Federal judge says partial-birth abortion ban unconstitutional

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-06-01-partial-birth_x.htm

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) ? A federal judge Tuesday declared the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional, saying the measure infringes on a woman's right to choose.
The ruling applies to the nation's 900 or so Planned Parenthood clinics and their doctors, who perform roughly half of all abortions in the United States. (Related documents: Partial Birth-Abortion Ban Act | Planned Parenthood v. Ashcroft)

U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton's ruling came in one of three lawsuits challenging the legislation President Bush signed last year.

"The act poses an undue burden on a woman's right to choose an abortion," she wrote.

Federal judges in New York and Nebraska also heard challenges to the law earlier this year but have yet to rule.

Planned Parenthood lawyer Beth Parker welcomed the ruling, saying it sends a "strong message" to Attorney General John Ashcroft and the Bush administration "that the government should not be intruding on very sensitive and private medical decisions."

Government attorneys did not immediately return calls for comment.

Bush signed the law in November, saying "a terrible form of violence has been directed against children who are inches from birth while the law looked the other way."

The law represented the first substantial federal legislation limiting a woman's right to choose an abortion, and abortion rights activists said it ran counter to three decades of Supreme Court precedent.

In the banned procedure ? known as intact dilation and extraction to doctors, but called partial-birth abortion by opponents ? the living fetus is partially removed from the womb, and its skull is punctured or crushed.

Justice Department attorneys argued that the procedure is inhumane, causes pain to the fetus and is never medically necessary.

Abortion proponents, however, argued that a woman's health during an abortion is more important than how the fetus is terminated, and that the banned method is often a safer solution that a conventional abortion, in which the fetus is dismembered in the womb and then removed in pieces.

The measure, which President Clinton had twice vetoed, was seen by abortion rights activists as a fundamental departure from the Supreme Court's 1973 precedent in Roe v. Wade. It shifted the debate from a woman's right to choose and focused on the plight of the fetus.

Abortion advocates said the law was the government's first step toward outlawing abortion. Violating the law carries a two-year prison term.

Late last year, Hamilton, a Clinton appointee, and federal judges in New York and Lincoln, Neb., blocked the act from being enforced pending the outcome of the court challenges. They began hearing testimony March 29.

Doctors have construed the Supreme Court's decision in Roe. v. Wade to mean they can perform abortions usually until the 24th to 28th week after conception, or until the "point of viability," when a healthy fetus is thought to be able to survive outside the womb. Generally, abortions after the "point of viability" are performed only to preserve the mother's health.

Doctors at about 900 abortion clinics practice under the Planned Parenthood umbrella, performing about half the nation's 1.3 million annual abortions.

The Nebraska and New York cases are expected to conclude within weeks. The outcomes, which may conflict with one another, will almost certainly be appealed to the Supreme Court.

The New York case was brought by the National Abortion Federation, which represents nearly half the nation's abortion providers. The Nebraska case was brought by a few abortion doctors.

The U.S. Supreme Court had overturned a Nebraska partial-birth abortion law because it did not allow the banned procedure even when a doctor believes the method is the best way to preserve the woman's health.

To get around the decision, Congress simply declared that the procedure is never medically necessary ? and during weeks of testimony, doctors testifying for the government stressed that same point ? claiming that there are better alternatives to the method, and that it may even be harmful to women.

Witnesses for the abortion providers, however, testified in all three trials that the banned method is often preferred and sometimes necessary to preserve a woman's health.

Congressional sponsors said the ban would outlaw only 2,200 or so abortions a year. But abortion providers testified the banned method can happen even at times when doctors try to avoid it, such as when they attempt to remove the fetus from the womb in pieces.

Because of the possibility that the fetus may partially exit a woman during an otherwise legal procedure, abortion rights advocates said the law could ban almost all second-trimester abortions, which account for about 10% of all abortions in the United States.
 

Spencer278

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2002
3,637
0
0
To get around the decision, Congress simply declared that the procedure is never medically necessary ? and during weeks of testimony, doctors testifying for the government stressed that same point ? claiming that there are better alternatives to the method, and that it may even be harmful to women.

Could one of the neo-cons explain where the federal goverment got it's medical degree to determine what procedures are medical nessicary?
 
