Dubya signs anti-abortion bill

[Drake Tungsten]

And actually, it was a Federal judge in Nebraska who first defined an Indian as a human being for legal purposes in the United States, back in 1879.

We are a bastion for human rights.

BTW, I can't believe it took until 1879...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Elok
Damn straight. BTW, what's this "constitutional" BS? The constitution and its amendments say nothing at all about abortion, or anything that could be even remotely construed as implying abortion rights. Yes, I know, Roe v. Wade, but if that had absolutely no constitutional background, which it doesn't appear to, it was merely an abuse of power.

I agree completely.

Maybe MtG can shed some light on the logic (or the lack thereof) of the Supreme Court?

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Unfortunetly this law, as signed is unconstitutional, there is no doubt. First it makes no exception for the woman's health. Second, it may be too broad. It doesn't only apply to D&X or D&E after viability, but may also extend pre-viability. Sava is correct that Stenberg v. Carhart makes this law unconstitution, when it is basically the EXACT SAME LAW... geez, dumb Congress.

All they had to do was to make an exception for mother's health and restrict the ban to after viability (ie, third trimester) and they would have been good to go (ie, Constitutional).

There's another constitutional issue everyone seems to be missing. Remember the Lopez case striking down the Violence Against Women Act? The Supremes said that, even though a problem may be nationwide, that fact alone doesn't give Congress the power to pass laws regulating it. Health and Safety is the province of the State unless it directly impacts on interstate commerce.

The Late-Term Abortion Act could be seens as a Violence Against Fetuses Act, having the same federalism problems as the Violence Against Women Act.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Elok
Damn straight. BTW, what's this "constitutional" BS? The constitution and its amendments say nothing at all about abortion, or anything that could be even remotely construed as implying abortion rights. Yes, I know, Roe v. Wade, but if that had absolutely no constitutional background, which it doesn't appear to, it was merely an abuse of power.

On the other hand, nothing in the Constitution gives the government the right to dictate to individuals what medical procedures that person can or cannot have.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

And actually, it was a Federal judge in Nebraska who first defined an Indian as a human being for legal purposes in the United States, back in 1879.

We are a bastion for human rights.

BTW, I can't believe it took until 1879...

That's okay. Women weren't persons under Canadian law until the 1930s, as I recall...

[Drake Tungsten]

Ahh, the good old days.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Remember the Lopez case striking down the Violence Against Women Act? The Supremes said that, even though a problem may be nationwide, that fact alone doesn't give Congress the power to pass laws regulating it. Health and Safety is the province of the State unless it directly impacts on interstate commerce.

You mean Morrison. Lopez dealt with anti-gun school zones. Though both dealt with the same principle. Anyway, Morrison was a different beast. It was an anti-rape law, basically justified by saying that rape leads to less travel by women. That was their commerical justificiation. You got the ruling incorrect, however. The SCOTUS NEVER said it must 'directly' impact interstate commerce (or else a whole bevy of laws would have been struck down by that precedent). The SCOTUS merely said that a Congressional law invoking commerce clause power must have something to do with commerce. Rape and violence by private individuals against other private individuals outside a commercial context didn't.

Abortion, on the other hand, deals with hospitals or clinics, ie, commerical activities. It usually isn't something done by private individuals to each other outside the commercial sphere (in fact it is a part of commerce). Therefore, I think a partial birth ban would survive Constitutional challenge under the commerce clause.

[Ben Kenobi]

What if she doesn't want a c-section? So you wanna force a woman to undergo C-section in second and third trimester, thus putting her life at risk from surgical complication? It always amazes me the lengths to which people go to tell someone what should be done with their body.

Seems reasonable to me that people have the right to do what they want with their own bodies.

How many eyes does a pregnant woman have? Four or two?

Yeah, you go right ahead and show us how partial-birth abortions, which number ~2000 a year, have destroyed thousands of lives.

According to the Alan Guttmacher report in 2000:

1.5% abortions in the U.S. done at 21 weeks or later (19,650 total)

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

And the decision goes just beyond life-saving situations, What if the women is on chemo? What if the fetus is severely damaged because of assault?

So because the child is severely damaged, we ought to kill the child?

Chemotherapy's a better question. I think women ought to have the option to postpone chemo in lieu of other less invasive treatments during pregnancy. They should never have to choose between the life of their child and proper medical care.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Every state has a few. And actually, it was a Federal judge in Nebraska who first defined an Indian as a human being for legal purposes in the United States, back in 1879.

MtG, do you have cite for this case? What you the case decided is so bizzare as to be discombobulating.

[Ned]

I wish someone would post the exact statute. The stories I've read do not confine the ban to "late term." It seems to apply to any pregnancy 14 weeks or longer. This is the earliest borderline for "state" "regulation" permitted under Roe v. Wade.

This is a total ban with no exceptions for health. Now I fully understand such an unrestricted ban during the "late term." But this statute is not limited to "late term" according to the story. I would think "late term" would be on the the order of 36 weeks or so.

If this statute passes constitutional muster, I believe a total ban on abortions from 14 weeks on would pass constitutional muster. This statute is indeed a major step toward a total ban of abortions by the Federal Government from the second trimester on. (I also think there is a significant Federal Power issue here as well.)

We need to look at the statute.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

There is nothing preventing Congress, or a state legislature, from giving a specific statutory definition of health, or any other term, for the purposes of the specific statute they wish to pass. The failure, deliberate or otherwise, is legislative, not judicial.

All I can say is that the undefined (or perhaps court defined) use of 'health' by the courts, including the supremes, since Roe V Wade was the reasoning given on the floor of the senate for why such a clause ccould not be included in the law.

[MrWhereItsAt]

I just shake my head at any law established that flies counter to the advice of the expert organisation whose members actually deal with the issue.

If such a procedure is resorted to for good medical reasons (as some reported news here suggests), then banning it is endangering the woman in some abortion procedures. If my morals are given the choice between endangering the woman for a less shocking-sounding procedure or going the way where the woman's health is less risked I will choose the woman's wellbeing every time.

[Az]

Originally posted by rah
Even as a pro-choice proponent, I'm pleased that a law that will prohibit

.... in which a fetus is partly delivered before being killed, usually by having its skull punctured....

has been signed. WHATEVER THEY CALL IT.


I don't see it as slipping down the slope. I see it as prohibiting an inhumane form of abortion.

This is the most disturbing crap I've heard in a week. What an immensly terrible procedure.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
On the other hand, nothing in the Constitution gives the government the right to dictate to individuals what medical procedures that person can or cannot have.

And it doesn't tell us explicitly that we can't rape howler monkeys either, but that isn't a constitutional right! Honestly...

[Ned]

I've been clicking around the internet about an hour now and I still cannot find a copy of the statute as passed. Any help would be appreciated.

However, I am struck by the disingenuousness of this statute. There is nothing, in my view, that distinguishes the killing a fetus partially born from killing it in the womb if that fetus is viable.