News > Politics > Great News: Federal Judge Rules Late Term Abortion Ban Unconstitutional

news
TUESDAY JUNE 1 2004 3:21 PM

Great News: Federal Judge Rules Late Term Abortion Ban Unconstitutional

Submitted by s5

Edited by s5

This is encouraging. The Bush administration's attempt to play doctor with every woman in America is finally getting beaten back in the courts:

In a ruling with coast-to-coast effect, a federal judge declared the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional Tuesday, saying it infringes on a woman's right to choose.

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

She agreed with abortion rights activists that a woman's right to choose is paramount, and that is therefore "irrelevant" whether a fetus suffers pain, as abortion foes contend.

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

The ruling will almost certainly be appealed to the Supreme Court.

(Thanks to Keith for the link.)

PAGE:

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Comments

nghtdvl

Montreal, QC

November 2003

JUN 01, 2004 04:26 PM

Good news. That bill was not well written and full of holes.

Although I am pro-choice I believe there is still a limit on what 'abortion' can stand for.... I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be very comfortable with pulling out a healthy baby that's due next week and stabbing it in the skull with a sharp instrument to suck off its brain (which basically is "intact dilation and extraction").

MemmnochtheDevil

I'm lost

November 2002

JUN 01, 2004 04:40 PM

Yeah good thing too.

To be fair to Bush though...he is only doing wha the good lord told him to.

Isn't that Schizophrenia?

anaphalaxis

United Kingdom

August 2003

JUN 01, 2004 04:57 PM

Ok, perhaps I am about to make myself VERY unpopular, but this is more of question than an opinion. Before anyone gets the wrong idea I am 100% pro-choice and think it is insane that anyone thinks they can interfere in another persons life choice:

However, my question is this: Is it appropriate for a news article to pass clear jugement on the item first (IE: "Great news"), rather than simply offer a slant or opinion -after- stating the facts?

PS. Remember that I am saying this about an opinion that I wholeheartedly agree with, so don't take it as a challenge to the sentiment.

s5

STAFF

San Francisco, CA

JUN 01, 2004 05:08 PM

anaphalaxis said:
However, my question is this: Is it appropriate for a news article to pass clear jugement on the item first (IE: "Great news"), rather than simply offer a slant or opinion -after- stating the facts?

it's considered appropriate for our format. the SG newswire is more like blogging and editorial than journalism. otherwise it would get pretty boring, considering none of us are real reporters - all we can do is find links and write our opinions about them.

some people put their opinions up front in a submission (as i did here), some people hide them, and some simply present raw information. i think it's great news. if someone doesn't agree, they're free to flame me.

ItwasDuke

New York, NY

March 2004

JUN 01, 2004 05:13 PM

We must get this religious fundamentalist out of office. Bush isn't Satan, as some would have you believe, but he is a fundamentalist. How can this administration talk about, democracy and freedom, when it ignores it at will. We have prisoners held w/o charges (some for over 2yrs), Bush wants to deny gays civil rights, a unilateral preemptive invasion of a sovereign nation-we've made the UN ineffective, and the infamous patriot act, The Lackawanna case, and his Christian rhetoric doesn't help the idea among some in the Islamic world that our cause is a "crusade"...this guy has got to go.

[Edited on Jun 01, 2004 by gibbyc]