Recommended Posts
QuoteQuote
The opponents of the act "have not demonstrated that the Act would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of relevant cases," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion....
Yep, just what we need, more justices that think that things are Constitutional when they deprive only a small "fraction" of people of their Constitutional rights. The right to keep government out of the Dr/patient relationship, torture, spying....it's all ok if we only screw up a few people's lives.
What is the argument for justifying partial birth abortions, considering first trimester abortions are completely legal and readily available?
Zipp0 1
QuoteQuoteQuote
The opponents of the act "have not demonstrated that the Act would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of relevant cases," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion....
Yep, just what we need, more justices that think that things are Constitutional when they deprive only a small "fraction" of people of their Constitutional rights. The right to keep government out of the Dr/patient relationship, torture, spying....it's all ok if we only screw up a few people's lives.
What is the argument for justifying partial birth abortions, considering first trimester abortions are completely legal and readily available?
If the mother's life or health may be endangered by giving birth, she and her doctor have the right to make this choice, not the government.
This is just a payback to the religious right morons who put Bush in the white house. Now they can feel good about him and vote for the next supposed anti abortion asshole the right brings forward.
It doesn't really matter - the law has never stopped things like abortion, or drug use, or other personal freedoms, and it never will. It will just make good people into outlaws.
--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.
QuoteQuoteWhat is the argument for justifying partial birth abortions, considering first trimester abortions are completely legal and readily available?
If the mother's life or health may be endangered by giving birth, she and her doctor have the right to make this choice, not the government.
I believe the following is prt of the law in question.
QuoteThis subsection [imposing penalties] does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.
QuoteThis is just a payback to the religious right morons who put Bush in the white house. Now they can feel good about him and vote for the next supposed anti abortion asshole the right brings forward.
The Supreme Court of the United States is in the business of handing out political favors? No kidding?
Quote
What is the argument for justifying partial birth abortions, considering first trimester abortions are completely legal and readily available?
Right off hand, I can't tell you. But I'm willing to bet that the patient's Dr can and apparently, according to Ginsburg, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists can as well.. And I don't know about anyone else but this "lib" thinks that inserting the government between a Dr. and a patient is the wrong thing to do.
Lindsey 0
QuoteQuote
Bill Clinton: "When we got organized as a country, [and] wrote a fairly radical Constitution, with a radical Bill of Rights, giving radical amounts of freedom to Americans, it was assumed that Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly...When personal freedom is being abused, you have to move to limit it." (April 19 1994, on MTV)
That same argument could be used in favor of gun control. Maybe that was the original context. I tend to disagree with it on both counts.
linz
--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail
mnealtx 0
Agreed - just showing it's endemic to politics in general, not just one flavor of it...
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
the government isn't being insterted between a doctor and a patient. if a doctor says that the patient's life or health is in danger, they can do whatever they want. what is happenning is that the government is saying that if you want to abort, get your shit together and get it done while the baby is still a parasite and not viable. one problem with our country is that we've become so entrenched in our beliefs that concieding even the tiniest bit to the other side is seen not as a compromise, but a loss.
"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com
"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com
Zipp0 1
Just wait until the first doc is prosecuted for this. He will assert that there was danger to the mother, and the Bush prosecutor will find a doc to say that there was no danger to the mother. If he gets convicted, nobody will ever perform the procedure again, despite risk to a mother.
Stupid law - stupid decision.
--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.
Stupid law - stupid decision.
--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.
there will be doctors who will perform this whether it is legal or not. in any case, you can fill a court room with doctors to support either side of things. this law just doesn't sound so stupid to me. i guess the whole dabate is where to draw the line. some people believe that you shouldn't even stop the sperm from fertalizing the egg. others believe you should be able to kill babies as long as they haven't fully left from the vagina. that includes allowing the baby to be held partially in the vagina while it is killed. i personnally believe that a fetus is a parasite in the mother's body. i feel that it crosses the line from parasite to human when ther fetus reaches viability. i am pro choice and in some cases pro abortion. even my beliefs leave a lot of gray area. when exactly does it become vaible? what is viability? i don't think this debate will ever be solved. where exactly would you draw the line and why?