May 10, 2001
2,669
0
0
Originally posted by: Spencer278
To get around the decision, Congress simply declared that the procedure is never medically necessary ? and during weeks of testimony, doctors testifying for the government stressed that same point ? claiming that there are better alternatives to the method, and that it may even be harmful to women.

Could one of the neo-cons explain where the federal goverment got it's medical degree to determine what procedures are medical nessicary?
hum.. sure:
it's never medically necessary.. how do i know:

no one can sight one case example of when it is required that you vacuum the brains out of a baby just before it comes out of the mother.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
This is an example of conservative inconsistency. They say they believe in state's rights. But then when it comes to a law that would be best left to states (i.e., abortion doesn't effect commerce) they meddle. Which one is it neocons? Are is this more about what suits your interests?
 
May 10, 2001
2,669
0
0
Originally posted by: Infohawk
This is an example of conservative inconsistency. They say they believe in state's rights. But then when it comes to a law that would be best left to states (i.e., abortion doesn't effect commerce) they meddle. Which one is it neocons? Are is this more about what suits your interests?

sucking the brains out of newborns. fvk that. It's just as worth as slavery to fight a civil war over.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
Originally posted by: Infohawk
This is an example of conservative inconsistency. They say they believe in state's rights. But then when it comes to a law that would be best left to states (i.e., abortion doesn't effect commerce) they meddle. Which one is it neocons? Are is this more about what suits your interests?

sucking the brains out of newborns. fvk that. It's just as worth as slavery to fight a civil war over.

So your answer to violence is more violence? I can only assume you're not a Christian (I haven't followed the link in your sig but I thought it suggested you were).
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
In the few instances that the 'Partial Birth Abortion' - as the Republican Partisans
chose to rename the procedure, it is a last ditch effort to save the womans life in
a birthing attempt that has allready crossed the line from High-Risk to Critical.

So then, since the baby is already damaged and will probably not survive,
it's good politics to force the mother to die as well ? Smart move.
 
May 10, 2001
2,669
0
0
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
Originally posted by: Infohawk
This is an example of conservative inconsistency. They say they believe in state's rights. But then when it comes to a law that would be best left to states (i.e., abortion doesn't effect commerce) they meddle. Which one is it neocons? Are is this more about what suits your interests?

sucking the brains out of newborns. fvk that. It's just as worth as slavery to fight a civil war over.

So your answer to violence is more violence? I can only assume you're not a Christian (I haven't followed the link in your sig but I thought it suggested you were).

No, my answer to principle is another principal:

when their is a much greater good at stake sometimes the federal has to take power over the states.

I believe the same for necessary social services.

no sr. 2 wrongs don't make a right, but rarely:
civil war, ww2 *i think we can all agree*
a wrong *such as war* does make a lesser of two evils.

yes sr. I've accepted Christ and try to walk in his path... and if this where a truely Christian country we could be pacifistic and have properly turned the other cheek when we where attacked on 9.11

but we're not, we're a secular worldly power: as such we have an obligation to try to bring about the best for our citizens.

So then, since the baby is already damaged and will probably not survive,
it's good politics to force the mother to die as well ? Smart move.
my sources, the surgeon general, say it's never needed. Prove to me it's medically necessary to save the life of a mother and I?ll say the self defense killing of her child is a matter between her and God.

Of course a law against optional baby brain-sucking should be enacted and each case of this 'medically necessary procedure' should be investigated for possible prosecution as infanticide.
 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
Back to the dark ages for us :| This sucks. You people sicken me for supporting and defending infanticide. :|

Could one of the neo-cons explain where the federal goverment got it's medical degree to determine what procedures are medical nessicary?
Why don't we just explain to you why killing another individual is wrong. It's something that almost all of man has figured out by now, but you apparently haven't.

This is an example of conservative inconsistency. They say they believe in state's rights. But then when it comes to a law that would be best left to states (i.e., abortion doesn't effect commerce) they meddle. Which one is it neocons? Are is this more about what suits your interests?
Why don't you explain how a group can condone the KILLING of an innocent life, yet oppose the death penalty for people whom have commited great atrocoties.

Again, you people sicken me. Your lack of human decency makes me sick.
 

