posted on August 26, 2004 08:42:17 PM new
Judge Stops Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
43 minutes ago Add U.S. National - AP to My Yahoo!
By LARRY NEUMEISTER, Associated Press Writer
NEW YORK - A federal judge declared the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional Thursday in the second such ruling in three months — even though he called the procedure "gruesome, brutal, barbaric and uncivilized."
U.S. District Judge Richard C. Casey — one of three federal judges across the country to hear simultaneous challenges to the law earlier this year — faulted the ban for not containing an exception to protect a woman's health, something the Supreme Court has made clear is required in laws prohibiting particular types of abortion.
The law, signed last November, banned a procedure known to doctors as intact dilation and extraction and called partial-birth abortion by abortion foes. The fetus is partially removed from the womb, and the skull is punctured or crushed.
Louise Melling, director of the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project, said her group was thrilled by the ruling.
"We can only hope as we have decision after decision after decision striking these bans, saying they endanger women's health, that the legislatures will finally stop," she said.
On June 1, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton in San Francisco also found the law unconstitutional, saying it violates a woman's right to choose an abortion. A judge in Lincoln, Neb., has yet to rule. The three judges suspended the ban while they held the trials.
The three verdicts are almost certain to be appealed to the Supreme Court.
"We are in the process of the appeal of these issues now, which tells you exactly what we're doing and where we're going," Attorney General John Ashcroft (news - web sites) said Thursday.
The government has already appealed the San Francisco ruling, said Monica Goodling, a Justice Department (news - web sites) spokeswoman.
The ban, which President Clinton (news - web sites) twice vetoed, was seen by abortion rights activists as a fundamental departure from the Supreme Court's 1973 precedent in Roe v. Wade (news - web sites). But the Bush administration has argued that the procedure is cruel and unnecessary and causes pain to the fetus.
At trials earlier this year, doctors testified that of 1.3 million abortions performed annually, the law would affect about 130,000, almost all in the second trimester. Some observers suggest the number would be much lower — 2,200 to 5,000.
In his ruling, Casey said that there is evidence that the procedure can have safety advantages for women. He said the Supreme Court had made it clear that "this gruesome procedure may be outlawed only if there exists a medical consensus that there is no circumstance in which any women could potentially benefit from it."
At another point, Casey wrote that testimony put before himself and Congress showed the outlawed abortion technique to be a "gruesome, brutal, barbaric and uncivilized medical procedure."
Casey, who was appointed to the bench by President Clinton in 1997, was considered by some observers to be the best legal hope for the law's supporters.
"We were on pins and needles on this one," said Gloria Feldt, president of Planned Parenthood (news - web sites) Federation of America. "The judge was very aggressive in his questioning and very transparent in his articulation of his personal views on the matter. Fortunately, he chose to uphold the law."
During a hearing earlier this year, Casey repeatedly asked doctors whether they tell pregnant women prior before an abortion that they will rip the fetus apart and that it might feel pain.
"Did you tell them you were sucking the brains out of the same baby they desired to hold?" the judge asked Dr. Carolyn Westhoff, who performs or supervises hundreds of abortions a year in Manhattan.
At another point, Casey, who is blind, asked Westhoff whether a mother can detect in advance whether a baby will be born blind. "Not that I'm aware of," Westhoff answered.
posted on August 26, 2004 08:54:17 PM new
At least you're not into loaded questions Libra.
This kind of abortion sounds awful! The fetus must be into the 3rd trimester to be that big to see - I'm against it, unless the mother's in danger and there's no other way to save her or to abort the fetus.
posted on August 27, 2004 12:50:17 AM new
Ya, it's a loaded question destined to set off an old, old debate that will never end.
BUT FIRST, to help UNload the question let's make it plain that NO ONE is in favor of abortions. No one likes them. No ONE!
BUT women should always have the right to
CHOOSE
what they do with their OWN body.....anything less is turning them into breeding animals.....
like Hitler wanted to do.
And NO man should have a say in any of it unless he's had a vasectomy!
posted on August 27, 2004 10:01:44 AM new
It is a private matter between a woman and her medical provider. Our opinion should be of no consequence in the matter.
Just remember, a government that has the power to say you can not have an abortion, is also a government that has the power to say you WILL have an abortion, just like China.
Were it not for a wise and brave US Supreme Court, our freedoms would be gone.
I did not post this as a loaded question. I posted it for the unborn that are brutally killed in the 3rd trimester. Imagine crushing a skull, piercing the skull of a baby that is alive, then gone....
But there is someone who is in favor of abortion and this type of abortion.
Louise Melling, director of the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project, said her group was thrilled by the ruling.
Women want freedom but still let men dictate their lives and what they do with their bodies. I am talking about the court of appeals and the men judges. Do you think if there was a women judge the verdict would be different? It's hard to say. That is something we can't speculate.