"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com
"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com
Quoteone problem with our country is that we've become so entrenched in our beliefs that concieding even the tiniest bit to the other side is seen not as a compromise, but a loss.
That's true, but the idea of the anti-abortion people is to slowly chip away at R v W and eventually make all abortions illegal. This is simply one case and it deals with an extremely small percentage of abortion cases, so this is only a small victory, but it is indeed one more chip. I guess what bugs me the most, besides the government intrusion into personal life, is that most of the people who champion themselves as "pro-life" aren't pro-life, but more accurately, anti-abortion.
Here's what's funny about this case: The case approached it from a level of right to privacy under Roe and Casey. Casey said that pre-viability abortions couldn't be banned, but deferred on post-viability abortions.
The majority found that the federal law is not vague - it says exactly what isn't allowed. The majority also found that the Act has language in it that provides for allowing the method in a medical emergency for the health of the mother, and therefore is not an undue burden. Finally, they found that it is not overbroad, and therefore not an undue burden.
The thread and the news seem to be showing this as not allowing it even if medically necessary. The court actually found that it can be allowed.
As for me, I don't think that the federal government has any business regulating this because the Commerce Clause should prevent it. LEave it to Clarence Thomas to hint that had the Commerce Clause argument been raised, he would have ruled differently.
"I also note that whether the Act constitutes a permissible exercise of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause is not before the Court. The parties did not raise or brief that issue; it is outside the question presented; and the lower courts did not address it."
Basically, he is saying that it is not an invasion of privacy to limit this. But, he is hinting that he would say that the federal government has no business with this - it's a state issue.
It's a shame because that's what I would have really liked to see analyzed.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
The majority found that the federal law is not vague - it says exactly what isn't allowed. The majority also found that the Act has language in it that provides for allowing the method in a medical emergency for the health of the mother, and therefore is not an undue burden. Finally, they found that it is not overbroad, and therefore not an undue burden.
The thread and the news seem to be showing this as not allowing it even if medically necessary. The court actually found that it can be allowed.
As for me, I don't think that the federal government has any business regulating this because the Commerce Clause should prevent it. LEave it to Clarence Thomas to hint that had the Commerce Clause argument been raised, he would have ruled differently.
"I also note that whether the Act constitutes a permissible exercise of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause is not before the Court. The parties did not raise or brief that issue; it is outside the question presented; and the lower courts did not address it."
Basically, he is saying that it is not an invasion of privacy to limit this. But, he is hinting that he would say that the federal government has no business with this - it's a state issue.
It's a shame because that's what I would have really liked to see analyzed.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
It sounds like you're say the Commerce Clause is very relevant to this issue, as well as Roe v. Wade,... which means that even though it's the great big ole elephant in the room, the pro-choice proponents won't go near it because of the possibility of having all abortion rights kicked back to the state level.
Is that about right?
Is that about right?
rushmc 23
QuoteQuote
The opponents of the act "have not demonstrated that the Act would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of relevant cases," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion....
Yep, just what we need, more justices that think that things are Constitutional when they deprive only a small "fraction" of people of their Constitutional rights. The right to keep government out of the Dr/patient relationship, torture, spying....it's all ok if we only screw up a few people's lives.
Well, I think you got it a little mixed up.
This goes completly with the constitution. It is the first step of overturning a "created" contitutional right. One created by a court.
That being said however I will stay consistant. States should and do have rights to set these laws. So, if a state passes a law alowing it, the SC should not intervien with that either.
All the court has said (at this point) is this type of abortion is not constitutionaly protected.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
please explain the commerce clause, i am ignorant of it.
"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com
"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com
billvon 3,116
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>This goes completly with the constitution. It is the first step of
>overturning a "created" contitutional right. One created by a court.