Spencer278

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2002
3,637
0
0
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Back to the dark ages for us :| This sucks. You people sicken me for supporting and defending infanticide. :|

Could one of the neo-cons explain where the federal goverment got it's medical degree to determine what procedures are medical nessicary?
Why don't we just explain to you why killing another individual is wrong. It's something that almost all of man has figured out by now, but you apparently haven't.

Ok can you show me where the federal govement gets the power to limit killing people?
 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,631
5
81
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
So then, since the baby is already damaged and will probably not survive,
it's good politics to force the mother to die as well ? Smart move.
my sources, the surgeon general, say it's never needed. Prove to me it's medically necessary to save the life of a mother and I?ll say the self defense killing of her child is a matter between her and God.

Of course a law against optional baby brain-sucking should be enacted and each case of this 'medically necessary procedure' should be investigated for possible prosecution as infanticide.

I agree completely.
 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,631
5
81
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Ok can you show me where the federal govement gets the power to limit killing people?

Well, that's a good question, I would be surprised if murder one is not a federal offense, though I don't know for sure.
 

Spencer278

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2002
3,637
0
0
Originally posted by: Orsorum
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Ok can you show me where the federal govement gets the power to limit killing people?

Well, that's a good question, I would be surprised if murder one is not a federal offense, though I don't know for sure.

Murder is handled on the state level unless it involved some other aspect to make it federal like a mailman, or interstate kidnapping where the vicitim is grab in one state and found dead in another.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
Originally posted by: Infohawk
This is an example of conservative inconsistency. They say they believe in state's rights. But then when it comes to a law that would be best left to states (i.e., abortion doesn't effect commerce) they meddle. Which one is it neocons? Are is this more about what suits your interests?

sucking the brains out of newborns. fvk that. It's just as worth as slavery to fight a civil war over.

So your answer to violence is more violence? I can only assume you're not a Christian (I haven't followed the link in your sig but I thought it suggested you were).

No, my answer to principle is another principal:

when their is a much greater good at stake sometimes the federal has to take power over the states.

I believe the same for necessary social services.

no sr. 2 wrongs don't make a right, but rarely:
civil war, ww2 *i think we can all agree*
a wrong *such as war* does make a lesser of two evils.

yes sr. I've accepted Christ and try to walk in his path... and if this where a truely Christian country we could be pacifistic and have properly turned the other cheek when we where attacked on 9.11

but we're not, we're a secular worldly power: as such we have an obligation to try to bring about the best for our citizens.

So then, since the baby is already damaged and will probably not survive,
it's good politics to force the mother to die as well ? Smart move.
my sources, the surgeon general, say it's never needed. Prove to me it's medically necessary to save the life of a mother and I?ll say the self defense killing of her child is a matter between her and God.

Of course a law against optional baby brain-sucking should be enacted and each case of this 'medically necessary procedure' should be investigated for possible prosecution as infanticide.
Your source . . . the surgeon general arguably is not qualified to know. If you go to the ACOG website (American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology), it's an open debate. Of course it matters what threshold you choose. If it's "saving the life of the mother" . . . then I agree it is highly unlikely (in general) that intact D & X is medically necessary. Potential exceptions would be maternal Marfan syndrome, other maternal cardiac abnormalities, severe gestational diabetes, and eclampsia.

To the contrary, if an OB considers the mother the primary patient then the threshold will relate to her quality of life . . . not quantity. Accordingly, intact D & X lowers the risk of puncturng the uterus or damage to the cervix . . . thereby decreasing morbidity associated with childhood and maintaining future fertility.

A far less convincing rationale is that women can terminate a pregnancy through intact D & X largely avoid labor which may be less emotionally traumatic.
 
May 10, 2001
2,669
0
0
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
Originally posted by: Infohawk
This is an example of conservative inconsistency. They say they believe in state's rights. But then when it comes to a law that would be best left to states (i.e., abortion doesn't effect commerce) they meddle. Which one is it neocons? Are is this more about what suits your interests?

sucking the brains out of newborns. fvk that. It's just as worth as slavery to fight a civil war over.

So your answer to violence is more violence? I can only assume you're not a Christian (I haven't followed the link in your sig but I thought it suggested you were).

No, my answer to principle is another principal:

when their is a much greater good at stake sometimes the federal has to take power over the states.

I believe the same for necessary social services.

no sr. 2 wrongs don't make a right, but rarely:
civil war, ww2 *i think we can all agree*
a wrong *such as war* does make a lesser of two evils.

yes sr. I've accepted Christ and try to walk in his path... and if this where a truely Christian country we could be pacifistic and have properly turned the other cheek when we where attacked on 9.11

but we're not, we're a secular worldly power: as such we have an obligation to try to bring about the best for our citizens.

So then, since the baby is already damaged and will probably not survive,
it's good politics to force the mother to die as well ? Smart move.
my sources, the surgeon general, say it's never needed. Prove to me it's medically necessary to save the life of a mother and I?ll say the self defense killing of her child is a matter between her and God.

Of course a law against optional baby brain-sucking should be enacted and each case of this 'medically necessary procedure' should be investigated for possible prosecution as infanticide.
Your source . . . the surgeon general arguably is not qualified to know. If you go to the ACOG website (American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology), it's an open debate. Of course it matters what threshold you choose. If it's "saving the life of the mother" . . . then I agree it is highly unlikely (in general) that intact D & X is medically necessary. Potential exceptions would be maternal Marfan syndrome, other maternal cardiac abnormalities, severe gestational diabetes, and eclampsia.

To the contrary, if an OB considers the mother the primary patient then the threshold will relate to her quality of life . . . not quantity. Accordingly, intact D & X lowers the risk of puncturng the uterus or damage to the cervix . . . thereby decreasing morbidity associated with childhood and maintaining future fertility.

A far less convincing rationale is that women can terminate a pregancy through intact D & X largely avoid labor which may be less emotionally traumatic.
Not one of those is a good reason for out-right baby killing. 'Potential' hum... the 'potential' exists that I?ll die when I get in my car today... Probably much higher than the likely hood of a woman dieing from not having their child's brains removed just before leaving the birth canal.

their is no debate, if a woman doesn?t have a portal-birth abortion and has a baby that's got one of those 'deadly' problems then we could point to someone who's actually died.

Dehumanization of humans is essential to allowing a group of people to perform mas-murder on another group. Pro-Abortion activists should think about this when they get offended when a fetus is, properly, referred to as a human.
 

maluckey

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2003
2,933
0
71
Statistics say the the Ninth Circuit is the most overturned court in the United States. They are overturned so often that their "opinion" is virtually worthless nowadays.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,522
6,700
126
Any moron can be persuaded that life begins at conception. What takes great intelligence is to balance that fact and the rights that adhere with the rights that pertain and adhere to women for privacy and the rights they have over their own bodies. This job has fallen to the judicial branch and they have exercised that kind of intelligence admirably. So the bigots are hard at work trying in any way possible to undermine the whole foundation bit by bit as best they feel they can. Perhaps with partial birth there needs to be tighter control, but that is not the real aim.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Seems like some in this thread have already misrepresented the "partial birth" portion of the procedure. Figures, given who it is. The fetus ISN'T moments from being born naturally, part of the actual procedure is to induce the fetus to enter the birth canal so the procedure can be performed.

Whatever. Trying to have a rational discussion regarding abortion @ ATP&N is virtually impossible. Not sure why I even try.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Not one of those is a good reason for out-right baby killing. 'Potential' hum... the 'potential' exists that I?ll die when I get in my car today... Probably much higher than the likely hood of a woman dieing from not having their child's brains removed just before leaving the birth canal.
That's your opinion but it has nothing to do with medical reality. Personally, I am a soft supporter of abortion but I would put quite unambiguous limitations on the practice. But beforehand I would go to EXTREME lengths to limit the incidence. Regardless, you have no idea what the odds of morbidity or mortality are from pregnancy, labor, and delivery.

their is no debate, if a woman doesn?t have a portal-birth abortion and has a baby that's got one of those 'deadly' problems then we could point to someone who's actually died.
Only if American healthcare facilities kept immaculate, highly detailed records on all procedures. Hell during my training any post-op note I wrote that had more than 4 lines usually earned demerits (obviously I didn't write any post-op notes for neurosurgery). Why don't you research intact D & X? That way your recalcitrant position would at least be an informed recalcitrant position.

