Supreme Court to hear late-term abortion case

[Sophia]

Justices tackle late-term abortion issue

Tuesday, February 21, 2006; Posted: 10:48 a.m. EST (15:48 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will consider the constitutionality of banning a type of late-term abortion, teeing up a contentious issue for a newly-constituted court already in a state of flux over privacy rights.

The Bush administration has pressed the high court to reinstate the federal law, passed in 2003 but never put in effect because it was struck down by judges in California, Nebraska and New York.

The outcome will likely rest with the two men that President Bush has recently installed on the court. Justices had been split 5-4 in 2000 in striking down a state law, barring what critics call partial birth abortion because it lacked an exception to protect the health of the mother.

read full story at CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/02/21/scotus.abortion.ap/index.html)

[msnicolea]

I think I'm gonna be sick.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

What was that we were hearing just a couple weeks ago, that it'll be ages before an abortion rights case makes it to the docket? :rolleyes:

[msnicolea]

What was that we were hearing just a couple weeks ago, that it'll be ages before an abortion rights case makes it to the docket? :rolleyes:


Yeah--we were all "hysterical" and "worrying about nothing."

[Sophia]

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. I actually waited about 15-20 minutes after it came up on CNN.com before posting it. Still in denial here. lalala

[lawyerlee]

Yeah--we were all "hysterical" and "worrying about nothing."
But isn't it just *so* funny? :rolleyes: :(

[laurenc]

wow. <sarcasm>i best stock up on pennyroyal. aside from wanting to be prepared in the event i need to terminate a pregnancy, that shizz is going to have an incredible market value once the bushupreme court does their thing. :rolleyes: </sarcasm>

sigh.

[amew]

Somebody make it stop! Noooo!

[chrisinluv]

Wow, how timely. Oh goody, they're going to "tackle" it. After we once and for all criminalize choice, we can get some REAL work done around here, like getting those Ten Commandments up in all government buildings. :rolleyes:

[ysolde]

But isn't it just *so* funny? :rolleyes: :(

I am laughing hysterically. :mad:

Yes, let's start chipping away at Roe. Then, when you need an abortion in the second-trimester to save your life, and that procedure is banned, I am sure a lot of women will be surprised to hear about it. :mad:

[laurenc]

Yes, let's start chipping away at Roe. Then, when you need an abortion in the second-trimester to save your life, and that procedure is banned, I am sure a lot of women will be surprised to hear about it. :mad:

ITA. and my MIL says, whenever we talk about the subject, "the minute one wealthy, powerful, white woman needs an abortion, you'll see a massive and sudden change in the laws!" she's so right. if jenna bush needed (and wanted) a second trimester abortion, things would be a tad different.

[allyray231]

ITA. and my MIL says, whenever we talk about the subject, "the minute one wealthy, powerful, white woman needs an abortion, you'll see a massive and sudden change in the laws!" she's so right. if jenna bush needed (and wanted) a second trimester abortion, things would be a tad different.

ITA

[amew]

ITA. and my MIL says, whenever we talk about the subject, "the minute one wealthy, powerful, white woman needs an abortion, you'll see a massive and sudden change in the laws!" she's so right. if jenna bush needed (and wanted) a second trimester abortion, things would be a tad different.

I don't know. I think if Jenna Bush needs a second tri abortion, she will always have access to it regardless of the law. Some wealthy powerful white women are unconcerned about the chipping away of Roe precisely because they view themselves as being above the law in this sense (and to a large extent they are correct).

[msnicolea]

People with money will ALWAYS be able to find a doctor willing to perform an abortion. As usal, it's those with the greatest need and the least political or social capital who have to bear the brunt of these rulings.

[laurenc]

msnicolea & amew -- oh yeah, i agree. completely. although i would hope that powerful people whose lives are directly impacted by such decisions could use the opportunity to rethink their stances. hope being the key term.

