The Supreme Court takes a controversial abortion case.
By on Feb 21st, 2006 at 11:49 am
The Supreme Court takes a controversial abortion case.
Roberts, Alito and the rest of the court consider the constitutionality of a federal law that bans a certain type of abortion without “an exception to protect the health of the mother.” The law has already been struck down by judges in California, Nebraska and New York.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Impeach the ones that have lied at their confirmation hearings to get onto the bench.
This is the stand-up moment.
February 21st, 2006 at 11:58 ambig guess as to who is going to vote this law unconstitutional.
PS – it won’t be Scalia, Thomas, Alioto or Roberts.
February 21st, 2006 at 12:12 pmI makes sense that this case would be struck down since it doesn’t have the exception to protect the health of the mother, but I’m pretty sure SENSE has nothing to do with anything these days.
February 21st, 2006 at 12:25 pmgee…what a surprise! The first day!
February 21st, 2006 at 12:25 pmHe, he… Finally, liberals have to use the legislature, rather than the left-wing Courts to push their agenda.
AND it only gets worse. John Paul Stevens will be stepping down in June.
February 21st, 2006 at 1:03 pmI need to read more on this Partial Birth Routine….
Yet I will relay something.
My exwife had given up her first Child for Adoption when she became pregnant in her Senior Year. Her Family viewed that pregnancy as an embarrasment. Their were well to do people and could easily have afforded Raising that Child.
I do not KNOW which is better or worse, on the one hand the Child Lives today, yet without knowing her Mother. The Mother Anguishes terribly every year around that BirthDate.
Her Emotional baggage was extreme, yet I accepted this and we continued to date then Marry. Our Marriage Suffered Terribly due to her Obsessive Compulsiveness. Her life isnt complete and it never will be.
Im saying this.
Wether the Mother gives her Child away or Decides to Abort its extremely damaging to both mother and child for the rest of their Lives. There simply is no easy Choice.
It should be left up to the Mother of that Child to decide. If anyone thinks a Woman easily gives a Child up is crazy talk because she is the one that pays the price for her decision.
My position is that its the Womans Choice.
Samuel Alito here thinks its pure Politics. It is a Political Hot button Issue because those have turned into one for political agendas that have very little to do with Abortion.
Once again the Politicians are playing with peoples emotions and well being for self-serving purposes.
Mr Alito Grow up.
February 21st, 2006 at 1:08 pm#1 – then we should impeach Ginsburg and Breyer. They said they would follow the constitution and they have not. They have followed the bloodthirsty left who wants legalized infanticide.
February 21st, 2006 at 1:09 pm#6 – no, you grow up. You are playing politics. Your opinion does not matter – is abortion in the constitution. NO. Contact your legislature before forcing your view on America.
February 21st, 2006 at 1:10 pm##1 – then we should impeach Ginsburg and Breyer. They said they would follow the constitution and they have not. They have followed the bloodthirsty left who wants legalized infanticide.
Comment by Samuel Alito — February 21, 2006 @ 1:09 pm
The Federalists dont give a crap about the Constitution Alito.
February 21st, 2006 at 1:12 pmWhy are you NOW trying to use that GD piece of Paper, as you and Bush call it, as your leverage?
#
#6 – no, you grow up. You are playing politics. Your opinion does not matter – is abortion in the constitution. NO. Contact your legislature before forcing your view on America.
Comment by Samuel Alito — February 21, 2006 @ 1:10 pm
I didnt mention left or right in my post Alito.
My Name is TIED to no Political groups nor have I ever registered as a Republican Independent or Democrat.
I do not play Partisan Politics
February 21st, 2006 at 1:14 pmIf my opinion does not matter then Yours does?
Why so would that be Alito?
The Baby was adopted in my post IDIOT not Aborted.
February 21st, 2006 at 1:16 pmDo you EVEN READ Alito?
February 21st, 2006 at 1:17 pmOh Sorry I mean Wwallace
February 21st, 2006 at 1:17 pm#9 – I do care about the constitution. I don’t care for Ralph Neas and Nan Aron exploiting it for their own purposes.
The left has gone too far. If you are at a point where you are actually saying the Constitution gives women and doctors the right to commit infanticide, you have gone too far.
The best result for this would be to strike down the federal ban and reverse the Court’s 2000 Nebraska decision. Let the people decide. Not five left-wing judges.
February 21st, 2006 at 1:17 pmSamual,
I dont have a problem with this decision, its all good, certain types of abortions should be banned.
So what do you think about the UAE/ports issue?
February 21st, 2006 at 1:22 pm#11 – your opinion does not matter because the Constitution does not mention abortion. If you have a problem with it, go vote for a pro-choice representative on local and federal level.