We have all the rights that could possibly exist. Government takes rights away; the Constitution lists the rights they may NOT take away. It does not list the rights we do have. (If it did, we'd be in trouble - because it says absolutely nothing about skydiving/ground launching/BASE jumping in there.)
>overturning a "created" contitutional right. One created by a court.
We have all the rights that could possibly exist. Government takes rights away; the Constitution lists the rights they may NOT take away. It does not list the rights we do have. (If it did, we'd be in trouble - because it says absolutely nothing about skydiving/ground launching/BASE jumping in there.)
Quoteplease explain the commerce clause, i am ignorant of it.
The Commerce Clause is in Article I, Section 8, clause 3 of the Constitution, which grants Congress the authority to regulate "interstate commerce."
Now, the federal government is one of limited powers. Well, it was a government of limited powers. The commerce clause was previously utilized to limit government powers. The Tenth Amendment made sure that it was clear that the feds could only do what they specifically were told they could do.
Back in the early 1900's, opium was a scourge. "There ought to be a law" shouted many of the masses. The Federal Government said, "We'd like to, but that's a Police Power, which is reserved to the states under the Constitution." But some wiseguy thought, "Let's call it interstate commerce." And the law was passed.
Then the Depression came along, and New Deal programs were being struck down as encroaching on intrastate matters, which the Constitution doesn't allow. So FDR - upset that the Constitution was standing in the way of his power-grab, seized the rhetorical edge and won a landslide reelection in 36. On the basis of public opinion, and the SCOTUS consistently interpreting the Constitution as it always has, he proposed retiring all of the old judges and packing the SCOTUS with new thinkers who understood that the Constitution should not stand in the way of the federal government. Why, how could the government inter Japs, much less seize state powers, unless the Court stopped blocking those efforts? So a couple of judges, realizing that their days were numbered unless they played ball, swtiched allegiances and went along with it. Google "switch in time saves nine."
Since then, we've seen massive federal government growth. In 94, the SCOTUS found in the Lopez case that the commerce clause authorized regulation of: 1) the channels of commerce; 2) the instrumentalities of commerce; and 3) action that substantially affects interstate commerce.
Since that time, there isn't anything that doesn't implicate interstate commerce. In Gonzales v. Raich in 2005, the SCOTUS held that it's okay for the Feds to make a law that makes private possession and cultivation of marijuana illegal - even if it has never entered interstate commerce because if everybody did it, then it would affect interstate commerce.
I mean, Congress could regulate anything so longas it doesn't violate other guarantees. I.e., if a person is caught jerking off, there may be a Federal penalty to it. Let's make pissing in public a federal offense - imagine what would happen if everybody did it.
The Commerce Clause, in my opinion, has been horrifically spun over the past 75 years.
Thomas is greatly opposed to this bullshit expansion of the commerce clause.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Royd 0
So, let's look at the logic of this. The doctor says that having a live baby by natural methods will kill the mother, so the doc turns the baby around inside the womb, delivers it feet first, and before its head comes out, he drives a probe into the base of the brain, and sucks them out. How did that save the mother's life?QuoteIf the mother's life or health may be endangered by giving birth, she and her doctor have the right to make this choice, not the government.
billvon 3,116
>How did that save the mother's life?
Google eclampsia and placental abruption.
Google eclampsia and placental abruption.
Richards 0
QuoteQuotethe government isn't being insterted between a doctor and a patient. if a doctor says that the patient's life or health is in danger, they can do whatever they want. what is happenning is that the government is saying that if you want to abort, get your shit together and get it done while the baby is still a parasite and not viable. one problem with our country is that we've become so entrenched in our beliefs that concieding even the tiniest bit to the other side is seen not as a compromise, but a loss.
Agreed
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
Royd 0
billvon
Post: >How did that save the mother's life?
Post: >How did that save the mother's life?
The baby still had to be delivered, whether naturally or through caesarian. Why should the child have to die?QuoteGoogle eclampsia and placental abruption.
I'll go along with that. So what's next, impeaching the judges?
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites