Apr 18 01:46 PM US/Eastern By MARK SHERMAN Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court's conservative majority handed anti-abortion forces a major victory Wednesday in a decision that bans a controversial abortion procedure and set the stage for further restrictions. For the first time since the court established a woman's right to an abortion in 1973, the justices upheld a nationwide ban on a specific abortion method, labeled partial-birth abortion by its opponents.
The 5-4 decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.
The law is constitutional despite not containing an exception that would allow the procedure if needed to preserve a woman's health, Kennedy said. "The law need not give abortion doctors unfettered choice in the course of their medical practice," he wrote in the majority opinion.
Doctors who violate the law face up to two years in federal prison.
Kennedy's opinion, joined by Bush's two appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, was a long-awaited resounding win that abortion opponents expected from the more conservative bench.
The administration defended the law as drawing a bright line between abortion and infanticide.
Reacting to the ruling, Bush said that it affirms the progress his administration has made to defend the "sanctity of life."
"I am pleased that the Supreme Court has upheld a law that prohibits the abhorrent procedure of partial birth abortion," he said. "Today's decision affirms that the Constitution does not stand in the way of the people's representatives enacting laws reflecting the compassion and humanity of America."
Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia also were in the majority.
It was the first time the court banned a specific procedure in a case over how—not whether—to perform an abortion.
Abortion rights groups as well as the leading association of obstetricians and gynecologists have said the procedure sometimes is the safest for a woman. They also said that such a ruling could threaten most abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy, although Kennedy said alternate, more widely used procedures remain legal.
The outcome is likely to spur efforts at the state level to place more restrictions on abortions.
"I applaud the Court for its ruling today, and my hope is that it sets the stage for further progress in the fight to ensure our nation's laws respect the sanctity of unborn human life," said Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, Republican leader in the House of Representatives.
Said Eve Gartner of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America: "This ruling flies in the face of 30 years of Supreme Court precedent and the best interest of women's health and safety. ... This ruling tells women that politicians, not doctors, will make their health care decisions for them." She had argued that point before the justices.
More than 1 million abortions are performed in the United States each year, according to recent statistics. Nearly 90 percent of those occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and are not affected by Wednesday's ruling. The Guttmacher Institute says 2,200 dilation and extraction procedures—the medical term most often used by doctors—were performed in 2000, the latest figures available.
Six federal courts have said the law that was in focus Wednesday is an impermissible restriction on a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.
The law bans a method of ending a pregnancy, rather than limiting when an abortion can be performed.
"Today's decision is alarming," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in dissent. She said the ruling "refuses to take ... seriously" previous Supreme Court decisions on abortion.
Ginsburg said the latest decision "tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists."
Ginsburg said that for the first time since the court established a woman's right to an abortion in 1973, "the court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman's health."
She was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.
The procedure at issue involves partially removing the fetus intact from a woman's uterus, then crushing or cutting its skull to complete the abortion.
Abortion opponents say the law will not reduce the number of abortions performed because an alternate method—dismembering the fetus in the uterus—is available and, indeed, much more common.
In 2000, the court with key differences in its membership struck down a state ban on partial-birth abortions. Writing for a 5-4 majority at that time, Justice Breyer said the law imposed an undue burden on a woman's right to make an abortion decision in part because it lacked a health exception.
The Republican-controlled Congress responded in 2003 by passing a federal law that asserted the procedure is gruesome, inhumane and never medically necessary to preserve a woman's health. That statement was designed to overcome the health exception to restrictions that the court has demanded in abortion cases.
But federal judges in California, Nebraska and New York said the law was unconstitutional, and three appellate courts agreed. The Supreme Court accepted appeals from California and Nebraska, setting up Wednesday's ruling.
Kennedy's dissent in 2000 was so strong that few court watchers expected him to take a different view of the current case.
Kennedy acknowledged continuing disagreement about the procedure within the medical community. In the past, courts have cited that uncertainty as a reason to allow the disputed procedure.
"The medical uncertainty over whether the Act's prohibition creates significant health risks provides a sufficient basis to conclude ... that the Act does not impose an undue burden," Kennedy said Wednesday.
While the court upheld the law against a broad attack on its constitutionality, Kennedy said the court could entertain a challenge in which a doctor found it necessary to perform the banned procedure on a patient suffering certain medical complications.
The law allows the procedure to be performed when a woman's life is in jeopardy.
The cases are Gonzales v. Carhart, 05-380, and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood, 05-1382.
Posted by glassman on :
so now the democrats can revisit the law in th ehouse and senate and make it a campaign issue in '08....
the GOP will lose cuz of this...
Posted by Browndog on :
I doubt this will hurt the GOP because this only bans partial birth abortions. There are a lot of bigger issues then this that will hurt the GOP.
Posted by glassman on :
yes, there are many other more important issues, but this law was never intended to be upheld (even by the people who drafted it)... they wrote it in such a way that they could say they were doing something when in fact they weren't... wait till the first case comes to light where a woman dies because she's denied medical care? it will be disgusting...
it's a huge campaign mistake... wait and watch...
