Supreme Court Backs Ban on Abortion Procedure

[HoBo30]

I didn't notice that this is where all of the discussion is going on, so I'm moving a post I made in another thread:

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...

[HoBo30]

Originally Posted by Loren 1of6

.

Emphasis added by me.

This is the part of the Constitution that guarantees the right to life. Our posterity will not be able to enjoy those blessings of liberty if we can just kill them willy-nilly.

Actually, the better argument is that the life of the unborn is protected by the rights conferred by the due process clause of the 14th amendment. The only hurdle is convincing the Court that the unborn are persons. The main holding from Roe that was upheld in Casey was that the issue of when life begins is too contentious for anybody to know, so the state's interest in protecting potential life does not trump the mother's fundamental right to control her procreation until the fetus is viable. It is the next big step...

[kangnamdragon]

Originally Posted by rlg94086

I agree with you. I just don't think he is the best choice of the available Republican candidates.

No, Brownback is clearly the best choice.

[rlg94086]

Originally Posted by kangnamdragon

No, Brownback is clearly the best choice.

Perhaps, but he isn't getting any traction at all...I'm not sure why. If he doesn't do something to turn it around, then I'm hoping Thompson or Romney overtake Giuliani and McCain in the primaries.

[spacecadet]

Originally Posted by Em_in_FL

This is GLORIOUS news!

Praise God

[mary bobo]

Originally Posted by HoBo30

Actually, the better argument is that the life of the unborn is protected by the rights conferred by the due process clause of the 14th amendment. The only hurdle is convincing the Court that the unborn are persons. The main holding from Roe that was upheld in Casey was that the issue of when life begins is too contentious for anybody to know, so the state's interest in protecting potential life does not trump the mother's fundamental right to control her procreation until the fetus is viable. It is the next big step...

Wish we could take some of these justices to an abortion clinic let them see the "products of conception" and then say they are not a person.

[mary bobo]

Originally Posted by HoBo30

I didn't notice that this is where all of the discussion is going on, so I'm moving a post I made in another thread:

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.

I don't think the case presented left itself open to overturning Roe v Wade much as we might wish it did.

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).

You are right about some of the new Dems, but they are not on the Judiciary Committee.

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...

[vern humphrey]

Originally Posted by mary bobo

Wish we could take some of these justices to an abortion clinic let them see the "products of conception" and then say they are not a person.

I'm trying to get an Arkansas State Senator I know to introduce a bill on 4-D sonograms. Studies show that about 70% of mothers who have decided upon abortion change their minds when shown a 4-D sonogram.

But I want a special twist to it -- make it an item of "informed consent." That would allow a woman who has second thoughts after an abortion to sue if she was not shown a 4-D sonogram of her baby before the procedure was performed.

In other words, sue abortion clinics out of existance.

[miguel]

Originally Posted by HoBo30

...The main holding from Roe that was upheld in Casey was that the issue of when life begins is too contentious for anybody to know...

The biology is clear...it's the point of conception...and it was well-established before Roe was decided. At least that's what they were telling me in 10th grade biology in 1973. If anything, the supposed contentiousness is an arguement for leaving state laws intact...giving human life the benefit of the doubt. Roe condemned and demolished the building before verifying it was unoccupied. It was a dishonest decision, biologically, morally, and Constitutionally.

[HoBo30]

Originally Posted by miguel

The biology is clear...it's the point of conception...and it was well-established before Roe was decided. At least that's what they were telling me in 10th grade biology in 1973. If anything, the supposed contentiousness is an arguement for leaving state laws intact...giving human life the benefit of the doubt. Roe condemned and demolished the building before verifying it was unoccupied. It was a dishonest decision, biologically, morally, and Constitutionally.

I'm not saying that the Court's logic in Roe is convincing, I'm just relaying it. The Court also had an opportunity in Casey to overturn Roe, but didn't, relying in part on a long discussion on the principle of stare decisis (a discussion that Scalia didn't buy).

Mary Bobo, this case was one in a line of cases that finds its roots in Roe, the Court could easily have said that they didn't need to discuss the constitutionality of the new law because Roe was wrongly decided. No Roe, no abortion. No abortion, no partial birth abortion ban. They had a very good opportunity to overturn Roe today.

[miguel]

Originally Posted by HoBo30

I'm not saying that the Court's logic in Roe is convincing, I'm just relaying it...

I realize that. I'm just venting.

Originally Posted by HoBo30

...The Court also had an opportunity in Casey to overturn Roe, but didn't, relying in part on a long discussion on the principle of stare decisis (a discussion that Scalia didn't buy).

Mary Bobo, this case was one in a line of cases that finds its roots in Roe, the Court could easily have said that they didn't need to discuss the constitutionality of the new law because Roe was wrongly decided. No Roe, no abortion. No abortion, no partial birth abortion ban. They had a very good opportunity to overturn Roe today.

Personally, I don't think the Court will reverse itself. Even if it does, what's to stop it from reversing itself again. We need to take the decision out of their hands...preferably by Constitutional Amendment...but more expeditiously by an act of Congress removing the Court's jurisdiction over these cases. Sadly, our best chance for this...a Republican president and Congress...was squandered with the decision to go into Iraq. The worst effect of it...for the babies...the one I feared most anyway...came to pass...division in Republican ranks and loss of Republican majorities in Congress...and with it the opportunity to reign in a Court that has done worse damage to America than 50 Iraqs.

[HoBo30]

Originally Posted by miguel

We need to take the decision out of their hands...preferably by Constitutional Amendment...but more expeditiously by an act of Congress removing the Court's jurisdiction over these cases.

You can't take these cases out of the Court's hands, the constitution grants them power over questions arising under the constitution. Jane Roe filed a claim stating that the Texas law banning abortion violated her 14th amendment due process rights. The Court agreed. Abortion in America is a constitutional issue, the only way you're going to solve it is by amendment or SC decision.

[otjm]

Originally Posted by mary bobo

And we know darn well that a Democrat appointed justice would never vote with the majority on this.

As a matter of fact, no, we do not know that. It has made for some very interesting history how being elected to the highest level of our Court system has impacted the thinking of various justices.

We know darn well that the Democrats would never knowingly appoint a justice who was obviously pro-life. Given how the cases actually get to the Court (that is, what the actual questions of law are), however, it is entirely possible that someone judged left-moderate, as opposed to left liberal, very well could vote with the majority.

[otjm]

Originally Posted by HoBo30

You can't take these cases out of the Court's hands, the constitution grants them power over questions arising under the constitution. Jane Roe filed a claim stating that the Texas law banning abortion violated her 14th amendment due process rights. The Court agreed. Abortion in America is a constitutional issue, the only way you're going to solve it is by amendment or SC decision.

Especially one that goes back and actually looks at the legal reasoning, or rather, the lack of legal reasoning, that permeated the two abortion cases.

[mary bobo]

Originally Posted by HoBo30

You can't take these cases out of the Court's hands, the constitution grants them power over questions arising under the constitution. Jane Roe filed a claim stating that the Texas law banning abortion violated her 14th amendment due process rights. The Court agreed. Abortion in America is a constitutional issue, the only way you're going to solve it is by amendment or SC decision.

But some very respected legal scholars have said that the decision in RvW was wrongly decided. It was based on a "right to privacy". I don't think you are going to find that in the Constitution. It was the gutless wonders in the Congress, many of whom were opposed to abortion, that caused this case to be brought because they did not to incur the rath of the radical feminists--votes you know.