Ban on Type of Abortion Is Declared Unconstitutional

[zimv20]

link (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/01/national/01CND-ABOR.html?hp)


SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal judge Tuesday declared the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional, saying the measure infringes on a woman's right to choose.

The ruling applies to Planned Parenthood clinics and their doctors, who perform roughly half the nation's abortions.

U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton's ruling came in one of three lawsuits challenging the legislation President Bush signed last year.

"The act poses an undue burden on a woman's right to choose an abortion," she wrote.

Federal judges in New York and Nebraska also heard challenges to the law earlier this year but have yet to rule.

Bush signed the bill in November, saying "a terrible form of violence has been directed against children who are inches from birth while the law looked the other way."

In the banned procedure -- known as intact dilation and extraction to doctors, but called partial-birth abortion by opponents -- the living fetus is partially removed from the womb, and its skull is punctured or crushed.

Justice Department attorneys argued that the procedure is inhumane, causes pain to the fetus and is never medically necessary.

Abortion proponents, however, argued that a woman's health during an abortion is more important than how the fetus is terminated, and that the banned method is often a safer solution that a conventional abortion, in which the fetus is dismembered in the womb and then removed in pieces.

The measure, which President Clinton had twice vetoed, was seen by abortion rights activists as a fundamental departure from the Supreme Court's precedent in Roe v. Wade. It shifted the debate from a woman's right to choose and focused on the plight of the fetus.

Abortion advocates said the law was the government's first step toward outlawing abortion. Violating the law carries a two-year prison term.

Late last year, Hamilton, a Clinton appointee, and federal judges in New York and Lincoln, Neb. tentatively blocked the act from being enforced pending the outcome of the court challenges. They began hearing testimony March 29.

Doctors have construed the Supreme Court's decision in Roe. v. Wade to mean they can perform abortions usually until the 24th to 28th week after conception, or until the "point of viability," when a healthy fetus is thought to be able to survive outside the womb. Generally, abortions after the "point of viability" are performed only to preserve the mother's health.

Doctors at about 900 abortion clinics practice under the Planned Parenthood umbrella, performing about half the nation's 1.3 million annual abortions.

The Nebraska and New York cases are expected to conclude within weeks. The outcomes, which may conflict with one another, will almost certainly be appealed to the Supreme Court. The New York case was brought by the National Abortion Federation, which represents nearly half the nation's abortion providers. The Nebraska case was brought by a few abortion doctors.

The U.S. Supreme Court had overturned a Nebraska partial-birth abortion law because it did not allow the banned procedure even when a doctor believes the method is the best way to preserve the woman's health.

To get around the decision, Congress simply declared that the procedure is never medically necessary -- and during weeks of testimony, doctors testifying for the government stressed that same point -- claiming there are better alternatives to the method, and that it may even be harmful to women.

Witnesses for the abortion providers, however, testified in all three trials that the banned method is often preferred and sometimes necessary to preserve a woman's health.

Congressional sponsors said the ban would outlaw only 2,200 or so abortions a year. But abortion providers testified the banned method can happen even at times when doctors try to avoid it, such as when they attempt to remove the fetus from the womb in pieces.

Because of the possibility that the fetus may partially exit a woman during an otherwise legal procedure, abortion rights advocates said the law could ban almost all second-trimester abortions, which account for about 10 percent of all abortions in the United States.


this is one to watch, could be one step closer to the supreme court reversing roe v. wade.

i know it's fruitless to even suggest it, but wouldn't it be refreshing if this thread remained on the legal maneuverings, and not another tired religious argument about abortion in general?

[bella]

Wow - how interesting! It will be facinating to see how each side makes their case and provides proof.

[Neserk]

http://www.aclu.org/ReproductiveRights/ReproductiveRights.cfm?ID=4998&c=148

Before you freak out that it is from the ACLU, read what it has to say.

[bella]

How strange that the bans don't consider womens health. I have a pretty open mind about the subject. I know of a few women who have had abortions. I'm neither partial or impartial to it.

[Steradian]

http://www.aclu.org/ReproductiveRights/ReproductiveRights.cfm?ID=4998&c=148

Before you freak out that it is from the ACLU, read what it has to say.What is wrong with the ACLU....?

[Taft]

What is wrong with the ACLU....?

Depends who you ask. Moderates and liberals are generally relatively supportive of most ACLU actions. Many conservatives, however, see an organization that supports criminals selectively, which they consider to be immoral.

Many conservatives I know who don't like the ACLU maintain that position because the ACLU does not defend the rights offered by the 2nd ammendment (you know, the gun ammendment). The ACLU's stance is a slap to the face of those who believe strongly that the 2nd ammendment gives citizens unlimited access to firearms. The ACLU's interpretation of the ammendment goes against the interpretations by groups like the NRA.

What I don't understand is why some pro-gun people dismiss all of the ACLU's work on that basis alone. The ACLU does a lot of good work in upholding the bill of rights. It seems silly to dismiss that work because you have a grudge against them for not being pro-gun.

But then, many people also believe that criminals have no rights. ESPECIALLY accused sexual criminals. Thus, they are quite upset that the ACLU would stand up for the rights of those criminals.

Taft

[IJ Reilly]

Surely you mean, judges who would be judges. Surely you're not so confused about Constitutional issues that you think legislators can rescind Constitutional guarantees whenever the mood strikes them. Surely not.

[Krizoitz]

Surely you mean, judges who would be judges. Surely you're not so confused about Constitutional issues that you think legislators can rescind Constitutional guarantees whenever the mood strikes them. Surely not.

