Supreme Court May Hear Abortion Case

[Judi Lynn]

Supreme Court May Hear Abortion Case

Monday, September 26, 2005

(09-26) 09:34 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --

The Bush administration has asked the Supreme Court to reinstate a ban on a procedure that critics call "partial birth" abortions, setting up a showdown that could be decided by the president's new choice for the court.

The appeal, which had been expected, follows a two-year, cross-country legal fight over the law.

An appeals court in St. Louis said this summer that the ban is unconstitutional because it makes no exception for the health of the woman.

The Supreme Court has already scheduled arguments in another abortion case, involving New Hampshire's parental notification statute. That case also asks whether the law is unconstitutional because it lacks an exception allowing a minor to have an abortion to protect her health in the event of a medical emergency.
(snip/...)

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/09/26/national/w093427D95.DTL

[merwin]

1. Why doesn't the MSM call it what it is, Intact dilation and extraction

instead of what the Anti-Choice group calls it.

[annabanana]

2. because "MSM"

isn't...

[bunkerbuster1]

3. Because that'd remind people that the alternative to IDX

is hacking a fetus to bits inside the woman and then taking it out piece by piece.

And then they'd have to wonder why IDXs weren't always performed, instead.

[bunkerbuster1]

4. Oh, and there's that other reason

because our democratic "leadership" mostly sucks elephant ass, and hasn't owned this issue like they should because they're all a-skairt of Fundie assholes who'll call them "baby killers."

Well, fuck that. Show some damn backbone and stand up for our rights, or move aside and let someone govern who will.

[HockeyMom]

21. Thank you

The exact same procedure can still be done INSIDE the woman, which is what makes it a danger to her life. Somebody also needs to inform the public that both of these procedures can also be done as early as 13 weeks. They make it seem as though it is only on 8 month fetuses that this is done, i.e,, the total misnomer of "partial BIRTH" abortion to make it seem these are FULL TERM fetuses.

[nibbana]

20. Because of their LIBERAL Bias?

[0rganism]

5. Well surprise, surprise

Anyone care to place a bet on which way our new Falwell-approved Chief Justice-to-be will have to say on the subject?

[Nickster]

11. Hmmmm, I think he just may turn out to be against abortion /sarcasm

[Dark]

6. Let them ban partial birth abortions.

That's what kills us at the polls. Most Americans don't have a problem with abortions up to the third month. But because the fetus has the 'appearance' of a child, Americans begin to cross over to the pro life side.

Let the Repulicans win this battle so the Dems can start winning the war.

[LizW]

7. I don't think so.

I believe that most people don't want the government making decisions for them about which medical procedures they may or may not have.

Most people believe in a right to privacy, and that the right to privacy extends to decisions about fertility and reproductive choice.

The Bush administration is asking for the authority to dictate that a woman must bear a child even if her health will be ruined by the pregnancy and birth, and even if that child will die moments after the birth.

It's sick.

[badger1080]

9. Sick, maybe, but it's decided.

I believe that most people don't want the government making decisions for them about which medical procedures they may or may not have.
Well that battle was lost a while ago. Now it's just a question of particular procedures.

[Dark]

14. Most people believe in a right to privacy?

Maybe when Americans were saner. But now, we have the Patriot Act, the Porn Police, Homeland Security knocking on pacifists doors, and other vile encroachments on liberty.

And these will continue as long as the Rebushlicans are in power.

You want privacy? Then we have to give up a few issues now to get into a position where we can take back our government.

It's a sacrifice, and a regretable one at that. But you can't seriously believe that retaking America will be a painless prance through the park?

Until they are voted out of power, America will be neither private nor protected.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[prolesunited]

8. And other medical procedures

would you like the court to ban?

And, if a few women needlessly die or suffer in the process, I'm sure that the price *you* are willing to pay to keep Dem numbers up in the polls.

Do you realize how few of these procedures are done? Do you think you can walk into any abortion clinic and terminate a pregancy in the 8th or 9th month?

Do you think after going through a pregnacy for nine months, a woman just wakes up one morning and decides to abort her fetus?

[Dark]

15. How many Iraqis and Americans have died needlessly because

of people who would vote for us except we support abortion?

Also, you yourself mention that partial birth abortion is rare, and it is. It won't be stop abortions, but it will weaken the Republican hold on America's wedge issues.

[Voltaire99]

53. LOL! The inaccuracy of that claim...

...is measured by the preponderance of Democratic votes for the war and its continuation. Even your own party doesn't believe the claim you're making!

