Court refuses to revive MI’s partial-birth abortion ban.
By on Jan 7th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Court refuses to revive MI’s partial-birth abortion ban.
The Supreme Court today declined to review a ruling by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, which struck down Michigan’s ban on so-called “partial-birth” abortions. The Court’s move effectively outlaws the state’s ban on the procedure, although the Court upheld a similar federal law banning the technique last April.
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
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
Sports
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
Good.
January 7th, 2008 at 7:52 pmThat’s what you get when you blow off stare decisis…
Inconsistent rulings and backtracking.
Way to go!
January 7th, 2008 at 7:56 pmRoe v. Wade — get used to it wingnuts.
January 7th, 2008 at 8:01 pmMust say, I’m suprised.
Perhaps in the midst of a presidential election, this isn’t the time for more inconsistent rulings. . . . better not to rule at all than to force a showdown with the impending election of a pro-choice president and a Democratic Congress.
. . . or, maybe it just wasn’t the most compelling case.
Not a constitutional lawyer. Thoughts?
January 7th, 2008 at 8:23 pmCourt refuses to revive MI’s partial-birth abortion ban. The Supreme Court today declined to review a ruling by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, which struck down Michigan’s ban on so-called “partial-birth†abortions. The Court’s move effectively outlaws the state’s ban on the procedure, although the Court upheld a similar federal law banning the technique last April. 7:23 pm
“revive?” Courts don’t “revive!” cases!! That’s a medical term!!
I think it would work better if you use the word “review” instead.
TP, Do you proof read much??
January 7th, 2008 at 8:26 pmLet us not forget where the term partial-birth abortion originated…. this was a procedure between a physician and his patient discussed and performed due to grave, very rare and unfortunate situations. It was the frenzied bible humpers who exploited this horrid situation for use of anti abortion propaganda giving rise to the name of partial-birth abortion.
January 7th, 2008 at 8:42 pmGood.
January 7th, 2008 at 9:00 pmPrivacy enough to allow abortions but not privacy enough to let me eat transfats or smoke in my car.
January 7th, 2008 at 10:30 pmDoesn’t matter how it’s decided, just that it is. A victory in a court that leans to the right is a good thing.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:16 pmgood golly,
You are wrong. The Supremes did consider the Motion for Cert. Their decision not to grant it was not a victory, it was either an abdication (i.e., stare decisis, a decision not to decide a matter already decided) or a decision to wait for a case that better withstands stare decisis.
With the current gang of Supremes, you can bet that the case wasn’t declined on moral grounds.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:25 pm“revive?†Courts don’t “revive!†cases!! That’s a medical term!!
I think it would work better if you use the word “review†instead.
TP, Do you proof read much??
Comment by dixie blood — January 7, 2008 @ 8:26 pm
Um, dixie? What I believe the headline is saying is that, by declining to review the case (you yourself include that in your copying the piece–declined to review a ruling), the ban–which was killed by the 6th Circuit Court–won’t/can’t be brought back.
January 8th, 2008 at 12:16 amMy dictionary doesn’t limit “revive” to medical situations. A couple of other definitions include “to restore from a depressed, inactive, or unused state : bring back” and “to renew in the mind or memory”, neither of which suggests a purely medical usage. (In fact, the latter definition would be far from medical usage.)
Michigan enacted a horrible law and it is now DEAD. (Did you know that “dead” is as much a legal term as it is a medical one?)
>>The doctrine of stare decisis has nothing to do with it.
I was more concerned with the initial ruling than this one. I was also referring to the spirit rather than the letter here too. Precedents do not matter much to this gang and that scares the crap outta me.
I am glad they came to their decision today in any case.
January 8th, 2008 at 12:26 amIf anything, at least the basis of the arguments and facts in the SC chambers aren’t spun by placating and stall-tactics. And we don’t have to withstand a Nancy Grace under-simplification of the decisions because the cases don’t involve *insert white young female celebrity/murder case here*.
January 8th, 2008 at 12:48 am