home

Supreme Court Accepts Abortion Case

By TChris, Section Constitution
Posted on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 08:15:19 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

The Supreme Court was widely expected to take up a challenge to the constitutionality of a federal law that bans late term abortions.

The "partial birth" ban, enacted in 2003, has been invalidated by three different federal appeals courts on the grounds that the ban did not include an exception for cases when the health of the mother might be at stake and constituted an undue burden on the right to abortion.

The Court today accepted review of Gonzalez v. Carhart, an Eighth Circuit case that found the ban unconstitutional. Court watchers expect Justice Alito to be the deciding vote in Carhart.

All of those courts [finding the law unconstitutional] cited a Supreme Court ruling in 2000 striking down Nebraska's statute banning so-called "partial birth abortions" for want of a health exception, among other reasons. That was a 5-4 opinion with retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor voting with the majority.

Alito is the new O'Connor. This case will give him an early opportunity to influence the direction of the Court in abortion cases.

< Tuesday Open Thread | Supreme Court Sides With Church in Drug Case >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Supreme Court Accepts Abortion Case | 28 comments (28 topical)
    Re: Supreme Court Accepts Abortion Case (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 08:38:08 AM EST
    Well here we go. We will finally get to see Scalito's true colors. I think we should resign ourselves to loosing this one. I guess it's better now than later. I only hope they will make their decision before the 06 election. It will a counter to the Ameritaliban's Gay marriage issue.

    Re: Supreme Court Accepts Abortion Case (none / 0) (#2)
    by Punchy on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 08:48:30 AM EST
    Let me get this right--without an exception to the mother's health, the baby MUST be born, but the mother is allowed to die in the process? THIS is the "culture of life"?? HOW is this an acceptable law? I cannot wait to see Alito's take (we know how he'll vote, I just want to read his justification on how one person's life trumps the other's)

    Re: Supreme Court Accepts Abortion Case (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 10:18:36 AM EST
    Is there any chance that Roberts will be a no vote? That just seems insane that a woman can't receive a life saving operation. I am pro-choice, and think that abortion should be legal in all circumstances, but I don't understand how anyone, even pro-lifers, feel that this law is right.

    Re: Supreme Court Accepts Abortion Case (none / 0) (#4)
    by glanton on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 10:27:17 AM EST
    Yes, by all means let's get it over with. "Et al.": It stings a lot less once you come to accept that these are not your countrymen and women.

    Re: Supreme Court Accepts Abortion Case (none / 0) (#5)
    by Joe Bob on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 10:41:57 AM EST
    Punchy, you are mistaken about the current law. It does contain an exception to save the life of the mother. Long-term disabilities, infertility, or chronic illnesses are supposed to be a-okay. I would hate to be the doctor in one of these situations. I can easily imagine a scenario where a doctor performs a late-term abortion on a woman with an acute and unpredictable illness. A few weeks or months down the road a creative prosecutor charges the doctor with a crime and says, "Can you prove she would have died?.

    Re: Supreme Court Accepts Abortion Case (none / 0) (#6)
    by roy on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 10:56:53 AM EST
    If -- this is the if -- the aborted tissue is a person, then the procedure cannot be acceptable, even if the mother's health is in danger. For one person to believe both A) it's a baby, and B) killing it even to save the mother's life is acceptable, would be monstrous. Many people believe A) so strongly that they can't possible let others decide for themselves since the others could reach the wrong conclusion and thus rationalize killing babies. Where else do we allow parents to kill their children, or doctors to kill anyone? Even to save a life? There are some answers to that question, but none I know of are similar enough to be useful. Alternately, if you think it's just a clump of cells, or you don't believe either way strongly enough to tell others what to do, then this law will seem assinine. It's just an exercise in control.

    Re: Supreme Court Accepts Abortion Case (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 11:24:05 AM EST
    Roy; The problem with your argument is it relies on "Beliefs". The religous right has the idea that somehow it's relgious beliefs equal or trump reality, science and facts. In other words if I believe your sperms are really little people and if you masterbate you are a murderer. Should my belief trump your right to play with yourself?

    Re: Supreme Court Accepts Abortion Case (none / 0) (#8)
    by glanton on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 11:27:17 AM EST
    Ed B: In this climate, the answer to your question is an unqualified YES.

    Re: Supreme Court Accepts Abortion Case (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 11:54:25 AM EST
    Glanton LOL Well then I guess a wet dream would be considered involuntary spermicide.

    Re: Supreme Court Accepts Abortion Case (none / 0) (#10)
    by roy on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 12:01:42 PM EST
    ED, All arguments are based on "beliefs". Even science. Dig down into a scientific fact, trace through the logical arguments, and you'll get to a set of axioms. These axioms are wonderful, practical, beautiful things that let us say "the sun will rise in the east" and "plants take in CO2 and expel O2" and "lead is toxic". The axioms are also unproven and unprovable, to be taken on faith. Your faith tells you that lead in drinking water is dangerous, but doesn't tell you that a third-trimester fetus is a person. The faith of the religious Right doesn't tell them about lead, but it does tell them that a fetus is a person. Don't act surprised that they take their faith as seriously as you take yours. If you want to win an abortion debate, show your opponent that his conclusion doesn't follow from his axioms. That's only approachable if you understand his axioms well enough to argue within their contraints -- i.e. you may have to work from the assumption that whatever the Bible says is true, even when it contradicts itself. Or convince him to abandon his axioms; this happened to me -- I used to be Baptist, now I'm an atheist -- but I don't have any advice on how to reproduce the result. Short of that, abortion debates will continue to be shouting matches.

