Supreme Court upholds the partial birth abortion law

[HHSDad]

Did anyone see Larry King last night? I agreed 100% with what you all are saying until I saw the show. King was interviewing Bill Clinton and they were discussing the ruling. Clinton said that he did not support a ban on partial birth abortions due to some of the people he met in office. He had met three couples who found out in the middle of their pregnancy that their baby suffered from a defect that meant that it would likely not survive full term and would not survive past birth. Additionally, the defect would cause the baby's head to swell abnormally, running the risk of (whether she gave birth or had a C-section) that the mother's uterus would suffer damage that would not allow her to have more children. He ended with saying that the decision is not best decided by me and you, but by the mother and her doctor.

 

I have to say, I see things a little differently now.

I checked with some OB/GYN clients. Fetuses suffering from severe hydrocephalus can be safely (for the mother) removed by Caesarian section. The adavantage the DNX gives the parents is that it quite kills the baby, assuring them that they won't have to take a defective baby home. Its not a given that hydrocephalus will leave your child brain damaged. I had a friend growing up who had it and he was perfectly normal, other than having a very large head.

 

Other reasons why DNX is not as safe as it's made out to be:

-IDX requires a larger dilation of the cervix than D&E.

-Podalic version (turning the fetus into a breech position) can be dangerous to the woman.

-The incision in the fetal skull is made blind; the physician may miss and injure the woman's cervix.

[scooterbob]

Nope. Falls right down predictable lines. Key: Roberts convinced Kennedy (the clear swing-voter) to write the opinion. Anybody who doesn't think Roberts' appointment as Chief won't have monumental implications for the future is deluding themselves.

 

Remember his hearings, when he was so much smarter than everyone else in the room and made them look like idiots? And how he responded to Schumer that "he would follow established precedent" when deciding issues of abortion? And I told everyone on here that the "precedent" he referred to was Casey and not Roe, and that Schumer wasn't smart enough to figure that out? You might note the precedent cited by Kennedy in his opinion.

 

I'm late to the discussion but I have to say that I believe that Heresay is absolutely correct.

 

The behinds the scene give and take in this decision are possibly more important than is the decision itself. It appearts that Roberts showed leadership as well as an ability to make a deal. This case was obviously going to be 5-4. The issue was who would Kennedy join. From all appearances, Roberts provided Kennedy with a carrot by choosing him to write the decision. As CJ, when he votes with the majority, he makes the choice.

 

Very promising for those of us who believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution. You gain ground by compromise. It does no good to be a hard riock and to lose all the 5-4 decisions. Roberts shows great promise. Alito isn't too bad, either. Thomas and Scalia areThomas and Scalia. Outstanding. Kennedy is the wildcard.

[acemona]

I'm late to the discussion but I have to say that I believe that Heresay is absolutely correct.

 

The behinds the scene give and take in this decision are possibly more important than is the decision itself. It appearts that Roberts showed leadership as well as an ability to make a deal. This case was obviously going to be 5-4. The issue was who would Kennedy join. From all appearances, Roberts provided Kennedy with a carrot by choosing him to write the decision. As CJ, when he votes with the majority, he makes the choice.

 

Very promising for those of us who believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution. You gain ground by compromise. It does no good to be a hard riock and to lose all the 5-4 decisions. Roberts shows great promise. Alito isn't too bad, either. Thomas and Scalia areThomas and Scalia. Outstanding. Kennedy is the wildcard.

 

 

A strict constructionist would say that the government should be making medical decisions for individuals, WOW

[Hearsay]

I'm late to the discussion but I have to say that I believe that Heresay is absolutely correct.

 

The behinds the scene give and take in this decision are possibly more important than is the decision itself. It appearts that Roberts showed leadership as well as an ability to make a deal. This case was obviously going to be 5-4. The issue was who would Kennedy join. From all appearances, Roberts provided Kennedy with a carrot by choosing him to write the decision. As CJ, when he votes with the majority, he makes the choice.

 

Very promising for those of us who believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution. You gain ground by compromise. It does no good to be a hard riock and to lose all the 5-4 decisions. Roberts shows great promise. Alito isn't too bad, either. Thomas and Scalia areThomas and Scalia. Outstanding. Kennedy is the wildcard.

 

And Ginsburg is old and decrepit. Still pretty sharp, but old.

