YES! (Partial Birth Abortion Ban Upheld) [Akin]

Catholic Opinion · #1 Apr 18, '07, 7:50 am

GET THE STORY!
(CHT to the reader who e-mailed!)

Quote:

Court Backs Ban on Abortion Procedure

Apr 18 10:18 AM US/Eastern
By MARK SHERMAN
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court upheld the nationwide ban on a controversial abortion procedure Wednesday, handing abortion opponents the long- awaited victory they expected from a more conservative bench. The 5-4 ruling 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.

More...

TheApologist · #2 Apr 18, '07, 1:23 pm

Glory, Alleluia!!!!

Score 1 to all those Christian pro-lifer "knights"!

HoBo30 · #3 Apr 18, '07, 2:59 pm

While this is good news, it is also a signal that the pro-life forces have a long road to go. The Court could have easily decided to strike down Roe in their opinion, but minute I found out that Kennedy wrote the opinion of the court, I knew they hadn't. While Kennedy will support restrictions on abortion, he will not strike down the "core tennants" of Roe. He's much like O'Connor was.

My guess is that they had votes to over turn Roe in Thomas, Scalia, and Roberts. I don't know about Alito yet, I'd have to read the opinion.

This will be the last time the Court has an opportunity to strike down Roe for awhile. We will need another vote on the Court to do it. It will take either Breyer, Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter, or Kennedy leaving the Court during this administration to do it, and even then it would be hard seeing the Democratic majority in the Senate (though a lot of the new Democratic faces in the Senate that picked up seats this past time around ran as pro-life Democrats). In short, I don't think that will happen. And we'd better pray that a Democrat doesn't win the White House, because you'll never get a pro-life appointee. Also, Scalia and Thomas have been on the Court for almost 20 years, they could easily choose to leave during the next administration.

An immediate victory, but it could have been better...

Writer · #4 Apr 18, '07, 3:10 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheApologist

Glory, Alleluia!!!!

Score 1 to all those Christian pro-lifer "knights"!

Ditto from Oregon... What is strange is what little I've seen on the television news programs, so far, but perhaps it will be covered tonight in more detail. It's nice to have good news for once!

lsusportsfan · #5 Apr 18, '07, 4:10 pm

The opinion is interesting and I am going throught it now. Ginsburg basically derides the majority of Sexism in part of it

Also it should be noted that THomas hints very strongly if a Commerce Clasue objection to the ban has been brought he might have voted to declare it UnConst

Rosalinda · #6 Apr 18, '07, 4:17 pm

I could hardly believe my eyes when I first read this good news.

Father Frank Pavone has a press release announcing the good news. To quote a few lines only:

Quote:

The pro-abortion forces attempted to strike down the ban because it does not have a health exception. The Court, however, said that the ban’s opponents failed to demonstrate that the need for a health exception was extensive enough to render the law unconstitutional. The Court also rejected the arguments that the ban is too broad or too vague. The wording of the ban is clear enough for abortionists to know when they are and are not violating the law.

The decision in this case is refreshing to read, because it emphasizes that the state has a legitimate interest in the life of the unborn child throughout pregnancy. Nor is this the first time the Court has recognized this interest. The decision refers to the state’s right to “express profound respect for the life of the unborn,” and affirms “that the government has a legitimate, substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life."

http://priestsforlife.org/columns/co...restinlife.htm

BioCatholic · #7 Apr 18, '07, 5:36 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by lsusportsfan

The opinion is interesting and I am going throught it now. Ginsburg basically derides the majority of Sexism in part of it

Also it should be noted that THomas hints very strongly if a Commerce Clasue objection to the ban has been brought he might have voted to declare it UnConst

Thats what i have been saying. A US doctor can still actually refer a woman to a UK or Canadian Dr. to have the procedure done. the wording of the law says he may not PERFORM the procedure, but does not prohibit him from ASSISTING her find a place to have it done. The commerce clause can reach only so far. It cannot prevent persons from leaving the US to circumvent laws.

