Why the Ruling is so important

beckers · #1 Apr 19, '07, 8:11 am

Check this article out. very good.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070419/...tion_what_next

My favorite part is this

"We have a court now that has correctly yielded to the Congress and the legislative branch," said Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. "This will bolster state legislators who are reflecting the views of their constituents on abortion."

Rep. Steve Chabot (news, bio, voting record), R-Ohio, a leading sponsor of the ban, said the court's ruling could return abortion-rights questions to the states, where he said they belong.

"It forced many people to consider what actually occurs when an abortion is carried out," Chabot said. "It's not a reach for one to think that the child is just as much a human being earlier in the process, and that those other forms of abortion are pretty awful too."

Abortion rights champions expressed alarm at that prospect.

"The court has given anti-choice state lawmakers the green light to open the flood gates and launch additional attacks on safe, legal abortion, without any regard for women's health," said Nancy Keenan, the president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., and Rep. Jerrold Nadler (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., said they would reintroduce a measure to put a woman's right to have an abortion in federal law. Feinstein, however, acknowledged that abortion rights supporters do not have the votes to prevail in Congress.

"We've been losing fight after fight after fight," she said, adding that people have become complacent about protecting abortion rights because they have existed for more than a generation.

HOPEFUL we can use this as a turning point....A crack into the pro-death grip!!!!!

Ender · #2 Apr 19, '07, 8:31 am

While I applaud this decision it is too early to believe that the corner has been turned. It is important to note that Justice Kennedy wrote that a ban on this particular procedure does not impose a significant burden on the mother precisely because other procedures (and ones that are nearly as barbaric) are still available. Remember that Kennedy supported the majority in the Casey that reaffirmed Roe. The elusive fifth vote is still missing.

Ender

magician · #3 Apr 19, '07, 1:32 pm

I don't agree that this ruling is a triumph. In fact, I think most pro-lifers are fantasizing as to what the ruling really says.
Although the Court said that the procedure was not safer or medically necessary, it said nothing about the alternative - disarticulation of the fetus. In all cases, the abortion goes forward via disarticulation i.e. butchering the fetus in utero, then removing the parts.
Anyone who thinks this is progress is fooling themselves. The decision reaffirms the constitutional right to abortion simply because it ignores the fact that the fetus is always killed, regardless of method. It was the METHOD in question, not the act of killing the fetus.
Those who regard this is a great victory should step back and read the decision more carefully. You may change your mind.

Rosalinda · #4 Apr 19, '07, 2:25 pm

You're right Magician. Numerous methods are still available for killing the unborn. This Supreme Court decision upholds the ban on only one. Abortion doctors will have to change their technique. Dilation and Extraction by disarticulation, equally as barbaric as intact dilation and extraction commonly known as partial birth abortion, is still legal. Nonetheless, April 18, 2007 will remain a pivotal date for the pro-life movement.

Quote:

D&E and intact D&E are not the only second-trimester abortion methods. Doctors also may abort a fetus through medical induction. The doctor medicates the woman to induce labor, and contractions occur to deliver the fetus. Induction, which unlike D&E should occur in a hospital, can last as little as 6 hours but can take longer than 48. It accounts for about five percent of second-trimester abortions before 20 weeks of gestation and 15 percent of those after 20 weeks. Doctors turn to two other methods of second-trimester abortion, hysterotomy and hysterectomy, only in emergency situations because they carry increased risk of complications. In a hysterotomy, as in a cesarean section, the doctor removes the fetus by making an incision through the abdomen and uterine wall to gain access to the uterine cavity. A hysterectomy requires the removal of the entire uterus. These two procedures represent about .07% of second-trimester abortions. Nat. Abortion Federation, 330 F. Supp. 2d, at 467; Planned Parenthood, supra, at 962-963