Show me at what point in the constitution that abortions are gaurenteed? It should have been a legislative issue not a judicial one is the point.

[IJ Reilly]

Show me at what point in the constitution that abortions are gaurenteed? It should have been a legislative issue not a judicial one is the point.

Nice spin effort, but I'm not going to bite.

Many things should be legislative issues instead of judicial acts, but that's entirely beside the point.

[Neserk]

Depends who you ask. Moderates and liberals are generally relatively supportive of most ACLU actions. Many conservatives, however, see an organization that supports criminals selectively, which they consider to be immoral.



Thanks. That is precisely why I said that!

[blackfox]

ooh, this thread isa S-P-Y-C-E-E-E meatball.

imo, if this country taught responsible and healthy attitudes towards sex and the body, had relevant and pragmatic sex education for our children, and advocated the responsible use of contraceptives and allowed birth-control measures such as the "morning-after pill" and other related products, then perhaps we woudn't find ourselves in this mess, left with primarily abortions given to women whose lives are threatened by not having one. Although I personally find abortions distasteful, I find it amusing to see people advocating the "life" of a fetus over the life of a full-grown woman. I find it roughly analguous to the related pro-life, pro-death penalty camp...and just as hypocritical.

[Krizoitz]

ooh, this thread isa S-P-Y-C-E-E-E meatball.

imo, if this country taught responsible and healthy attitudes towards sex and the body, had relevant and pragmatic sex education for our children, and advocated the responsible use of contraceptives and allowed birth-control measures such as the "morning-after pill" and other related products, then perhaps we woudn't find ourselves in this mess, left with primarily abortions given to women whose lives are threatened by not having one. Although I personally find abortions distasteful, I find it amusing to see people advocating the "life" of a fetus over the life of a full-grown woman. I find it roughly analguous to the related pro-life, pro-death penalty camp...and just as hypocritical.

As far as I know, all but the most extreme Pro-Life people accept that sometimes the baby will have to die beccause it presents a danger to the mother. However why should we accept the murder of innocent children merely so people can behave like uncontrolled animals and have sex whenever they want without the consequences?

[Krizoitz]

Nice spin effort, but I'm not going to bite.

Many things should be legislative issues instead of judicial acts, but that's entirely beside the point.

No its not, Stelliform complained that the judges had exceed their authority by turning abortion into a judicial matter. Since the judges duty in these kind of cases is to determine the constitutionality of the law it makes sense to ask where in the constitution abortion is a protected right. You made the claim that it was a Constiutional gaurentee. I just want to know what part or parts of the Constitution back up that assumption. I can't seem to find any that would do so, which is why I belive that it isn't and should never have been a constitutional matter.

[blackfox]

As far as I know, all but the most extreme Pro-Life people accept that sometimes the baby will have to die beccause it presents a danger to the mother. However why should we accept the murder of innocent children merely so people can behave like uncontrolled animals and have sex whenever they want without the consequences?
But we ARE animals...and although we try to better ourselves in all things, we always to some degree fail...so why can we not address these elements of our human nature and do something pragmatic (like my above post) to responsibly address the issue, lessening the use of the moral-polarizing abortion. From what I understand, it is not a pleasant experience for anyone, and it would be nice if responsible choices were laid out before it comes to that...also, I did not mean to imply that all pro-lifers are as I described, I apologize for any misconception...

[IJ Reilly]

No its not, Stelliform complained that the judges had exceed their authority by turning abortion into a judicial matter. Since the judges duty in these kind of cases is to determine the constitutionality of the law it makes sense to ask where in the constitution abortion is a protected right. You made the claim that it was a Constiutional gaurentee. I just want to know what part or parts of the Constitution back up that assumption. I can't seem to find any that would do so, which is why I belive that it isn't and should never have been a constitutional matter.

You seem to not understand how these cases come before the courts. Judges don't bring them, people do, as they are entitled to under our system of justice. In Roe the Supreme Court was faced with a petition which questioned the government's jurisdiction over the insides of women's bodies. The court did not invent this conflict, in fact the legislatures did, by failing to address this fundamental problem. The court became the vehicle for resolving it. Whether you or I like dislike their solution (it certainly has flaws) is what is beside the point. The Court, which had been struggling for decades to decide how much of our personal lives the government could invade decided that abortion fell into that category, and it could be regulated but not prohibited.

Incidentally, I did not refer to abortion as Constitutionally guaranteed. My point was intended to be a broader one about the power of legislatures.

[wwidgirl]

Some Problems with the ban on "partial birth abortions" from http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba7.htm:

"the Act fails to include any exception to the prohibition on abortion procedures 'where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment for the preservation of the...health of the mother.'...Thus, the Act prohibits physicians from exercising their professional medical discretion to determine the most appropriate procedure for their patients, and bars physicians from providing, and their patients from obtaining, the safest abortion possible."

"the Act defines the term 'partial-birth abortion' so broadly as to ban the safest and most common methods of abortion starting at least at the beginning of the second-trimester of pregnancy, including the Dilation and Evacuation ('D&E') method of abortion... "

"The Act also contains an inadequate exception to save the life of the woman....thus [it] 'imposes an undue burden on a woman's ability' to choose abortion. "

"Alternatively, the Act is so vague that it fails to give physicians fair warning of which abortion procedures are prohibited. "

"Thus, the Act violates the rights of Plaintiffs and their patients to privacy, bodily integrity and autonomy, liberty, life, due process, and equal protection guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution."