Child support, alimony, traveling abroad to have sex with minors, ect are all unconstitutional Federal laws because they reach beyond the scope of the commerce clause. Not many people wold challenge them, but a true strict constructionist court would strike them all down.

a true strict constructionist court would have said that this law can only be enforced with Drs performing the procedure literally across state lines. the clinic would have to be literally in 2 separate states. at most it could only be enforced if a Dr. paid for a ticket for a woman to come to his state to have one, when her own state forbid it.

**estesbob** · #8 Apr 18, '07, 6:54 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by HoBo30

While this is good news, it is also a signal that the pro-life forces have a long road to go. The Court could have easily decided to strike down Roe in their opinion, but minute I found out that Kennedy wrote the opinion of the court, I knew they hadn't. While Kennedy will support restrictions on abortion, he will not strike down the "core tennants" of Roe. He's much like O'Connor was.

...

In Both their wrtitten briefs and oral arguments the govt lawyers specifically stated they were not asking Roe to be reviewed, more or less overturned.We dont wnat to read to much into this decision but likewise we dont want to read to little into it. For the first time since Roe the Court has upheld the ban on an abortion. That is good news indeed.

Listener · #9 Apr 19, '07, 10:11 pm

I was happy that the Supreme Court upheld this law. I was simply getting so sick of laws being passed, and then a court comes along and declares the law invalid.

I'm sure the pro abortion people will scream to high heaven about this, but the decision doesn't prevent anyone from repealing this law if they could get enough votes. It simply lets Congress make the laws without Supreme Court Justices legislating from the bench. I think that this is what democracy is all about.

Listener · #10 Apr 19, '07, 10:12 pm

I was happy that the Supreme Court upheld this law. I was simply getting so sick of laws being passed, and then a court comes along and declares the law invalid.

I'm sure the pro abortion people will scream to high heaven about this, but the decision doesn't prevent anyone from repealing this law if they could get enough votes. It simply lets Congress make the laws without Supreme Court Justices legislating from the bench. I think that this is what democracy is all about.

Listener · #11 Apr 19, '07, 10:13 pm

I was happy that the Supreme Court upheld this law. I was simply getting so sick of laws being passed, and then a court comes along and declares the law invalid.

I'm sure the pro abortion people will scream to high heaven about this, but the decision doesn't prevent anyone from repealing this law if they could get enough votes. It simply lets Congress make the laws without Supreme Court Justices legislating from the bench. I think that this is what democracy is all about.

Listener · #12 Apr 20, '07, 3:02 pm

I would like to apologize for the triple post. The computer screen that normally comes back when I post simply was not coming back. Everything was just hanging. I thought I wasn't posting at all when I had really posted three times! I would be glad to delete two of these, but I don't think I have the authority to do that.

Riley259 · #13 Apr 24, '07, 7:00 am

A great ruling and hopefully a path to the eventual overturning of Roe v Wade.

Magster · #14 Apr 24, '07, 9:04 am

What is especially encouraging is that in the text of the opinion, the Justices writing for the majority do, at least once, refer to the fetus as the "unborn child." Also, not only is the procedure for intact dilation and extraction (partial birth) described in detail, and characterized as barbaric, but so are the methods for performing other, more common types of abortions, so as to allow the reader to see how awful they all are. Further, they also reference briefs in support of the ban submitted by non-parties, to substantiate the court's findings that many women suffer after the abortion. It is encouraging that the Justices did not try to hide anything. In contrast, the dissenters do not address the procedures or the suffering endured by many post-abortive women. Little suprise they are threatended by the truth!

Writer · #15 Apr 25, '07, 12:08 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magster

What is especially encouraging is that in the text of the opinion, the Justices writing for the majority do, at least once, refer to the fetus as the "unborn child." Also, not only is the procedure for intact dilation and extraction (partial birth) described in detail, and characterized as barbaric, but so are the methods for performing other, more common types of abortions, so as to allow the reader to see how awful they all are. Further, they also reference briefs in support of the ban submitted by non-parties, to substantiate the court's findings that many women suffer after the abortion. It is encouraging that the Justices did not try to hide anything. In contrast, the dissenters do not address the procedures or the suffering endured by many post-abortive women. Little suprise they are threatended by the truth!

It's hard to know what to do with good news, isn't it? Time to say a prayer of thanksgiving for this first good news in a long time...