Us judge strikes arkansas' 12-week abortion ban


#1

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) – A federal judge Friday struck down Arkansas’ attempt to ban most abortions beginning 12 weeks into a woman’s pregnancy, saying viability, not a heartbeat, remains the key factor in determining whether abortions should be allowed.

U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright last year had stopped enforcement of the law while she reviewed it, and on Friday she declared that it was unconstitutional. She cited previous court decisions that said abortions shouldn’t be restricted until after a fetus reaches viability, which is typically at 22 to 24 weeks.

“The state presents no evidence that a fetus can live outside the mother’s womb at twelve weeks,” the judge wrote.

hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ABORTION_BAN_ARKANSAS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT


#2

As I read somewhere, viability is a function of medical technology and technology is ever changing and is that is why some babies considered viable today were not considered viable 20 years ago and in in the future I suspect babies born will be considered viable that are not considered viable today. Viability is unrelated to personhood, life and humanity of babies which does not change whether a baby is viable outside the womb or not. As of 2014, babies have been born before the viability set by Roe v Wade, and survived.

Department of Perinatology and Gynecology at the University School of Medical Sciences in Poland says

… Viability exists as a function of biomedical and technological capacities, which are different in different parts of the world. As a consequence, there is, at the present time, no worldwide, uniform gestational age that defines viability. Viability is not an intrinsic property of the fetus because viability should be understood in terms of both biological and technological factors.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11753511


#3

Why should whether a 12 week old or even a 1 day old baby not being able to survive outside the womb be a factor as to why abortion should not be banned?

As I read somewhere, viability is a function of medical technology and technology is ever changing and is that is why some babies considered viable today were not considered viable 20 years ago. Viability is unrelated to personhood, life and humanity of babies which does not change whether a baby is viable outside the womb or not. As of 2014, babies have been born before the viability set by Roe v Wade, and survived.

Department of Perinatology and Gynecology at the University School of Medical Sciences in Poland says

… Viability exists as a function of biomedical and technological capacities, which are different in different parts of the world. As a consequence, there is, at the present time, no worldwide, uniform gestational age that defines viability. Viability is not an intrinsic property of the fetus because viability should be understood in terms of both biological and technological factors.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11753511


#4

Someone said to me that viability is a word made up by population control people.

There was not such reference to viability before abortion.

Our language has been affected by these things. This female judge is promoting her own agenda. I know others will say she is following the law but what happened to state rights.

Will this go to the Supreme Court, I wonder.


#5

What does her being a woman have to do with anything? Do you have a problem with women who work in law? How do you know she’s pushing her own agenda? The fact of the matter is, the SCOTUS has set several legal precedents already regarding abortion, and as a federal judge, she does have to respect that when issuing decisions. When men rule in favor of abortion rights, is it just poor decision making, or is a reflection of their gender as well?

As for state’s rights, the SCOTUS has ruled that women have an individual liberty that states can’t tread on. It’s much like how states can’t ban guns and claim “state’s rights”, because doing so would be an unconstitutional infringement on personal rights.


#6

Exactly! As you mentioned even a full term infant is only able to survive outside the womb,by the efforts of it’s mother’s care and that of those who are responsible for said infant.


#7

I just see that many people of authority get there, with/or because of an agenda.

The gay judge who decided on prop. 8 in California should have been taken off the case.

You are right, though, I don’t know this judge and whether she is pro abortion or not.

I would say the same about men. The NY judge, who ruled twice that emergency contraception should be over the counter for all ages, had an agenda.


#8

Why? Would a man hearing a case that could benefit men be forced to step down? Should we not allow catholic judges to rule on the HHS mandate? Should black people be barred from hearing cases related to affirmative action? What about a Latin American immigrant hearing immigration cases? Or is it just gays who can’t be trusted to rule fairly?

This is why we have the law, legal justifications, and higher courts.

I don’t mind that we have different opinions, and I’m not debating abortion. It just makes me very sad to hear someone’s work be reduced to “Well yeah, but she’s a woman/gay/black/whatever”.


#9

Would you have said that the sex of the judge makes no difference if a male judge would have ruled it the other way?


#10

Yes, of course. Men and women rule all over the place on these issues, I don’t believe that it comes down to gender either way. Same with race/religion/sexual orientation. Did you not read what I wrote? (Now, I might think that he failed to do his job by disregarding binding precedent, but that has nothing to do with gender.)

