View Full Forums : Supreme Court Begins Chipping Away Abortion Rights, Pandering to Religious Zealots


Tudamorf
04-18-2007, 03:17 PM
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/04/18/national/w070844D25.DTL<b>Court Backs Ban on Abortion Procedure</b>

(04-18) 10:39 PDT 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. Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia also were in the majority.

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.

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.

"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.Yep, today the Supreme Court essentially said some parasite's "soul" is more important than the health of the host. Frightening.

Aldarion_Shard
04-18-2007, 03:25 PM
As usual, your analysis is assbackwards. Note -- neither the concept nor the word "soul" was present in the actual story.

Abortion "rights" are as valid as the "right" to own slaves; and as society becomes progressively more enlightened and civilized, they will be similarly restricted.

And amoral species traitors like yourself will continue to view it as 'erosion' of 'rights'.

Tudamorf
04-18-2007, 03:33 PM
Note -- neither the concept nor the word "soul" was present in the actual story.They can't come out and actually say that, although it is their motivation. And yours.Abortion "rights" are as valid as the "right" to own slaves; and as society becomes progressively more enlightened and civilized, they will be similarly restricted.Actually, abortion had long been restricted when slavery was in full force (and we were less "enlightened"), and only began to be recognized as a right long after it had been abolished (and we were more "enlightened").And amoral species traitors like yourself will continue to view it as 'erosion' of 'rights'.Species traitors. What does that mean?

Anka
04-18-2007, 04:23 PM
What was the reason given by the court for the ruling? The article only quoted the dissenting opinion.

Tudamorf
04-18-2007, 05:54 PM
What was the reason given by the court for the ruling? The article only quoted the dissenting opinion.In essence: intact dilation and extraction is immoral, and there is disagreement as to whether it's better for the mother in some cases, so we'll err on the side of <strike>religious zealotry</strike> the former Republican Congress.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-380.pdf

Anka
04-18-2007, 07:14 PM
Seems like they decided it was ethically wrong to remove a living organism in that way. Certainly seems a bad sign for the pro-abortion lobby.

Shouldn't the courts be adjudicating on law and rights instead of gruesomeness though?

Tudamorf
04-19-2007, 01:04 AM
Seems like they decided it was ethically wrong to remove a living organism in that way.They're just trying to chip away at abortion rights, and with the Supreme Court now with a firm 5-4 conservative majority, they're more likely to succeed than when they last tried some years ago. Add to that an emotionally charged, unscientific label like "partial birth abortion" (implying that the fetus is somehow "born", or in a different state than with the standard procedure), and the religious zealots are good to go.

In reality, the intact dilation and extraction is not more amoral or gruesome than a standard dilation and extraction. I mean, we're talking about the difference between chopping up the fetus inside the uterus and then pulling out the chunks, versus pushing the whole thing intact through the birth canal, then chopping up the head and sucking out the tissue so it can pass.

It's just a stepping stone, for the next abortion ban, until the right is chipped away into oblivion.Shouldn't the courts be adjudicating on law and rights instead of gruesomeness though?The law in this area is pretty wishy-washy and subjective. The right to abortion is just a judicial creation that is based on the right of privacy, which is in and of itself a judicial creation, and the standard vaguely refers to an "undue burden." You can imagine how much they talk in circles, and how the interpretation depends on the makeup of the Court at the time.

MadroneDorf
04-19-2007, 01:12 AM
Personally I'm against Partial birth abortions (except to save the life of mother)

Unfortunately due to the way abortion is legal in the US, bans on partial birth abortions (even if they did include exemptions for mothers safety) is a way to work towards getting first trimester (first 10-12 weeks) banned. (Which I'm against)

I wish abortion was leglistative law not via some quirk in the constitution

Tudamorf
04-19-2007, 02:07 AM
Personally I'm against Partial birth abortions (except to save the life of mother)Why, because it sounds all gruesome and evil? "Partial birth abortion" is an emotionally charged label that the religious zealots put on the procedure, designed to get you to not like it and side with them, not a medical description.

Look past the religious zealot propaganda and at the actual procedures involved, and you'll see it's just a smoke screen.I wish abortion was leglistative law not via some quirk in the constitutionWhy do you wish that? Legislative law can easily change with the legislators' mood; constitutional law is more difficult to change.

Aidon
04-19-2007, 04:54 PM
What was the reason given by the court for the ruling? The article only quoted the dissenting opinion.

