Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Partial Birth Abortion Banned

The Supreme Court upheld a ban on partial birth abortions. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg questions the wisdom of the federal government stepping into personal medical issues.


"It tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists."


Instances like this have always made me doubt how pro-life the Christian Right is. If this movement has no problem with with women dying because of troubled-pregnancies then they are beyond contempt.

It is obvious the Justice Department and White House didn't legally think this through. Solicitor General Paul Clement sounds like a law staudent.


JUSTICE GINSBURG: . . . [U]p until now, all regulation on access to abortion has been state regulation and this measure is saying to the states, like it or not, the Federal Government is going to ban a particular practice and we are going to take away the choice from the states, in an area where up until now it's, it's been open to the states to make those decisions. How should that weigh in this case? And it is something new.


GENERAL CLEMENT: Well, I mean I don't think it should figure in this Court's decision. I mean principally because the other side in neither case makes a challenge based on the Commerce Clause, and I suppose there is two reasons for that. That legal reason that they don't bring the challenge is because there is a jurisdictional element that I think would address the challenges as a doctrinal matter. The practical reason I think is because this isn't the only instance in which the Federal Government has gotten involved to address issues related to the abortion context. . . .


JUSTICE STEVENS: General Clement, That brings up a question I was intending to ask you. I notice the finding says nothing about interstate commerce but the statute says any physician who in or affecting interstate commerce performs the procedures. Does that mean that the procedure is performed in a free clinic, as opposed to a profit organization, it would not be covered?


GENERAL CLEMENT: Justice Stevens, I don't think we have taken, the Federal Government hasn't taken a definitive position on that. I think it could be interpreted either way. I think my understanding is the face context, a free clinic would be covered. There's not a jurisdictional element in the face statute. So there may be differences as, in application.


JUSTICE STEVENS: But how could the Commerce Clause justify application to a free clinic? I don't understand.


Here are two petitions you can sign.

NARAL

Planned Parenthood

Democrats have been hiding behind Roe V. Wade for a long time. The the Clinton era the DLC had the great idea to appear more like Republicans. That created Welfare Reform which the left isn't passioniate about the the right hates Clinton too much to give him credit for. Keeping Roe at arm's length makes the DLC/New Republic faction happy.

Every national poll number I have seen has shown 59-60 percent support for Roe. If Republicans had those polling numbers they would be hammering Democrats. THe GOP already use abortion as a wedge. The Democratic Party takes the votes of the pro-choice movement for granted.

Labels: ,

2 Comments:

At April 18, 2007 11:10 PM , Anonymous Psycheout said...

This is a great day for the pro-life movement. We have Senator Sam Brownback to thank for rejecting the Miers nomination and getting Justice Alito on the court.

 
At April 19, 2007 1:20 AM , Blogger Michael Hussey said...

So much for the conservative talking point that conservatives didn't want Miers because she didn't have enough of a constitutional background. That was always a bunch of crap.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home