From the AP:
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court’s conservative majority handed anti-abortion forces a major victory Wednesday in a decision that bans a controversial abortion procedure and set the stage for further restrictions.
For the first time since the court established a woman’s right to an abortion in 1973, the justices upheld a nationwide ban on a specific abortion method, labeled partial-birth abortion by its opponents.
The 5-4 decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion.
Read the whole article here.
For more information and an illustration of what this ban prohibits, view this site. Earlier legislation banning the procedure often referred to as “dilation and extraction” was vetoed by President Clinton in April of 1996.
As the AP article notes, this will probably have little impact on reducing the number of abortions performed in the U.S. Those would would have opted to partially deliver their children and suction out their brains can still use an alternate procedure which involves tearing off their limbs.
Nonetheless, it is a step forward in a long fight for the rights of the unborn.
Last 5 posts by Katie- Marquette Must Prosecute - Fully and Publicly - March 5th, 2008
- ¿Por qué no te callas?: Hugo Chavez Still Won´t Shut It - November 18th, 2007
- Tribune Preoccupation Wows Me - September 19th, 2007
- "Clout" Proves Easy to Come by at Black Journalists' Convention - August 12th, 2007
- License Plate Splicer on Campus - July 18th, 2007
Obviously the rights of the already born mean nothing.
Abortion = A decision between a woman, her doctor, and possibly the father (assuming he wasn’t a rapist or her stepdad or something). My body, my choice. Life begins at birth, not conception, and until there is a consensus about that (which there isn’t and likely won’t be), women should have access to legal, SAFE abortion. You don’t like abortion? Great. DON’T HAVE ONE. But we don’t live in a fascist regime, so you can’t tell me what I can and cannot do with my own body.
If Roe v. Wade is ever overturned and women start resorting to unsafe home abortions and they die, and many of the women who die this way turn out to be housewives and rich kids and members of the social elite, I wonder how your opinions will change then.
To clarify, this doesn’t overturn or even scale back the decision of Roe v. Wade. Roe set up a trimester system in which the government may not significantly interfere in the first and may interfere in the interest of the mother in the second. According to the Roe court, the state has a compelling interest in the third trimester as potential life can be at the point of vitality. A state may prevent abortions in this trimester, according to Roe, unless it is an issue of health of the mother.
Interesting that you included the father in your definition of abortion, as that has been a contested and litigated issue. Why is he important if life begins at birth? Furthermore, it is not his body? I’m curious to know why he is important in a pro-choicer’s mind.
I also find the following ad hominem attack on Katie troubling: “If Roe v. Wade is ever overturned and women start resorting to unsafe home abortions and they die, and many of the women who die this way turn out to be housewives and rich kids and members of the social elite, I wonder how your opinions will change then.” Are you saying her pro-life stance is elitist? Or that she wouldn’t mind if poor women died?
Fathers are important if they’re going to have anything to do with actually fathering the child. If the guy wants to have the kid and the woman doesn’t (and he didn’t rape her or do something skeezy like incest), then there is room for discussion there because of the family dynamic. However, in a situation where a woman is raped or a condom breaks or she’s the victim of incest, the only people involved should be the woman and her doc.
As for my last statement, it wasn’t meant to be an attack on Katie personally. It’s been found time and again that people associate things like abortion with the lower class and with minorities. My point is that if it could be proven that the loss of abortion rights would harm the upper class and white people, the overall conservative stance on the issue might be slightly different. Look at conservative politics as a whole. They tend to favor white people who have money and tend to harm women, poorer people, and minorities. (Ex. Anti-gay marriage, anti-affirmative action, anti-women’s right to choose, pro-death penalty, pro-traditional gender roles, etc).
given that i hate children, babies, teenagers, and most white people, it’s hypocritical to be celebrating a law president bush signed when he himself is pro-choice the same way a lot of people seem to be, rape, incest, broken condoms.
i am very disappointed that we were not gifted with more Brownback stupidity related to this, maybe instead of talking cells he could have had the fetus that made it to harvard.