[Krizoitz]

But we ARE animals...and although we try to better ourselves in all things, we always to some degree fail...so why can we not address these elements of our human nature and do something pragmatic (like my above post) to responsibly address the issue, lessening the use of the moral-polarizing abortion. From what I understand, it is not a pleasant experience for anyone, and it would be nice if responsible choices were laid out before it comes to that...also, I did not mean to imply that all pro-lifers are as I described, I apologize for any misconception...

When birth-control was first being introduced and groups were trying to legalize it in the US pro-ponents argued that it would be used in a limited fashion by responsible people.

Anyway, while the goal of less or no abortions is a noble one, you are asking people on the pro-life side to accept something thats just as wrong for many of them. Also many feel that teaching some of these views is just giving in and encouraging kids to have sex. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't but its still a hard sell.

[bella]

They are actually talking about making the morning after pill available over the counter here instead of having to get a prescription from your doctor. I think it's a great idea!

As for the whole ACLU thing about not being pro-gun.... That would be reason enough for me to dismiss them.

[bella]

When birth-control was first being introduced and groups were trying to legalize it in the US pro-ponents argued that it would be used in a limited fashion by responsible people.

Anyway, while the goal of less or no abortions is a noble one, you are asking people on the pro-life side to accept something thats just as wrong for many of them. Also many feel that teaching some of these views is just giving in and encouraging kids to have sex. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't but its still a hard sell.


It's been proven that kids who are well educated about sex, actually wait longer to experience it and are smarter about it (use protection etc) than kids who aren't taught much about it.

[Taft]

No its not, Stelliform complained that the judges had exceed their authority by turning abortion into a judicial matter. Since the judges duty in these kind of cases is to determine the constitutionality of the law it makes sense to ask where in the constitution abortion is a protected right. You made the claim that it was a Constiutional gaurentee. I just want to know what part or parts of the Constitution back up that assumption. I can't seem to find any that would do so, which is why I belive that it isn't and should never have been a constitutional matter.

OK, go read the majority and minority opinions in Roe vs. Wade. THEN come back and tell me their decision wasn't founded in the constitution and why. THEN go read this latest decision, in the context of Roe vs. Wade's precedence, and tell me that it is out of line with the ruling in Roe vs. Wade AND the constitution.

I always hear this dumb line from people. "Activist judges! The sky is falling!" A judge's job is to interpret the laws on the books. If the laws on the books are vague or there is room for interpretation, I can assure you that different people will interpret that law differently, and hence judges will do the same. If the lawmakers didn't wish for more than one interpretation, they should have done a better job of writing the law.

Also, our constitution/bill of rights doesn't always specifically enumerate rights. "life, liberty and the persuit of happiness" and "general welfare" come to mind as "catch all" clauses intended to leave some wiggle room in their interpretation and implementation by congress.

My point? Just because it doesn't say "A woman has a right to an abortion" in the constitution, doesn't mean the constitution doesn't grant that right, through a more far reaching clause or construct.

Taft

[Sayhey]

When birth-control was first being introduced and groups were trying to legalize it in the US pro-ponents argued that it would be used in a limited fashion by responsible people.

Anyway, while the goal of less or no abortions is a noble one, you are asking people on the pro-life side to accept something thats just as wrong for many of them. Also many feel that teaching some of these views is just giving in and encouraging kids to have sex. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't but its still a hard sell.

Even if everything you allege is true (something I don't really accept) assume people use birth control in what you describe as a "unlimited" and "irresponsible" fashion, and assume that it encourages kids to have sex, then what right is it of government to adopt your moral view of the world and stop the rest of us heathens from engaging in our own private sexual behavior based on a different moral code? Since when should your view of what is right and proper be forced on me or my children?

Now I don't think it is a particularly good idea for young people to engage in sexual behavior too early, but if they do I want them to know about the risks and how to protect themselves. That view seems quite reasonable to me, and if you want to talk about a "hard sell" then in the days of AIDS and many other STDs the idea of limiting other people's rights to protect themselves, based on a narrow religious view of what behavior should be, is the hardest sell of all.

[Voltron]

Even if everything you allege is true (something I don't really accept) assume people use birth control in what you describe as a "unlimited" and "irresponsible" fashion, and assume that it encourages kids to have sex, then what right is it of government to adopt your moral view of the world and stop the rest of us heathens from engaging in our own private sexual behavior based on a different moral code? Since when should your view of what is right and proper be forced on me or my children?


As long as you don't include in your listing of birth control methods "murder" then the answer to your question is never.

[numediaman]

OK, go read the majority and minority opinions in Roe vs. Wade. THEN come back and tell me their decision wasn't founded in the constitution and why. THEN go read this latest decision, in the context of Roe vs. Wade's precedence, and tell me that it is out of line with the ruling in Roe vs. Wade AND the constitution.

I always hear this dumb line from people. "Activist judges! The sky is falling!" A judge's job is to interpret the laws on the books. If the laws on the books are vague or there is room for interpretation, I can assure you that different people will interpret that law differently, and hence judges will do the same. If the lawmakers didn't wish for more than one interpretation, they should have done a better job of writing the law.

Also, our constitution/bill of rights doesn't always specifically enumerate rights. "life, liberty and the persuit of happiness" and "general welfare" come to mind as "catch all" clauses intended to leave some wiggle room in their interpretation and implementation by congress.

