5-4 Supreme Court Upholds Bipartisan Partial Birth Abortion Ban
A Victory for Life, Decency, Humanity
By Dan McLaughlin Posted in Breaking News — Comments (88) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Decision just came down. More to follow.
UPDATES: Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion. Unsurprisingly, he was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito. Apparently the opinion rejects a facial challenge to the statute but leaves open the possibility of challenges in the future by particular mothers who claim a health necessity for such an abortion.
It's important to remember that this bill was a bipartisan effort with a House vote of 281-142 and a Senate vote of 64-34. Specifically, these Democratic Senators were supporters of banning the unpopular Partial-Birth Abortion Procedure: Sen. Minority Leader Daschle and Sens. Biden, Lincoln, Pryor, Miller, Breaux, Landrieu, Conrad, Dorgan, Nelson, current Sen. Majority Leader Reid, Hollings, Johnson, Leahy, Byrd, Nelson (NE). John Edwards, fittingly enough, didn't show up for the vote.
The list of Democratic House supporters is longer, and includes famous names such as John Murtha, John Dingell, Patrick Kennedy, Ted Strickland, James Clyburn, Harold Ford, and David Obey. Remember those lists if anyone tries to tell you that this is all about outside-the-mainstream right-wingers.
The opinion is here. Excerpts below the fold:
The Court acknowledges what it is dealing with:
The Act proscribes a particular manner of ending fetal life . . .
and that life is a legtimate governmental interest:
Whatever one's views concerning the Casey joint opinion, it is evident a premise central to its conclusion - that the government has a legitimate and substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life - would be repudiated were the Court now to affirm the judgments of the Courts of Appeals.
The Court admits that stare decisis was applied unevenly in Casey (a crucial point in Scalia's dissent):
To implement its holding, Casey rejected both Roe's rigid trimester framework and the interpretation of Roe that considered all previability regulations of abortion unwarranted. 505 U. S., at 875–876, 878 (plurality opinion). On this point Casey overruled the holdings in two cases because
they undervalued the State's interest in potential life
.
The Court didn't buy the idea that the statute is vague:
The Act requires the doctor deliberately to have delivered the fetus to an anatomical landmark. §1531(b)(1)(A) (2000 ed., Supp. IV). Because a doctor performing a D&E will not face criminal liability if he or she delivers a fetus beyond the prohibited point by mistake, the Act cannot be described as "a trap for those who act in good faith."
+++
The dual prohibitions of the Act, both of which are necessary for criminal liability, correspond with the steps generally undertaken during this type of procedure.
First, a doctor delivers the fetus until its head lodges in the cervix, which is usually past the anatomical landmark for a breech presentation. See 18 U. S. C. §1531(b)(1)(A) (2000 ed., Supp. IV). Second, the doctor proceeds to pierce the fetal skull with scissors or crush it with forceps. This step satisfies the overt-act requirement because it kills the fetus and is distinct from delivery. See §1531(b)(1)(B). The Act's intent requirements, however, limit its reach to those physicians who carry out the intact D&E after intending to undertake both steps at the outset.
The Act excludes most D&Es in which the fetus is removed
in pieces, not intact. If the doctor intends to remove
the fetus in parts from the outset, the doctor will not have the requisite intent to incur criminal liability.
+++
The evidence also supports a legislative determination that an intact delivery is almost always a conscious choice rather than a happenstance.
The Court does take a moment to pass over abortion's cost:
Respect for human life finds an ultimate expression in the bond of love the mother has for her child. The Act recognizes this reality as well. Whether to have an abortion requires a difficult and painful moral decision. Casey, supra, at 852–853 (opinion of the Court). While we find no reliable data to measure the phenomenon, it seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained. See Brief for Sandra Cano et al. as Amici Curiae in No. 05–380, pp. 22–24. Severe depression and loss of esteem can follow. See ibid.
