It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Supreme Court to Rule on 'Partial Birth' Abortion

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 06:30 PM
link   
Story



With two new relatively conservative Supreme Court nominees finally seated, the crisis which many have expected is upon us as the court prepares to hear and rule on an administration challenge to lower court decisions which overturned the 2003 law banning 'partial birth abortion' nationwide.
...
This decision is being seen as by both sides in the controversy as a first step towards overturning Roe vs. Wade and banning all abortion, but this perspective is unrealistic and basically scaremongering to stir up outrage among the constituencies of pro and anti abortion groups.


Bush Requested the SC hear the case



The Bush administration filed paperwork with the court earlier this week asking it to take the partial-birth abortion case. Three appeals courts have ruled the ban unconstitutional because it lacks a health exception -- even though the three-day long abortion procedure is never necessary to protect a woman's life or health.


It's still as vague as it was in 2003 and has no provision for the health and life of the mother. Why would it pass now? Oh, yeah, that's right. Alito!


[edit on 21-2-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]




posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 11:12 PM
link   
I definitely don't believe in late term abortions unless the mother's life is at risk. If that's the case it should be allowed.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   
I don't think I'll ever understand how the same people that refuse to go to war because of "all the innocent lives that would be lost", are the same folks that think murdering an unborn (or even partially born) baby is the right of any woman.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 05:34 PM
link   
I guess it's comparable to the paradox that the same people who want to force women to protect the life of every newborn 'baby' will turn around and totally support the death penalty, even though many innocent people get put to death.



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I guess it's comparable to the paradox that the same people who want to force women to protect the life of every newborn 'baby' will turn around and totally support the death penalty, even though many innocent people get put to death.


I see where you'd like to go with this but I disagree with your premise that, "many innocent people get put to death." For 12 people to listen to both criminal prosecution and defense arguments and decide unanimously that 1) this suspect is guilty of the charges and 2) the charges warrant death is not on the same as one person deciding the fate of another without regard to anyone except herself. No such thing as husbands rights, or any mans rights? If the abortee is a minor a doctor will still perform the murder without the legal guardians knowledge of the event at all. No judge, no jury. She is prosecutor and there is no defense.

You could try again though
I'm still trying to piece this together...



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Sorry, but I disagree that you know 'where I'd like to go' with this and I'm not 'trying' to do anything.


I am confused by people who claim every life is precious and therefore abortion should be illegal and yet they support the death penalty.

These people were found to be guilty and sentenced to death, then were exonerated:

Exonerations



In the 25 years from 1973 to 1998, there were an average of 2.96 Exonerations per year. In the five years since 1998, thru 2003, that average has risen to 7.60 Exonerations.


Possibility of innocent death



The death penalty is irrevocable. "In case of a mistake, the executed prisoner cannot be given another chance. Justice can miscarry. In the last hundred years there have been more that 75 documented cases of wrongful conviction of criminal homicide. The death sentence was carried out in eight of these cases" (Draper 47). Undoubtedly many other cases of mistaken conviction and execution occurred and remain undocumented. A prisoner discovered to be blameless can be freed; but neither release nor compensation is possible for a corpse.


I guess it depends on what one means by 'many'. One is too many for me. But you're certainly entitled to your opinion.



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 05:17 PM
link   



I am confused by people who claim every life is precious and therefore abortion should be illegal and yet they support the death penalty.

I never said every life is precious. In fact I certainly don't agree that a rapist/murderer is as precious a life as that of a baby. Do you think so? Do you think I think so?




In the 25 years from 1973 to 1998, there were an average of 2.96 Exonerations per year. In the five years since 1998, thru 2003, that average has risen to 7.60 Exonerations.


2-8 per year, eh? Out of how many executions? How many babies had a chance for exoneration?



I guess it depends on what one means by 'many'. One is too many for me.


Apparently not. How many abortions per year?


But you're certainly entitled to your opinion.


Thank you soooo much...



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Earlybird
I never said every life is precious.


I didn't say that you did.



Thank you soooo much...


You're welcome.



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Some people (like myself) don't support capital punishment because they don't believe the state should have the right to end anyone's life. It's too much power. I'm prochoice for the same reason...the government shouldn't be making these kinds of decisions. Any law that invades a person's privacy is unconstitutional, per the 4th amendment. And, what's more private than what you decide to do with your privates...nothing. Just that fact that someone can sit in judgment of a woman seeking a late term abortion--oh, only if your life is at risk--well who determines that; congress, the supreme court, or YOU? The whole thing is unconstitutional because her reason is none of our business and definitely shouldn't be up for debate in the public square. Fix a road or build more schools. Stop wasting our money on trying to fix our personal lives.

I don't believe the ban will stand...I'm prolly in denial. I prolly believe too much in the constitution even though our lovely president tried to explain that its only a piece of paper...I still don't get it, somehow its more to me.

edit: for clarity...I run-on a lot a lot of run-on's.