The very fact that we are debating this shows you how much the Court has been politicized by liberals. You use the Court to advance an agenda that most Americans reject. Will the Court overturn Roe – no, of course not. But, they will certainly allow reasonable legislation that large majorities of Americans support to pass.
February 21st, 2006 at 1:24 pm#15 – I think Bush should and will be taken to the woodshed for this. In simple terms, NO. If he wants an all out war in his base, he will comply. AND it has created more doubts among Bush supporters.
February 21st, 2006 at 1:26 pmThank you Samuel.
February 21st, 2006 at 1:31 pmDon’t worry #18 – this will NOT happen. Even Limp Frist is challenging the White House on it.
February 21st, 2006 at 1:33 pmThe very fact that we are debating this shows you how much the Court has been politicized by liberals. You use the Court to advance an agenda that most Americans reject. Will the Court overturn Roe – no, of course not. But, they will certainly allow reasonable legislation that large majorities of Americans support to pass.
Comment by Samuel Alito — February 21, 2006 @ 1:24 pm
And that all I have asked for Sam reasonable legislation based on the Majority. Now you see that My debate has cause you not to go left or right but to center on the Democratic principles and not Special interest Groups.
If and WHEN the Politicians start listening to the People and not the lobbyists and their Interests perhaps we can have that Vote, The Majority Rules, Correct?
That decision I would then Abide by though I may not agree with in totality.
Welcome to the Center Mr Alito =)
February 21st, 2006 at 2:18 pmThe Courts should be ‘Blind’ as in Justice is Blind
February 21st, 2006 at 2:28 pmIt really pisses me off that MEN in Washington are trying to change the law to tell me what I can do with my body. It’s none of their damn business. It does not belong in the courts. It’s a personal, private matter.
February 21st, 2006 at 3:00 pmJust remember this come election time. Republicans not only want control of your body, they also want to listen in on your phone calls. Get these jokers out!
Samuel Alito says:
The left has gone too far. If you are at a point where you are actually saying the Constitution gives women and doctors the right to commit infanticide, you have gone too far.
The very fact that we are debating this shows you how much the Court has been politicized by liberals. You use the Court to advance an agenda that most Americans reject. Will the Court overturn Roe – no, of course not. But, they will certainly allow reasonable legislation that large majorities of Americans support to pass.
Comment by Samuel Alito — February 21, 2006 @ 1:24 pm
The left the left the left. *yawn* Abortion is not an issue of the left. Dems/Progressives are not out soliciting candidates for abortions. There are no “Have an Abortion” rallies. What the majority of the “left” is for is CHOICE. The right for a woman and her physician to choose what is best. You argue that the left is forcing their ideals on others, but I will submit to you that it is the regressives that are guilty of doing that. It is not mandatory to have an abortion. Those that make the decision to have an abortion are legally protected in doing so. People from all walks of life and every political stripe have had abortions. It’s a private and painful decision that should not be legislated. To imply that only liberals get abortions is an outright lie. I’ll say it once more. Should the SCOTUS overturn Roe, it will be left up to individual states to decide the issue. You’ll end up with red state folks driving cross country to blue states for an abortion. Stop kidding yourself.
February 21st, 2006 at 3:01 pm#23 – you make my point. If Roe is overturned, it does not outlaw abortion. But let’s not pretend the right exists in the constitution. It doesn’t. AND partial-birth is seriously a grotesque procedure that states should ban if they wish. So we agree.
February 21st, 2006 at 3:05 pmYou know what? I don’t even care if a woman has an elective abortion. That’s her problem if it bothers her conscience later on.
No one — NO ONE — has any right, at all, to dictate to a person what that person does to his or her own body.
That is the conservative point of view.
I am a man and I will fight for a woman’s right to medical privacy. Rush Limbaugh, in cahoots with the ACLU, can invoke medical privacy to block prosecution for drug violations and no Republican gives a fuck. But a woman can’t be allowed to make medical decisions regarding her own body without the government getting involved? Come ON, how fucking stupid is that?
Bottom line: The only reason abortion isn’t legal is because men don’t get pregnant. Period.
February 21st, 2006 at 3:43 pmIt really pisses me off that MEN in Washington are trying to change the law to tell me what I can do with my body. It’s none of their damn business. It does not belong in the courts. It’s a personal, private matter.
Well, they tell you to wear a seatbelt and they tell you to wear a helmet … they tell you how much alcohol is safe for you to ingest and still drive … they tell you how fast is reasonable to drive … they tell you what drugs you can and can’t take, and they won’t let you dictate when to end your own life … they tell you where you can and can’t eliminate waste (trying to word that softly) … and they say you can’t pay for sex … etc, etc, etc …
I’m sure that everyone who reads my “list” of governmental can/cannots will find levels of disagreement and agreement with the government mandates or laws, but my point is the government surely can and does dictate much of what we can do “to our own body”. They are elected, in small part, to do as much … I may believe it’s a personal matter to not wear a helmet on a motorcycle … the government disagrees … they act for my benefit, in this case, in spite of my (hypothetical) wishing otherwise.