Noting that the traumatic nature of abortion may lead some doctors to fail to disclose the details of the procedure, the Court cites this as a strong reason for the government to regulate matters that may not be properly disclosed, and expressly rejects the idea that it is an undue burden on abortion "rights" if some mothers are persuaded not to have abortions:
It is, however, precisely this lack of information concerning the way in which the fetus will be killed that is of legitimate concern to the State. Casey, supra, at 873 (plurality opinion) ("States are free to enact laws to provide a reasonable framework for a woman to make a decision that has such profound and lasting meaning"). The State has an interest in ensuring so grave a choice is well informed. It is self-evident that a mother who comes to regret her choice to abort must struggle with grief more anguished and sorrow more profound when she learns, only after the event, what she once did not know: that she allowed a doctor to pierce the skull and vacuum the fast-developing brain of her unborn child, a child assuming the human form.
It is a reasonable inference that a necessary effect of the regulation and the knowledge it conveys will be to encourage some women to carry the infant to full term, thus reducing the absolute number of late-term abortions. The medical profession, furthermore, may find different and less shocking methods to abort the fetus in the second trimester, thereby accommodating legislative demand. The State's interest in respect for life is advanced by the dialogue that better informs the political and legal systems, the medical profession, expectant mothers, and society as a whole of the consequences that follow from a decision to elect a late-term abortion.
The Court backs away from the "abortion is different" ethos of some earlier opinions:
The law need not give abortion doctors unfettered choice in the course of their medical practice, nor should it elevate their status above other physicians in the medical community.
Careful readers will note what makes only passing appearances, if that, in Justice Kennedy's opinion: the Constitution.
The ban is not out of the woods, even aside from the opening left for as-applied challenges - Justices Thomas and Scalia in their concurring opinion expressly noted that the Court was not asked to rule on whether the federal ban exceeded Congress' Commerce Clause powers.
« Toward an Understanding of the Obamian Language — Comments (4) | Against “tragedy.” — Comments (9) »
5-4 Supreme Court Upholds Bipartisan Partial Birth Abortion Ban 88 Comments (0 topical, 88 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
if not millions of lives Brian
see stats in my blog and excerpt below:
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/gamecock/2007/apr/18/bush_court_spectacula...
More than 1 million abortions are performed in the U.S. each year, according to recent statistics. Nearly 90% of those occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and are not affected by Tuesday's ruling.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks: Coffee, good. Cups, bad, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Emphasis mine:
[cite]Abortions performed by dilation and extraction are quite rare: Eighteen providers reported 1,274 such abortions in 2000, and 16 providers reported 742 for the first half of 2001; an additional provider reported performing dilation and extraction abortions in both 2000 and 2001, but could not say how many. Assuming that the provision of dilation and extraction abortions by providers who responded to the question reflects the experience of nonrespondents of similar type and size, an estimated total of 31 providers performed the procedure 2,200 times in 2000, and 0.17% of all abortions performed in that year used this method. While these data confirm that the absolute number of abortions performed by dilation and extraction is very small, this figure should be interpreted cautiously, because projections based on such small numbers are subject to error.
Note - this is not an attempt to downplay yours or anyone else's happiness, but in the interest of referencing reasonably supported data, for what it's worth...
...is less about the actual numbers of unborn children directly impacted by this decision and more about the implications on future abortion jurisprudence as well as the political ramifications.
No, I don't think this is a sign that Roe is toast with the court's current makeup -- but I do think Roe is eventually toast. It was a poorly adjudicated decision (or, at least, predicated by a poorly adjudicated decision in Griswold).
As for the political ramifications, you have to wonder how much pressure there's going to be on Democrats to repeal this law. It's not as if the abortion lobby is just going to accept this setback and go on their merry way. Like all other Democratic constituencies, they feel the Dems in office are indebted to them and they're going to want to see some legislative action at some point to repeal the ban.
And that puts Dems in a really tough spot -- they either rebuff the abortion lobby or they go on record trying to save something as widely unpopular as partial-birth abortion.
Obviously, this is great news for unborn children -- even if not for all that many of them. But I think the impact of the decision may go well beyond those directly impacted.
