High Court Upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban

[Teallaura]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a law that banned a type of late-term abortion, a ruling that could portend enormous social, legal and political implications for the divisive issue.


The sharply divided 5-4 ruling could prove historic. It sends a possible signal of the court's willingness, under Chief Justice John Roberts, to someday revisit the basic right to abortion guaranteed in the 1973 Roe v. Wade case.


Source (http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/18/scotus.abortion/index.html)


Maybe not a gigantic step forward - but it is a step.

:woohoo:

[Urizen]

Maybe not a gigantic step forward - but it is a step.

:woohoo:

After reading the actual court decision I'm not so sure. The majority opinion, wirretn by Kennedy, essentially says that the government is able to ban this procedure only because it does NOT interfere with the "right" to have an abortion. A concurring opinion written by Thomas calls for the reversal of Roe v. Wade and related decisions, but it was only signed onto only by him and Scalia.

So it's quite possible we've actually gone from having 3 pro-life justices on the court to now only having 2.

And unfortunately in a practical sense, this bit of legislation is kinda meaningless in that it won't prevent a single abortion, just dictate a change in how a handful are carried out.

[Teallaura]

It's the first curtailing of any sort - that in and of itself is significant.

Kennedy isn't reliable anyway - that he sided with the majority on this one is hopeful even if his rationale leaves a lot to be desired.

There isn't going to be one whooping huge reversal and it's stupid to expect it. Abortion is going to have to suffer a death by a thousand cuts if it is to be ended at all via the courts. Every cut counts.

[Urizen]

It's the first curtailing of any sort - that in and of itself is significant.

Kennedy isn't reliable anyway - that he sided with the majority on this one is hopeful even if his rationale leaves a lot to be desired.

There isn't going to be one whooping huge reversal and it's stupid to expect it. Abortion is going to have to suffer a death by a thousand cuts if it is to be ended at all via the courts. Every cut counts.

While I agree to some extent that the reversal will come gradually rather than all at once, I have a hard time seeing how the court deciding a particular procedure can be banned if and only if it in no way threatens the "right" to abortion is even a "cut".

What I'm especially bothered by though is that neither Alito or Roberts signed onto to the stronger concurring opinion that Thomas and Scalia did. This gives the impression that the court is now stacked 7-2 against any serious restrictions on abortion.

[Glenn P]

So they've decided that people have to use other methods for late term abortions.

Forgive my lack of rejoicing, but I just don't see a reason. Seriously.

[Conductor42]

While I disagree with PBA bans because PBA's are almost exclusively done in cases where the mothers life is at stake, and it really doesn't ban PBA's - it just makes you undergo a more dangerous procedure (smart one, idiot politicians) - the Supreme Court did not ban them. There is no national ban on PBA's.

Let me repeat: there isn't a national law against this - they left it as a 'states rights' issue. So if, for example, California wants them to remain legal - and they don't have a law against it - then nothing changes. In my state, however, they passed a law against this in 2004. It was frozen, pending the SC decision, and now it's only a matter of time before it is reinstituted.

I wonder, however, if states have the authority to prosecute people who go through with this procedure in another state?

[Glenn P]

While I disagree with PBA bans because PBA's are almost exclusively done in cases where the mothers life is at stake, and it really doesn't ban PBA's - it just makes you undergo a more dangerous procedure (smart one, idiot politicians) - the Supreme Court did not ban them. There is no national ban on PBA's.

Let me repeat: there isn't a national law against this - they left it as a 'states rights' issue. So if, for example, California wants them to remain legal - and they don't have a law against it - then nothing changes. In my state, however, they passed a law against this in 2004. It was frozen, pending the SC decision, and now it's only a matter of time before it is reinstituted.

I wonder, however, if states have the authority to prosecute people who go through with this procedure in another state?
Neo, given that the physical trauma to the mother with a PBA = the physical trauma of birth, and given that PBA's happen post viability, can you please explain how a PBA may be necessary to save a mother's life?

Thanks.

[BeJoyous]

So they've decided that people have to use other methods for late term abortions.

Forgive my lack of rejoicing, but I just don't see a reason. Seriously. Sadly it is still legal to kill a child even days before the EDD. From my understanding all the PBA ban did was say that sucking a babies brains out is taboo.
It is sickening that in order to write up this ban they had to compile how to legally kill a child in the last trimester. :eww: