Well that didn't take long ... Justices to Weigh Late-Term Abortion Ban By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will consider the constitutionality of banning a type of late-term abortion, teeing up a contentious issue for a new-look court already in a state of flux over privacy rights. The Bush administration has pressed the high court to reinstate the federal law, passed in 2003 but never put in effect because it was struck down by judges in California, Nebraska and New York. The outcome will likely rest with the two men that President Bush has recently installed on the court. Justices had been split 5-4 in 2000 in striking down a state law, barring what critics call partial birth abortion because it lacked an exception to protect the health of the mother. But Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who was the tie-breaking vote, retired late last month and was replaced by Samuel Alito. Abortion had been a major focus in the fight over Alito's nomination because justices serve for life and he will surely help shape the court on abortion and other issues for the next generation. Alito, in his rulings on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, has been more willing than O'Connor, the first woman justice, to allow restrictions on abortions, which were legalized in the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. The federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act prohibits a certain type of abortion, generally carried out in the second or third trimester, in which a fetus is partially removed from the womb, and the skull is punctured or crushed. Justices on a 9-0 vote in a New Hampshire case reaffirmed in January that states can require parental involvement in abortion decisions and that state restrictions must have an exception to protect the mother's health. The federal law in the current case has no health exception, but defenders maintain that the procedure is never medically necessary to protect a woman's health. Even with O'Connor's retirement, there are five votes to uphold Roe, the landmark ruling that established a woman's right to an abortion. Alito's views "are not going to change the outcome of the central principle of Roe v. Wade," said John Garvey, the dean at Boston College Law School. "In some ways, these are tokens or markers in ... a symbolic tug of war." Bush has called the so-called partial birth abortion an "abhorrent practice," and his Supreme Court lawyer, Solicitor General Paul Clement, had urged justices not to delay taking up the administration's appeal. The case that will be heard this fall comes to the Supreme Court from Nebraska, where the federal law was challenged on behalf of physicians. Doctors who perform the procedure contend that it is the safest method of abortion when the mother's health is threatened by heart disease, high blood pressure or cancer. A judge in Lincoln, Neb., ruled the law was unconstitutional, and the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis agreed last summer, prompting the Supreme Court appeal. Federal judges in New York and San Francisco also declared the law unconstitutional and appeals courts agreed. "Every court considering this ban has found that it lacks the necessary protections for women's health," said Vicki Saporta, president of the National Abortion Federation. Fifteen states urged justices to review the case: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Virginia. The case was one of four that justices agreed to hear on Tuesday, Alito's first day on the bench. The others involve more routine issues: patents, prison sentences, and lawsuits over pay phone charges. Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the conservative American Center for Law and Justice, said the court's announcement was "an incredibly important decision that puts the issue of partial-birth abortion front and center." The case is Gonzales v. Carhart, 05-380.
I am pro choice, but I do not support late term abortion unless the mother's life is in danger, if they decide not to have the kid, why cann't they do it within the first three month?
I think that's the argument surrounding every late-term abortion debate. No one (including those suing the various states with these laws) question the right to regulate abortion in this manner. They're suing because the law doesn't have a clause protecting the health of the mother which has and will always be the issue of contention regarding these debates.
Opponents of late term abortions don't want to allow them even for the life of the mother. This is an extremely rare procedure that is performed most often when a birth defect is found or when carrying the pregnancy to term presents a substantial risk of severe injury or death to the mother and that information only is found out late in the pregnancy. In a lot of these cases the baby isn't going to survive anyway outside the womb and sometimes the fetus' skull is fille donly with fluid. Yet, opponents of the procedure will not allow an exception even in these cases. The baby won't survive and in some cases is already unviable, yet they will risk the life of the mother and make her carry the fetus to term.
There has to some clear guidelines for what is consider reasonable to protect the health of the mother, i.e. it should only be for life threatening situations, not when the mother is feeling mentally stressed about having a child. Otherwise you can always come up with some health reasons to abort the fetus. BTW, has there been a case where a late-term abortion was needed to protect the mother's life?