Any number of conclusions can be drawn from the data - for example, the evidently tiny number of cases where "intact dilation & extraction" is used also serves to refute the pro-choice mantra that eliminating that single procedure will unduly put at risk hundreds of thousands of women.
Should be an interesting future, both politically, and closer to home for persons on both sides who are very passionate about this issue...
sweeping departure. Roberts found a narrow way to get Kennedy aboard and avoid nullifying the statute which would have been a huge legal setback.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks: Coffee, good. Cups, bad, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
I'll choose to focus on the 2,200 lives that were lost through this gruesome act.
"Would they all survive?", someone might ask. "Would they have been aborted? Would they lead productive lives?" We won't know, thanks to the abominable method of PBA. Now, we might.
Fides non in bonus intentions , tamen in bonus factum
For more common sense conservatism, visit the Show Me Conservatism blog.
and as the liberals would say when SCOTUS goes their way, "this is the law of the land".
Don't let them turn back the clock!
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
And this alone has made the Bush Second Term worth it (and I pretty much do mean alone . . .)
As a dispassionate analysis (without having the opinion to read), I note:
1) Presumably, Roberts and Alito are in the majority. That should quell some worries among conservatives about the jurisprudence of the new Justices on abortion.
2) This could signal a Kennedy move to use his swing position to limit abortion more without overruling Roe. He seemed to want to do that in Casey, but felt he was hoodwinked by the Stevens wing. Now he has the majority opinion writing power. Reading the decision will help determine his current view.
3) It is plausible that Kennedy has rethought his switch to the pro-Roe wing and thus possible there are 5 people who oppose Roe already on the bench.
4) A moderating of the Supreme Court on abortion could backfire for pro-lifers. If the SC allows some small bans and curtailing of abortion, the public could see the SC as striking a good balance of rights. That could hurt efforts to overturn Roe.
Just a couple thoughts.
______________________________________
Bobby Jindal Saves Louisiana
Opinion in .pdf form can be found here.
"Dr. Haskells approach is not the only method of killing a fetus"
"government has a legitimate and substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal lifewould be repudiated were the Court now to affirm the judgments of the Courts of Appeals."
"We conclude that the Act is not void for vagueness, does
not impose an undue burden from any overbreadth, and is
not invalid on its face."
"The government may use its voice and its regulatory authority to show its profound respect for the life within the woman. A central premise of the opinion was that the Courts precedents after Roe had undervalue[d] the States interest in potential life."
______________________________________
Bobby Jindal Saves Louisiana
"It is, however, precisely this lack of information concerning
the way in which the fetus will be killed that is of
legitimate concern to the State."
"The Act is open to a proper as-applied challenge in a
discrete case."
THOMAS and SCALIA concur:
"I join the Courts opinion because it accurately applies
current jurisprudence, including Planned Parenthood of
Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992). I write
separately to reiterate my view that the Courts abortion
jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S.
113 (1973), has no basis in the Constitution."
GINSBURG (with Breyer, Souter, Stevens):
"Todays decision is alarming. It refuses to take Casey and Stenberg seriously. It tolerates, indeed applauds,
federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found
necessary and proper in certain cases by the American
College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). It
blurs the line, firmly drawn in Casey, between previability
and postviability abortions. And, for the first time since
Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception
safeguarding a womans health"
"In sum, the notion that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
Act furthers any legitimate governmental interest is, quite
simply, irrational. The Courts defense of the statute
provides no saving explanation. In candor, the Act, and
the Courts defense of it, cannot be understood as anything
other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again
and again by this Court"
______________________________________
Bobby Jindal Saves Louisiana
I take it from your post that Roberts and Alito did not join the Scalia/Thomas dissent. Is there anything we can infer from this?
IOW, since they didn't join the dissent, does this signal a willingness to uphold Roe? Or, is it more likely that since they were not previously on record as supporting the overturning of Roe, they just didn't want to take a position on this question at this time. I suspect the latter, but would be interested in your take as well.
Should have said Scalia/Thomas "concurence" rather than dissent. I'm just used to them being in the minority on abortion cases. Hopefully, I'll get used to the change.