The ruling is not unreasonable.

They merely stated that the right to an abortion is not absolute and that the states can the ability to restrict specific procedures.

In this case the partial birth abortion...even in Roe v Wade the court alluded to the fact that a state may have the right to limit abortions in the 3rd trimester.

The primary issue is that the court didn't insist on an exception for the safety and well being of the mother..which, my understanding is, pretty much the only reason Drs do that proceedure any more as there are other better procedures.

MadroneDorf
04-19-2007, 05:06 PM
Ok "second and third trimester abortions" - anything past the first 12 weeks.

Why? because although the need for abortion is a reality, at some point, one needs to take responsibilties for ones actions. I put that point at 12 weeks.

As for why law? Because I don't want abortion (within the first trimester) to be based on an interpretation of the constitution ,that quite frankly to me, seems tenuous at best. Furthermore I think having it a law would give it much more legitamacy, and hopefully less focus on it as an issue. I dont want every person put on the surpreme court be based on the current presidents opinion on Roe Versus Wade.

Europe (as a whole) has it much better in terms to abortion laws - much more pragmatic, and done via leglistation. While undoubtedly, theres a lot less controversy because as a whole they are much more secular - in this instance I feel its a better model.

Aidon
04-19-2007, 05:13 PM
If it were based via legislation, noone would ever be allowed an abortion.

Tudamorf
04-19-2007, 05:23 PM
Why? because although the need for abortion is a reality, at some point, one needs to take responsibilties for ones actions. I put that point at 12 weeks.Maybe because many women who get second trimester abortions don't realize they're pregnant (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6560827.stm).Europe (as a whole) has it much better in terms to abortion laws - much more pragmatic, and done via leglistation.That's because they're not a bunch of religious zealots frothing at the mouth and thumping bibles. If it were solely up to legislators, abortion would be outlawed in America. That's why the Supreme Court had to step in, in the first place.

Tudamorf
04-19-2007, 05:26 PM
The ruling is not unreasonable.Yes it is. It puts the welfare of a parasite above that of the human host.The primary issue is that the court didn't insist on an exception for the safety and well being of the mother..which, my understanding is, pretty much the only reason Drs do that proceedure any more as there are other better procedures.That is <i>the</i> issue. Women don't have this procedure done just for fun, they do it instead of other procedures because it can be safer.

By outlawing the procedure, you make abortion more dangerous, which (the religious zealots hope), together with the fear of criminal penalties in ambiguous situations, will frighten women and doctors into not aborting.

Erianaiel
04-20-2007, 03:28 AM
Europe (as a whole) has it much better in terms to abortion laws - much more pragmatic, and done via leglistation. While undoubtedly, theres a lot less controversy because as a whole they are much more secular - in this instance I feel its a better model.

Sadly your idea that Europa as a whole has better abortion laws is somewhat optimistic.
Ireland still has pretty much outlawed abortion for pretty much any reason(making a short vacation to the UK for women both a necessity and a cause for knowing smirks directed at them).
Portugal only a few weeks ago voted for relaxing the most prohibitive law against abortion (it was illegal for any reason at all, including saving the woman's life), a change that was fought teeth and nails by the catholic church and conservatives in that country.
Poland tried to change the constitution to include an absolute ban on abortions (except in exceedingly rare circumstances, perhaps) with a provision to further tighten the restrictions by law. The proposal was defeated but regular laws since independence from Russia have restricted the right to abortion by quite a bit.
Even the Netherlands, with its new religious right (by our standards at least. In the USA it probably will still be considered so far to the extreme left that it does not even register on the political spectrum) government is quietly limiting access to abortion by mandating a five day delay and second opinion before a final decision can be made, instead of removing it from the law as health care professionals suggested (the requirement was no longer observed as experience had shown it had no effect and was needlessly burdening on women seeking an abortion)

This ruling of the supreme court of the USA is just another example of the reactionary swing that is affecting the world and that generally negatively impacts women's rights and freedoms. Too much change and uncertainty is making people long back to things they remember as 'safe', which apparently they interpret as the state of affairs some 50 or so years ago when the world was still comprehensible to them.


Eri

Aidon
04-20-2007, 04:51 AM
Yes it is. It puts the welfare of a parasite above that of the human host.That is <i>the</i> issue. Women don't have this procedure done just for fun, they do it instead of other procedures because it can be safer.

