Supreme Court Bans Partial Birth Abortion

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8...;show_article=1

 

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court's conservative majority handed anti-abortion forces a major victory Wednesday in a decision that bans a controversial abortion procedure and set the stage for further restrictions.

 

For the first time since the court established a woman's right to an abortion in 1973, the justices upheld a nationwide ban on a specific abortion method, labeled partial-birth abortion by its opponents.

 

The 5-4 decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

 

The law is constitutional despite not containing an exception that would allow the procedure if needed to preserve a woman's health, Kennedy said. "The law need not give abortion doctors unfettered choice in the course of their medical practice," he wrote in the majority opinion.

 

Doctors who violate the law face up to two years in federal prison.

 

Kennedy's opinion, joined by Bush's two appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, was a long-awaited resounding win that abortion opponents expected from the more conservative bench.

 

The administration defended the law as drawing a bright line between abortion and infanticide.

 

Reacting to the ruling, Bush said that it affirms the progress his administration has made to defend the "sanctity of life."

 

"I am pleased that the Supreme Court has upheld a law that prohibits the abhorrent procedure of partial birth abortion," he said. "Today's decision affirms that the Constitution does not stand in the way of the people's representatives enacting laws reflecting the compassion and humanity of America."

 

Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia also were in the majority.

 

It was the first time the court banned a specific procedure in a case over how—not whether—to perform an abortion.

 

Abortion rights groups as well as the leading association of obstetricians and gynecologists have said the procedure sometimes is the safest for a woman. They also said that such a ruling could threaten most abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy, although Kennedy said alternate, more widely used procedures remain legal.

 

The outcome is likely to spur efforts at the state level to place more restrictions on abortions.

 

"I applaud the Court for its ruling today, and my hope is that it sets the stage for further progress in the fight to ensure our nation's laws respect the sanctity of unborn human life," said Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, Republican leader in the House of Representatives.

 

Said Eve Gartner of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America: "This ruling flies in the face of 30 years of Supreme Court precedent and the best interest of women's health and safety. ... This ruling tells women that politicians, not doctors, will make their health care decisions for them." She had argued that point before the justices.

 

More than 1 million abortions are performed in the United States each year, according to recent statistics. Nearly 90 percent of those occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and are not affected by Wednesday's ruling. The Guttmacher Institute says 2,200 dilation and extraction procedures—the medical term most often used by doctors—were performed in 2000, the latest figures available.

 

Six federal courts have said the law that was in focus Wednesday is an impermissible restriction on a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

 

The law bans a method of ending a pregnancy, rather than limiting when an abortion can be performed.

 

"Today's decision is alarming," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in dissent. She said the ruling "refuses to take ... seriously" previous Supreme Court decisions on abortion.

 

Ginsburg said the latest decision "tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists."

 

Ginsburg said that for the first time since the court established a woman's right to an abortion in 1973, "the court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman's health."

 

She was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.

 

The procedure at issue involves partially removing the fetus intact from a woman's uterus, then crushing or cutting its skull to complete the abortion.

 

Abortion opponents say the law will not reduce the number of abortions performed because an alternate method—dismembering the fetus in the uterus—is available and, indeed, much more common.

 

In 2000, the court with key differences in its membership struck down a state ban on partial-birth abortions. Writing for a 5-4 majority at that time, Justice Breyer said the law imposed an undue burden on a woman's right to make an abortion decision in part because it lacked a health exception.

 

The Republican-controlled Congress responded in 2003 by passing a federal law that asserted the procedure is gruesome, inhumane and never medically necessary to preserve a woman's health. That statement was designed to overcome the health exception to restrictions that the court has demanded in abortion cases.

 

But federal judges in California, Nebraska and New York said the law was unconstitutional, and three appellate courts agreed. The Supreme Court accepted appeals from California and Nebraska, setting up Wednesday's ruling.

 

Kennedy's dissent in 2000 was so strong that few court watchers expected him to take a different view of the current case.

 

Kennedy acknowledged continuing disagreement about the procedure within the medical community. In the past, courts have cited that uncertainty as a reason to allow the disputed procedure.

 

"The medical uncertainty over whether the Act's prohibition creates significant health risks provides a sufficient basis to conclude ... that the Act does not impose an undue burden," Kennedy said Wednesday.

 

While the court upheld the law against a broad attack on its constitutionality, Kennedy said the court could entertain a challenge in which a doctor found it necessary to perform the banned procedure on a patient suffering certain medical complications.

 

The law allows the procedure to be performed when a woman's life is in jeopardy.

 

The cases are Gonzales v. Carhart, 05-380, and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood, 05-1382.

 

It'll be really interesting how this affects the 2008 presidential election. The majority of Americans favored a ban on partial birth abortion but did not favor a ban on all abortions so the political fallout might not be as big for Democrats as expected. Nevertheless, this was a pretty interesting decision when I woke up this morning because I thought Anthony Kennedy might vote with the more liberal members on the bench.

[World's Worst Man 0]

"The law is constitutional despite not containing an exception that would allow the procedure if needed to preserve a woman's health"

 

Classy.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

No doctor is going to deny taking the life of the fetus to preserve a woman's life. That whole argument is irrelevant.

[ANKLELOCK 0]

Good news

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

No doctor is going to deny taking the life of the fetus to preserve a woman's life. That whole argument is irrelevant.

 

They'll be breaking the law if they do.

[2GOLD 0]

No doctor is going to deny taking the life of the fetus to preserve a woman's life. That whole argument is irrelevant.

 

They'll be breaking the law if they do.

