• In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 616 on Thu Jan 18, 2024 7:47 pm

Court Backs Ban on Late-Term Abortion Procedure

A forum dedicated to friendly and civil conversations about domestic and global politics, history, and present-day events.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
irishrosem

1E - BANNED
Kindle Fanatic
Posts: 528
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:38 am
17

Court Backs Ban on Late-Term Abortion Procedure

Unread post

In a combined decision in Gonzales v. Carhart and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the 2003 ban on late term abortions. This is indeed scary. I think it demonstrates the flavor that Supreme Court decisions will have with Bush's new religious right acquisitions on the bench. Personal values over constitutional rights. Here is a link to the Washington Post story. The Supreme Court website has not yet listed the Opinions. I'll link them as soon as they are available.From the Post:Quote:Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, now the only woman on the court, read a powerful dissent to a stone-silent courtroom that said the "alarming decision" was an effort to "chip away" at a woman's right to abortion.Kennedy's majority opinion described in detail the gruesome nature of the "intact dilation and extraction" technique banned in the act, and the affect it may later have on a woman who decided to abort using the method. The procedure itself is "laden with the power to devalue human life," he wrote."It is self-evident that a mother who comes to regret her choice and to abort must struggle with grief more anguished and sorrow more profound when she learns, only after the event, what she once did not know: that she allowed a doctor to pierce the skull and vacuum the fast-developing brain of her unborn child, a child assuming the human form," Kennedy wrote.Ginsburg responded that the majority's solution was not to insure that the woman is informed of the details of the procedure."Instead, the court shields women by denying them any choice in the matter," she said. "This way of protecting women recalls ancient notions about women's place in society and under the Constitution -- ideas that have long since been discredited."...Joining Ginsburg in her dissenting opinion were Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Stephen G. Breyer."Today's decision is alarming," Ginsburg wrote for the minority. "It tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. . . . And, for the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman's health."She added: "Retreating from prior rulings that abortion restrictions cannot be imposed absent an exception safeguarding a woman's health, the Court upholds an Act that surely would not survive under the close scrutiny that previously attended state-decreed limitations on a woman's reproductive choices."...In a statement, Ralph G. Neas, president of the liberal group People for the American Way, said the ruling proves that "the confirmation of right-wing nominees to the Supreme Court has disastrous consequences for Americans' rights and liberties." He said the replacement last year of O'Connor by the "ultraconservative" Alito "has brought the Court to the brink of judicial disaster."Of everything, I think the Bush appointments to the Supreme Court could have the worst long-standing consequences of these dark eight years.
User avatar
Mr. P

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Has Plan to Save Books During Fire
Posts: 3826
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 10:16 am
19
Location: NJ
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 137 times
Gender:
United States of America

Re: Court Backs Ban on Late-Term Abortion Procedure

Unread post

My question is...why would someone wait until the late term to have an abortion?I can agree that the latter term of a pregnancy is getting close to a line that may well be reasonable to draw.Mr. P. I'm not saying it's usual for people to do those things but I(with the permission of God) have raised a dog from the dead and healed many people from all sorts of ailments. - Asana Boditharta (former booktalk troll)The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.What is all this shit about Angels? Have you heard this? 3 out of 4 people believe in Angels. Are you F****** STUPID? Has everybody lost their mind? - George CarlinI came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper
irishrosem

1E - BANNED
Kindle Fanatic
Posts: 528
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:38 am
17

Re: Court Backs Ban on Late-Term Abortion Procedure

Unread post

Well this abortion ban can be stretched to limit abortions as early as 12 weeks. Women can legitimately go a couple months, even if they pay attention to their bodies, without realizing they are pregnant. Give them a month or so to make a decision and they are beyond the 12 weeks. Also, some women decide to abort if it is learned that the fetus has abnormalities, which is sometimes not learned until the later stages of pregnancy. Regardless of the reasons and or justifications, this is a personal choice to be made by the woman. The U.S. should not be in the business of legislating moral choices, specifically trampling the constitutional rights of a citizen, in favor of a fetus that has not yet been granted constitutional protections.
User avatar
Frank 013
Worthy of Worship
Posts: 2021
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:55 pm
18
Location: NY
Has thanked: 548 times
Been thanked: 171 times

Re: Court Backs Ban on Late-Term Abortion Procedure

Unread post

I really do not like to see the government trying to impose morality on its citizens and this case is a perfect example of the abuse of that power. Later
Niall001
Stupendously Brilliant
Posts: 706
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2003 4:00 am
20

Re: Court Backs Ban on Late-Term Abortion Procedure

Unread post

I can't say that I care for the means, but I rather like the outcome. Full of Porn*http://plainofpillars.blogspot.com
irishrosem

1E - BANNED
Kindle Fanatic
Posts: 528
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:38 am
17