My point? Just because it doesn't say "A woman has a right to an abortion" in the constitution, doesn't mean the constitution doesn't grant that right, through a more far reaching clause or construct.

Taft

To add to your post:

The Ninth Amendment states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Meaning that rights are not limited to those specifically mentioned.

Also:

In 1973 the Court held in Roe v. Wade that the states cannot bar a woman from having an abortion because of the constitutional right to privacy. Because it went against the deep convictions of many people, Roe ignited a firestorm of political controversy that has continued ever since. Although the court has heard many abortion cases in the years since Roe and has changed the rules somewhat, it has declined to back away from the central point: A woman has a constitutional right to control her body.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761569008_2/Constitution_of_the_United_States.html

Technically, if the Supreme Court were to reverse their 1973 ruling, they would have to rule that a woman does not retain control over her own body. But, as we all know, the Supremes would probably avoid this line of argument and reverse on other grounds. More likely, they would simply chip away at Roe to the point of making it irrelevant.

[Taft]

To add to your post:

The Ninth Amendment states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Meaning that rights are not limited to those specifically mentioned.

Also:

In 1973 the Court held in Roe v. Wade that the states cannot bar a woman from having an abortion because of the constitutional right to privacy. Because it went against the deep convictions of many people, Roe ignited a firestorm of political controversy that has continued ever since. Although the court has heard many abortion cases in the years since Roe and has changed the rules somewhat, it has declined to back away from the central point: A woman has a constitutional right to control her body.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761569008_2/Constitution_of_the_United_States.html

Technically, if the Supreme Court were to reverse their 1973 ruling, they would have to rule that a woman does not retain control over her own body. But, as we all know, the Supremes would probably avoid this line of argument and reverse on other grounds. More likely, they would simply chip away at Roe to the point of making it irrelevant.


Thanks for making the point clearer. I didn't want to say it myself, as the opinions in the supreme court decision are probably far more eloquent than any ramblings I could muster. They would probably be far more constitutionally correct, as well. I guess that's why they're on the supreme court and I'm not. Heh. ;)

Taft

[Krizoitz]

"life, liberty and the persuit of happiness" and "general welfare"

I'm glad you brought these up. Notice that life precedes liberty.

[Krizoitz]

Even if everything you allege is true (something I don't really accept) assume people use birth control in what you describe as a "unlimited" and "irresponsible" fashion, and assume that it encourages kids to have sex, then what right is it of government to adopt your moral view of the world and stop the rest of us heathens from engaging in our own private sexual behavior based on a different moral code? Since when should your view of what is right and proper be forced on me or my children?

Now I don't think it is a particularly good idea for young people to engage in sexual behavior too early, but if they do I want them to know about the risks and how to protect themselves. That view seems quite reasonable to me, and if you want to talk about a "hard sell" then in the days of AIDS and many other STDs the idea of limiting other people's rights to protect themselves, based on a narrow religious view of what behavior should be, is the hardest sell of all.

Note that I never said I should force my view on you. In fact its the opposite. You are free to teach your children what you want about sex, and are free to practice as you feel. However what you are advocating is public teaching of YOUR perspective. That means that you are forcing your view of whats right and proper on me and my children.

[Krizoitz]

TTechnically, if the Supreme Court were to reverse their 1973 ruling, they would have to rule that a woman does not retain control over her own body. But, as we all know, the Supremes would probably avoid this line of argument and reverse on other grounds. More likely, they would simply chip away at Roe to the point of making it irrelevant.

She has control over her own body, but when she is pregnant there is also the babies body too. If she didn't want a baby then she has a couple options. First, she can refrain from sex until she is ready. Second she can practice some method of contraception. The second method however comes with the caveat, no method is 100% effective so you know going in you might become pregnant. Now if you want to take that chance, fine, but just like any other decision you must live with the consequences.
You are free to do whatever you want so long as you don't harm another.

[numediaman]

She has control over her own body, but when she is pregnant there is also the babies body too. If she didn't want a baby then she has a couple options. First, she can refrain from sex until she is ready. Second she can practice some method of contraception. The second method however comes with the caveat, no method is 100% effective so you know going in you might become pregnant. Now if you want to take that chance, fine, but just like any other decision you must live with the consequences.
You are free to do whatever you want so long as you don't harm another.

Your arguments sound like the same old women bashing. You are basically arguing that a woman loses all rights to her body the moment she engages in sex. Thank God people didn't use this argument when I was single and dating!

As I have said in other posts, I am an old fashioned conservative. The idea that the government can come in and say to women "sorry, we control your reproductive functions now" scares the hell out of me. I am personally against abortion, and think that outlawing abortion would be an incredible and naive mistake.

But inevitably, I believe women will lose the right to safe and legal abortions in this country because it has been 30 years since abortion became legal. There has been collective amnesia about the horror of back-room abortions, the deaths of young women who self-induced abortions, and the kids of rich parents who were able to go to Europe to get a medically safe abortion. In the end, the wealthy will be able to have their abortions, while the rest of society will struggle along -- just like the time before Roe.

In a society where many parents and the current government are anti-contraception, where only teaching "abstinence" is considered acceptable, outlawing abortion will create a third world culture for women in this country. But then again, that may be the goal.

[IJ Reilly]

In a society where many parents and the current government are anti-contraception, where only teaching "abstinence" is considered acceptable, outlawing abortion will create a third world culture for women in this country. But then again, that may be the goal.

Reminds me of the old joke about the Reagan administration, which may be more true today than ever: They believe life begins at conception, and ends at birth.