I'm not sure about Alito though, but Roberts has stated that he wants cases decided as narrowly as possible. This fits with that.
___________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson
A random walk through my head at Indiscriminate Tastes
he will swing to the point of a complete overturn, I do think he is going to swing a bit back more into the anit Roe camp.
One thing I fully expect the court to do over the next several years is take on the whole issue of the "health" exception. The Doe case left this exception almost so broad you could drive a bus through it, and I suspect that rolling back the broadness of this exception is something the court will address, and needs to address.
Finally!! Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts are with us. We just need one more appointment, and we've got this thing.
Its troubling that four "justices" chose to support the barbarity of partial birth abortions but it is heartening that the highest Court in the land of the free came to this decision.
the nation is only one vote away from a constitutionalist majority on the court, for the first time in several generations.
If you are using an anti-Roe position to define a "constitutionalist" then in 1992, 4 Justices voted to overturn Roe in Casey. But 2 voted to uphold and 3 (O'Connor, Souter, Kennedy) voted to change but keep the underlying Right to Abortion. Kennedy seems to have backtracked from Casey a bit, but not so much to join the 4 dissenters in Casey (Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist, White).
But suffice it to say, it hasn't been generations since 4 anti-Roe Justices sat on the Court.
______________________________________
Bobby Jindal Saves Louisiana
Thank you Justice Kennedy for resisting the lure of utter Blackmun-ship.
Ginsburg, in a lengthy statement, said "the Court's opinion tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
Apparently, legislation enacted by our elected officials, and indeed the Constitution of the United States, does not have as much legal precedence as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Its good to know what guides her when we goes about deciding what's constitutional and what is not.
this procedure should not be against the law or morally wrong if it becomes necessary to kill a child that is "almost" born into this world. My gosh, this kind of procedure would be so rarely necessary to save the life of the Mother as to be non-existent in today's medical world.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
Kennedy had no change of heart about Roe. He wrote this opinion very narrowly, saying the facial challenge to the statute should not have been considered. He left open the possibility of an "as applied" challenge.
Interesting to see the concurring opinions.
Roe is a classic example of judicial usurpation, an activity which began to occur as far back as the forties. It has been fifty years since a solid majority of the Supreme Court was committed to being "the least dangerous branch". I think we are one vote from a majority that favors proper deference to the other branches when the Constitution so requires.
Roberts and Alito did not join Thomas's concurring opinion (Scalia joined Thomas's opinion) asserting that there is no right to abortion in the constitution. I'm not sure whether this means they disagree with Thomas or whether they just didn't want to drop that hammer at this point. I hope the latter.
that they were just not ready to "drop that hammer" at this point because if they did, it would make it that much harder for Bush or another Republican president to appoint another anti-Roe justice.
One nation, in the courtrooms, with litigiousness and judicial activism for all.
As Speaker Pelosi would say, "this is as if God has spoken" on the matter.
"My mind is aglow with whirling transient nodes of thought, careening through a cosmic vapor of invention." -- Hedley Lamar
Justices Thomas and Scalia re-iterate their view that Roe is wrong. But he explicitly leaves open the possibility that the federal Act would be outside of Congress's commerce clause power. I've always thought that liberal interest groups should start making Lopez-style arguments in order to try to peel off Thomas and/or Scalia (purely as a strategic matter; generally speaking I'm glad they don't).
I figure one reason they don't want to go that route, is that the commerce clause has long been the way to get liberal federal laws passed (shoot any federal law really), so my guess is they aren't out to weaken commerce clause applications, because winning in the case of abortion may mean losing in other cases in the future.
What about the baby? What an immoral position. I guess they can't wait the 18 years for the baby's vote when they can get the pro-choice women's vote now.
The longer we dwell on our misfortunes the greater is their power to harm us - Voltaire
And don't think the fact that they are Democratic voters isn't what's driving this decision. It's Karl Rove plot to stack elections. Stack them on the backs of poor, dead, womyn.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
With all the death and carnage on our t.v.'s the last couple of days, this ruling is an affirmation of life.