I think women who have abortions regret this in later life. I have known a few that have. JMHO
posted on August 27, 2004 12:28:50 PM new
Libra: I did not post this as a loaded question. I posted it for the unborn that are brutally killed in the 3rd trimester. Imagine crushing a skull, piercing the skull of a baby that is alive, then gone....
I don't know how this would be a loaded question. You are either in favor of it or against it. Personally I am against any type of abortion unless a woman is raped or at risk of loosing her own life if the baby was carried to full term.
Just recently here in Chicago there was a bably born in an aprtment. After giving birth the mother ripped the cord, stabbed the child and then threw it out a window. In my opinion partial birth abortions are just as bad as what this mother did.
It makes you wonder what people are thinking.
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
YOU CAN'T HAVE BULLSH** WITH OUT BUSH.
------------------------------
We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union....
.....one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for ALL.
posted on August 27, 2004 12:34:13 PM new
OK Raemond how can you compare abortion or crushing a babies head to the things you posted? Those aren't even close.
I know women who later in life have regtetted:
Marrying the person they did-Divorce
Not ever marrying-no other living person involved or killed
Marrying period- same as the first two
Not going to college, or post grad school-[b]only injured party is yourself[]b].
Having too many children-their choice, no one killed
Having too few childrentheir choice
Having breast implants-stupid comparison
Not having breast implants-stupid comparison
Not continuing their profession after marriagetheir choice, no one killed
Continuing their profession after marriagetheir choice, no one killed
And the list goes on and on for both men and women.
Regret is a state of mind, and is indepentent of what you did or did not do.
Men usually have no choice in an abortion as they are not pregnant so of course they can't regret it. Makes no difference to them
Abortion is NOT a state of mind. Once that baby is killed there is no turning back, unlike all the questions you posted.
posted on August 27, 2004 12:51:00 PM new
Libra, yes the month was charged with murder. The community in which this happened gathered the money for a proper burial with a few companies donating the casket and grave stone.
Libra, you also made this statement:
Men usually have no choice in an abortion as they are not pregnant so of course they can't regret it. Makes no difference to them
Do you think men should have a choice in this matter? What if the man who got the woman pregnant wants the baby while the pregnant women does not? Do you think the man has any rights in this situation?
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
YOU CAN'T HAVE BULLSH** WITH OUT BUSH.
------------------------------
We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union....
.....one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for ALL.
posted on August 27, 2004 12:58:03 PM newOK Raemond how can you compare abortion or crushing a babies head to the things you posted? Those aren't even close.
They are very comparable.
They are all private decisions that may be regretted.
The graphic details of a D & E abortion should have no effect on the a woman's right to choose. Would you argee with late term abortions if a different method was used ?
A woman having an abortion, regardless of the medical procedure used, is none of our business.
posted on August 27, 2004 02:05:12 PM new
Yes Logansdad I do believe the father has a right to that baby. The decision should be made by both parents and not just the mother.
posted on August 27, 2004 02:13:03 PM new
No I wouldn't. unless the mothers life was at stake. Can you explain to me what other method could be used?
You are comparing an abortion to breast implants. Going to college. Well I guess there is no reasoning with you about anything if you think those insignificant things compare to abortion.
There isn't a death involved with those. They can never be regretted because all the items you chose can be completed anytime during the life time. A babys death is just that death.
posted on August 27, 2004 02:49:32 PM new
NO!!!!!!!!
IMHO......
Just as a man can be drafted to defend this country, I think a woman should be drafted to give birth to her child. Yes, just like military draft they should be required by law to do it or face prison. A man cannot opt out of the draft very easily, a woman could avoid gestational draft by being responsible. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
posted on August 27, 2004 03:02:01 PM new
Here's where there's a problem, Libra. When a woman goes through with an unwanted pregnancy and gives the baby up for adoption, the people that are so against abortion are nowhere to be found. That is one of the reasons why I'm pro-choice (with limitations).
Logan, the loaded part was describing a horror scene, then asking if you're in favor of it. As if anyone would say yes.
posted on August 27, 2004 03:06:19 PM new
I'm against ALL abortion. No exceptions. Period. What's the difference if you kill an unborn child in the first trimester or the third? You are still killing an unborn human child. And killing is killing. Whether you simply take an abortion pill or you pierce the child's skull and suck its brains out, the result is the same. I consider all abortions cold-blooded premeditated murder. There's not much I can do about it and so I'll just let God judge.
I think it's a little ironic how the lefties who used to call Vietnam vets baby killers are themselves the real baby killers. Something like 30 million babies killed since the 1970's.
posted on August 28, 2004 05:27:49 AM new
No, I don't like abortion. I also don't like the religious right croups pushing the issue. All should remember another religious croup the Taliban. The Taliban also made laws and told women what they could and could not do.
posted on August 28, 2004 06:33:11 AM new
bigpeepa-
You do not need to be a member of a religious cult to think abortion, unless in extreme cases, is wrong. Not all anti-abortionists are Southern Baptists or speak in tongues or are "bible-thumpers". But religious peoples probably feel more compelled to speak out against it.
