Supreme Court Accepts Abortion Appeal from Bush Admin

[Timber Loftis]

cnn.com

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court has accepted a second case testing the constitutionality of a federal law banning a specific, controversial late-term abortion procedure critics call "partial birth" abortion.

The cases could provide a judicial sea change, with the key vote perhaps coming from the high court's newest member, Justice Samuel Alito. He replaced Sandra Day O'Connor, who was a key swing vote for a quarter century upholding the basic right to abortion.

The views of Alito, a more conservative jurist, could prove crucial in the new debate. The justices agreed to decide the contentious issue this fall.

The new appeal comes from the Bush administration, which lost after a lawsuit filed by the reproductive rights group Planned Parenthood. A federal appeals court based in San Francisco threw out the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 2003 as unconstitutional because it did not provide a health exception to pregnant women facing a medical emergency.

A similar ruling from a federal appeals court based in St. Louis reached similar conclusions.

The outcome of these latest challenges could turn on the legal weight given past rulings on the "health exception."

In states where such exceptions are allowed, the criteria include the possibility of severe blood loss, damage to vital organs or loss of fertility. Court briefs noted pregnant women having the procedure most often have their health threatened by cancer, heart disease, high blood pressure or risk of stroke.

Doctors would be given the discretion to recommend when the late-term procedure should be performed.

The federal law has never gone into effect, pending the outcome of more than three years of legal appeals.

The issue of late-term abortions is not new to the high court, and past precedence may be key when justices review the federal ban. In 2000, the justices threw out Nebraska's version banning the procedure.

Using an earlier legal standard, the court, divided 5-4, concluded the state law was an "undue burden" on women because it lacked the critical health exception.

Despite that ruling, the Republican-controlled Congress -- backed by the Bush White House -- passed its own version three years later.

Abortion rights groups object to the term "partial birth," and even "late-term abortion." Doctors call the procedure an intact dilation and extraction, or intact D and E.

Since the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion, various states have tried to place restrictions and exceptions on access to the procedure, prompting a string of high court "clarifications" over the years.

South Dakota in March passed a law that would ban abortion in nearly all cases -- except to protect the life of the mother. Voters in that state will decide the issue in a November referendum.

[Morgeruat]

The new appeal comes from the Bush administration, which lost after a lawsuit filed by the reproductive rights group Planned Parenthood. A federal appeals court based in San Francisco threw out the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 2003 as unconstitutional because it did not provide a health exception to pregnant women facing a medical emergency.

EXCEPT that with current medical technology the baby can survive and develope relatively normally during the timeframe partial birth abortions would be performed, if the mother's health is really a concern then removing the baby early and putting it in an incubator would be much less traumatic for the mother (physically and emotionally). I'd rather see the baby put into an incubator and then adopted out than see any babies put to death through partial birth abortions.

[Timber Loftis]

Here's my opinion on the whole abortion issue.

It's a point of contention, and the political parties benefit from that. They both WANT and NEED abortion to stay as contentious as it is so they can peddle their wares to their base.

Look, everyone knew the health exception was the flaw in the partial birth abortion ban. The Retarded Right had the chance to put this exception in, and refused to do so. Had they put it in, the ban would have been upheld. But, THEY DON'T WANT IT UPHELD, you see. Because if it's upheld the fight is over.

And the fight is what sells votes.

It's all an Ourobusian situation, and that's they way they want it.

Clue Phone, America! Answer it, or continue to be played like a violin.

[shamrock_uk]

Heh, well I typed

define:Ourobusian

into Google and it came back with this:

We're sorry... ... but your query looks similar to automated requests from a computer virus or spyware application. To protect our users, we can't process your request right now.

Hehe, so just what does it mean?

[Timber Loftis]

Maybe I misspelled it.

Main Entry: ouroboros
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: a circular symbol of a snake or dragon devouring its tail, standing for infinity or wholeness; also written uroboros or Ouroboros
Etymology: 1940 Greek 'tail devourer'

Source: Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English, Preview Edition v 0.9.6
Copyright © 2003-2005 Lexico Publishing Group, LLC

Now, I meant it in a derrogatory way. Not as "wholeness" or simply "infinity" but as in the act of continually devouring ones self. Think of the imagery Raistlin associated with this in DragonLance Legends.

[ 06-21-2006, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]