Peace through superior fire power:)
I have been hearing repeatedly on blogs and conservative radio that 'the only way a president can affect the abortion issue is through judge nominations'. That is just plain false as demonstrated by this example. It is legitimate to wonder whether a President Guiliani would have signed this partial-birth abortion law, or potential legislation involving embryonic stem cell research or other restrictions on abortion.
I'm at a loss as to how you can state:
I have been hearing repeatedly on blogs and conservative radio that 'the only way a president can affect the abortion issue is through judge nominations'. That is just plain false as demonstrated by this example.
To the contrary, this case shows that one vote would have foiled the will of the Executive and the Legislative branches.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
Would Rudy have signed this law in the first place?
___________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson
A random walk through my head at Indiscriminate Tastes
that the president had to sign the ban or we would never have celebrated today's victory. Would a President Giuliani have signed the ban? I doubt it.
One nation, in the courtrooms, with litigiousness and judicial activism for all.
it is obviously not true.
As to Giuliani. I don't think abortion is an issue with Giuliani, I certainly don't think he cares enough about it to veto a bill passed by Congress on the subject and brown off the people who elected him.
Regardless of Giuliani's views on abortion I don't see his election as being the death knell for the pro-life movement because I don't think he cares one way or another.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
But also at stake is the GOP image as the defenders of life. A Giuliani nomination would show the American populace that it is not nearly so vital an issue as conservative have professed it to be.
Regardless of Giuliani's actions in office, he is a symbolic nightmare for the pro-life movement. It would prove that conservatives are willing to relegate this important issue for the sake of others...
An argument can be made for some issues taking precedence, but disturbingly, the argument I most often hear is "electability." Should that argument reach the ears of John Q. Citizen, the pro-life movement will have lost an important round in a very competitive match.
If Guiliani is elected, that would mean (to me) that enough of the electorate believes that he is right about abortion, at least enough to elect him (very discouraging). In that case, the pro-life movement might not die, but it would be severely degraded to the point that it might become a minor issue (although I don;t see how that could happen). I would for one, still be a active part of the movement regardless of the outcome.
Shame and disgust sometimes comes in small packages... Well, you probably know what I mean...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
the SC nominations are VERY important, but the President still had to sign the bill and the executive branch does have some involvement in drafting legislation.
Furthermore, the presidency is also a platform to speak to the American people, and an articulate defender of the right to life in the WH could really help the pro-life movement.
So again I will say that appointing judges is NOT the only way POTUS can affect abortion.
Likewise, will a President Guiliani veto Democrat Congress bills expanding abortion rights and abortion funding?
Will Nancy Pelosi reprise her " the voice of the Supreme Court is like the voice of God" remark? How hysterical will the screaming about the attack on women's rights get? Will liberals now say this IS the constitution? Does this come under the rubric of a "living constitution", life having many facets I would think so.
And will we hear of the need for respecting precedent?
The squirming, wiggling u-turns on this will be both wondrous and entertaining to behold. Already highly respected legal "experts", liberals always have experts, all of them, on their side, are dreaming up half crazed gobbly gook to counter this affront to their selective compassion and respect for the law.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
They will find new venues for their obsession with degeneracy, destruction, defeat, and death.
In their own way they are an inventive lot.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
The ban is not out of the woods, even aside from the opening left for as-applied challenges - Justices Thomas and Scalia in their concurring opinion expressly noted that the Court was not asked to rule on whether the federal ban exceeded Congress' Commerce Clause powers.
From what I'm reading, looks like it's not out of the woods wrt current challenges, either. Another challenge, Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood, has not yet been ruled upon. It's a "companion case" (I'm not sure what the legal meaning of that is), and arguments were heard on the same day as Gonzales v. Carhart.
-
NARF
This decision was for both the Carhart and the Planned Parenthood cases.
One nation, in the courtrooms, with litigiousness and judicial activism for all.
The opinion caption contains both case names (look at page 8 of the PDF linked at the top).