[edit on 16-4-2006 by Saphronia]



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   
This promises to be one of the more, umm shall we say, interesting threads of the moment. Should be interesting.

I, personally, find partial birth abortion to be a horrifying and ethically challenged procedure, and should be banned unless it is the only thing that will save the mother from death. I'm not a big fan of abortion on demand, either, but I also realize that as a male, I really don't have a dog in this fight. It is up to women and their doctor to make the right choice, which I think is life for the child. The enourmous potential that each newborn baby has is reason enough to view abortion as a tragedy to be avoided if at all possible.

I suppose what I am saying is, not as a method of birth control.



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 08:55 AM
link   
So who else is it OK to kill in the privacy of my own home? If I'm in my own bedroom should I be protected from any behavior at all from the gov't? How is protecting your privacy a more important role of gov't then protecting life?

I know, in the beginning of a pregnancy, a baby is just a lump of cells. During the early stages a baby human looks just like a baby pig or a baby salamander but it isn't. He/she is growing into something more important then that. She/he already exists.

There are exceptions to every rule. I agree that the life of the mother is the most important factor in a decision like this. Rape/incest and issues as horrendous as them are also important factors. However if it was rape/incest the mother prolly ( i like that) doesn't need to wait till the end of the pregnancy (when a baby has a face and fingers and toes) to abort.

I completely disagree that men don't have a dog in the fight. When a girl can take over your life through the courts because she has decided not to murder the baby, why shouldn't the sperm donor have the option to raise the child?



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 01:21 PM
link   

If I'm in my own bedroom should I be protected from any behavior at all from the gov't? How is protecting your privacy a more important role of gov't then protecting life?


Don't muddy the issue with real crime. Abortion--partial birth or otherwise--is a medical procedure not some crack deal gone bad in a dark alley.


There are exceptions to every rule. I agree that the life of the mother is the most important factor in a decision like this. Rape/incest and issues as horrendous as them are also important factors. However if it was rape/incest the mother prolly ( i like that) doesn't need to wait till the end of the pregnancy (when a baby has a face and fingers and toes) to abort.


Who decides when the mother's life becomes more important than this unborn child? The government? And, how do we determine if a person is a rape or incest victim? Do we make all women seek a court order--enter their deepest, darkest private moments into the public record for all to see so that they can have a USG approved abortion...do we then put a rubber stamp logo on every uterus in this nation..."this is the property of the USG"... enjoy! OOOOh...then men, when they meet a new woman can just get online and look up her uterohistory to find out all her "dirty lil secrets". "Yeah, baby I don't think it's gone work out...yo, your uterus aint government approved."

I'm just amusing myself, sorry.

At any rate, it is a woman's right to decide the risk to her life and health (mental or otherwise). The government has no business sticking their two cents into our private lives. Deciding that "life" is too important to be entrusted to mere citizens is a slippery slope. If a woman's womb is too precious for her to run around making "arbitary reproduction decisions" so is a man's sperm. Let's just turn the USG into a big matchmaking body. They can chose which sperm goes into which egg and we can have a sexless society...children can be grown instead of born. Oh, to end abortion all they have to do is criminalize sex.

Oh, that's dope. Somebody take notes.



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Regarding the lack of any provision for the health and life of the mother, I am confused about these two passages from the main article:


The Bush administration filed paperwork with the court earlier this week asking it to take the partial-birth abortion case. Three appeals courts have ruled the ban unconstitutional because it lacks a health exception -- even though the three-day long abortion procedure is never necessary to protect a woman's life or health.


and

Responding to the 2000 Supreme Court decision, Congress included a lengthy findings section, detailing the hearings it held on partial-birth abortions, in hopes it would persuade the nation's top court that a health exception is unnecessary.

The findings section cites an American Medical Association convened to study the issue of partial-birth abortions. The expert panel “could not find ‘any’ identified circumstance” where partial-birth abortion “was ‘the only appropriate alternative’” to preserve the health of the mother."



In fact, the article suggests reasons why the procedure could be harmful to the mother:

It also indicated partial-birth abortions may pose health risks for women. Such risks include cervical incompetence, trauma to the uterus, and lacerations or hemorrhaging.



And before we unfairly second-guess Alito's upcoming vote on this matter, we can reach some conclusions based on his remarks:

Pro-life Ohio Sen. Mike DeWine, a Republican, asked Alito what he thought about findings sections in general.

"In your opinion, what role should a judge play when reviewing congressional fact-finding," DeWine asked. "[H]ow can you assure us -- that you will show appropriate deference to the role of Congress?"

Alito indicated "the judiciary should have great respect for findings of fact that are made by Congress."


It's amazing how much information we can obtain by reading and listening when not working with pre-conceived notions.


Tea

posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Partial-birth abortion is a disgusting development. We're supposed to be civilized. This is proof we aren't.

I believe in pro-choice, but this is just too much. I hope the Court rules appropriately and bans it.




top topics



 
0

log in

join