[kedzieb]

msnicolea & amew -- oh yeah, i agree. completely. although i would hope that powerful people whose lives are directly impacted by such decisions could use the opportunity to rethink their stances. hope being the key term.

i'd agree with this statement if it weren't for Mary Cheney. her dad and Bush have no problem opposing gay rights even though she's a lesbian.

i think as long as you have enough money and mobility, you'd be able to get an abortion. back in the bad-old-days before abortion was legalized, women still got abortions. the rich ones had safe abortions provided by a doctor - either in another country or by a physician who did it secretly.

keeping abortion legal means keeping it safe for poor and less mobile women.

[msnicolea]

msnicolea & amew -- oh yeah, i agree. completely. although i would hope that powerful people whose lives are directly impacted by such decisions could use the opportunity to rethink their stances. hope being the key term.

I'm with you, Lauren--just not very optimisitc.

It's kind of like the Cheney's with their lesbian daughter--they seem to really have re-evaluated their views re: gay rights! :mad:

[camberne]

Other than the lack of consideration for the mother's health, I am not in favour of late-term abortions. I don't think of it as a matter of choice, as I believe that there is ample time for the choice in the first fifteen weeks of a pregnancy. And I am vehemently against the overturning of Roe v Wade.

[ysolde]

So true. As my mother points out, before Roe, women with means simply traveled to states or countries where abortion was legal, or went to their own gyns, who performed D & Cs to "bring on their missed periods," and abortion was never mentioned in their medical records.

Poor women and younger women had to resort to unlicensed doctors, or to the coat hanger. They were the ones who paid with their lives at the altar of politicians' "morality," and they are the ones who will pay with their lives if Roe is overturned.

[ysolde]

No one is talking about late-term abortions here. The Supreme Court is considering banning an abortion procedure used in late-term abortions, which is also used in second trimester abortions.

[dionysia]

Handmaid's Tale, here we come.

Di

[ysolde]

BTW, third trimester abortions are already heavily restricted, at least in my state. Here, you can only get one if the woman's life is in danger, if the woman's health is in danger. In both cases, there are procedures in place ot ensure that abortion is safer for the woman than inducing live birth. Finally, it is also legal here if there is a severe fetal abnormality that is incompatible with life. This requires the second opinion of a neonatologist.

The idea that a woman can get a third trimester abortion in this country because she is having a bad hair day is nothing more than propaganda. It is generally much safer for her to terminate her pregnancy at that point by inducing childbirth.

[lawyerlee]

BTW, third trimester abortions are already heavily restricted, at least in my state. Here, you can only get one if the woman's life is in danger, if the woman's health is in danger.
It's the same here. It's *very* strict and very rare. Of course, we have a pretty famous late-term abortion provider here (in Wichita) by the name of Dr. George Tiller, so it's always a popular subject. :rolleyes:

[pocket]

i agree - everyone knows that the only reason to chase after limiting third tri abortion with no exception for the life/health of mother is to create a precedent for banning outright. tsk! everyone knows that! it's the same with the parental notification business. i have no problem with parental notification. show me an initiative that isn't trying to create a definition of fetus as person and i will vote for it. but so far there hasn't been one. that's because the real agenda is not the stated agenda.

[Clubqueen]

From my understanding, less than 1% of all abortions are late-term pregnancies anyway.

I'm glad I live in Canda. I don't think our government would be stupid enough to go there regarding abortion.

[MsRo]

What about this? (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-02-23T024018Z_01_N22531791_RTRUKOC_0_US-RIGHTS-ABORTION.xml) Apparently South Dakota's Governor is apt to sign into law a rule banning nearly all abortions.

[SingleWhiteFemale]

Am I reading this correctly?Proposed amendments to the law to create exceptions to specifically protect the health of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest, were voted down. Wouldn't this mean certain death for the law, as there must be a provision for the health of the mother? Or are they talking about some other proposed legislation?

[ellybelle]

Holy Crap! I guess the lines are really being drawn. I can only say that I'm glad I don't live (nor will raise my daughter) in S.D., especially if R v. W is overturned.