Musocialist-
I don’t disagree that fathers are important, although I am surprised at your position given your pro-choice stance. Most pro-choice advocates view spousal consent as a threat to women’s rights. If being pro-choice is based on the core beliefs that a) it is a woman’s body and therefore she has a right to personal autonomy and b) life begins at birth, why should a father who wants the child have any say?
Christine —
Perhaps I’m not as crazy as everyone thinks I am? LOL. Having a family is a family decision, and if “accidents happen” then I think the other half of the impregnating party totally gets to offer his two cents. At the end of the day it is still the woman who gets to make the final choice, but I think in a situation where a man and a woman had an oops and got pregnant, it’s not unreasonable to think that they could sit down and hash the thing out like adults. Perhaps I differ from other pro-choicers in that respect.
Where I think men need to shut their mouths is in the cases of pregnant women that they didn’t impregnate. George W. Bush telling me what to do with my body should I ever get pregnant is downright ignorant.
Also, don’t get confused, I’m not advocating for legal spousal consent. I don’t agree with it. I think that if two people get themselves into trouble consensually (i.e. not rape, incest, etc), they can figure out how to get themselves out of trouble amongst themselves without the interference of lawyers and doctors and politicians, etc. The smaller the number of people involved in my personal business, the better.
I think perhaps I’m some sort of weird Socialist/Libertarian hybrid. Is there even a name for that?
I guess we now can see why it is important to elect the right person President. The power to appoint the right people to the Supreme Court can have a big impact on all people’s rights. Right?
LOL Simon, you are correct. I find it funny though… we preach Democracy in this country like nobody’s business (and try to force it on other countries) and we aren’t one ourselves. We’re a Republic. We don’t directly elect our President — the electoral college does that. We don’t directly decide what’s right and wrong for our society — the Supreme Court does that. And in both cases, what the people want and what the ec or the sc want don’t necessarily have to line up. I’m not so much feelin’ the “power to the people” vibe from this country…
“power to the people” vibe aye? I am not going to go into a full blown defense of our Republic but, our country has a seperate, indirectly appointed branch, the Supreme Court, in order to add another layer of checks and balances. This way, our country is not swayed drastically and instantaneously, against the constitution, by the latest fads.
Whether you like it or not, our country chose our President (with a majority vote through the electoral college) and our President, George W Bush, selected the two latest additions to the Supreme Court. John Kerry would have appointed different justices but, our country voted against him.
As much as I know you will hate this, thank God for George W Bush and the justices he appointed. They have protected those who cannot protect themselves from a gruesome death.
Actually Brandon, we elected Al Gore the first time around, but electoral college didn’t agree. Hence why democracy isn’t actually what America stands for.
I’m glad that a woman’s health and control of her own body means nothing to you people. No wonder you oppose the Vagina Monologues — women are nothing more than a vessel for their husband’s sperm.
By the way, the Constitution didn’t always permit women and blacks to vote, but the social “fad” of human rights and equality helped make that change happen. Are you saying that they never should have extended those rights? Because the notion of equal rights for blacks and women was (and still is in many places) a radical and drastic notion.
And Brandon, I return to a previous point. Until you are pregnant or get someone else pregnant, you should have no say in what a woman does with her own body. What if people got to vote on whether or not men should have vasectomies? Would you like the government telling you what to do with your reproductive parts? I didn’t think so.
Keep your rosaries and your politics off my body.
