NYT,pg1: In New Court, Roe May Stand, So Foes Look to Limit Its Scope

[DeepModem Mom]

In New Court, Roe May Stand, So Foes Look to Limit Its Scope
By ROBIN TONER and ADAM LIPTAK
Published: July 10, 2005


WASHINGTON, July 9 - In 2003, abortion opponents took a calculated gamble and pushed through the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, a federal law very similar to a state law ruled unconstitutional just three years before. Critics asserted they were defying the court and doomed to fail in any legal challenge.

Strategists for the anti-abortion movement were betting that the Supreme Court would soon be different: more conservative, and more open to an array of new abortion restrictions. With the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, part of the court's majority for abortion rights, that gamble may soon begin to pay off.

The basic right to abortion, declared in Roe v. Wade in 1973, will survive regardless of who replaces Justice O'Connor, given that the current majority for Roe is 6 to 3, many experts agree. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist was one of the two original dissenters from the Roe decision; if he retires, as has been widely speculated, President Bush would presumably replace him with a similar conservative, so that would not change the balance on Roe.

But a number of cases that are likely to reach the court in the next few years, including the latest versions of the ban on the procedure that critics call partial-birth abortion, may give a new set of justices the opportunity to restrict abortion in significant ways.

In short, even without overturning Roe, the new court could seriously limit the decision's reach and change the way abortions are regulated around the country, experts say. This means that Mr.Bush's nominees will be intensely scrutinized, by all sides, on their records, past rulings and general philosophy on abortion....


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/10/politics/politicsspecial1/10abort.html?ei=5094&en=2639283084ef56fc&hp=&ex=1121054400&partner=homepage&pagewanted=all

[Spazito]

1. Yep, it is called 'incrementally killing' bit by bit...

They can't defeat the law itself so they will 'neuter' it by negating the key parts.

[DanCa]

2. Is anyone else sick of the word abortion?

I was just wondering if I am alone in in this. The repukes should just change the symbol of the elephant into an embryo and be done with it.

[DELUSIONAL]

3. Change that to reproductive choice

and we know that the right wing nuts aren't just going after abortion -- they want to control women -- and they want to roll back the clock to the time when birth control -- reproductive choice -- did not exist.

First they want to eliminate sex education -- and with that biology classes (the reproductive part of biology).

They want to alter schools in order to return the US to the dark ages.

They blame colleges for all the "wrongs" -- sex education -- women who want to control their own lives -- and women who don't want to be sexually molested. Call the Gropenator (California's Governor) a male chauvinist pig because he is a known groper/molester of women and they get angry -- "you learned all that stuff in college" -- in fact say anything about reproductive choice and the wing nuts reply "you learned all that bad stuff in college" -- damned liberal college teachers.

So they want to close down the colleges -- or rather remake all colleges in the US into some sort of evangelical model.

This is global -- they want absolute control -- and they want to control what we THINK.

Outspoken, opinionated women scare the hell out of these creeps -- one even told me that most women belong in jail (I took that to mean -- all the opinionated outspoken women in the US).

[Erika]

4. They need those babies born in bad circumstances to serve them

in low-paying jobs with maximum profits to the stock holders. Another form of religion backed and imposed slavery.

[lovuian]

5. Religious Right you have been sold out How does it feel!!!

Republicans will never get rid of abortion its the only issue that gets them in office!!!