One nation, in the courtrooms, with litigiousness and judicial activism for all.
for any of your extreme right wingers thinking about voting for Hillary instead of Rudy- keep this in mind. Elections matter, voting Republican matters, and if you actually want the country to succeed and not be ruled by the far left you have to vote for the GOP even if you don't have your first choice!
United States Air Force
http://airforcepundit.blogspot.com
Rudy has attempted to placate social conservatives by assuring us that he would appoint justices like Roberts and Alito (an assurance I doubt due to his statements re: stare decisis). But do you think he would have signed the PBA ban in the first place? I certainly don't. Despite the presence of Roberts and Alito on the Court, today's victory would not have been possible if the bill had been vetoed.
One nation, in the courtrooms, with litigiousness and judicial activism for all.
Perhaps it would be more appropriate to say, "for any of you defeatists pragmatists that will vote for Giuliani because 'abortion is a lost cause,'" or some such nonsense - keep this in mind. We are in the thick of this fight now, and I for one demand a leader.
Telling me who I "have" to vote for is not a particularly persuasive or constructive.
It's just as logical for me to tell you that you have to vote for a pro-life candidate in the primary because otherwise social conservatives will abandon the party and Republicans will certainly lose the general election. So, for any of you Rinos, if you actually want the country to succeed and not be ruled by the far left you have to vote for a pro-lifer in the primary even if he's not your first choice!
Presidents Nixon and Ford agree with you.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
I'm not so sure Ford would agree on the "elections matter" bit.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Just not 1976. :)
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Elections do matter. I hope this is the edge of the wedge to stop the legalized holocaust of unborns in this country.
________________________
When taunted by a Liberal in Parliament that he was going to die "on the gallows or of a vicious social disease," Disraeli replied "That depends on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Can you imagine what kind of judges Hillary would appoint to the Supreme Court I won't feel safe for my children with her in the whitehouse. She would destroy the war on terror the Taliban would take back Afghanistan completely and who knows what kind or outlaw terrorist state would emerge in iraq. The fight against terror would also move to our soil. So these extremists on our side need to take a look at the whole landscape instead of just tunnel vision on one single issue.
The unmitigated nerve of some people, focusing on their issue instead of yours!
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
While we should all jump for joy at the lives this will save, it also is going to make things that much more difficult if President Bush gets to appoint another Supreme Court justice. The stakes just got that much higher now that we can pretty much say with certainty that one more anti-Roe justice will be enough to overturn that decision and protect that right to life that our founders talked about.
Interestingly, Glenn Reynolds believes that the law should actually be overturned as a violation of the commerce clause. He also points to some language from Justice Thomas in today's opinion explaining that this question was not before the court in these cases.
Everybody's talking about Kennedy leaving the door open to an "as applied" challenge to the law. And that's obviously significant. But no less significant is the possibility that the law could be challenged on ICC grounds.
What's fascinating about this is that most left-wing interest groups would just as soon avoid opening up the Pandora's Box of negating federal legislation on ICC grounds...because so much of their agenda has been predicated on a broad reading of the ICC.
Will they go after the law on those grounds...even if it costs them in other areas?
Pro-lifers don't believe killing a baby inside the womb is any different from killing it outside the womb. Both are murder.
If an abortion is going to occur then, a pro lifer doesn't think killing the baby inside the womb will be any different than partially birthing it and then killing it.
So, a pro lifer would only be excited about this decision and this ban if he or she thought it will actually reduce the number of abortions.
My question then: How many lives will be saved and how will this ban be responsible?
I haven't followed the issue closely, but news articles and commentators commonly intimate that partial birth abortion is exceptionally rare and secondly that its not the only, or even most common, method to abort late term. With partial birth abortion gone, won't the abortion happen anyway just under a different method?
but rather the fact that the Court has found a compelling governmental interest in piercing the Roe wall of "privacy." Now the battle turns to just how far does that compelling interest go, e.g., parental notification laws, interstate transport laws, etc.