The law is narrowly drafted. It is not, strictly, unconstitutional nor does it counter the ruling of the court in Roe v Wade.

Unfortunately for the People, there is no constitutional duty of the Government to ensure its laws promote the best safety and welfare of the people.

I don't agree with the ruling, but the ruling is not unreasonable.

The law is...but there are many unreasonable laws which are still constitutional. I think its unreasonable that I can't go up to a dirty cop and beat him mercilessly with his own night stick.

By outlawing the procedure, you make abortion more dangerous, which (the religious zealots hope), together with the fear of criminal penalties in ambiguous situations, will frighten women and doctors into not aborting.

I agree...and now that we have a Democratic majority in Congress, perhaps a bill repealing that law can be passed.

Tudamorf
04-20-2007, 03:28 PM
I agree...and now that we have a Democratic majority in Congress, perhaps a bill repealing that law can be passed.Passing a bad law is a hell of a lot easier than repealing it.

Aidon
04-20-2007, 03:54 PM
Passing a bad law is a hell of a lot easier than repealing it.

I agree with this, as well. However, the will always be piss poor bad laws which, even so, are still constitutional. That is where the electorate must come into play.

If the Dems are smart, they'll put forth a bill during 2007 or early 2008 which amends the partial birth abortion law to permit exceptions for the safety and health of the mother..and then let the Republicans try to tell America why this type of abortion is so heinous we should let mothers risk death instead.

Tudamorf
04-20-2007, 06:53 PM
I agree with this, as well. However, the will always be piss poor bad laws which, even so, are still constitutional. That is where the electorate must come into play.I don't like putting myself into Congress's hands. They are even more political than the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court already ruled in Casey v. Planned Parenthood (which actually replaced Roe v. Wade) that you can't place an "undue burden" on a woman seeking to abort a pre-viability fetus.

Forcing a woman to go through a more dangerous medical procedure is a "undue burden." It is unconstitutional.

Aidon
04-23-2007, 10:45 AM
Then there was no need for the law to have stipulated any special protection for the health and safety of the mother, as its already protected by the Supreme Court...

Tudamorf
04-23-2007, 03:11 PM
Then there was no need for the law to have stipulated any special protection for the health and safety of the mother, as its already protected by the Supreme Court...Did you read the decision I linked? They said it was not an undue burden even though it might force the woman to undergo a more dangerous procedure. Just as Casey greatly narrowed the rights assured in Roe, this decision is greatly narrowing the rights assured in Casey, and soon we'll have nothing.

The loss of O'Connor has had a big impact. Whereas before, the Court had a conservative tilt but still had O'Connor for a reality check, today the Court has a firm 5-4 ultra-conservative majority. And these ultra-conservatives are the younger ones.

Aidon
04-24-2007, 09:36 AM
Nothing you can do about it.

This didn't greatly narrow anything.

It allowed a law which banned a procedure used roughly 2000 times a year, out of over a million abortions a year, which is easily subsituted by other procedures.

Tudamorf
04-24-2007, 03:22 PM
which is easily subsituted by other procedures.More dangerous procedures. The Supreme Court set a dangerous precedent that abortion restriction is OK so long as there is some other alternative out there, regardless of the risk.

Aidon
04-25-2007, 07:54 AM
More dangerous procedures. The Supreme Court set a dangerous precedent that abortion restriction is OK so long as there is some other alternative out there, regardless of the risk.

Part of the deliberations, I suspect, somewhere during the long process through the federal courts dealt with the relative risks between procedures.

The precedent is that Roe v Wade does not (nor was it ever truly intended to, if you read the decision) grant blanket protection to all forms of abortion and that the Government is within its power to regulate specific procedures. The Supreme Court does not rule on the relative risks between medical procedures. That is not its purpose, nor is it necessarily competant to do so. Reasonable differences in opinion exist within the medical community and the Supreme Court's purpose is not to adjudicate which opinion is correct. It decision merely states that neither the Constitution, nor previous Court decisions, limits the Government from estabilishing narrowly contrived restrictions on specific procedures which, by and large, do not restrict a woman's ability to obtain and have an abortion.

The Court's ruling was reasonable...

I do not agree with the law. I feel that, at the very least, it should have wording granting an exception for the health and well-being of the woman, however the Constitution does not require the Government include any such stipulation in its laws. The law is a bad law, but it violates no precedent, nor does it fail to meet constitutional muster. It should be changed, but that change must come via legislation.