Supreme Court taking a 2nd look at late term abortion ban law

[The Real Rick Springfield]

this didn't take long.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/02/21/sc...ion/index.html

john

[Xodiac]

Its stupid that late term abortions were ever legal in the first place. "Well, now that I've had 7 months to think about, I don't want a baby any more even though it's almost fully developed!"

[la dj]

yeah, 7 months is way too late to even consider abortion. i'm all for pro-choice, but that's fucking ridiculous.

i'm surprised it took THIS long for them to look at it.

looks like it's going to be in the state's hands. and we all know where that's going to lead. -------->across the border abortions

[PETA]

Originally Posted by john_vella

this didn't take long.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/02/21/sc...ion/index.html

john

and there is no reason to think the 5 Justices who struck the law will change their position this time around

[The Real Rick Springfield]

Originally Posted by xian

and there is no reason to think the 5 Justices who struck the law will change their position this time around

i hope you're right. without a provision for considering the health of the mother, i can't get behind this one. put in that clause, and i'm all for it.

john

[PETA]

Originally Posted by john_vella

i hope you're right. without a provision for considering the health of the mother, i can't get behind this one. put in that clause, and i'm all for it.

john

I hope I'm not.... I find everything about late term abortion horrific....

One of the problems with the law is that (as I understood it) there was a "health of the mother" provision - - it just wasn't expansive or easy enough to be satisfied for the court. (the undue burden test wasn't met.... and none of the Justices could agree what the test even meant....) I advocate the legality of abortion but the rules need to be based in logic and law and should also permit the states to regulate abortion beyond the first trimester if they see fit.... currently SCOTUS has frozen the democratic process out of the issue.

[PETA]

fyi

Originally Posted by Partial Birth Abortion Ban excerpt

§1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited

(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the date of enactment of this chapter.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abortion/2003s3.html


MSN reports that the bill had no exception for life of the mother....



from link in article on MSN hiome page

"Partial birth" ban: 2003
Congress passes and Bush signs the "Partial Birth" Abortion Ban. The bill does not include an exception in the case of saving a woman’s life.

the author must not have read the Bill

[The Real Rick Springfield]

Originally Posted by xian

the author must not have read the Bill

nor did the author of the cnn article i ready today. so where is this "no health of the mother" business come from? in your spare time (no seriously) can you dig through scotus decision to see what exactly they said was wrong with the law the first time around?

john

[PETA]

Originally Posted by john_vella

nor did the author of the cnn article i ready today. so where is this "no health of the mother" business come from? in your spare time (no seriously) can you dig through scotus decision to see what exactly they said was wrong with the law the first time around?

john

my understanding is that the "undue burden" test was not met by the language of the Bill - therefore it was read out of the legislation for purposes of constitutionality and the law struck as insufficiently protecting the life of the mother.... I do not understand what the test is or even know the elements frankly (nor, apparently do the Justices agree as to what it is... which is why I would like the court to create a clear and logical test based in law and toss out the crazy quilt bs we've got now)


I haven't read this info here - http://www.policyalmanac.org/culture...overview.shtml - and make no claims for its accuracy or impartiality but it looked long

[The Real Rick Springfield]

Originally Posted by xian

the "undue burden" test was not met by the language of the Bill - therefore it was read out of the legislation for purposes of constitutionality and the law struck as insufficiently protecting the life of the mother

i see, so it wasn't that it "didn't provide for protection of the mother's life" as the reporters are boiling it down to but more like "the existing protection for the mother's life section didn't meet the 'undue burden' test".

right?

john

[PETA]

Originally Posted by john_vella

i see, so it wasn't that it "didn't provide for protection of the mother's life" as the reporters are boiling it down to but more like "the existing protection for the mother's life section didn't meet the 'undue burden' test".

right?

john

that is my understanding, yes.

Because the test wasn't met the language was insufficient therefore one could regard it as absent from the Bill.... so its a leap for reporters to say it wasn't included but I rarely read a news story on a case that didn't butcher the issues, rules and important factors so its par for the course

[E-Nice]

check it. SD senate approves abortion ban. gov mike rounds has vowed to sign.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by E-Nice

check it. SD senate approves abortion ban. gov mike rounds has vowed to sign.

they're looking to test the court

Started a separate thread for discussion of SD ban.

http://www.dallasdancemusic.com/foru...d.php?t=184561