Posted by urnso77 on :
I dont really see that.. I think the dems will base their election campaign on the public's views against the war. I really don't see partial birth abortion getting in the mix unless they wanted to call Guliani a hypocrite on it. I guess we'll see what happens.
Posted by bdgee on :
The GOP will loose because of a lot of things.
There is no way to clean up the joke they have told for the last 6 years.
Contrary to the popular media opinion, it wasn't the idoicy of Iraq that cause the GOP fall in the last election. It was 99% because of the lies and deceptions and willingness to undermine the Constitution and the Party first attitude and the patronage to incompetent Party lackeys on all fronts and some places where no front was in evidence.
Iraq has been only a small portion of the arrogant disrespect fot the people, their concerns, and the Nation that "the people" are fed up with..
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by urnso77: I dont really see that.. I think the dems will base their election campaign on the public's views against the war. I really don't see partial birth abortion getting in the mix unless they wanted to call Guliani a hypocrite on it. I guess we'll see what happens.
i've tried for years to find CREDIBLE stats on this subject, they just aren't available.. i see all kinds of "data" but it's all suspect..
this law was designed to be a rally cry... nobody performs these things unless someone is dying...
some woman AND child will die and the law will be blamed...
Posted by bdgee on :
"some woman AND child will die and the law will be blamed... "
Yes, it may be just a matter of when that happens, before or after the next election, as to whether or not it influences the election and in what way.
Posted by rimasco on :
quote:Originally posted by urnso77: I dont really see that.. I think the dems will base their election campaign on the public's views against the war. I really don't see partial birth abortion getting in the mix unless they wanted to call Guliani a hypocrite on it. I guess we'll see what happens.
I agree with glass this is just a rally cry to curry favor with the religious voters.....which Rove proved is vital
Posted by glassman on :
Matthew Dowd recently said that he felt presidential campaigns in the future NEED to be about building a true consensus, and not just winning by 1 or 2 percent.....
Matthew Dowd was the chief strategist for President Bush's 2004 re-election campaign. Formerly a Texas Democrat, Dowd was impressed by then-Gov. Bush's talent for governing from the center and cooperating with Democrats. He switched parties and went to work for the Bush campaign.
Rudy MAY be able to do that... Posted by bdgee on :
Bush fooled a lot of people that didn't look beyond his claims to be "governing from the center" and being a "uniter not a devider". Apparaantly he fooled Dowd (or Dowd is still telling lies to support dubya).
Bush was exactly the same Party first "decider" as governor that he is so proud of being as president. Everything about Bush has always been far rightwing evangelical extreme and anti the Constitution, The nearest he ever got to anything bipartisan is in the future, MAYBE.
This jerk inherited the largest financial excesses in history as both the Governor of Texas and as the President of the United Staates and drove both into debt for the foreseaable future. If you want to know where that money went, check out Exon and Enron and a thousand other huge corporations.
Now I ask, what is it Rudy can do like Dowd, change parties?
No thanks.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
partial birth abortions are sick, and i cant believe people stand by them just to make a political case for their party....
does anyone even know how they are performed? ghraphically?
Posted by glassman on :
yes, they are sick, and i seriously doubt they are done simply on request...
as i stated before? i can't find any reliable stats on how many are actually done.. CDC should have that but they don't, and my guess is that the GOP would have had them post it if the numbers were significant, since they were in charge for so long.... think of car accidents and cancer as to why and when they are done.... certain cancers are related to female hormones which go crazy (as does breast cancer for instance) during pregnancy...
Posted by bond006 on :
What is the rights obsession with abortion?
Posted by rimasco on :
quote:Originally posted by bond006: What is the rights obsession with abortion?
Stems from religious beliefs
Posted by stocktrader22 on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: Bush fooled a lot of people that didn't look beyond his claims to be "governing from the center" and being a "uniter not a devider". Apparaantly he fooled Dowd (or Dowd is still telling lies to support dubya).
Bush was exactly the same Party first "decider" as governor that he is so proud of being as president. Everything about Bush has always been far rightwing evangelical extreme and anti the Constitution, The nearest he ever got to anything bipartisan is in the future, MAYBE.
This jerk inherited the largest financial excesses in history as both the Governor of Texas and as the President of the United Staates and drove both into debt for the foreseaable future. If you want to know where that money went, check out Exon and Enron and a thousand other huge corporations.
Now I ask, what is it Rudy can do like Dowd, change parties?
No thanks.
Umm...you might want to clear up your facts...it was clinton who had a nice economy when he was in office, but set it up for failure when leaving...we would be in debt regardless of what president we had now.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
quote:Originally posted by bond006: What is the rights obsession with abortion?
and what is the lefts obsession with being able to freely do it?
Posted by bdgee on :
Freedom.....nothing more.
Posted by bdgee on :
....nothing less......
Posted by bdgee on :
But it isn't the "left".
