Well this certainly seems like a timely topic to discuss-- The order temporarily stops U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft from enforcing the ban against the plaintiffs, their employees and agents. A similar order was issued by a federal judge in Nebraska on Wednesday minutes after Bush signed the law. Plaintiffs are also challenging the ban in San Francisco. Casey said that the order will remain in effect through November 21. The Justice Department issued a statement saying it opposed the injunction and will continue to defend the ban "using every resource necessary." In granting the order, Casey cited arguments by the plaintiffs that the act is unconstitutional because it does not contain an exception to protect women's health. New York Judge Blocks New Abortion Ban By Gail Appleson NEW YORK (Reuters) - A New York federal judge on Thursday blocked the government from prosecuting a group of doctors for performing an abortion procedure banned under a law just signed by President George Bush. In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Richard Casey issued a temporary restraining order against enforcement of the ban that Bush signed on Wednesday against so-called "partial-birth" abortions. The order had been sought by the National Abortion Federation, the professional association of abortion providers in the United States and Canada, and seven named doctors. The order temporarily stops U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft from enforcing the ban against the plaintiffs, their employees and agents. A similar order was issued by a federal judge in Nebraska on Wednesday minutes after Bush signed the law. Plaintiffs are also challenging the ban in San Francisco. Louise Melling, director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Act, said the New York order protects a much larger number than the seven named doctors. She said it also stops enforcement against all National Abortion Federation member doctors, who perform half of all abortions in the United States. It also protects other NAF members who work at clinics, doctors offices and hospitals in 47 states. Casey said that the order will remain in effect through November 21. The Justice Department issued a statement saying it opposed the injunction and will continue to defend the ban "using every resource necessary." In granting the order, Casey cited arguments by the plaintiffs that the act is unconstitutional because it does not contain an exception to protect women's health. In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a Nebraska statute banning partial-birth abortions based, in part on the fact that statute did not contain such an exception. "We are pleased that the court acted quickly to protect women and their doctors," said Vicki Saporta, President and CEO of the National Abortion Federation. "Allowing Congress to practice medicine without a license endangers the lives and health of women." The plaintiffs had also argued that the language of the ban is unconstitutionally broad and puts doctors at risk for performing other types of abortions. Casey, however, did not discuss that argument in his ruling. On Wednesday, Bush vowed his administration would "vigorously defend this law against any who would try to challenge it in the courts." If it withstands the legal challenges, the ban would constitute the first federal limit on a type of abortion since the 1973 Roe versus Wade Supreme Court ruling backing the right to an abortion. The U.S. Congress has held emotional debates on the abortion procedure for years, and former President Bill Clinton twice vetoed similar legislation because it did not contain an exception to protect the health of a woman. In drafting the law, the U.S. Congress determined such an exception was not necessary for health reasons, but did include a more narrow one to save a woman's life. Under the bill, a doctor could face up to two years in prison as well as civil lawsuits for performing a "partial birth" abortion, defined as intentionally killing a fetus that has been partially delivered.
This "partial birth" abortion ban is written so vaguely and in such general terms (there's no medical term for partial-birth abortion), that it can essentially outlaw *ALL* abortions, which is a dishonest tactic to undermine precedent-setting federal rulings (Roe v Wade). In essence, Congress is circumventing the Supreme Court. This is not how a healthy republic works.
I'm so freaking sick of judges sticking their noses everywhere. We don't elect them, so it feels really crappy when they stop something that is a legislative consensus. And yes, Congress should write the laws explicitly and stop writing vague crap and passing the buck onto the judges. I agree with you on that, GV.
Do you feel the same way about legislatures sticking their noses in judicial matters? (ie last month's special election re: malpractice suits)
This ban is a total farce-- i'm relieved to see that there is strong legal opposition to congress trying to mandate their unfounded beliefs on the American public. The more I read about this ban the more I am disgusted by the complete lack of mainstream medical research congress used to gain support for this bill. No attempt to do what is right for women in this country by at the very least leaving the physician some leeway to perform surgery if necessary for the well being of the patient. As it stands now, “Under the bill, a doctor could face up to two years in prison as well as civil lawsuits for performing a "partial birth" abortion, defined as intentionally killing a fetus that has been partially delivered.” The wording of this bill has been made as vague as possible so all abortions fit within its definition-- completely unconstitutional. Three Judges Block New Abortion Ban By Gail Appleson NEW YORK (Reuters) - Federal judges in three U.S. states blocked the government on Thursday from prosecuting almost all doctors for performing an abortion procedure banned under a law just signed by President Bush. U.S. district judges in New York, California and Nebraska issued temporary restraining orders against enforcement of the ban that Bush signed on Wednesday against so-called "partial-birth" abortions. The order by U.S. District Judge Richard Casey in New York temporarily stops U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft from enforcing the ban against the plaintiffs, their employees and agents. The order had been sought by the National Abortion Federation, the professional association of abortion providers in the United States and Canada, and seven named doctors. In San Francisco, federal Judge Phyllis Hamilton applied a temporarily restraining order against the law for physicians nationwide linked to Planned Parenthood, which brought the case against Ashcroft. "We're obviously thrilled. It is a big relief to our client," said Beth