[Taft]

I'm glad you brought these up. Notice that life precedes liberty.

OK, you think an abortion is equal with murder and is therefore immoral. We get it. You are entitled to your opinion, as we are to ours.

However, you conveniently glossed over my, and numediaman's point, with the above comment. I call shenanigans. What the heck would order have to do with anything in the constitution? I guess the 6th ammendment must not be as important as the 5th, eh? What crap.

Have you read the Roe vs. Wade opinions? Can you point out exactly where the "activist judges" exceeded their power in their interpretation of the Constitution? I'd be really interested to hear your opinions outside the realm of morality, which is not a topic we could possibly agree on anyway.

Taft

[Frohickey]

What I don't understand is why some pro-gun people dismiss all of the ACLU's work on that basis alone. The ACLU does a lot of good work in upholding the bill of rights. It seems silly to dismiss that work because you have a grudge against them for not being pro-gun.


It might be because the ACLU claims to support Civil Liberties, yet it does not support the 2nd Amendment, which is also a civil liberty. You could call the NRA, a one-issue organization, and the ACLU, a multiple-issue organization.

If the ACLU were to be as stalwart in its defense of the 2nd Amendment as it is with the other civil liberties we enjoy, I would be writing them checks instead of the NRA.

[zimv20]

It might be because the ACLU claims to support Civil Liberties, yet it does not support the 2nd Amendment, which is also a civil liberty. You could call the NRA, a one-issue organization, and the ACLU, a multiple-issue organization.

If the ACLU were to be as stalwart in its defense of the 2nd Amendment as it is with the other civil liberties we enjoy, I would be writing them checks instead of the NRA.
i think it's more the case that, because of the NRA, the ALCU feels it doesn't need to take those kinds of cases very often. i've always seen them as taking the case of the little guy against a system which would otherwise crush him.

[mactastic]

It might be because the ACLU claims to support Civil Liberties, yet it does not support the 2nd Amendment, which is also a civil liberty. You could call the NRA, a one-issue organization, and the ACLU, a multiple-issue organization.

And we can call you a one-issue voter.

[Frohickey]

Show me at what point in the constitution that abortions are gaurenteed? It should have been a legislative issue not a judicial one is the point.

Actually, the correct interpretation is that 'only issues mentioned in the Constitution are allowed jurisdiction by the federal government', all else are in the scope of the state governments.

Since I do not see reproductive rights or abortions in the US Constitution, it must be the scope of the individual state governments. (9th/10th Amendments)

[Sayhey]

Note that I never said I should force my view on you. In fact its the opposite. You are free to teach your children what you want about sex, and are free to practice as you feel. However what you are advocating is public teaching of YOUR perspective. That means that you are forcing your view of whats right and proper on me and my children.

No, I'm advocating teaching basic knowledge of sex and birth control methods, and leaving the moral aspects of behavior to families to discuss with their children. It is almost criminal to stop our children from getting this knowledge when kids are dying from AIDS - to say nothing of the consequences of the surge in teenage pregnancies. All of which can be prevented by the simple understanding of the options available. You are more than free to tell your children that any use of birth control is against God's will, but that injection of your religious view should not be the controlling view of public policy. I would remind you that every parent has the option to have their kids not attend such classes, so your children are not forced to get any information in this area that you do not wish them to have. Kindly leave religious doctrines out of decisions about public school curriculum.

[mactastic]

Actually, the correct interpretation is that 'only issues mentioned in the Constitution are allowed jurisdiction by the federal government', all else are in the scope of the state governments.

Since I do not see reproductive rights or abortions in the US Constitution, it must be the scope of the individual state governments. (9th/10th Amendments)

Look closer. It falls under the 'General Welfare' section. :D :eek: :p

[Frohickey]

You seem to not understand how these cases come before the courts. Judges don't bring them, people do, as they are entitled to under our system of justice. In Roe the Supreme Court was faced with a petition which questioned the government's jurisdiction over the insides of women's bodies. The court did not invent this conflict, in fact the legislatures did, by failing to address this fundamental problem. The court became the vehicle for resolving it. Whether you or I like dislike their solution (it certainly has flaws) is what is beside the point. The Court, which had been struggling for decades to decide how much of our personal lives the government could invade decided that abortion fell into that category, and it could be regulated but not prohibited.

Incidentally, I did not refer to abortion as Constitutionally guaranteed. My point was intended to be a broader one about the power of legislatures.

If the Supreme Court declined to hear Roe vs Wade, then the issue of abortion would have been up to the individual state governments (if their state constitutions does not preclude the issue of abortions) or to the individual people themselves, from which ALL RIGHTS AND POWERS originate.

Too bad we have an electorate that does not understand the beginnings of the Constitution and the principles under which it was written. I guess US History and Political Science is not as important at Sex Education and Music Theory. But look at what this has brought us, a major polarizing effect on the political discourse of the nation.

Would have been better if we had 9th graders debating and reenacting the Constitutional Conventions and maybe even debating on what the US Constitution allows government to do. We would have children that knows why the country operates the way it does, we would have voters that knows how the country operates, and we would have politicians that know why they *CAN'T* propose such a law on the country.

[Frohickey]

Also, our constitution/bill of rights doesn't always specifically enumerate rights. "life, liberty and the persuit of happiness" and "general welfare" come to mind as "catch all" clauses intended to leave some wiggle room in their interpretation and implementation by congress.

My point? Just because it doesn't say "A woman has a right to an abortion" in the constitution, doesn't mean the constitution doesn't grant that right, through a more far reaching clause or construct.