Re: Court Backs Ban on Late-Term Abortion Procedure

Unread post

Niall, the outcome is the elimination of constitutional rights for women to decide what to do with their own bodies. That may not seem significant to you, but constitutional rights are fairly important in the U.S. It is particularly significant to me because these limitations target, yet again, women. Edited by: irishrosem at: 4/18/07 3:03 pm
User avatar
Mr. P

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Has Plan to Save Books During Fire
Posts: 3826
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 10:16 am
19
Location: NJ
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 137 times
Gender:
United States of America

Re: Court Backs Ban on Late-Term Abortion Procedure

Unread post

I agree I would rather have the goverment out of this...but one thing I disagree with Rose:"It is a woman's choice". I reject that. It should be the PARENTS choice. Men are FORCED to pay for the care of a child if the mother decides to have the baby. Yet we are told that we have no choice in the decision to have an abortion or not. That is a double standard.Mr. P. I'm not saying it's usual for people to do those things but I(with the permission of God) have raised a dog from the dead and healed many people from all sorts of ailments. - Asana Boditharta (former booktalk troll)The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.What is all this shit about Angels? Have you heard this? 3 out of 4 people believe in Angels. Are you F****** STUPID? Has everybody lost their mind? - George CarlinI came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper
User avatar
Frank 013
Worthy of Worship
Posts: 2021
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:55 pm
18
Location: NY
Has thanked: 548 times
Been thanked: 171 times

Re: Court Backs Ban on Late-Term Abortion Procedure

Unread post

Niall, By your comment it appears that you support the courts decision, if this is the case I have to ask why do you think that they, or anyone should have any say in what some stranger does with their body? How is it anyone else's business? (With the exception of the father) And if this is an issue of protecting the fetus why is it that this protection does not extend to any areas outside of abortion? We know that women who smoke during pregnancy can harm the fetus, should we make that illegal?How about drinking while pregnant should we ban that as well?How about the child living in a smoker's home? Definitely unhealthy, should we intrude on peoples lives to this extent? Where do you draw the line?Later
irishrosem

1E - BANNED
Kindle Fanatic
Posts: 528
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:38 am
17

Re: Court Backs Ban on Late-Term Abortion Procedure

Unread post

Mr. P.: "It is a woman's choice". I reject that. It should be the PARENTS choice. Men are FORCED to pay for the care of a child if the mother decides to have the baby. Yet we are told that we have no choice in the decision to have an abortion or not. That is a double standard.Mr. P., it is an unfortunate circumstance, but the man's (father's) position holds no more sway than the state's position. The issue at hand is the woman's body. A boyfriend, husband, whatever, should have no more say over what a woman does to her body than the state should. How would you enforce a pregnancy where a father wanted the fetus but the mother didn't want to continue the pregnancy? Are you going to jail her to prevent her from having an abortion? As I said, these are unfortunate circumstances particularly for the men. However, their only real choice lies in the women with whom they have sex, and the precautions they (men) take. I'm not saying that doesn't suck for men. It does. But, legally, they have no recourse; it's the woman's bodies that are in question.
Niall001
Stupendously Brilliant
Posts: 706
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2003 4:00 am
20

Re: Court Backs Ban on Late-Term Abortion Procedure

Unread post

IRISH:Quote:Niall, the outcome is the elimination of constitutional rights for women to decide what to do with their own bodies. That may not seem significant to you, but constitutional rights are fairly important in the U.S. It is particularly significant to me because these limitations target, yet again, women.Personally, I believe that everybody has the right to do whatever they want to do with their minds and bodies, so long as exercising that right does not impact on the ability of others to exercise that right. I recognise the foetus as a member of the human race and I'd rather that he/she wasn't killed.FRANK:Quote:By your comment it appears that you support the courts decision, if this is the case I have to ask why do you think that they, or anyone should have any say in what some stranger does with their body?Do what you want with your body, just don't kill anybody. Quote:And if this is an issue of protecting the fetus why is it that this protection does not extend to any areas outside of abortion?We know that women who smoke during pregnancy can harm the fetus, should we make that illegal?How about drinking while pregnant should we ban that as well?How about the child living in a smoker's home? Definitely unhealthy, should we intrude on peoples lives to this extent?Where do you draw the line?There is a difference between harming somebody and killing them. No parent is perfect. If we demanded perfection from parents we'd have very large orphanages. Do I think that a parent should smoke around a child? No I don't. In fact, I don't think that anybody should smoke around somebody who does not want inhale harmful chemical agents. The same goes for drinking while pregnant. No, I don't think that anybody should drink while pregnant, but I'm not demanding perfection from parents. There are millions of ways for a parent to mess up their child, both in a physical and a psychological sense, but that doesn't mean that we allow parents kill their children. And the fact that we forbid parents to kill their children certainly doesn't mean that we lock parents up for exposing their children to inappropriate videogames. Full of Porn*http://plainofpillars.blogspot.com
Post Reply

Return to “Current Events & History”