It is those not on the far rightwing extreme.
Perspectives, please?
Posted by Ramius on :
quote:Originally posted by rimasco:
quote:Originally posted by bond006: What is the rights obsession with abortion?
Stems from religious beliefs
For many it is soley based on religious belief, but for me abortion is also evidence or gross irresponsibility and selfishness.
I stated on a thread once that "sexual immoratality is a problem". Some wise guy responded, "a problem for who"? My response was "aborted babies, people with STD's and AIDS, and the general community who helps to pay for such issues".
If you aren't ready for a baby, then don't have sex. Period. Of course, I know most of you are laughing...
Posted by urnso77 on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: But it isn't the "left".
It is those not on the far rightwing extreme.
Perspectives, please?
No it IS the left.
Posted by bdgee on :
You are delusional....
Perspective, not emotional reaction.
Posted by urnso77 on :
ok hold on a sec... *jeopardy theme song*
ok im ready...
It's the left.
Posted by rimasco on :
I for one am pro choice...depending of course how far into the pregnancy we're talking...
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by Ramius:
quote:Originally posted by rimasco:
quote:Originally posted by bond006: What is the rights obsession with abortion?
Stems from religious beliefs
For many it is soley based on religious belief, but for me abortion is also evidence or gross irresponsibility and selfishness.
I stated on a thread once that "sexual immoratality is a problem". Some wise guy responded, "a problem for who"? My response was "aborted babies, people with STD's and AIDS, and the general community who helps to pay for such issues".
If you aren't ready for a baby, then don't have sex. Period. Of course, I know most of you are laughing...
Looks from here like everything results from religious bias to you, but you can't back off enough to see that. Try walking in another man's moccasins for a bit.
It's ok to base your feelings on religion, but it is a mite silly to claim red hair isn't inherited.
Posted by Ramius on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee:
quote:Originally posted by Ramius:
quote:Originally posted by rimasco:
quote:Originally posted by bond006: What is the rights obsession with abortion?
Stems from religious beliefs
For many it is soley based on religious belief, but for me abortion is also evidence or gross irresponsibility and selfishness.
I stated on a thread once that "sexual immoratality is a problem". Some wise guy responded, "a problem for who"? My response was "aborted babies, people with STD's and AIDS, and the general community who helps to pay for such issues".
If you aren't ready for a baby, then don't have sex. Period. Of course, I know most of you are laughing...
Looks from here like everything results from religious bias to you, but you can't back off enough to see that. Try walking in another man's moccasins for a bit.
It's ok to base your feelings on religion, but it is a mite silly to claim red hair isn't inherited.
Maybe I'm slow today...if I understood your statements I would respond. Can you clarify please.
Posted by bdgee on :
The proof is left to the reader.
Posted by glassman on :
anybody remember the Terri Schiavo situation? the case left a lot of egg on the faces of the same people that drafted this POS legislation...
all it needed to be "correct" and representative of 3/4 of America was a simple provision to save the life of the mother... the fact that the supreme court upheld it just shows far out of mainstream Bush's appointees are.. the mother's life doesn't matter that's what this bill says....
in the past ten-15 years? the left has been complacent and happy... the ultra-cons have stuck their hands in the hornets nest and now the swelling will begin..
the bozo's that voted this and upheld it have shown themselves to have no concern for ANY individual life, just concern for political micro-management...
a doctor having to make a life-and death decision in seconds will now have to call his lawyer for advice on how to proceed.. Posted by bdgee on :
I predict the the number of failed c-sections will rise dramatically, along with the deaths of women resulting from quack abortions.
Posted by rimasco on :
I predict their will be a surge in wire coat-hanger sales......
Posted by IamtheWalrus on :
So we protect everything else under the sun, but we have the right to kill unborn fetuses? Just doesn't make sense to me.
Posted by IamtheWalrus on :
[/qb][/QUOTE]Umm...you might want to clear up your facts...it was clinton who had a nice economy when he was in office, but set it up for failure when leaving...we would be in debt regardless of what president we had now. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Also, remember, Clinton had Bin Laden in Sudan....cuffed and ready for proccessing...and what did we do?
We let him go.
Posted by Highwaychild on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: I predict the the number of failed c-sections will rise dramatically, along with the deaths of women resulting from quack abortions.
They still have abortion, just not after the baby is 1/2 born and then has a scissors-like tool stabbed into their head and their little brains sucked out.
Posted by glassman on :
has it ever occurred to you guys that these procedures are so rare as to be almost urban legends? that would explain why the CDC doesNOT keep statistics on them? the GOP has controlled th Govt for 6 years, they would have ordered the CDC to post the figures if they were real...
somebody actually has to do the deed... and quite frankly? i doubt there's too many people who have actually gone thru what it takes to become a doctor willing to do it...
Posted by Highwaychild on :
For some of them, at the right price, it will be done. ...then off to their afternoon tee-time they go.
But I agree Glass probably rare, and probably a ploy.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)