IMHO, abortion should only be used in cases of incest or if the mother's life is in danger (and I don't mean social life). A partial-birth abortion is killing a child in an inhumane way.
posted on August 28, 2004 08:09:51 AM new
KD I beg to differ with you.
You said
"Logan, the loaded part was describing a horror scene, then asking if you're in favor of it. As if anyone would say yes."
That was not a loaded question. That is the only way a partial birth abortion can be done. Unless you know of another way? Yes, there are doctors that will do that and yes there are mothers that will let them do it. And stated in a previous thread the ACLU is in favor of it.
posted on August 28, 2004 12:51:01 PM new
Sure it's a loaded question Libra - it's a form of psychological blackmail. It's like me talking about the inside of a slaughterhouse or how fur coats are made, in detail, then asking if anyone's in favour of this. Who in their right mind would answer "yes"? But don't worry Libra, you're not alone. Many people here use that tactic.
posted on August 28, 2004 01:52:44 PM new
An interesting study would be :"Anti-abortion activists who have adopted a child". I'd like to know what percentage have put their money where their mouths are.
___________________________________
Our `neoconservatives' are neither new nor conservative, but old as Bablyon
and evil as Hell." --Edward Abbey
posted on August 28, 2004 03:20:45 PM new
Yes, here we go again. Another judge making the decision for all. One reason why we need more conservative judges on the bench.
Here'a a college paper, which addresses just a few of the arguments the pro-abortionists continually use for their arguments. And they really can't prove/don't know how many of these late-term babies would have been adopted.....had they only been given the chance.
And one thing I feel ver strongly about, and is part of why I chose this particular letter is because the pro-abortion group continually fights so that women, who are in the position of trying to decide what they want to do, can't be allowed to see the size of their fetus....or a diagram of what it looks like at their stage of gestation...nor can a film be shown on their babies development, or watch a tape showing this terrible procedure being done. Why? Because that alone just might influence their decision to not abort.
And as we know abortion has become a thriving industry....just look to Planned Parenthood. BIG business....that's why they put so much money fighting laws like this that passed....but then one judge says no one has the right to save an innocent life.
-----
"How can anyone mount an argument for this violent procedure? Abortion supporters argue it is mostly performed to save the mother's life, or because of fetal deformity."
"Yet, the American Medical Association states partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary."
"Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, said, "They're primarily done on healthy women and healthy fetuses."
"Fitzsimmons has performed thousands of abortions and, desensitized to the procedure, states abortion "is a form of killing. You're ending a life." Yet with up to $5,000 charged per abortion, it is a lucrative business for anyone who can stomach it."
"Another argument is the "gas chamber" theory, where the fetus is killed by the anesthesia, making the procedure more "humane." "The American Society of Anesthesiologists called the claim that anesthesia kills the fetus "entirely inaccurate[/i]."
"One favorite argument is that women should not be forced to raise "unwanted children." The National Committee for Adoption, though neutral on abortion, felt it had to respond to "inaccurate" claims about nobody wanting to adopt these children."
"[i]Infants who are legally free for adoption, regardless of their race or ethnicity, do not wait for homes," the organization said."
"In fact there is a waiting list of screened families who want to adopt seriously disabled newborns, including babies with Down Syndrome and spina bifida[/i]."
"While these couples wait, others decide they would rather kill their child than give her up for adoption."
"Kathryn Kolbert, New York abortion advocate, told abortion supporters not to get "sidetracked" by discussing the details of partial-birth abortion. "If the debate is whether the fetus feels pain, we lose," she said. "If the debate in the public arena is what's the effect of anesthesia, we'll lose." "If the debate is whether or not women ought to be entitled to late abortion, we probably will lose."
"This bill, however, does not settle the issue, nor does it make abortion illegal in late-term pregnancies. A form of abortion is banned." "Injected saline into the womb to burn the fetus to death and severing the limbs and body, then extracting the pieces, remain legal."
"[i]The question becomes will Americans, who overwhelmingly oppose partial-birth abortion, be comfortable with these procedures?"
"Is dismemberment better than suctioning out the brains? In time, Americans will also have to face these questions[/i]."
"Partial-birth abortion supporter Naomi Wolf put it best on why simple rhetoric cannot save her movement": "When someone holds up a model of a 6-month-old fetus and a pair of surgical scissors, we say 'choice,' and we lose."
[i]Kathy Savard is an international relations junior and president of MSU Students for Life.
-----------
I for one am VERY thankful there are those who don't support abortion at all....or those who at least won't support late-term abortions. I hope they don't give up on their work to stop this horrible procedure.
posted on August 28, 2004 04:12:40 PM new
KD - If one is for in favor of allowing abortions....at any stage of gestation...then one is pro-abortion. There's no way of getting around that....it's a given.
I know the non-PC wording upsets some, especially those who feel any woman who wants an abortion, on demand, should be allowed to have one. The term pro-abortion is an honest definition of where one actually stands on the issue.