I’m not sure if you truly wish the abortion debate out of “the courts” since the same court was the body that legalized the issue in the first place … and I would submit that many, many women have “issues” with abortion (see link below), and not, as you assert, just “men”.
http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/
February 21st, 2006 at 3:52 pmBottom line: The only reason abortion isn’t legal is because men don’t get pregnant. Period.
This is a go nowhere argument … the hypothetical is impossible leaving your conclusion neither provable or refutable … much like me saying “the only reason abortion is legal is because fetuses can’t talk”.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:00 pm#25
Do you even understand what a partial birth abortion is? Here are the facts:
Partial Birth Abortion, a late-term and highly controversial abortion procedure, is currently legal in almost the entire United States. The baby is killed when it is only a few inches from being given full U.S. citizenship and the legal right to life. The baby is alive when the Partial Birth Abortion procedure is performed.
A few states have outlawed some or all forms of Partial Birth Abortion. The national Congress has passed a Partial Birth Abortion ban, however President Clinton has vetoed this bill. The American Medical Association Legislative Council voted unanimously to recommend endorsement of the bill, however the Senate has still been unable to override Clinton’s veto.
Partial Birth Abortion remains legal primarily because of common misconceptions about the topic. Many people believe that partial birth abortions are rare, and are only performed to save the mother. However, in the United States alone, thousands of partial birth abortions are performed every year, almost exclusively for elective and not health-based reasons1. These babies are killed: were they to be fully and not partially delivered their lives could be saved.
Abortion is wrong in every case unless the mother’s life is in jeopardy, which is a very small minority of pregnancies. Is it too much to ask that this barbaric procedure be banned unless the mother’s life is at risk?
February 21st, 2006 at 4:00 pmoh … I meant to add to my previous post, not to mention that your statement dismisses half the country as insensitive and callous … that was my real beef with your statement …
February 21st, 2006 at 4:02 pmRandy, sweetie, the late term abortions are already regulated by states, and are not covered by Roe v. Wade. And in true partisan brain fashion, you missed the point pumpkin. This new law doesn’t have an exemption for the health of the mother, which any sane and rational person would find silly and wrong. But I’m guessing you’ve been properly indoctrinated into the anti-abortion rhetoric based on your off topic, and inaccurate posting. After all, a sane and non-partisan person who cares about this topic as you and Giacomo claim would know that only 1.4% of abortions are even over the 21 week period and that 88% of all abortions occur in the first 12 weeks.
I forgive you though pumpkin. The partisan brain prevents people from thinking rationally, and that’s why you guys have such an extreme and unreasonable attitude. It comes with the territory of being an emotionally filled partisan. Clearly you care about what you perceive to be a problem, if only your reasoning centers could also be involved in your ‘thinking’ you might come up with a more rational posting.
February 21st, 2006 at 5:11 pmThis is the beginning, folks.
February 21st, 2006 at 5:58 pmYellow, you got that right:
It really pisses me off that MEN in Washington are trying to change the law to tell me what I can do with my body. It’s none of their damn business. It does not belong in the courts. It’s a personal, private matter.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
The only reasons for laws concerning abortion, and curtailing the liberty of females, are religious ones. If male circumcision were a Christian belief would it be mandatory?
February 21st, 2006 at 6:39 pmThe constitution doesn’t mention lots of things. That argument is meaningless. That is what amendments are for. I just hate debating nonissues with idiots.
February 22nd, 2006 at 10:39 am#28 “#25
Do you even understand what a partial birth abortion is? Here are the facts:”
I know what it is. Like all surgical procedures, it’s gruesome. I would think that any doctor and patient would take a surgical procedure most seriously, and carefully weight the consequences.
But you know what?
IT’S NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS.
How many ways, how many times, can I say that? If you don’t want one of these procedures, then don’t get it. How the hell can you presume to know the story behind why a person has this performed? You don’t. So keep your nose out of it.
.If you want to get upset about something, find out why Rush Limbaugh continues to make millions of dollars while fighting felony charges for massive drug abuse.
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:20 pmOn abortion, as in everything else, know much, say little.
February 22nd, 2006 at 8:32 pm#26- I think it should be pointed out that the gov. CAN tell you to wear a helmet, a seatbelt, not to smoke dope, etc. But it remains the CHOICE of the individual, as to whether or not they do so. And they bear the responsibility of their actions, should they be caught at it. But by saying that a woman’s life or health is of less importance than a fetus, and having NO exceptions to that rule, removes all choice from those most affected by them.
February 22nd, 2006 at 11:48 pm