[Hearsay]

A strict constructionist would say that the government should be making medical decisions for individuals, WOW

 

No, a strict constructionist would say that there is no "penumbra" implied in the Bill of Rights granting a woman (or anyone else) a constitutional right of privacy. That is what led up to Roe being wrongly decided in the first place. I think Roberts is taking us back to revisit that in some ways.

[acemona]

No, a strict constructionist would say that there is no "penumbra" implied in the Bill of Rights granting a woman (or anyone else) a constitutional right of privacy. That is what led up to Roe being wrongly decided in the first place. I think Roberts is taking us back to revisit that in some ways.

 

So the protection against unreasonable search and seizure does not protect someone's privacy. I do not have a reasonable belief that I am safe and secure in my person and belongings, free from the fear that the government will take away my liberty in these areas.

 

The 5th amendment does not protect me from incriminating myself so that I can remain silent on issues of personal matters. That way my personal matters can remain private.

 

There is no "penubra" of privacy in that I can live in my home without the fear of having government soldiers quarterd there?

 

I don't have the right to PRIVATELY own a handgun?

 

Gosh, I have know idea where anyone would have gotten the idea that there was some right to privacy in the Constitution.

 

And I thought the founding fathers were all about individual liberty - silly me, I guess they were all about government medling and the promotion of religion.

[Trinity alum]

No, a strict constructionist would say that there is no "penumbra" implied in the Bill of Rights granting a woman (or anyone else) a constitutional right of privacy. That is what led up to Roe being wrongly decided in the first place. I think Roberts is taking us back to revisit that in some ways.

How does the 9th amendment not address a right to privacy? I can't think of anything that would be more in line with the 9th amendment, and all of the Bill of Rights, than the right to be left the heck alone by the government. It is implied within the Roe decision that prior to viability outside the womb the fetus is not under the protection of the constitution (not a person). I would argue with that point, but if you accept that the fetus is not a person, then there is no governmental interest or reason for involvement. To me, when Roe is overturned, and I believe that it will be, it will be because the justices will decide that defining when life begins is not answerable by science or judges. Since the decision has to be made by someone, that sounds like a legislative matter.

[Hearsay]

How does the 9th amendment not address a right to privacy? I can't think of anything that would be more in line with the 9th amendment, and all of the Bill of Rights, than the right to be left the heck alone by the government. It is implied within the Roe decision that prior to viability outside the womb the fetus is not under the protection of the constitution (not a person). I would argue with that point, but if you accept that the fetus is not a person, then there is no governmental interest or reason for involvement. To me, when Roe is overturned, and I believe that it will be, it will be because the justices will decide that defining when life begins is not answerable by science or judges. Since the decision has to be made by someone, that sounds like a legislative matter.

 

A couple points:

 

1. I was simply pointing out that the "strict constructionist" view holds to the line that only what the Bill of Rights expressly provides for is law, and the Bill of Rights does not expressly provide for a right of privacy in one's own body. That is where the "implied" part comes in, and the use of the word "penumbra" first in Griswold v. Connecticut. My purpose there was simply to teach, not really fall down on either side one way or another.

 

2. The whole point of the Casey decision, discussed earlier, was that the concept of Supreme Court "precedent" is maleable, and can be modified when medical science, technology, or other discovery changes over time such that a prior holding may need revisiting. Thus, in 1973, medical technology may have not been sufficient to a determination of personhood or viability, whereas we may be getting there now or getting closer(?perhaps, I make no call on that issue). Thus, under Casey, the subject of viability and personhood may be revisited by the Court sometime soon, and THAT is where Roe may possibly be overturned.

 

3. I disagree on the "deciding" part. One of the most interesting points about our system of government is that the legislature deals with issues AFTER they have been an issue, sometimes for a long time. And because of politics, even when presented with an issue, the legislature may never act. The Courts, on the other hand, deal with issues that exist NOW (it sometimes takes a while to get to Supreme Court, but they are essentially reviewing things that were present and at hand before the trial courts). Life doesn't stop or slow down for the legislature, and the courts have to deal with these things. Case in point - 40 years ago, people really didn't move around a whole lot, and so in a custody case, it was pretty much understood that one parent couldn't move away and take the children over the other parent's objection, or if there was that issue, the subsequent court case usually resulted in custody with the parent staying put. However, as time went on, more and more people have been forced to change locales for employment, transfers, etc. etc. Many custodial parents, faced with the prospect of losing their jobs or their children, began to cry foul that it was unfair to punish a parent on custody for a relocation that would otherwise have been permissible. The issue started to come before the courts. For years, written court decisions implored the legislature to take a stance on this issue in custody disputes, but they never did. In 1981 in Kentucky, Wilson v. Messinger held that in a sole custody situation, one parent moving away with the kids was not enough to modify custody over to the other parent. In 2001, Kentucky applied the same logic to Fenwick v. Fenwick in joint custody cases. Only in 2004 (after the courts had heard these cases for 40 years), did the legislature draft any statutory language addressing relocation.