1) 3rd Trimester Abortions Generally. As we have stated in a previous NOW Issues Report, a 3rd trimester abortion is not a procedure undertaken lightly. Most involve wanted pregnancies that go tragically wrong when the woman's life or health is endangered or the fetus develops abnormalities incompatible with life. Mr. Fitzsimmons previously estimated 450 abortions were performed in the 3rd trimester; he now estimates more like 500 to 750, including all methods. An estimated 600 abortions a year are performed after 26 weeks, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute. 2) Dilation and Extraction. This procedure (also sometimes called intact dilation and evacuation or D & E) is used in both 2nd and 3rd trimesters of pregnancy. Fitzsimmons' new estimate of thousands of D & X procedures being done nationwide includes the second trimester, but that is not new information. And under Roe v. Wade, legislators cannot restrict 2nd trimester abortions except to protect a woman's safety. In fact, an Ohio court that recently struck down a state law banning the D & X procedure found that it is safer than other procedures. Fitzsimmons reportedly said on a Feb. 26 Nightline interview that was taped but never aired that, "We have no reservations, zero reservations about this procedure when it's performed. We have no reservations, no apologies." And later, "I'm adamant that this is a procedure that is a good procedure and should be kept out of Congress' rubric. I'm not backing away from that at all." 3) The "Partial Birth" Scam. This term is not a medical term, but a part of the exploitation of the religious and political extremists of a very painful time in women's lives. A particular procedure has been singled out by the right wing and has been misrepresented as a form of infanticide performed on Gerber babies. And now they would attempt to confuse legislators and the public over numbers. The fact remain this simple: 3rd trimester abortions are rare (less than four one-hundredths of one percent of all those performed) and performed only in tragic circumstances; dilation and extraction can be the safest choice among several techniques. http://www.now.org/issues/abortion/alerts/03-10-97.html
This is now a matter that is entering my life. My future sister-in-law is pregnant and her tests show that there is a chance she may have a baby with DS. She is waiting for more conclusive ambiocentesis test results, which come in a week before she can get a legal abortion, so if she has to make that decision, she has to make it instantly. She is a teacher and the higher income earner so she cannot afford to have complications and only wants to have one child. BTW, I do believe a fetus is a living thing and that an abortion does take away its life, but I don't impose my views on others so I support whatever decision she makes. I hope everything turns out well. Their kid will be ethnically Chinese-Israeli and raised in Hollywood (maybe that will be a reason for the other pro-lifers to change their mind in this situation), so I can't wait to see what the kid looks like in a few years.
The timing of a potential fall decision to coincide witht the midterm election would make for an interesting time. If Roberts & Alito deliver for the social conservatives, that will fire up the left base and may affect some Senate races. If Roberts & Alito don't deliver, the social conservatives will be fit to be tied and may stay home on the midterm elections. What may be more of interests is if Alito does not keep any closed door promises he gave to moderate Senate Republicans.
Best wishes for your sister-in-law and her baby. At least amniocentesis will be 99% accurate, and most likely it will be good news. Sometimes it can be tough to decide on doing amniocentesis, since itself has a small chance to cause a miss-carriage.
It's always easy to say than to do. I am a Christian, but I am still pro-choice. Too many teenages gave up education to give birth to children, and ended up in poverty. A decision for abortion is not an easy one, whether law prevents it or not. It's something taken away from motherhood. I am sure most women with that decision have thought over hard. In my opinion, there are way too many scenarios to make the case, that three months hard rule is just too short. Pregnancy is a risk journey from beginning to the end to the child and the mother. Anything could happen at any time. Besides, there are way too many women have irregular periods from 28 days to 50+ days even. Lots of teenagers lacking of proper education and information didn't even realize they are pregnant after 3 months. 3 months hard rule just takes away any option for those women. If they are supposed to be punished for guys not wanting to have protection, or their own failure to protect, that punishment is just too harsh in my opinion.
Popping a pill during the 1st trimester or sucking the fetus out with a vacuum in the 3rd trimester = same in my book. I don't give a flying **** about your liberal labels or spin-doctoring, its all an act of shameless murder to me.
