SignalNoise said:
I'm no legal expert - but one thing that intrigued me (if I understand it right) was that part of Kennedy's decision relates directly to protecting women (physically and mentally) from making a mistake by getting an abortion. I know that SCOTUS decisions are not *law*, but they do have the power to set tone... And so, if followed, would this logic apply to other surgeries and behaviors where we put ourselves unnecessarily at risk? Like, plastic surgery? Or is there something *unique* about abortion that would set it aside? Obviously, this is totally hypothetical - I was just curious?

Oh. And to add: This decisions is for sucks.

Okay, I don't get some of this. There are legislative remedies for this decision. All SCOTUS did was uphold a law. If it is repealed, SCOTUS has nothing to say about it.

Have folks given up completely on the legislative process?

SignalNoise

USA

February 2004

APR 20, 2007 03:11 PM

NickFaust said:
Okay, I don't get some of this. There are legislative remedies for this decision. All SCOTUS did was uphold a law. If it is repealed, SCOTUS has nothing to say about it.

Have folks given up completely on the legislative process?

This is what I'm referring to. In the article, it notes:

"Something this drastic is going to energize both sides," said Katherine Grainger, the director of the state program at the Center for Reproductive Rights, an abortion rights legal advocacy group based in New York. The organization represented some of the doctors involved in the Supreme Court case decided Wednesday.

The reasoning of both the court's majority opinion upholding the restrictions and the dissent gave encouragement to opponents of abortion. The ruling, they said, will bolster their argument that the issues raised by abortion %u2014 among them defining fully informed consent by women who want to end pregnancies and the question of when a fetus feels pain %u2014 are legitimate topics for state legislation.

So, SCOTUS decisions seem to have a broader, even if indirect, impact.

And it also says:

The emphasis in the court's ruling was also much less on the health or well-being of the pregnant woman, but on the risks and consequences of an abortion to her and her fetus. This makes discussion of an abortion's potentially negative consequences easier, the lawmakers said.

There's also more here. So, the decision is about the long-term effects on the mother, and not just about the fetus.

My point is not about the legislative vs. the court process. My question is: Does this decision *really* tap into any deeper meanigful legal concept, that would then apply broadly to defend other "paternalistic" state policies?

emotedcreations

Germany

July 2006

APR 20, 2007 03:16 PM

NickFaust said:

You make a good point, but we (Democrats) have to wait till the next term when our President will be in office (and hopefully maintain control of Congress). Otherwise, Mr. Douche-nozzle will just veto, and we already know we can't overturn a veto right now.

Also, I love how it's Doctors vs. "abortion opponents".

emotedcreations

Germany

July 2006

APR 20, 2007 05:20 PM

bald_eagle said:
There's one interesting thing here. I apologize if someone else has pointed it out, but I haven't seen it.

The law prohibits pba's as defined within the act. That, as I understand it, is that the doctor brings either the living fetus' head past the cervix, or the trunk (past the naveI), for breach presentations. As observed in the majority opinion,

In addition, if intact D&E is truly necessary in some circumstances, a prior injection to kill the fetus allows a doctor to perform the procedure, given that the Act's prohibition only applies to the delivery of "a living fetus," 18 U. S. C. §1531(b)(1)(A).

I would have preferred the law to be ruled unconstitutional, myself. The options left, according to the medical experts, are less safe. But at least there is some leeway left.

I don't understand. What's the leeway? From my understanding of the ruling, if the fetus is viable when it passes through the vagina, it's no good according to Act. If it's not viable beforehand, it's likely to have complications. So again, where's the leeway?

I do see where you're getting that given the quotation, but it makes me wonder. If the act allows for such an act, and it didn't impact the health of the mother, then there should be no controversy, right? There's gotta be something about killing it beforehand that makes it more dangerous.

Moreover, I hate all these legal semantics. Both acts are essentially the same. Why bother banning one and not the other? Just because it makes you feel better? In the end, the act is the same. Leave the procedure up to the doctors--the professionals.

emotedcreations

Germany

July 2006

APR 20, 2007 05:52 PM

bald_eagle said:
The leeway is that there are still ways to do a D&E, and even ways to do a D&E in which the fetus is extracted whole, rather than pieces.

I see, you're just saying at least they didn't totally fuck the procedure. BTW--"fuck" is both legal and medical terminology.

dante75067

Lewisville, TX

April 2007

APR 21, 2007 01:57 AM

I agreed with the decision. I believe a fetus is a living human being and has the right to live. I respect the opposite view because you see a fetus as a bundle of cells and no more living than a tumor. If that was my belief, I would want the courts to leave women the hell alone. Now if you believed a fetus was a living human being and still agreed with late term abortions, you would just be sick. In my opinion, people on both sides of the argument are justified, based on their viewpoints.

dem_z

United Kingdom

June 2004

APR 21, 2007 02:41 PM

mydcmbr81 said:
Oh and just to keep ya in the know, that whole "fetal viability" thing, yeah they actually have a child that was born after 21 weeks 6 days gestation and is now a healthy baby girl.

. . . but did she have massive abnormalities, which is why most "late term" abortions are carried out?

dem_z

United Kingdom

June 2004

APR 21, 2007 02:44 PM

dante75067 said:
I respect the opposite view because you see a fetus as a bundle of cells and no more living than a tumor. If that was my belief, I would want the courts to leave women the hell alone. Now if you believed a fetus was a living human being and still agreed with late term abortions, you would just be sick.

I see foetuses as "living human beings", and I have no problem with abortion. I'm happy for abortion on demand up to, say, 24 weeks, abortion for medical need up to the birth of the child, and mother's choice euthanasia for a few days after birth.

Meli

Manchester, NH

October 2006

APR 22, 2007 10:37 AM

I am torn on this. PBAs just freak me the hell out. I mean, scissors to the back of the head? Gruesome. I am pro-choice but I just CAN NOT get on board with abortions in the third trimester unless the mother is in mortal danger. And even then, isn't there anything better than a PBA?

But I don't know. I'm not a doctor.

I would be fine on a ban for 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions as long as an exception was written in for women in life threatening cases.

I don't know what I am talking about. HA!

trevordbs

San Diego, CA

June 2005

APR 25, 2007 12:32 PM

thats funny i see a black guy and a white girl in that group.
thus AKA WHITE MEN isnt true.

emotedcreations

Germany

July 2006

APR 25, 2007 01:11 PM

trevordbs said:
thats funny i see a black guy and a white girl in that group.
thus AKA WHITE MEN isnt true.

This was already covered, and I'm pretty sure she's a woman.

PAGE:

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

BOARDS:

TOPICS:

USA

April 2004

APR 20, 2007 02:52 PM

USA

February 2004

APR 20, 2007 03:11 PM

Germany

July 2006

APR 20, 2007 03:16 PM

Germany

July 2006

APR 20, 2007 05:20 PM

Germany

July 2006

APR 20, 2007 05:52 PM

Lewisville, TX

April 2007

APR 21, 2007 01:57 AM

United Kingdom

June 2004

APR 21, 2007 02:41 PM

United Kingdom

June 2004

APR 21, 2007 02:44 PM

Manchester, NH

October 2006

APR 22, 2007 10:37 AM

San Diego, CA

June 2005

APR 25, 2007 12:32 PM

Germany

July 2006

APR 25, 2007 01:11 PM