fetus (which, at the stage this is normally done, looks quite like the head of an infant) and stabbing it with a sharp instrament to be more brutal than almost any form of earlier termination. But again, this was NEVER presented as an argument, only as observation. I'm sure I would make the same observation about a variety of procedures.
If the word "particularly" in "praticularly brutal" so seriously offends you that you cannot move past it, then please consider it retracted for the sake of the discussion.

Since this decision did not address all abortions, I purposefully chose to avoid that topic.
But lest my silence on that issue lead you to accuse me of conspiring, I will inform you as best I can of my broader opinions:
I don't support late-term abortions at all except when needed to save the life or health of the mothers; I find the idea that mere physical location (in or out of the womb) is the defining factor of personhood to be absurd.
I am more undecided about abortion at earlier stages.

I'd hoped the banning of this particular procedure provides something of a middle ground, as it is supported by some elements on both sides of the larger pro-choice/pro-life debate.

You are not required to. But I have yet to encounter evidence that makes me believe the overwhelming preponderance of testimony was against it.

If I recall the debate in congress correctly, it was determined that only the most rare and bizarre of circumstances could this procedure be medically necessary for the health of the mother. But such circumstances could (and possible have at some point) existed.
However, it has always been held that just because it is possible to concieve of some situation in which a law could somehow manage to violate a constitutional right, that does not justify striking the law down as unconstitutional.
It was acknowledged in congress that it is the duty of the courts to recognize the rare, unusal cases where a particular law does not apply correctly and to act accordingly.

For almost every law, some circumstance could occur in which following it would be the wrong thing to do. In such cases, the courts are always expected to recognize this and make allowance for it.

The Republican coalition depends on people with widely divergent agendas basing their voting for candidates on single issues and ignoring the rest of the platform.
You get pro-choice people who want tax cuts voting Republican, because they never thought that abortion was actually threatened, you get pro-life Christians people voting Republican, and ignoring the un-Christian treatment of the needy that tax cuts necessitate.
This energizes the womans movement, by putting a womans issue front and center in this election cycle. This also elevates the importance of the pro-choice issue, and let's face it, tax cuts are a non-starter, the money is gone.
On the negative side, this may energize the pro-life forces for the GOP, except that the front running GOP candidates are either pro-choice or were recently.

__________________
“The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine.”

Senator Thad Cochran, Mississippi (R)
on McCain

“I decided I didn’t want this guy anywhere near a trigger.”
Senator Pete Domenici, New Mexico (R)
on McCain

“My anger did not help my campaign ... People don’t like angry candidates very much.”

McCain on McCain

Unless this procedure is needed to save the life of the mother, it's incredibly evil and barbaric. Perhaps that is why your party's name is so closely resembles demonrat.

Kramer

__________________
“It's time to admit that public education operates like a planned economy, a bureaucratic system in which everybody's role is spelled out in advance and there are few incentives for innovation and productivity. It's no surprise that our school system doesn't improve; it more resembles the communist economy than our own market economy."
Albert Shanker, former president of the American Federation of Teachers

I still don't see it, and I think it will have 0 effect on R-v-W

This particular decision wasn't taken until now, was it?

Patience, Grasshopper.

As it should be.

Many states already do for the most part.

Although people often quote it because it is the seminal case, Roe v. Wade had actually been modified to some extent by subsequent cases such as Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The existing SCOTUS 'line drawn in the sand' for quite some time has been that states can ban abortion once the foetus develops to a state of viability (ability to live outside the womb on its own with assistance) except in cases where the life or health of the mother is at stake. 'Health' has been the sticking point, with the assumption and explanation that is must be a serious health problem rather than a petty one, and obviously both sides look to probe and push the huge grey areas in that exception.

This case involved a specific procedure, and one with unusual aspects. First, it involved late term abortions, an area where the state may generally prohibit them. Second, it involves the partial induced birth of the foetus. Based on medical experts they felt were credible, Congress has taken the position that the procedure is not necessary to save the life or serious health of the mother because full birth can be obtained as safely when looking at partial birth abortion.

They are allowed to make these assumptions and pass laws. When challenged in court, experts were put forth by both sides with each sides' experts saying the procedure was either necessary in some cases or not. But, in such cases, Congress' reliance on the doctors who find that it is not necessary is to be credited unless it is clearly shown to be frivolous, and that could not be done. Mere differences of opinion on the matter are not enough, and Congress gets the deference. The fact that anti-abortion Congresspeople may have credited testimony out of bias is not enough either. The examination is an objective one: is their claim that the procedure is not necessary a legitimate assumption based on medical evidence or is it entirely frivolous and pretextual for an improper purpose? Congress won this debate today that their allegations and reliance on their experts was not frivolous.

To me, this is not the kind of scheme that will lead to overturning SCOTUS protection for abortion procedures. More anti-Roe appointments or a change of opinion on Roe by a sitting Justice can only do that.

__________________
James Hoban. Irish Architect. Member of the Royal Dublin Society. Hoban designed and built the White House and based it upon the top exterior and interior two floors of Leinster House, then known as Kildare House, which is now the current Irish Parliament building. He was also a supervisory architect of the US Capitol Building.