    Re: Supreme Court Accepts Abortion Case (none / 0) (#11)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 12:17:02 PM EST
    What roy said - there can only be two beliefs; you either believe a fetus is a human life, or you don't. Everything else stems from that: if a fetus is a human life, abortion is murder. If it's not a human life, abortion is elective surgery. Choose one or the other belief and let the chips fall where they may. I think I've come the the conclusion that debating the issue is a waste of time.

    Re: Supreme Court Accepts Abortion Case (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 12:23:37 PM EST
    I think I've come the the conclusion that debating the issue is a waste of time.
    I hear that..this debate will rage forever. Similar to the existence of god debate in that regard. That being said, I think you gotta err on the side of freedom for the person occupying their own space on this earth.

    Re: Supreme Court Accepts Abortion Case (none / 0) (#13)
    by Primus on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 12:24:05 PM EST
    Roy:
    These axioms are wonderful, practical, beautiful things that let us say "the sun will rise in the east" and "plants take in CO2 and expel O2" and "lead is toxic". The axioms are also unproven and unprovable, to be taken on faith.
    I'm going to assume that this was either a mistype or a misinterpretation, and you didn't just say that all science is based on unprovable axioms and beliefs.

    Re: Supreme Court Accepts Abortion Case (none / 0) (#14)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 12:30:10 PM EST
    That being said, I think you gotta err on the side of freedom for the person occupying their own space on this earth.
    Fair enough, kdog, for me, after the point of viability, I think you gotta choose not to err on the side of murder.

    Re: Supreme Court Accepts Abortion Case (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 12:37:30 PM EST
    Primus Roy is just trying to sound smart. He doesn't think we can Dictionary.com. He is just trying out cerebral us with his beliefs trump facts claim. For the record Roy
    Axiom A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate.
    Re: Supreme Court Accepts Abortion Case (none / 0) (#16)
    by Johnny on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 12:50:54 PM EST
    Pretty sure empirical evidence exists that lead, when ingested over time, is quite lethal. Whether or not you have faith to the contrary, it will kill you dead.

    Re: Supreme Court Accepts Abortion Case (none / 0) (#17)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 12:57:29 PM EST
    If you say so Jesur.

    Re: Supreme Court Accepts Abortion Case (none / 0) (#18)
    by Slado on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 01:15:58 PM EST
    Johnny, If you are an unborn fetus and you are aborted that will kill you as well. If a baby can be born at 7+ months and survive then it is a person. Who can argue that? That is science. A serious debate can be made for 1st and 2nd trimester etc... I come down in the middle in thinking that an abortion in 1st/2nd trimester is not murder but shouldn't be taken lightly and should at least be as hard to get as a fire-arm...IE waiting periods etc... As for a 3rd trimester baby that is a person, however young and under developed. so when a mother HAS to have an abortion to save her life then by all means because it doesn't take a rocket scientest to say that a developed person is more important then an unborn fetus. But to purposely leave loopholes in a law so people can use the procedure as last minute birth control is something none of us should be proud to support. Would a lawyer please provide the actual facts of this case with no bias please? Also what are the statistics on PBA's? Don't both side over hype this procedure for their own benefit?

    Re: Supreme Court Accepts Abortion Case (none / 0) (#19)
    by roy on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 01:39:27 PM EST
    ED, It's awkward to logically argue about the nature of logical arguments, hence the cerebral-toned and long-winded posts. Also, your dictionary.com cite supports my claim that axioms are unproven. Johnny, Yes, emperical evidence exists about lead's toxicity. Upon what do you base your belief that emperical evidence reveals facts? Asking that sort of question recursively is what I mean by "dig down into a scientific fact" above. Primus, No typo, but I'd love to be proven wrong. I lose sleep over this stuff. et al, Find me a scientific fact whose proof doesn't depend on an axiom. Keep asking "why do I know this?" until you get a definitive answer. I claim you'll always reach an axiom, a non-axiomatic premise taken on faith, or useless tautology. Or prove some axioms. If you can't do one of those things, then your belief in scientific fact is heavily grounded in faith. Or there's a catastrophic hole in my reasoning; I'd love to have it pointed out. That's my take on science in its pure form. For most people, believing in science usually means believing what people in lab coats say unless a contradiction becomes apparent. For this form, the layperson's science's similarity to "taking things on faith" is more apparent. Sadly, I've exhausted my quota for the day, and probably pressed my luck with such long posts. The thread derailment effect is getting out of hand anyway, maybe we should continue on an open thread tomorrow.

