Supreme Court Upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban!

[Terry_Herrington]

Any abortion law should include a provision to allow the doctor to save the life of the mother in any event.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

Which is really sad, (the definition of health). When I say medically necessary I mean serious life threatening issues, nothing else. The term health is so deceiving as well, because many people do not know that it defined so broadly. This is how so many pro-choice groups are able to garner more support for themselves. It would be possible to change the course of abortion in this country if judges would stand up and narrowly define "medically necessary" and "health".

Well the definition is certainly defined this way so that abortion can be legal for any women at any time. This definition removes all barriers.


Partial birth abortion is never assistance to the threat of death on the mothers life. It is never necessary under any circumstances. Again this is why the provision of health was not provided in the ban.

 

[Filmproducer]

Well the definition is certainly defined this way so that abortion can be legal for any women at any time. This definition removes all barriers.


Partial birth abortion is never assistance to the threat of death on the mothers life. It is never necessary under any circumstances. Again this is why the provision of health was not provided in the ban.

In terms of legal terms for abortions the definition of "liberty" is what makes abortion legal. If you read Blackmun's majority ruling you will find while the definition of health is briefly touched on it has no bearing on the arguments in the case.

The principal thrust of appellant's attack on the Texas statutes is that they improperly invade a right, said to be possessed by the pregnant woman, to choose to terminate her pregnancy. Appellant would discover this right in the concept of personal "liberty" embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause; or in personal, marital, familial, and sexual privacy said to be protected by the Bill of Rights or its penumbras, see Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972); id., at 460 (WHITE, J., concurring in result); or among those rights reserved to the people by the Ninth Amendment, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S., at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring).

We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

In terms of legal terms for abortions the definition of "liberty" is what makes abortion legal. If you read Blackmun's majority ruling you will find while the definition of health is briefly touched on it has no bearing on the arguments in the case.

I am very aware of this justification. I watched the dems grill the court nominees over this. I wasnt refering to what makes it legal. The definition of health protects the parameters of it.

 

[Filmproducer]

I am very aware of this justification. I watched the dems grill the court nominees over this. I wasnt refering to what makes it legal. The definition of health protects the parameters of it.

Not necessarily because even the state anti-abortion laws that existed before Roe had "medically necessary" clauses. As far as health and medically necessary for pb abortions this is where we need judges to restrict the parameters and narrow the definition, because many prior attempts at pb bans included the medically neccessary clause.

In order to ban abortions altogether we need the SCOTUS to not only grant cert,, of which there is no guarentee, but also redefine the parameters of the 9th and 14th am. This is going to be a bit more difficult because of case precedent and this broad definition of liberty as defined in Griswold and Roe, etc. is applicable to many other personal liberties in the court's eyes.

 

[Hope of Glory]

That's precisely why I think it will take a Constitutional amendment to ban them.

Then, there can be no "Constitutional" argument.

 

[mnw]

Good point about the use of the word "health". Actually, some of the texts I have read say we should argue about the life of the mother and not the health of the mother. I never meant to include the mother's mental health etc. And as others have said, the partial birth method is never acceptable.

Interestingly, it has always been legal to administer medical health to the mother in cases where her life was at stake even if it mean the secondary and unintential death of the child.

But many doctors are now saying such cases are incredibly rare. It is a red herring that pro-choicers put out.

 

[4Given]

moral convictions

Every one of the justices that voted to uphold the ban on partial birth abortion are Catholic. They are voting in line with Catholic moral teaching in regards to the sanctity of life from conception to natural death. I think that's something we all can agree on. Kudos to them!

 

[LadyEagle]

Thread closing warning! This thread will be closed no sooner than 1:30 a.m. ET by one of the moderators!

Lady Eagle

 

[LadyEagle]

closed per notice, LE.