PBA Ban Overturned

[Guest MikeSC]

A judge has ruled that the PBA ban is illegal since it does not take into account the health of the mother.

 

So, can anybody actually name a medical problem that PBA is necessary? Hell, my very much pro-choice mother --- and somebody who has taught nurses in universities for roughly 30 years --- has said that there is NO medical need, whatsoever, for Partial Birth Abortions (we discussed it a few weeks back)

 

So, can anybody explain what this judge was thinking?

-=Mike

[2GOLD 0]

I'm not entirely sure, although I do know saying PBA made me think there was a ban on the Professional Bowling Association at first. Which would have been even more odd.

 

Where was this judge at? Sometimes that can tell me alot about what kind of smart individual was on the bench to make this decision.

[Guest MikeSC]

I'm not entirely sure, although I do know saying PBA made me think there was a ban on the Professional Bowling Association at first. Which would have been even more odd.

 

Where was this judge at? Sometimes that can tell me alot about what kind of smart individual was on the bench to make this decision.

Here's the story:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A federal judge on Thursday ruled against the government's ban on so-called partial birth abortions, saying the measure signed into law last year by President Bush was unconstitutional.

 

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Richard Casey of Manhattan followed a similar decision by a San Francisco judge in June that barred the U.S. Justice Department from enforcing the ban.

 

A Justice Department spokesman had no immediate comment on the New York ruling. Earlier this month, the department said it would appeal the San Francisco court ruling.

 

Casey said a Supreme Court ruling held that the only way "this gruesome procedure" may be outlawed is if there was a "medical consensus" there was no circumstance in which any woman could benefit from it.

 

"While Congress and lower courts may disagree with the Supreme Court's constitutional decision, that does not free them from their constitutional duty to obey the Supreme Court's rulings," Casey said.

 

Abortion providers, who sued to overturn the law, argued its language was so vague and broad it applied to a range of abortions performed as early as 13 weeks into a pregnancy.

 

They said the ban was also unconstitutional because it lacked an exception that would allow the procedure to protect a woman's health.

 

Proponents of the ban said it applied only to one kind of late-term procedure involving the destruction of a "living fetus" that is at least partially outside the mother's body. The government maintains the procedure is not only medically unnecessary but an "inhumane procedure that causes pain to the fetus."

http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/52041...31|reuters.html

 

I hope this explains the story a bit.

-=Mike

[2GOLD 0]

I guess they are overturning it because it's poorly worded ban because I cannot figure out any other reason.

 

I'm a pro-choice person sorta and I had no problem with this one. But I guess the vague wording is what killed it most of all.

 

Course, an agreement between a judge in Manhattan and San Fran doesn't shock me one bit.

 

Nice cities, crazy people.

[Guest MikeSC]

I guess they are overturning it because it's poorly worded ban because I cannot figure out any other reason.

 

I'm a pro-choice person sorta and I had no problem with this one. But I guess the vague wording is what killed it most of all.

 

Course, an agreement between a judge in Manhattan and San Fran doesn't shock me one bit.

 

Nice cities, crazy people.

Thing is, PBA really has no medical benefit.

 

The people who oppose this need to ask this one question: What medical condition can be helped by bringing out all but the head of a baby before killing it?

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I don't approve of PBAs, but I don't approve of bans, either.

 

Ambivalence is my middle name here.

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

Agreed.

 

Would conditions such as preeclampsyia (I know I botched the spelling there) or a fetus that attached to low in the canal count? I know that some of these conditions can kill the mother...

 

But at any rate, I'm still middle of the road here. I can't really go for either side, because I'm skeptical of both of them.

 

--Ryan

[Guest MikeSC]

I don't approve of PBAs, but I don't approve of bans, either.

 

Ambivalence is my middle name here.

Thing is --- by any account, it is infanticide. Nobody can argue that the child is not quite alive at that point. It unquestionably feels pain.

 

The procedure is truly barbaric.

 

Do I support banning abortion? Nope. As I've said many times, I don't want to change the law. I want to change America's HEART. I want abortion "Safe, legal" --- and absolutely unwanted.

 

But certain things need to go away, just due to the sheer barbarism of it.

-=Mike

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

Mike, changing America's heart? Who's to say that that, perhaps, is what America wants?

 

There's a difference between changing policy and changing values/ethics.

 

--Ryan

[Guest MikeSC]

Mike, changing America's heart? Who's to say that that, perhaps, is what America wants?

 

There's a difference between changing policy and changing values/ethics.

 

--Ryan

The pro-choice numbers have been falling for years.

 

I want to change the heart. I want America to view abortion as evil.

 

It's called a campaign. I'm hardly mean or uncivil about it. I wouldn't sit outside a clinic pestering people. I wouldn't hold up pictures of aborted fetuses.

 

However, I have no problem calling it murder.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Thing is --- by any account, it is infanticide. Nobody can argue that the child is not quite alive at that point. It unquestionably feels pain.

 

The procedure is truly barbaric.

I agree with that. I wish the medical community would do more to stop the practice on their own, not support PBAs.

 

Bans, on the other hand, I'm not sure. My main issue with abortion laws have been, suprisingly, not the religious angle that it seems I'm always focused on, but a distaste of the idea of men deciding through law what a woman can choose to have done on her body.

 

I wish, for instance, doctors would just refuse to do the proceedure except maybe for the most extreme circumstances (i.e. life of the mother is at stake.)

[Guest MikeSC]

Thing is --- by any account, it is infanticide. Nobody can argue that the child is not quite alive at that point. It unquestionably feels pain.

 

The procedure is truly barbaric.

I agree with that. I wish the medical community would do more to stop the practice on their own, not support PBAs.

 

Bans, on the other hand, I'm not sure. My main issue with abortion laws have been, suprisingly, not the religious angle that it seems I'm always focused on, but a distaste of the idea of men deciding through law what a woman can choose to have done on her body.

 

I wish, for instance, doctors would just refuse to do the proceedure except maybe for the most extreme circumstances (i.e. life of the mother is at stake.)

Doctors are afraid of lawsuits or just bad press.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

I'm not a doctor so it is hard for me to make a decisive statement on a procedure like PBA.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Wow. The partial-birth abortion ban got overturned by a left-wing red diaper doper baby pinko judge. Color me surprised.

 

Next thing you know you'll tell me John Kerry served in Vietnam, or wherever his "secret mission" was...