 

Funny how that fact seems to be getting lost in all of this. That reason right there is EXACTLY the reason I was against this stupid law. Even if it means both will die, it doesn't matter. I mean what the hell is that crazed mess? This is the problem with every abortion law, it's got to be all or nothing. If that exception was in there and it could be proven the woman would die and the doctor had no choice, it's not giving abortion doctors any ground to perform partial birth abortions since it would STILL have guidelines and damn punishment if they didn't follow the law.

 

I'm fine with the partial if the exception is there, but it's not. This law is a waiting disaster of women dying because doctors couldn't remove the child when giving no other options since they would go to prison if they do.

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

Well I think the reason they refused to put the exception in there were claims that if a health expection was included it wouldn't be very well defined. I remember during debates pro-choice advocates were saying that the health exception was a large umbrella for physical, mental, and psychological health which prompted conservative House/Senate members to pass this bill without a health exception which is pretty risky if you ask me but I think that was their motivation behind it.

[Perfxion 0]

The law doesn't have a HEALTH exception, but rather a LIFE exception. So if it is like House last week, its perfectly legal to preform. But if its "I got a headache and I have depression", then it becomes illegal. So the end result is a person has 21(over three months) weeks to decide to keep or abort without a REAL medical problem.

[ANKLELOCK 0]

The life or even health of a woman is very, very rarely at risk during partial birth abortions particularly.

[snuffbox 0]

Good. Can we have masturbation regulated now, please?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Yesterday’s Gonzales v. Carhart ruling contains a provision protecting the life of the mother, but not her health. According to Doe v. Bolton, the little-known case decided on the same day as Roe, women’s "health" must be protected under any abortion ban after fetal viability. "Health" was defined as "all factors -- physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age -- relevant to the well-being of the patient." The Supreme Court eviscerated that precedent yesterday.

 

Dilation and Extraction -- re-dubbed "partial-birth abortion" by anti-choicers -- does not equal "late term abortion." It is a procedure by which the fetus is removed intact from the womb instead of in pieces. Why would a doctor and patient choose this procedure? For many women ending a second- or third-trimester desired pregnancy because of a birth defect -- some of which may prohibit a baby from ever living outside of the womb -- holding their fetus is a way to grieve and bring closure to their pregnancies.

 

Another benefit of Dilation and Extraction is that it decreases the likelihood of bleeding and pain inside the woman’s uterus and vagina. This is important to many women who plan on having children in the future.

 

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/11/0080278

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

So the end result is a person has 21(over three months) weeks to decide to keep or abort...

 

This is actually not true.

 

I'd assumed [the Partial Birth Abortion Act] banned late-term abortions, an assumption that seemed backed by the arguments over maternal health. I was wrong. It actually bans intact Dilation and Extraction, a procedure conducted as early as the 13th week, depending on the condition of the fetus and the particular circumstances of the mother. So what the legislation actually does is outlaw a type of abortive procedure, not a timeframe or circumstance...It has nothing, however, to do with the viability of the fetus or the timing of the procedure.

 

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2007/04/post_3474.html#016302

[EricMM 0]

LOL god bless lawmakers becoming doctors....

 

(sigh)

[Dr. Zaius 0]

Good. Can we have masturbation regulated now, please?

You mean it isn't????

[Guest Richard McBeef]

Well, come on, Dr. Zaius, you were really distracting that family trying to enjoy some Chili's baby back ribs.

 

EDIT: Oof. Unintentional Rondo post there.

[NoCalMike 0]

I'm not a doctor, but I play one on the Supreme Court!!!

 

(pukes)

[Special K 0]

They weren't making law, they were upholding an existing law, right? If so, if you don't like it, start with Congress.

[theintensifier 0]

No doctor is going to deny taking the life of the fetus to preserve a woman's life. That whole argument is irrelevant.

 

They'll be breaking the law if they do.

And getting sued and losing patients if they don't. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

[Special K 0]

Getting sued?And doctors probably lose patients for not handing out pain meds like candy, but the vast majority still follow the letter of the law.

[TheBigSwigg 0]

The argument made by the prosecution before the Court against adding a "women's health" clause to the bill is that the Partial Birth procedure requires extra dilation of the cervix, and therefore requires more time than the standard abortion. If the woman's health is indeed at risk, it would then theoretically be more dangerous to do the "Partial Birth" procedure than the standard abortion

[Guest Richard McBeef]

Does anyone here really care in their heart of hearts about partial birth abortion enough to curse the Supreme Court and type that they're vomiting?

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Close. This outlaws type, not a timeframe, and frankly I don't care what you do to cells that have been growing in a womb for 4 months regardless of how you do it. More importantly than any personal feelings I have about abortion, this reads like shitty law designed largely to open the door for full abortion restrictions, and I think Ginsberg's dissent is very on point.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Does anyone here really care in their heart of hearts about partial birth abortion enough to curse the Supreme Court and type that they're vomiting?

 

No. But have any of you actually seen an abortion, whether partial birth or otherwise? It's fucking disgusting. I wonder how pro-choice some people would be if they actually saw how it works.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Hey, I3K likes Morrissey. I bet your favorite song is Bengali in Platforms. Am I right?

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Nope, it's definitely the song that my sig references, cliche as it might be.

 

I would've figured you'd reference Suffer Litle Children or something like that.

[Guest Richard McBeef]

I don't like Morrissey now.

[EricMM 0]

No. But have any of you actually seen an abortion, whether partial birth or otherwise? It's fucking disgusting. I wonder how pro-choice some people would be if they actually saw how it works.

The same could be said for many many things, the meat industry for one.

[Guest Tzar Lysergic]

I doubt abortions are as tasty as steak.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

You've obviously never had a peanut butter & fetus sandwich.

[Guest Tzar Lysergic]

I haven't!