Taft

A piece of paper cannot grant rights. The only thing a piece of paper can do is tell government that it has to protect certain rights, or rights.

All rights belong to the people, and they are granted to the people via their creator (or if you are non-religious, they are granted to them because they are people).

General Welfare and the scope of government only pertains to the powers specifically enumerated, and its not an excuse for the growth of government. Remember, the FFs were afraid of a big government because that would lead to the usurpation of power, power that is exercised by the the people.

[Frohickey]

Technically, if the Supreme Court were to reverse their 1973 ruling, they would have to rule that a woman does not retain control over her own body. But, as we all know, the Supremes would probably avoid this line of argument and reverse on other grounds. More likely, they would simply chip away at Roe to the point of making it irrelevant.

If only SCOTUS can reverse the 1973 ruling, saying that the jurisdiction belongs to the state governments or to the people themselves. But that would mean that we are going back into a Constitutionally-limited form of government, a form of government that we pretend to be, but are not, and should be again.

[Frohickey]

Reminds me of the old joke about the Reagan administration, which may be more true today than ever: They believe life begins at conception, and ends at birth.

That joke is because of the support for the death penalty.

If you actually take a look at it though, conservatives believe that life begins at conception, and ends when the individual commits a violent crime against another individual (or when the individual is convicted by a jury of his/her peers).

Correct me if I am wrong, but liberals believe that life begins at birth, and ends in death, but someone else should pay for the costs of living if that individual can't afford it. :D :eek: :p

[Frohickey]

I'm glad you brought these up. Notice that life precedes liberty.

The order of the words do not mean a single thing, as Taft has said in a previous post.

Lets hope that Taft also believes that the 5th Amendment right to property is equally important as the 1st Amendment right to speech.

[blackfox]

Correct me if I am wrong, but liberals believe that life begins at birth, and ends in death, but someone else should pay for the costs of living if that individual can't afford it. :D :eek: :p
Are you implying that the right to exist depends on economics? oh...

[Frohickey]

i think it's more the case that, because of the NRA, the ALCU feels it doesn't need to take those kinds of cases very often. i've always seen them as taking the case of the little guy against a system which would otherwise crush him.

Actually, the ACLU is not averse to going to bat for a bad guy. Remember their support for 1st Amendment rights for a certain homosexual gay pedophile organization? The NRA, on the other hand, will not go to bat for a bad guy. They did not even submit an amicus curae brief when Jack Miller and Frank Layton were hauled in front of the 'man'.

Consolation for this is that there are now more than just the NRA for 2A issues.

[blackfox]

If the Supreme Court declined to hear Roe vs Wade, then the issue of abortion would have been up to the individual state governments (if their state constitutions does not preclude the issue of abortions) or to the individual people themselves, from which ALL RIGHTS AND POWERS originate.

Too bad we have an electorate that does not understand the beginnings of the Constitution and the principles under which it was written. I guess US History and Political Science is not as important at Sex Education and Music Theory. But look at what this has brought us, a major polarizing effect on the political discourse of the nation.

Would have been better if we had 9th graders debating and reenacting the Constitutional Conventions and maybe even debating on what the US Constitution allows government to do. We would have children that knows why the country operates the way it does, we would have voters that knows how the country operates, and we would have politicians that know why they *CAN'T* propose such a law on the country.
Since when was sex education important in schools?...anyway, although your idea is interesting in a way, who would frame the debate for these hapless 9th graders?...my arguments in 9th grade were about as sophisticated as a spoon...regardless, you seem to assume that this would result in an agreement with your interpretation of the Constitution...which might happen, probably would not...I am not an expert on Constitutional law and interpretation, but many on this forum are...and they certainly don't agree with you...

[Frohickey]

No, I'm advocating teaching basic knowledge of sex and birth control methods, and leaving the moral aspects of behavior to families to discuss with their children. It is almost criminal to stop our children from getting this knowledge when kids are dying from AIDS - to say nothing of the consequences of the surge in teenage pregnancies. All of which can be prevented by the simple understanding of the options available. You are more than free to tell your children that any use of birth control is against God's will, but that injection of your religious view should not be the controlling view of public policy. I would remind you that every parent has the option to have their kids not attend such classes, so your children are not forced to get any information in this area that you do not wish them to have. Kindly leave religious doctrines out of decisions about public school curriculum.

I think that Krizoitz and Sayhey would never agree. But, Frohickey has the solution that will make both of them happy. Can you say teenage chastity belts. We could include an MPEG3 music device and cellphone/pager accessory to that. Maybe even have it in designer colors. :p :D

[IJ Reilly]

That joke is because of the support for the death penalty.

It was a joke. Thank you for nearly getting it.

[blackfox]

I think that Frohicky and most of the rest of us will never agree on 2nd Amendment rights. But,Blackfox has the solution which will make both of them happy. The unlimited right to bears arms of any sort, but severe restrictions on access to ammunition. Or alternately, ammunition that comes in a variety of colors, and is non-deadly...sorta like paintballs :p :D

[Frohickey]

Since when was sex education important in schools?...anyway, although your idea is interesting in a way, who would frame the debate for these hapless 9th graders?...my arguments in 9th grade were about as sophisticated as a spoon...regardless, you seem to assume that this would result in an agreement with your interpretation of the Constitution...which might happen, probably would not...I am not an expert on Constitutional law and interpretation, but many on this forum are...and they certainly don't agree with you...

