1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Supreme Court upholds partial birth abortion ban

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Alma, Apr 18, 2007.

  1. Alma

    Alma Well-Known Member


    Thoughts? I'm against any abortion of any kind, so I guess I'm pleased by this decision. Although I think some out-of-the-blue, 5-4 decision to overturn the practice in every circumstance would backfire like the Prohibition of alcohol did.
  2. zeke12

    zeke12 Guest

    I think this is total bullshit.
  3. These are the Democrats who voted for this law.

    Thanks, gang.
    Oh, and thanks for rolling over on filibustering Alito and Roberts, too.
    This is sickening.
  4. D.Sanchez

    D.Sanchez Member

    If you've stumbled upon this thread may I recommend that you walk run away.
  5. Alma

    Alma Well-Known Member

  6. Because, a) Roe is virtually gutted by this, because the "undue burden" test is apparently going to be whatever restrictions any state decides to put on it and b) because, in the real giveaway, throughout the actual decisions obstetricians and gynecologists are not referred to by their professional designations but as "abortion doctors." Which makes sense, because "partial-birth abortion" is not a medical term but a political term of art. As is thie decision. This is theocratic law-making at its height. For the moment.
  7. ifilus

    ifilus Well-Known Member

    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."
  8. Alma

    Alma Well-Known Member

    The decision still allows for a contigency of health. That can be a pretty broad meaning. They'll still happen under that stipulation.

    I dunno. Depends on how you view the situation. If you're against abortion, you look at it as a chance to reduce them, because doctors and expectant mothers might just pause to reconsider their options if there's a concern about laws.
  9. Alma

    Alma Well-Known Member

    Politicians already make a number of health care decisions for women...and men. Even in the abortion arena. If you tried to perform your own abortion, I assure you, it would not be covered by law. You'd be put in an institution.

    Make no mistake: Restrictions surround this issue already. Legal abortions are more a law borne of technological advances than some sense of women's rights.

    Cloning. Picking your kid's genetics. It's the same stuff. It revolves around a similiar issue of control: Because technology allows it...do you do it? We rarely frame the debate that way; instead we call it a rights debate. I dunno; does technology connote some inherent human right we once didn't have?
  10. Ah, no, it doesn't, as Ginsburg makes clear in her disse
    Ah, no, it doesn't, as Ginsburg makes clear in her dissent.
    "For the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception protecting a woman's health."
    And the point of Roe is not a "right to do with your body," it's the right of privacy derived from the 14th Amendment in Griswold, which, I guarantee you, is the next (and real) target.
  11. Alma

    Alma Well-Known Member

    Oh, I think I miswrote it. I'm not saying that the banned procedure becomes legal for health considerations; I'm saying other alternatives have not been proven significantly less safe, and, as the court argues rather cannily (though it bothers me) medicine is better to accomodate legislation than the other way around.

    Additionally, Kennedy made clear that if overwhelming evidence was found that the banned procedure was proven significantly safer, he'd reconsider.

    Again, the decision is at least as much a blow to the medical community as it is to abortion rights. I am always fascinated at how willing some are to embrace the medical community for the simple fact of it being the medical community; the language of the decision is no less compelling because it uses common sense, and rather basic morality (like wondering if a mother who aborts her child really wants to know how the second trimester work is done) to argue against technocracy.
  12. zeke12

    zeke12 Guest

    Because a doctor decides when to use this type of procedure. Women aren't going into their OBGYN's office and demanding them.

    It's playing politics with peoples medical care, and it's disgusting.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page