I am really passionate about law, and I really believe that if we start assuming that people will not be objective because of who they are, we will end up more more biased courts, not less. Think about the HHS mandate. What if we decided no catholics, or members of any group that’s against it can sit on the bench? Well, it might clear up a possible Catholic bias, but there’s no way to screen for someone who really despises religion. If we don’t allow people of color to hear immigration or affirmative action issues, we take away their voice, but leave the doors wide open for a raging racist, because we can’t screen for that.

This is why judges issue opinions and must cite their reasoning, either statute, the constitution, or precedent. This is also why we have higher courts to appeal to. If a judge doesn’t give a strong legal, rather than personal, justification for his decisions, they won’t stand.


#11

Right now, the federal benches are stacked with far-left appointments who have no regard for the U.S. Constitution which they are sworn to uphold. With non-progressive propositions passed by the people being stuck down regularly by unelected judges, I don’t believe that the judiciary can become more biased. They are little more than unaccountable hacks who believe that they are above the law. My apologies to the minority of judges try their best to respect the sovereignty of the people, but if the tattered robe fits, wear it. :tsktsk: Rob


#12

It’s funny you should say that, as 5 out of the 9 current SCOTUS justices were Republican appointees. And no justice has been so unashamed to promote an agenda as Scalia, who upheld the Partial Birth Abortion Ban saying that although it was an unconstitutional use of Congressional powers, he believes that Roe should be reversed, so he was voting to uphold the ban. Whether you agree with him or not, there’s not much that could be more agenda pushing than admitting that you are upholding an unconstitutional law because you agree with what it does.

And I’m sorry, but just because judges are appointed by politicians that you don’t like doesn’t mean that they have any less authority or are any less deserving of respect. I’m also not sure where you’re getting the idea that the courts are packed with liberal appointees, because until last fall, the courts had been dominated by conservative appointees for several decades. And after Obama evened it up in November, there are more senior conservative judges than senior liberal ones, so they will still have more influence. The link below provides a good breakdown.

usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/10/31/obama-judges-democrat-republican-senate/3286337/

Even Walker, the aforementioned Prop 8 judge, was a Bush Sr. appointee. Judge Ware, the guy who refused to throw out the ruling because of Walker’s relationship, was also a Bush Sr. appointee. Justices just don’t operate on the same liberal-conservative spectrum that the rest of the political system does. The reason these judges ruled the way they did wasn’t because they are “liberal”, it was because they felt that was the most legally sound way to rule. (It also might surprise you to learn that despite how heated senate confirmations are, there are lots of judges that have been liked and supported by both parties. Judge Ware is one of them.)


#13

What Scalia meant is that SCOTUS had no business taking up any abortion cases, BUT since they did, he had no choice but to do what he could to stop the killing of late-term innocent humans.
You seem to think that it matters that Republicans nominated 5 of the nine justices. I do not. Kennedy is mush, and Roberts is acting as if he has been blackmailed by someone if you look at his recent decisions. His Obama"care" decision was a rambling treatise which made no sense whatsoever. The four far left justices would feel at home if they had to swear an oath to the Communist Manifesto, as would former Justice David Souter, the “Republican” nominee who as a nominee was described as a “grand slam with the ball still rising”. Unfortunately, that ball curved foul from his first day on the bench. :rolleyes: Rob


#14
  1. I know what Scalia meant. But he has one job to do, and one job only. It is not defending morality, it’s defending the constitution. To forgo that (admittedly) to enforce his idea of morality is pushing an agenda.

  2. First you say that they were all liberal appointed, I prove you wrong and you say you don’t care who appointed them because they aren’t ruling on party lines??? Judges appointed by both parties break lines all the time, and thank goodness for that. I want judges who rule based on the law and the arguments presented to them. I do NOT want judges who feel beholden to the politics of the person/party that gave them a job. And the founding fathers didn’t want that either. That’s why they are unelected and have life tenure.


#15

Legally speaking, viability is all-important at this stage in time. However, viability reasoning seems to fault the fetus for being what it is, and to shake its fist at biology. It really is an ultimate kind of bullying, because the fetus (i.e. a stage we all went through, like the infant stage) can’t even speak up for itself. Somehow we’re superior simply because we have a voice that can say “no.”


#16

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.