Parker, the attorney representing Planned Parenthood, which has 900 health centers. A similar order was issued by a federal judge in Nebraska on Wednesday, minutes after Bush signed the law. Parker said that most but not necessarily all physicians would be covered by the three rulings. Louise Melling, director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Act, said the New York order protects a much larger number than the seven named doctors. She said it also stops enforcement against all National Abortion Federation (NAF) member doctors, who perform half of all abortions in the United States. It also protects other NAF members who work at clinics, doctors offices and hospitals in 47 states. BUSH VOWS TO FIGHT Judge Casey said that the order will remain in effect through Nov. 21. The Justice Department issued a statement saying it opposed the injunction and will continue to defend the ban "using every resource necessary." In granting the order, Casey cited arguments by the plaintiffs that the act is unconstitutional because it does not contain an exception to protect women's health. In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a Nebraska statute banning partial-birth abortions, based in part on the fact that the statute did not contain such an exception. "We are pleased that the court acted quickly to protect women and their doctors," said Vicki Saporta, president and CEO of NAF. "Allowing Congress to practice medicine without a license endangers the lives and health of women." The plaintiffs had also argued that the language of the ban is unconstitutionally broad and puts doctors at risk for performing other types of abortions. Casey, however, did not discuss that argument in his ruling. On Wednesday, Bush vowed his administration would "vigorously defend this law against any who would try to challenge it in the courts." If it withstands the legal challenges, the ban would constitute the first federal limit on a type of abortion since the 1973 Roe versus Wade Supreme Court ruling backing the right to an abortion. Under the bill, a doctor could face up to two years in prison as well as civil lawsuits for performing a "partial birth" abortion, defined as intentionally killing a fetus that has been partially delivered.
approx. 3130 people died in the collapse of the Twin Towers Septmber 11th, 2001 . approx. 3130 babies are aborted every day in the United States. Some of us live with tragedy every day.
Is this the latest tactic to attack abortion? Equating women exercising their lawful rights with terrorists? I think I've seen 9/11 used for just about everything now.
Hey, I recognize the oldest pro-abortion tactic in the world.... forgetting completely about the Child being trampled over by someone selfishly concerned about a ridiculous,solipsistic concern about her right to a Sunday NY Times brunch without interference from children... or untrammeled access to the career ladder without childrearing concerns or a simple change of heart that snuffs out a different soul. There are some legitimate reasons for abortion, but those are in the distant minority of abortions actually performed.
Yeah, it's much better to bring another unloved person into the world to suffer for 80 years. A child should not pay for the mother's bad choices or inability to make a choice. If you can't trust a mother with a choice, how can you trust her with a baby? But the more pressing concern here is Congress' attempt to *GO AROUND* a Supreme Court decision. The so-called "partial birth" ban is so vague that it can essentially ban ALL abortions. It's like if Congress passed a bill against missile launchers, but in language so vague that it only specifies "weapons could cause harm." This undermines checks and balances, and shakes a republic to its core. It's unconstitutional.
According to the courts and the law, any reason that a woman has for an abortion is a legitimate one in the first trimester. You can believe what you want about that fact, but it is the law. If we are to reduce abortion, it would be so much more effective to educate about and provide contraception, especially for young people. We can reduce abortion, but it will not be possible through prohibition, it will only happen through demand reduction.
You're way too kind and too optimistic of a person to make a statement like that. My father was virtually abandoned...he never knew his father and moved from house to house with no real image of what a parent should be...his mother was too busy still living the roaring 20's and, then, the post-war partying to be a mother...but when he was about 12 years old he decided the one thing he wanted more than anything was to be a father and give his kids what he never had. He did it big time. The man fell in love with an amazing woman...who fell in love with him too...and they had 3 children, of which I am one. His only lament...that the only event I ever participated in that he missed was a summer league basketball game which was my best game ever. With life, there is always hope. That sounds like something Yoda would say, doesn't it? But it's true. He could have been discarded as someone who would have never known love and should have just been aborted...but the world would have missed out on knowing him, everyone's best friend.
Durn. No edit. My responses are in the second and fourth paragraphs. Your words are in the first and third.
No doubt that placement is harder. I'm probably guilt of exagerating here, but I do know that there are people who seek handicapped children for adoption. God bless them and fluff the pillows at Your Right Hand. Ageism is a problem in adoption but I suspect that can be rectified by gutting the bureaucracy of the adoption process. We all know eager want-to-be parents who wait years before getting a child. That is a tragedy. I agree that the physical health of the mother can be a reason to consider abortion.
Just like prohibition has cut drug use, right? Rich people will simply leave the country to get abortions while middle and lower class people will go to back alley abortionists to have a medical procedure performed in unsanitary, unlicensed facilities by (more than likely) illegitimate medical providers. You may want to go back to the bad old days of abortion prohibition, but the vast majority of Americans do not. Before you slam me for my vast majority claim, even the stats that MadMax provided way back when in the last long abortion thread stated that only a small minority of people support complete prohibition of abortion. The percentages get higher as the pregnancy progresses through the second trimester because people like me believe that if you are going to have an abortion, you should make the decision ASAP. I will continue to maintain that EVERY SINGLE medical procedure in this country should be performed by qualified medical personnel in licensed medical facilities.