It seems as if Thomas and Scalia are almost daring someone to try to thwart the federal law on Commerce Clause grounds; something I'd welcome because I think abortion is a state issue. My experience with Lefties has taught me that if they see a shiny new toy, they'll play with it without the slightest thought to how you might play with it, since you're definionally stupid. I'd cheerfully sacrifice a federal PBA law in order to take a big chunk out of commerce clause jurisprudence.
We'd know what the USSC thought about compelling state interest so state PBA and other abortion law could be tailored to that holding, but striking down the law on commerce clause grounds would augur well for a similar attack on other offensive federal intervention in state matters. Think I'm going to have to go look at that Texas case on school zone gun laws.
In Vino Veritas
> the Court has found a compelling governmental interest in piercing the Roe wall of "privacy."
What did the Court say about privacy? I am just starting to read the decision.
we do appreciate it, because we are mostly poorly educated and easily led.
The answer to your question is upthread, with a link. If you read the commentary before posting life is a lot easier on everyone
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
I've never understood why so many of the editors are so rude and arrogant, but thanks for the tip!
Perhaps you could tell me who posted the comment that answers my question, or even better give me a link...
Are you referring to the comment that includes the stats that 2200 PBAs were performed, representing .17% If so, that in no way answers the questions posed in my post. I pointed out that other procedures were available and would simply take the place of PBA, thus not affecting the total number of abortions.
But I do appreciate the gental maner in which you reached down from your clowd to gently illuminate me. Just in the future, if you read the actual comment before commenting on it, it would be alot easier on everyone.
I'd really suggest you do the same. Especially before telling me I didn't. Two strikes, Sparky.
My question then: How many lives will be saved and how will this ban be responsible?
It answers your question.
Look, Sparky, I'm not in the mood to deal this tedious and tendentious nonsense. You asked how many lives would be saved. You obviously hadn't bothered reading the thread and probably not the post. The answer was there. Now you seem to be saying that you didn't really ask how many lives would be saved even though you did ask how many would be saved.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
you did not read my post and still have not gone back and read it. The final sentance of my original post was:
"With partial birth abortion gone, won't the abortion happen anyway just under a different method?"
So, citing that 2200 PBAs were performed in no way answers the holistic question of how many lives this ban will save. Those 2200 abortions will still be carried out, just under a different method of abortion.
So I say again, why don't YOU be more careful and actually read my comment instead of arrogantly telling me to be more careful.
--Sparky
Once partial birth abortion is removed (many of the late abortions), lives will be saved. There are NOT other alternatives available since the child is fully formed. This leaves the Mother with the unhappy choice of having to adopt her baby - a horrible choice for many of those here (fortunate for many others).
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
I don't know how mnay abortions this will prevent. As noted above, it will be an extremely small percent of all abortions, although not a small number in absolute terms. So, that's a good in and of itself.
But, more importantly, I think of it as undercutting the legal/intellectual support for Roe. Think of it like taking an axe to a tree. A mighty chop might knock out an extremely small amount of the total tree. But, a couple of more chops in the right place and the entire tree comes down.
Personally, I don't see this ban preventing any abortions directly and immediately. That 2200 number is the number of abortions performed under the PBA procedure. If it is indeed true that other options are available, none or only a handful of abortions will be prevented (if its more than 0, its may be worth it, but is it more than 0?).
But over the long run, the decision may be important in establishing precedents which will actually reduce abortions.
Did anyone else notice that in the story CNN ran about this decision they included a scary looking picture of the Supreme Court? It's complete with gloomy clouds and everything. Even the file name of the picture is story.scotus.stormy.gi.jpg.
I suspect their picture choice would have been different had it gone the other way.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Thomas and Scalia's invite of a Commerce Clause challenge may likely be a "Don't throw me in the briar patch!" trap.
If this type of law is invalidated upon Commerce Clause grounds, it opens up a whole lot of other Supreme Court precedent and statutes to similar attack.
Thomas is already on record as wanting to turn back a lot of economic precedent and is just looking for the opening.
It's a safe gamble: chipping away at Roe v. Wade--even with setbacks--while also rolling back oppressive economic regulations is a view on the long game.