Apples and oranges, my friend. Abortion is abortion; war is war. And elected Democrats, to their shame, are behind this war. They're every bit as much to blame for it as Bush and the GOP.

As for the abortion quid pro quo: you may dream of picking up some more NASCAR or Jesus-r-us votes for your party. Abortion rights, however, are far more important than the fortunes of any politician.

If you're feeling so generous, go pander away some liberty of your own!

[CTyankee]

55. While I agree with you, we have to understand

that the so=called pba legislation is written so broadly that prochoicers fear it will lead to a ban on all abortions. I truly believe that is the reason for the legislation: write it so that a RW leaning court can "see" pba in every abortion procedure. Just get the right court lined up and you got it.

[redqueen]

12. IDX is a medical procedure and only used at the discretion of a doctor.

You're saying we should voluntarily assist the GOP in dumbing down the entire country for short-term political gain.

[Dark]

16. No, we give them short-term political gain for a long term political gain

n/t

[Dark]

17. Dupe

n/t

[0rganism]

13. I don't think there's a whole lot of "let" available to us anymore

Like it or not, the SCOTUS is going to be getting very very specific about that "compelling interest" clause in the RvW decision within about 10 months. Bush is obligated to provide a certain type of justice in order to maintain the GOP's unquestioning theofascist base. All we can do at this point is watch and see.

[Dark]

18. Right. Dems need to let this happen and then examine their options.

Activist Judges subverting the will of the majority?

Republicans trying to get in between you and your doctor?

Turn their own weapon against them.

[CTyankee]

56. But this isn't just about turning elections in the future

The SCOTUS we get from Bush right now will affect the law for a long time to come. The RW knows this and they are sitting pretty right now.

[Occulus]

23. My understanding of these abortions is

they are NEVER, never ever ever, elective. My understanding is that they are only performed if the life of either the mother or the fetus (which would logically extend to the life of the mother) is directly in danger from the pregnancy itself. And really, that's the only time such an abotion should occur. I think most of us would agree, given the extent of the pregnancy.

Come ON, rightwingers: if the doctor believes the mother will likely die if she gives birth, regardless of the viability of the fetus, something has to be done. If the fetus is healthy, maybe it's possible that it can be removed safely and brought to full birth health....

but what if that's not possible? What if removing the child will kill it, but giving birth will kill the mother? What if the baby has some horrible deformity- such as ">this one- that makes it impossible for it to live at all?

As terribly repugnant as this procedure is, it is necessary in some cases in order to preserve life. On a natural scale, this is a risk that did not return a reward: conception and gestation, followed by nonviability.

Why must the mother carry around a thing inside her which will not be a human being?

These procedures, again, as I understand the topic, are not elective. Ever. But in cases where such a procedure is lamentably necessary- the extreme few, I might add- it is necessary.

Why don't they understand this?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

60. Your picture link doesn't work.

Try this (I was foolish enough to go see it. Now you all must suffer. :scared:)

[fleabert]

51. no no no no no no no no no no...please no.

give them an inch and they will take every right I have. no.

the only people who can possibly be against this, knowing the truth about the procedure, are ones who have never been in a place to need one. One of my best friends had to make this decision to save her own life, and it was heartbreaking. but the fundamentalist rightwing wants to outlaw for ANY reason. And create the 'definition' of a child to begin at conception. Every scripting of this law that has been tossed around in the states and at the federal level has done these two things.

we cannot allow ourselves to think they will stop with this.

no no no no no no no no no no not ever.

[readmoreoften]

58. 'partial birth' abortion doesn't have to do with trimester

it has to do with technique of the operation. So, instead you would pose a risk to the lives of mothers, who might die giving birth to an encephalitic infant. Or maybe cause them to have fistulas for the rest of their lives that are so severe that they are in constant pain and can no longer control their ability to urinate...ever.

Read up on the debate, don't just swallow their soundbites.

[Book Lover]

67. Better to be killed by a law while on the table at a hospital?

Those single-issue voters you are talking about will never, ever, vote for us; not because we support legal abortion, but because we are Democrats. Why are you trying to lure a cat with a piece of fruit?

[Ratty]

10. Vindication for the dems who opposed Roberts

Roberts seems like such a likeable, reasonable, mainstream kind of guy that in the short term I'm sure there are many people disgusted with the supposed "obstructionist" tactics of the few democratic senators who voted to oppose him. It's going to become clear, more and more over time, just what those democrats were fighting for, and this upcoming decision will be the harbinger of much worse things to come.