    Re: Supreme Court Accepts Abortion Case (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 02:26:45 PM EST
    roy wrote:
    Also, your dictionary.com cite supports my claim that axioms are unproven.
    Axioms are unproven. There are no axioms in science. Science is based on observations - empirical evidence. The things you've proposed as axioms are in fact observations. Elsewhere, roy wrote:
    Where else do we allow parents to kill their children, or doctors to kill anyone? Even to save a life? There are some answers to that question, but none I know of are similar enough to be useful.
    It's called self-defense. It's always been legal to kill to save your own or another's life, or to protect someone from severe injury. Only a barbaric society would prohibit such things.

    Re: Supreme Court Accepts Abortion Case (none / 0) (#21)
    by Johnny on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 02:36:42 PM EST
    No Roy, observations to gather emprical evidence preclude faith. Why on earth attempt to prove something you have faith in?

    Re: Supreme Court Accepts Abortion Case (none / 0) (#22)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 02:53:10 PM EST
    I would rather follow blindly a scientist than knowingly a preacher.

    Re: Supreme Court Accepts Abortion Case (none / 0) (#23)
    by Joe Bob on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 03:08:04 PM EST
    This science=faith is some of the most obtuse BS I have ever heard. I'll spell it out as simply as possible: Emperical evidence/facts are true because they are based upon demonstrable, physically observable phenomena. The purpose of this asinine discussion is that some people are always trying to give their beliefs the imprimatur of fact. Likewise, they would like to undermine rational thinkers' confidence in things they see are plainly true. Why do they do this? To propagate the aforementioned beliefs. Yes, a fetus is human. Women are also human, as well as developed, autonomous people. I like being an autonomous person, ergo I think women should have the same right. Autonomy is heavily predicated on one's ability to control the integrity of one's body. In the case of women, this includes their uterus. The autonomy of female humans and a fetus's claim to the right to be born are legitimately competing interests. How you favor one interest over the other is largely a matter of one's philosophy or beliefs. Personally, I think that after viability the fetus has a reasonable claim to personhood, prior to that it really should be the woman's perogative. Others would certainly draw the line in a different place, but that's the genius of the pro-choice position: no one's life isn't proscribed by the beliefs of other people. At least one of the commenters here doesn't have a basic understanding of what Roe v. Wade says. Under Roe, women do not have an unresticted right to abortion up to the day the baby is born. Roe already allows for third-trimester restrictions.

    Re: Supreme Court Accepts Abortion Case (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 04:22:45 PM EST
    This sounds like a ploy by the vast right wing conspiracy to stir up a wedge issue just in time for the 06 midterms.

    Re: Supreme Court Accepts Abortion Case (none / 0) (#25)
    by glanton on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 04:42:28 PM EST
    This science=faith is some of the most obtuse BS I have ever heard.
    Welcome to the American living room.

    Re: Supreme Court Accepts Abortion Case (none / 0) (#26)
    by roy on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 10:53:20 AM EST
    Joe Bob,
    It's called self-defense. It's always been legal to kill to save your own or another's life, or to protect someone from severe injury.
    "Self defense" covers killing an attacker. I don't know about where you live, but where I'm from you can't kill somebody who's doing nothing wrong to save your own life. If you drive wrecklessly because it's the only way to get somebody to a hospital fast enough to save them, and run over and kill somebody, I'm pretty sure manslaughter charges are on the table. If a doctor kills somebody to harvest organs -- which might save several lives -- I'm pretty sure murder charges are on the table. But I'll admit I don't know the law for sure on those. You may be right. et al, The science-as-faith thing got waaay out of hand yesterday. On the off chance I ever manage to express my point clearly, this isn't the right place for it. So I'll just leave this as a suggestion for anybody who finds the issue interesting: 1: Try to solve a physics problem without doing any math. 2: Tell a mathematician that math isn't based upon axioms and see how he reacts.

    Re: Supreme Court Accepts Abortion Case (none / 0) (#27)
    by Johnny on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 11:01:20 AM EST
    Sorry Roy, mathematics is full of cyclical redundancies which prove something. If it cannot be proven, it cannot be done. Axioms, such as "Tube amplifiers have better midrange" cannot be proven, even though many many audiophiles swear it is the truth.

    Re: Supreme Court Accepts Abortion Case (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 03:13:35 PM EST
    1: Try to solve a physics problem without doing any math. 2: Tell a mathematician that math isn't based upon axioms and see how he reacts.
    Mathematics isn't a science and science isn't based on mathematics. Physicists, and other scientists, use mathematics as a tool, to the extent that it is consistent with their empirical evidence. They don't derive their truth from mathematics. For example, I doubt that there are any physicists who would regard the Banach-Tarski Paradox as true in any physical sense. Mathematicians know it's true, in a purely mathematical sense. Less pedantically, the result of a mathematical derivation in physics is true only to the extent that it is experimentally verifiable. Mathematical truth and scientific truth are different things.

    Supreme Court Accepts Abortion Case | 28 comments (28 topical)