More Hogwash from the courts

James B · 11-06-2003, 05:50 PM

I think the Stats say that 70 percent of the American People want the ban on Partial-birth Abortion. The house and Senate overwhelmingly voted to Ban this procedure. The President of the U. S. Sighned in into law and less that a day later several Judges ban the law from taking effect. Is our constitution just BUN FODDER or what? Its the courst that rule this nation. Bush vows to fight to the end on this issue. However I wonder what it cost us to pass this law for nothing? No ban was ever more needed than this one. The Partial Birth murder is the most premeditated form of Murder in the world.[:@][:@][:@][:@][:@][:@][:@]

fng · 11-06-2003, 06:11 PM

Funny thing is that the way it is written, they allow it for very specialized cases where the liberals are claiming it is " necessary" .

total smoke screen to get the radical feminazi' s in a twist.

Briman · 11-06-2003, 06:30 PM

The liberals have it figured out- control the courts, and you control everything.

Its too bad the Repukes in congress don' t have any kind of leadership with a spine to push through a couple of good Federal court appointees.

rfwerth · 11-06-2003, 08:52 PM

The problem with the law as written is that it isn' t narrowly tailored. Because the right to choose is a constitutional right (as interpreted by the court, you may agree to disagree - its a substantive due process issue), any regulation of abortion is subject to strict scrutiny by the courts. This means that a law must serve a substantial gov' t interest that is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. The substantial gov' t interest in this case is the gov' t interest in protecting late term pregnancies - which is legit, the court won' t have a problem here. The problem is narrow tailoring, because there is no exception in this law for the health of the mother (which should have been included). That means this law is overinclusive. I.e., the gov' t could have served it' s substantial interst more narrowly. The law as written bans the procedure for women who' s lives are in danger - which means it applies to more people than is necessary to serve the substantial gov' t interest. My guess that this law would be upheld if it had an exception to protect the health of the mother. However, the court will not uphold this law as written with the current members.

Don' t paint me as some nut who supports partial birth abortions because of this post - I think the procedure is horrible in every respect (except in rare circumstances - like the mother will surely die w/out the procedure). This is just my opinion of why the courts will strike the law down.

strut · 11-06-2003, 09:14 PM

Makes you sick don' t it, the same type thing happened here in Mo. this fall, both the house and senate passed a CCW law and our Liberal Gov. vetoed it, they over rode his veto in Sept. and now the anti' s have found a liberal judge in St. Louis to bring an injunction against it and keep it from becoming law. If we don' t get some judges in place that has a little common sense then we are in a real heap of trouble.

James B · 11-07-2003, 12:20 AM

I thought that I read that that this time they did include a provision for the health of the mother. There is no doubt that the infant is a live human by anyones standard. What would give the right to kill one human to save another. I can' t see it and niether can my Wife. Most think that this time the law will stand. I have to agree though that the Bush administration could have battled a lot more for thier court nomonees. The liberals don' t want to approve hardly any of them. The stinking courts rule this country. They are making law as they go along instead of interpeting the law as the framers had in mind.

PABuck_HNTR · 11-07-2003, 03:36 AM

Time for term limits on judges!

rfwerth · 11-07-2003, 07:31 AM

I' m pretty sure the mother' s health exception was omitted from the law, but I could be wrong.

Briman · 11-07-2003, 04:52 PM

Quote:

I' m pretty sure the mother' s health exception was omitted from the law, but I could be wrong

Why would that matter? The whole mother' s health thing is a red herring. If the mother had a health problem, it would likely show early in the third trimester, not 10 minutes bfore the baby would have been naturally born. I' ve known alot of people who have had babies 5-7 weeks before term and they turned out ok. If a woman is having problems a day before term, there are procedures that have been around for a very long time such as C-section. I haven' t heard of a single case where a woman had to abort a baby as it was being born in order to save her life, has anyone else?

BTW,my son was born by C-section because he was too big for my wife to pass, would it have been a sane or responsible decision to have an abortion instead?

kevin1 · 11-10-2003, 01:29 PM

James B ,
the baseline for a live American by Constitutional standard is someone who has been taken to term and delivered , or otherwise delivered and alive . Prior to delivery the fetus is not considered a live American protected by our laws . Since anything can happen in vitro the courts had to set a baseline for future judgements or laws and ammendments . This was how Roe v. Wade got passed in 1972 . You' re not protected by the Constitution until you are " declared to be alive" .

I agree that the proceedure is abhorant , in any form , but it' s currently legal .