[Occulus]

22. Right on time. n/t

[Twist_U_Up]

24. President Bush Pushing Abortion Ban

WASHINGTON (Sept. 26) - The Bush administration is asking the Supreme Court to reinstate a national ban on a type of late-term abortion, a case that could thrust the president's first court picks into an early tie-breaking role on a divisive and emotional issue.

The appeal follows a two-year, cross-country legal fight over the law and highlights the power that Bush's nominees will have. Just a few months ago, there would have been five votes to strike down the law, which bars what critics call partial birth abortion.

The outcome is now uncertain, with moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor retiring and her replacement still unnamed.

"This no longer puts the abortion issue in the abstract with the Supreme Court. This is as live a controversy as you can get," Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the conservative American Center for Law and Justice, said Monday.

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050926130709990008

[skooooo]

25. Why is he doing this *now*?

To get his base stirred up?

[xultar]

26. Ding! Ding! Ding! You win the Cupie Doll!

[VegasWolf]

28. To try and get his numbers up. Pathetic! His base actually falls for this

shit.

:crazy:

[madeline_con]

31. Which is just damned scary!

UN F-ing believable!!!

[54anickel]

47. Yep, whenever they're in trouble they pull a wedge issue outta their ass.

[Gloria]

27. I have a question: if the fetus is more important that a woman, why

then what are women guaranteed in the Constitution? Does life, liberty and the pursuit of freedom apply to us??

[jobycom]

30. Nothing, actually

The Constitution was written to apply to men, and there is no equal rights amendment. Sorry. You have rights by the grace of the men who run this nation, doncha know?

[buff2]

34. Their logic is so phucked up.

Save the kid,let the mother die,ship the kid to a foster home where it will be abused,starved caged like an animal then die a cruel death after years of torture. This is what is happening in a hell of a lot of cases,you can read it almost on a daily basis. These ignorant asswipes want to save the baby in the womb,but after it's born they forget about it. Just look at their policies. They don't believe in health care,clean water,clean environment,funding education,and they want to strip EVERY DAMN PROGRAM THERE IS that most people depend on to help raise their kids.Yes,they care about life,don't they? I swear,I can't express my contempt enough for those rightwing radical neo-con fascist nazis. :argh:

[obxhead]

29. FUGWB.

[Gloria]

32. I have a question: If am a Reform Jew and believe life starts at

the moment of birth, doesn't all this restricting of abortion decisions impinge on my freedom of religion???? Isn't that protected in the Constitution??

[Voltaire99]

54. Which only illustrates the danger of theocracy.

Where does it stop? Maybe after quashing abortions, you'll find some new irritant to your sensibilities. In such a way did the Taliban operate--by holy edict.

Tough luck: your freedom of religion is your freedom to believe and worship, not to impinge on my liberties.

[hallc]

57. Agreed

Very true - Im an atheist and really dont care - if i want an abortion, i should be able to get one, because i have no "religious" belief against abortion.

[CTyankee]

69. I think the religious issue was raised

in the court case leading up to Roe but the court never agreed with it.

I certainly see the merits but then I'm an old liberal.

[halsaxby]

33. Don't worry...

The RNC knows better than to go for the whole enchilada. If they are smart, they will never ban abortion. It is too powerful a motivator in places like Kansas.

[Zynx]

35. They'll chip at it, but never get rid of it.

They need it.

[0007]

48. ....ain't that the truth.

Roe v. Wade is safe.

[mac56]

37. Welcome, halsaxby.

I agree with you, though not necessarily about Kansas. There are people in every state who will get riled up about this. It's red meat for the true believers. If the RNC gets rid of it, there goes their primary wedge issue and fund raising mechanism.

[high density]

36. How many "partial birth" abortions are done every year?

In addition, how many of these procedures are elective in nature? It seems to me like a lot of political BS is going on over nothing (which is nothing new, of course.)

[BiggJawn]

40. Oh, I think one or two...

And I don't think EITHER of them are done because of "Oh! I changed my mind! I don't wanna hava baby!"

Pandering to his base, baby, Pandering to his Base.....

[fortyfeetunder]

38. Oh, just in time for Roberts appointment!

This is only getting the SCOTUS year all fired up, with Roberts at the helm.

And we may find out what Roberts is really all about since he didn't choose to reveal too much during his confirmation hearing....

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

39. My thought exactly fortyfeetunder

[brentspeak]

41. Diversionary tactic

To take the focus off Bush's plummeting ratings, as well as other things.