 

Yet, when judges attempt to address real problems that are before them right then but for which the legislature had not addressed, they are labeled "activists," and I'm talking mostly about my own party here.

 

Congress is not ever going to decide when "personhood" begins. They may pass abortion restrictions, anti-partial birth abortion bills, etc. etc., but they are not ever going to address "personhood." Therefore, there will come a time when science present that issue to the Court, and the Court is going to decide it.

[75center]

And they will continue to be performed as long as the RNC has its way. God forbid they'd lose their No. 1 wedge issue.

 

I believe both sides use this as a wedge issue but I also believe both sides truly believe in their cause and are not just making their arguments for political reasons.

[Jim Schue]

I believe both sides use this as a wedge issue but I also believe both sides truly believe in their cause and are not just making their arguments for political reasons.

 

I think common people who proclaim themselves to be anti-abortion are genuine, for the most part. Politicians who bill themselves as such, on the other hand, I'm skeptical. Were those pols to lose access to their wedge issue through a repeal of R v. W, many of the single-issue voters out there — LBBC is a prime example — might abandon GOP voting in droves.

 

The national Republican Party does not want R v. W to be repealed for fear of losing votes.

[oldrambler]

:dancingpa :dancingpa :dancingpa

 

In my opinion, our country hit a new low when the law allowing partial birth abortion was signed. How can anyone in their right mind think that the procedure qualifies as abortion? The child is being born for pete's sake.

 

This is not only a win for the pro-lifers, but also for unborn children. However, I don't know if we will ever see the overturn of Roe v. Wade, but at least we now have the precedent set for this law not coming back.

:thumb: :thumb: I agree with you on this. :dancingpa :banana: :banana: :banana:

 

I love seeing the Liberals take a hit! By the way, I am not against all democrats, I come from a family of democrats and I know a lot of very good people that are Democrats. JMO but I believe that there should be another seperate party and have the three main parties Democrats, Republicans and Liberals. There are A LOT of very good people that are democrats that absolutely despise liberals and their "do anything you want, say that your sorry and all is o.k. attitude":rolleyes:

 

JMO and I am not going to get into a heated debate with anyone. Just wanted to express my view as others do and have a right to.

[BigJim99]

The national Republican Party does not want R v. W to be repealed for fear of losing votes.

 

I see your point. My question would be that could the GOP still use the same tactic they use to gain votes with gun control. Meaning they would say that Democrats would make abortion legal again if Republicans weren't in office. I'm not sure myself because i see abortion as more a moral issue and gun control as more of a right given to us.

[75center]

I think common people who proclaim themselves to be anti-abortion are genuine, for the most part. Politicians who bill themselves as such, on the other hand, I'm skeptical. Were those pols to lose access to their wedge issue through a repeal of R v. W, many of the single-issue voters out there — LBBC is a prime example — might abandon GOP voting in droves.

 

The national Republican Party does not want R v. W to be repealed for fear of losing votes.

 

No more so than the democratic party needs it on their side. It's been law for years and yet the democratic party brings out the "women will lose their privacy rights" every presidential election. No matter the law both sides will use it forever as there is always the chance that a swing in the SC will change the status quo.

[75center]

I see your point. My question would be that could the GOP still use the same tactic they use to gain votes with gun control. Meaning they would say that Democrats would make abortion legal again if Republicans weren't in office. I'm not sure myself because i see abortion as more a moral issue and gun control as more of a right given to us.

 

Yes. As I mentioned above the abortion law has been used for years by the democrats in saying that the republican presidential candidate will overturn roe vs wade. These core issues will always be used by both sides, either to rouse fear or hope that current law will be overturned, depending on the side you're on.

[Jim Schue]

The Dem party may use it, but only as an appeal to those on its far left. I don't think it really plays big with mainstream Dem voters.