That is why teachers are paid the big bucks that they are paid. You didn't think it was to babysit for 8 hours, did you?

History books, and the various Federalist and anti-Federalist papers should be a start. From there, the actual text of the Constitution, and the various amendments.

[zimv20]

The unlimited right to bears arms of any sort, but severe restrictions on access to ammunition.
hey, if it's good enough for the US forces in iraq...

[Frohickey]

I think that Frohicky and most of the rest of us will never agree on 2nd Amendment rights. But,Blackfox has the solution which will make both of them happy. The unlimited right to bears arms of any sort, but severe restrictions on access to ammunition. Or alternately, ammunition that comes in a variety of colors, and is non-deadly...sorta like paintballs :p :D

Why do we need an artificial market distortion at all?
I guess you are a proponent of the establishment of an illegal black market.

Back in the 20s, we had an artificial market distortion for intoxicating liquids not used in religious ceremeonies or medical science. What did that artificial market distortion bring about? Widespread contempt on the rule of law?

[blackfox]

Why do we need an artificial market distortion at all?
I guess you are a proponent of the establishment of an illegal black market.

Back in the 20s, we had an artificial market distortion for intoxicating liquids not used in religious ceremeonies or medical science. What did that artificial market distortion bring about? Widespread contempt on the rule of law?
Let's say it together:
J-O-K-E
(as I assumed yours was...sheesh)

[blackfox]

OK, Frohicky...I have a revised plan...anyone can have a healthy access to arms of their choice, BUT, to qualify they must join the military for a minimum of 5 years...individual choice...

[Neserk]

and think that outlawing abortion would be an incredible and naive mistake.

.

Very naive. Abortions have been happening since the beginning of time. They will happen regardless of their legality. If one wants to end abortion they must end the *need* for them. Women are going to need better alternatives for *them* not for you. ("you" being generic meaning other people, often men :rolleyes: )

[Neserk]

That joke is because of the support for the death penalty.



... and their lack of support for social programs which take care of people after that are born and the tendency to be blood thirsty (war mongers).

This is when we know that the anti-abortion stance is about controlling women, not about being pro-life.

[Krizoitz]

... and their lack of support for social programs which take care of people after that are born and the tendency to be blood thirsty (war mongers).

This is when we know that the anti-abortion stance is about controlling women, not about being pro-life.

Give me a break. Rather than articulating your position as others have done, you apply the most blatant stereotypes to a group of people with a wide variety of opinions and positions.

While I certainly think that social programs are important, atleast I can accept why some people feel that less money should be spent on them. I may disagree with them, but atleast I don't dismiss their opinion with a wave of my hand. Talk about arrogance.

Have you ever taken the time to think that you might be wrong about things? That other peoples opinions have value too? It seems to me like you are just as obstinante, judgemental, and close minded about other peoples opinoins as the conservatives you so claim to hate.

Guess what the world is not black and white, and no one I know who opposes abortion done so because of anything about oppression of women. That is an argument that was thrown out by a bunch of feminist extremeists to distract from the real issue of whether or not abortion is murder. Stop accusing us of such extreme views. They aren't true. Of course I don't expect you to admit to that. You are so certain you are right that not even a divine revalation could change your mind.

Fine, while the rest of us are having a civilized debate, you can keep your extremist views. You aren't going to change anyones mind.

[Krizoitz]

Very naive. Abortions have been happening since the beginning of time. They will happen regardless of their legality. If one wants to end abortion they must end the *need* for them. Women are going to need better alternatives for *them* not for you. ("you" being generic meaning other people, often men :rolleyes: )

Murder has been happening since the beggining of time. Theft too. Lying is also a common place occurence. People are going to use drugs whether they are legal or not should we start selling LSD and PCP over the counter. If a criminal is determined enough my guess is he can get any kind of weapon he wants. Guess we should start selling grenade launchers over the counter too. Sounds absurd doesn't it.

Just because people are going to do something doesn't mean we should condone it. You want to solve the problem by ending the need? Fine, the NEED is caused by unplanned pregnancies. How do you end that? By changing the attitude that sex without consequences is ok. Now I'm not saying you can't have sex, just that if you do you accept the consequences.

And before you accuse me of trying to foist my morality on anyone, or opressing women, I am NOT trying to say that. First if you choose to have sex, thats fine, its your choice, I may disagree with it, but I'm not going to make a law against it. Second I think men need to be held more responsible for pregnancies as well. Dead beat dads piss me off like you wouldn't believe.

But again, I think the real problem is our societies throw away attitude towards sex. Personally I think that men treat women more as sex objects because of that attitude than as equals. Oh well, I'm sure this argument will be twisted against me. What can you do.

[blackfox]

Good post Krizoitz...a little harsh...but well-argued...that said...

Guess what the world is not black and white, and no one I know who opposes abortion done so because of anything about oppression of women. That is an argument that was thrown out by a bunch of feminist extremeists to distract from the real issue of whether or not abortion is murder. Stop accusing us of such extreme views. They aren't true. Of course I don't expect you to admit to that. You are so certain you are right that not even a divine revalation could change your mind.