[skooooo]

45. Rove hasn't figured out that his shit isn't working anymore...

So let them go ahead...it just makes everything clearer to the majority.

[NVMojo]

42. can we outlaw bush? I'm so tired of his crap ...

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

43. ...or his stupidity!

[sipnsail]

44. 2 questions

Does * believe his own bullshit?
And more importantly does he think we believe it?

Did I mention how much I hate this guy!

[Rainscents]

46. Yes he believe it... Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[ClintonFor08]

49. Abortion is dilemma

I personally have low opinion of abortionists and those who under go abortion for convenience. Lets face it, it is an end to a premature human life. We all were fetus before we were born.

That being said, the fetus is still part of the woman. So, just like she has the right to destroy any part of her body(by smoking, taking alcohol, etc), she has right to kill the fetus.

[fleabert]

52. flamebait. nt

[MissB]

59. Welcome to DU!

Enjoy your stay.

You are woefully misinformed on the subject of abortion.

Is every sperm as sacred to you as well?

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bridget Burke]

62. You are misinformed.

Of course, if you oppose killing anything, you also oppose capital punishment. And you are a total pacifist!

[Scout]

63. better to just dehumanize the pregnant woman into an incubator n/t

[MissB]

66. A fetus is not sacred, unless the parent believes it.

I was not comparing a fetus to a sperm. :rofl: That you think that only shows me that you seriously have some misconceptions about pregnancy and childbirth.

Carrying a fetus to term is not guaranteed. Unfortunately, women miscarry fetuses at all stages of pregnancy every day. Allowing society to elevate a woman's fetus to some sacred position is downright creepy.

Your belief that a woman should not destroy a fetus is just that - your belief. If that is part of your belief system- great, if you get pregnant, carry the fetus to term and enjoy your new baby. But don't presume to force your belief system on the rest of society. That is creepy as well.

The "every sperm is sacred" is a mantra of a sect of our society. It *is* creepy.

You are talking about potential life- not viable life. A fetus is a potential life- but until that potential life can exist outside of the woman's body, then you are intruding on her life and trying to dictate what she can and cannot do with her body. Unfortunately, not every fetus survives the pregnancy. Elevating it to some sacred status is wrong on so many levels.

Bottom line: If you don't like abortion, don't have one. Don't try to dictate what women can and can't do with their bodies. They aren't incubators.

[ModerateDem05]

68. Agree (I think)

I'm not sure if you are saying a woman has an unfettered right to abortion up until the fetus is viable (I agree) or if a woman has an unfettered right to an abortion at any point up until birth (in which case I disagree). Roe v. Wade stood for the proposition that that state may prohibit abortion once the fetus is "viable." The problem with the current "partial-birth abortion" ban is that it doesn't allow for an exception when the mother's health is in danger. That makes the law unconstitutional. If it made this exception the courts would uphold it.

I wouldn't argue that women are incubators but at some point I believe (and this is obviously my point of view) the state has a valid interest in preserving the health of the unborn child.

[MissB]

70. I think we're on the same page.

On all points. :)

I agree with Roe v. Wade. I'm well aware that the date of viability may be moved back as science moves forward. As long as there is an exception for the health/life of the mother, then I'm okay with the idea of the viabiltiy date being moved backwards. In fact, if they anti-choicers were smart, they'd be leading the way in scientific studies of viability.

I personally would never choose abortion, but I'll always be pro-choice. :D

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[ModerateDem05]

71. Thanks!

[Baconfoot]

50. CanWe.Stop.Pretending."Partial Birth Abortion" is a MEDICAL TERM?!

How many times do we have to go over this people.
It's an ambiguous term. Not just another name for D&X.
This is six of one a half dozen of the other.
There is no procedure KNOWN or KNOWABLE as "partial birth abortion." The term doesn't refer to any particular procedure.

What do partial birth abortion and "the character who killed Batman's parents in a movie" have in common? They are both ambiguous!

What don't they have in common? Well for any particular Batman movie in which an origin story appears SOMEONE is the person who killed Batman's parents so we can pick that character out using the term.
Not so in the case of "partial birth abortion."
There is nothing even "so-called" about partial birth abortion because were there something which was so-called partial birth abortion then the term would succeed in picking out something in PARTICULAR. But there is no such something to be so-called.

[MountainLaurel]

64. Great post, Baconfoot!

:applause:

[librechik]

65. Gee, how will they get the sheep to the polls if they settle abortion?

this may happen, but it will merely delay things through the next two elections. They need abortion to be legal so they can turn their little puppets against us.