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...0&invol=05-380

beckers · #5 Apr 19, '07, 2:50 pm

It's the fact that the states are now going to get the oppurinity to make their own decision without the automatic overturning from the federal. I realize it is a small step and by far not a huge victory but the door has opened just a little bit. If nothing else it is getting people who normal wouldn't be involved in abortion fight to understand and really start to focus their opinions. This gives us time to educate!!!! We've been in this fight for years and still have tons more to go but we are here for the long haul.

beckers · #6 Apr 19, '07, 2:54 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by magician

I don't agree that this ruling is a triumph. In fact, I think most pro-lifers are fantasizing as to what the ruling really says.
Although the Court said that the procedure was not safer or medically necessary, it said nothing about the alternative - disarticulation of the fetus. In all cases, the abortion goes forward via disarticulation i.e. butchering the fetus in utero, then removing the parts.
Anyone who thinks this is progress is fooling themselves. The decision reaffirms the constitutional right to abortion simply because it ignores the fact that the fetus is always killed, regardless of method. It was the METHOD in question, not the act of killing the fetus.
Those who regard this is a great victory should step back and read the decision more carefully. You may change your mind.

A better explantion then i can give.
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/...l?id=110009959

The gruesome nature of the procedure explains why the partial-birth ban passed Congress with large bipartisan majorities. Sixteen Senate Democrats, including former Majority Leader Tom Daschle, voted for the ban, along with 63 House Democrats. Polls show that two-thirds of Americans support banning these abortions.

Challengers, led by Planned Parenthood, claimed the law was unconstitutional because it lacked a "health exception" for the mother and defined the banned procedure too broadly. But the majority--which included President Bush's two appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito--rejected those arguments as failing to impose an "undue burden" on a woman's right to an abortion.

The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, by the way, provides an exemption for when the mother's life is endangered. Abortion proponents wanted a "health exception" as well, because in legal practice that has become a loophole allowing just about any abortion right up until actual birth. A doctor could consider such things as mental anxiety and even financial strain as justifying a "health exception."
As a practical matter, this ruling sends the abortion debate back to the states. Some may reintroduce their partial-birth bans to conform to the 2003 federal law. This is all to the good, since we think the best place to settle abortion disputes is in state legislatures, where a political consensus that better reflects public opinion can be struck

Gamera · #7 Apr 19, '07, 5:28 pm

Look, a victory is a victory. Not every battle decides the whole war. Few battles do. But winning a battle is better than losing it.

Just because the war continues, doesn't mean we can't celebrate this particular victory. If even one baby's life is spared by this decision, it's worth celebrating.

magician · #8 Apr 19, '07, 6:43 pm

And isn't that the point? Not a single baby's life will be spared by this decision. Dismemberment or "disarticulation" will be performed on every single fetus. Regardless of method, each and every one of those fetuses will be killed.
This decision is about methodology. It may soothe the mind of those who think it is a victory. But a victory it is not. This is the difference between the gas chamber and lethal injection. Perhaps lethal injection is more humane, but the outcome is the same.
I think it is very important to recognize that this "victory" is nothing more than a semantical argument. In the final analysis, the fetus is killed - and that is the sum total of the story.
In the initial arguments, Ruth Ginsberg was very straightforward in her analysis. She said this case is not about whether the fetus will survive. Death is certain. It's about how that death occurs. Although I am not in agreement with her dissenting opinion, she was absolutely correct in her assessment of the case. The case was about the methodology of death - nothing more.

BioCatholic · #9 Apr 20, '07, 4:27 am

I read an article where some Drs have said that the law seems to prohibit a Dr from INTENDING to do the procedure, and then performing it. They said there is a loophole that they could start another procedure, determine the woman's life is in danger, and then revert.

Additionally, they could just clamp the umbilical cord with an endoscope and wait 15 minutes, and then do a D&E, which technically wouldn't be a D&E because the fetus would already be dead.

States can jump on the bandwagon for D&E, but the court specifically said other procedures are legal and constitutional, so prohibiting anything else won't survive a Court challenge.