And before you accuse me of trying to foist my morality on anyone, or opressing women, I am NOT trying to say that. First if you choose to have sex, thats fine, its your choice, I may disagree with it, but I'm not going to make a law against it. Second I think men need to be held more responsible for pregnancies as well. Dead beat dads piss me off like you wouldn't believe.
Well, abortion, like any serious issue, is complicated...there are legal and moral arguments all mixed together...on a legal side, abortion proponents do have an argument that the government should not legislate a womans' body...and it is a valid one, albeit somewhat vague, as traditionally conservative white men in government are the ones who would make those choices...and considering their tendency to not value human life via stands on the Death Penalty and War, you could understand people not trusting their motives...plus the oppression thing (history of...). This tangles with the concepts of liberty and freedom on the most personal level, and is also quite ideological. Of course, it is more complicated...This is probably where Neserk was coming from...and it is quite separate (though often intertwined) with the moral quandry of the life-status or value of the fetus...which of course has legal and moral ramifications of its' own...so a little understanding, as this is a heated issue.
I find your comment about men dead-on.

But again, I think the real problem is our societies throw away attitude towards sex. Personally I think that men treat women more as sex objects because of that attitude than as equals. Oh well, I'm sure this argument will be twisted against me. What can you do.
OK, this is going to be trouble. As a man (and a quite young and attractive one I might add) :D , I have a little experience here...but I think you are a little off...I feel that the reason men objectify women is not because of a casual attitude toward sex, but because of an immature, simplistic and ignorant attitude towards this. There is also probably an underlying biological component...but that is not a serious issue, and there is nothing to be done about it anyway...if we in this society were to properly educate our children about sex, and present it as the natural and healthy thing it is, instead of something "dirty", "dangerous" and in the shadows. If kids had a realistic attitudes and guidelines set out for them, they may not be caught up in the distorted imagery we see in magazines and on TV and Film. The same can be said for guns and violence BTW. In both cases, however uncomfortable it might be, realistic consequences and expectations need to be set out.
Now I love sex...and like most people, I have done my share of stupid things...and it has been mostly luck, that I have remained unscathed. I have gone through a male-slut phase, and a variety of others, and feel that at 29, I have reached a reasonably enlightened attitude toward sex and responsibility. I had to reach this by trial-and-error, though...as no-one at school, or at home was comfortable enough to explain things that would have saved me a lot of trouble. My stumble through the sexual wilderness, would have been a lot easier, safer, and quicker if some one had just given me a map...even if my destination was seen by some as the moral equivalent of Vegas... Decent Sexual Education should be taught in the schools (not necessarily mandatory), but it is the parents who need to take the real responsibility...

And this is my point, Krizoitz...With both Sex Education and Abortion, it is admirable to stand up for your ideology, whether it be personal, or the Churches', or a combination...but while you do, the problem remains...and many innocent people are needlessly hurt and suffering in the real world, while people battle over ideology. And these problems cannot be wished away any more than they can be legislated away...they are, for our lifetimes at least, intractable, perhaps for all time. With Abortion, how do you define life? or its' value? It may be true that it is killing a human, and to some, one with a soul...but we kill everyday...we kill animals to eat, other people over petty differences on a personal to International Level, and we have right or wrong, rationalized this (even the Church). If the life of the fetus is so important to you, what lengths would you go to save it? Although Sex-education may be morally reprehensible to you, or a weakening of moral standards...if the end result was less abortions, less serious sin (murder), wouldn't you support it. To stand and say "well, you shouldn't be..." is adding nothing serious or substantial to the table. People make mistakes, no matter how clearly you spell it out to them, and some other will always exploit the system...but that does not preclude the impetus to make the system as perfect as possible...You cannot have your cake and eat it too...people (especially the young and stupid) will continue having sex, and desparate people will always look to abortion to save them from their particular mistakes...for a lot of people principles are a luxury people cannot afford in the grim face of reality. So I would ask you, what choice(s) will you make? I consider myself a spiritual person, and if I ever find myself before God for judgement, I would like to think that my compassion might trump the fact I compromised some of His Word. We were given free will, to make these hard choices for ourselves, and I feel to rely on written rules (whomever's they are)...over the love if feel in my heart for the suffering of others, is the easy and wrong choice. And I would like to think God would agree with me. In truth, if he did not, I would want no part of him anyway...if we are all sinners, I want my sins to do something meaningful and good.
So I embrace real Sex-education for our children, and reluctantly Abortions...until something better can be figured out. I am sorry for the long post...

[bella]

so much for keeping this thread about the legal maneuverings.... :rolleyes:

[Taft]

General Welfare and the scope of government only pertains to the powers specifically enumerated, and its not an excuse for the growth of government. Remember, the FFs were afraid of a big government because that would lead to the usurpation of power, power that is exercised by the the people.

I never said the clause allows for "the growth of government." You are trying to apply your libertarian ideals to a conversation that has nothing to do with government growth.

I said that there are certain clauses in the constitution, and all laws, which are vague enough to allow different interpretations of those laws. It is the job of judges to provide those interpretations if they become necessary (through the court system).

Further, if a specific action or situation isn't explicitly written into the constitution, that doesn't necessarily mean the constitution doesn't protect that action. Laws and clauses are often written to be purposefully vague, often in an effort to not limit rights or extend the law to a broad base of people or situations. The necessitates judges to interpret where the boundaries of that law are.

So if, during the course of a case or appeal, a lawyer argues that action X should be allowed due to clause Y of the constituion, the courts have an obligation to consider their argument. They then interpret that clause, often deferring to prior rulings if they are applicable, and make a ruling on the argument. You seem to think that the supreme court hearing Roe vs. Wade was an act which exceeded their authority or charter. I wholeheartedly disagree. A lawyer made an argument that the supreme court thought needed to be addressed to clarify a particular law or how it applies to the people of the US. That is their responsibility and the very reason they exist.

Taft