Intact D & X should be a RARE procedure:

1) Elective abortions should occur much earlier b/c delay increases the risk to the mother.
2) Medically necessary abortions should occur much earlier b/c delay increases the risk to the mother.
3) There are multiple procedures available for early pregnancy termination.

Personally, I would like to see a tremendous drop in ALL abortions. Since almost everyone short of a NARAL maniac would agree . . . why don't we invest our time and energy into making that happen instead of this BS carousel?!
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,522
6,700
126
Originally posted by: maluckey
Statistics say the the Ninth Circuit is the most overturned court in the United States. They are overturned so often that their "opinion" is virtually worthless nowadays.

They are simply from the most intellectually and culturally advanced area of the country and get overuled by the retards in the rest of the country.
 

wkabel23

Platinum Member
Dec 7, 2003
2,505
0
0
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Back to the dark ages for us :| This sucks. You people sicken me for supporting and defending infanticide. :|

Could one of the neo-cons explain where the federal goverment got it's medical degree to determine what procedures are medical nessicary?
Why don't we just explain to you why killing another individual is wrong. It's something that almost all of man has figured out by now, but you apparently haven't.

This is an example of conservative inconsistency. They say they believe in state's rights. But then when it comes to a law that would be best left to states (i.e., abortion doesn't effect commerce) they meddle. Which one is it neocons? Are is this more about what suits your interests?
Why don't you explain how a group can condone the KILLING of an innocent life, yet oppose the death penalty for people whom have commited great atrocoties.

Again, you people sicken me. Your lack of human decency makes me sick.

Are you a pacifist?
 

DarkSarkas

Member
Oct 29, 2003
33
0
0
This forum, in itself, is the reason that it should be legal.

We all disagree. None of us know when a baby begins consciousness. So, as it is, personal beliefs begin to crowd out all forms of logic and reason. Well all disagree. We all agree that we all disagree. If you don't believe abortion is ethical, and that is what this comes down to, personal ethics, then don't get an abortion.

It is really as simple as that, and it's not the place of any government, state or federal, to legislate shady morality.
 

DarkSarkas

Member
Oct 29, 2003
33
0
0
Originally posted by: wkabel23
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Back to the dark ages for us :| This sucks. You people sicken me for supporting and defending infanticide. :|

Could one of the neo-cons explain where the federal goverment got it's medical degree to determine what procedures are medical nessicary?
Why don't we just explain to you why killing another individual is wrong. It's something that almost all of man has figured out by now, but you apparently haven't.

This is an example of conservative inconsistency. They say they believe in state's rights. But then when it comes to a law that would be best left to states (i.e., abortion doesn't effect commerce) they meddle. Which one is it neocons? Are is this more about what suits your interests?
Why don't you explain how a group can condone the KILLING of an innocent life, yet oppose the death penalty for people whom have commited great atrocoties.

Again, you people sicken me. Your lack of human decency makes me sick.

Are you stupid?



Heh, I corrected it for you...
 

Crimson

Banned
Oct 11, 1999
3,809
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: maluckey
Statistics say the the Ninth Circuit is the most overturned court in the United States. They are overturned so often that their "opinion" is virtually worthless nowadays.

They are simply from the most intellectually and culturally advanced area of the country and get overuled by the retards in the rest of the country.

Wow. If anyone had any doubts about your extremist views, this just cemented it.
 

wkabel23

Platinum Member
Dec 7, 2003
2,505
0
0
Originally posted by: DarkSarkas
Originally posted by: wkabel23
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Back to the dark ages for us :| This sucks. You people sicken me for supporting and defending infanticide. :|

Could one of the neo-cons explain where the federal goverment got it's medical degree to determine what procedures are medical nessicary?
Why don't we just explain to you why killing another individual is wrong. It's something that almost all of man has figured out by now, but you apparently haven't.

This is an example of conservative inconsistency. They say they believe in state's rights. But then when it comes to a law that would be best left to states (i.e., abortion doesn't effect commerce) they meddle. Which one is it neocons? Are is this more about what suits your interests?
Why don't you explain how a group can condone the KILLING of an innocent life, yet oppose the death penalty for people whom have commited great atrocoties.

Again, you people sicken me. Your lack of human decency makes me sick.

Are you stupid?



Heh, I corrected it for you...

:beer: :D