I was disappointed the federalism issue wasn't argued in this case. It could have been a landmark case for State's Rights because some of the liberal justices may have signed on to get the law overturned. It would have been really interesting to see if Souter, Stevens, and Ginsburg would have changed their interpretation of commerce clause power to get the result they wanted.
...I'd have rather had the Court declare the statute beyond Congress's power under the Commerce Clause than all this chortling over the result it did reach. Roe is garbage, but no more so than Congress's assertion of the power to determine permissable medical procedures. In an ends/means trade-off, fidelity to the Constitution IS the transcedent end, eclipsing in importance any--ANY--other policy objective.
vote for that position and this didn't involve saving lives that an earlier court made nearly impossible to save, I would favor your position.
Their actually is argument that Congress can require a trial before a baby is killed in the womb as in out.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks: Coffee, good. Cups, bad, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jacks
The Supreme Court is the front line of battle against liberalism. Judicial appointments affect so many different areas of public policy, from national security issues to domestic issues such affirmative action, abortion, the establishment clause, school vouchers, second amendment rights, etc.
Whomever the Republicans nominate for President, conservatives have a duty to support and vote for that person on the basis alone that they will promise to nominate constructionist judges to the bench.
Just look at the disgusting comments Ginsburg made in her dissent, she thinks a doctor's trade group carries more weight than federal law. Activist judges will find every excuse to try and legislate from the bench, whether it's medical advice, public polls, to international law. Ginsburg is exactly the type of judges EVERY Democrat will appoint, even a so called "centrist" like Clinton.
Elections matter and so do judicial appointments.
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "
William F. Buckley, Jr.
This is a great day for the pro-life movement. We have Senator Sam Brownback to thank for rejecting Miers and getting Justice Alito on the court.
Blogs 4 Brownback is documenting the latest Brownback buzz!
Interesting discussion in re: ICC vs. States Rights... I sympathize with those who favor weakening the current interpretation and broad use of the ICC even if it means losing the current PBA battle. I think you must look long-term. ...mind you, I say that as a pro-choice advocate... but, understand, I have a similar view regarding rolling back ICC in regards to the Ham-handed approach of the Feds regarding medical marajuana, to name one example... I am a lefty - but the feds need to get out of our lives - and should only get involved when there is a constitutional issue that the states are failing to uphold (example: civil rights). Though I strongly favor the pro-choice position I feel that Roe is not the long-term solution. A right to privacy is, IMO, not as clearly supported by the constitution as it should be. (search and siezure?? rights retained by the states?? rights retained by the people??) I think that it's in there - but it's definately not as clear as, for example, freedom of the press. The right is starting to legislate from the bench - and its just as ugly as when the left does it.
It seems such a shame that this minor Supreme Court recognition that human life is being destroyed (only if at the last minute) is cause for celebration. To hell with all your pro-choice, pro-woman, pro-state, and other silly arguments. Lives are being destroyed here...but let us gather and praise the efforts of the Supreme Court. Yes, lets just let the courts decide the important discussions regarding life...god...and country...
Sorry, a bit depressed reading this nonsense...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
Sorry, that you can't recognize my disgust...but maybe that is the result of many years of continuing debasement of life...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
I just can't quite tell what you're disgusted about. I don't mean to be snarky myself, but all I get from your OP is anger about judicial activism, nothing more. Are you disgusted that Roe v. Wade wasn't overturned? Or that abortion rights were limited at all? That the Supreme Court agreed to hear this case? That our society is such that the Supreme Court was forced to hear it? I honestly don't know which direction you're coming from.
-
NARF
since it is on the second page now...
Let's see... Yes, I am disgusted with judicial activism, yes, I am disgusted with the Roe vs Wade decision, yes, I am disgusted with this decision getting to the Supreme Court AT ALL., NO, I am not disgusted with society making the decision...
I would happily agree that the States should make this type of decision but of course I would hope that they would make these decisions in favor of LIFE, ie, a baby is a human being, not a fetus!
Is that clear enough for you!
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
One small victory. Hopefully the start of a trend.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.