Aside from a snicker at applying the “life begins at birth” argument to a situation where half the baby is delivered and limbs are waving free of the mother’s body, I only have one thing to add to this discussion…
Mu Socialist,
You asked: I think perhaps I’m some sort of weird Socialist/Libertarian hybrid. Is there even a name for that? and I didn’t see anyone respond. Yes, there is a name for it, IDIOT. It is so easy to understand why you liberals never seem to understand right from wrong, you lack what us on, in, and about the right know as intelligence. Life begins at conception, that is why the fetus is growing. As any of your evolutionist buddies and if they are not lying to you, they will tell you that only if there is life can something grow. I learned this myself while I was yet a small child, it takes some people their whole lives to understand basic scientific facts. If the fetus is growing (as it is from day one), then it is alive and if is a life. Us conservatives believe according to the word of GOD that no one, not even women, have the right to kill a human life (that includes you by the way Mu). Please stop showing your ignorance and think before you write, Roe vs. Wade was in direct conflict with the exsitance of mankind. Why do you think we have laws to protect people and make it illegal to kill someone? It is for the preservation of human life. No one has ever used anti-abortion laws to cause harm or death to women. That is a fact! Anti-abortion laws are designed to protect life just like the laws that keep innocent people from getting shot because someone else wants the 2 dollars in their pocket. When will you people ever wake up and smell the coffee? Allowing women to have free reighn over the life or death of a living fetus is no different than abolishing the law that makes it illegal for a “bad” guy to kill the guy next to him. People do not always use good judgement, and mankind is known for permitting our feelings, misunderstanding, fears, and mistakes to guide our decisions, it is the laws that keep us between the lines and this is especially true when it concerns preserving life. Take ito consideration concerning the facts on induced abortion: “On average, women give four reasons for choosing abortion. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.” Now, let’s say we didn’t have a law that says that killing people living outside the womb was illegal. Can you imagine how many people would die every day because they didn’t want to be responsible for them any more? What about if those that decided they cannot afford to support those for which they are responsible? What if those that decided that their own personal education or getting a better job was more important, or even worse, what if half the parents out there decided to kill their children, spouses, or parents just because they were having problems with their significant other? Oh wait, you are going to tell me that I am not taking into consideration the woman’s health aren’t you? Wrong. If you look at the facts, and I mean the real facts based on legitimate data, you will not find very many incidents where the woman who had the abortion had any sort of life-threating health concerns, in fact, words such as rare, almost never, and hardly ever are used in describing the life of the mother being a reason for an abortion, and if when we consider third trimester abortions (the ones where the partial-birth technique is used) it is less. Believe me, if the life of the mother is a concern, her Doctor would go to court, prove her life was in danger and he would be exonerated and applauded for saving her life (even if it meant sacrificing the unborn’s life). This is no different for humans outside the womb. Now don’t you think we would most likely be running out of people by now? In fact, I am sure I would not even be afforded the privledge of responding to your blog today as most likely you wouldn’t even be here to write it if it weren’t for the protection our life-preserving laws in this world.
References:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs.....rtion.html
http://www.leaderu.com/focus/30yearsroevwade.html
Enjoy life Mu, and let the innocent enjoy life as well
Mark
Markis you are amazing. Thank you for your post.
Partial birth abortion is one of the worst atrocities I can think of… imagine a woman giving birth than just as the head of the baby is exposed the brains are sucked out by a vacuum. Just post the pictures of this procedure, its undeniably disgusting something like this can even take place. Thank goodness this ban was upheld.
“I’m glad that a woman’s health and control of her own body means nothing to you people. No wonder you oppose the Vagina Monologues — women are nothing more than a vessel for their husband’s sperm.”
Musocialist-
Your hyperbolic ad hominem attacks undermine your arguments. Pro-lifers see the key issue as the baby. Pro-choicers view the key issue as a woman’s body, seeing the fetus as simply a bunch of non-living cells. Pro-choicers don’t hate all babies and want them all to die. Pro-lifers don’t view women’s bodies as “vessels for their husbands’ sperm”. In fact more women then men are pro-life. I’m pro-life because a) I believe life begins at conception, b) a choice has already been made (except in a rape/incest case), and c) because I care about women and the psychological effects of killing your baby.
don’t forget… rape / incest are very rare cases in these abortion issues. Some 95% of abortions are choice.
News for Wisconsin… There is overwhelming support for such a ban, however our Wisconsin Supreme Court over ruled it.
http://www.thewheelerreport.co.....letter.pdf
Now its up for debate because of the US supreme court decision. Its in JB Van Hollen’s hands…