• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Court Backs Ban on Abortion Procedure

DeeJayH

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,728
Reaction score
1,689
Location
Scooping Zeus' Poop
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Court Backs Ban on Abortion Procedure

and now we see the changing of the tide in SCOTUS decisions
I must say I was quite surprised to see this headline, but I think whether you are pro abortion or pro life this is a good decision
Partial Birth abortions are an abominable procedure
 
Court backs ban on abortion procedure

In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court backed a ban on what is known as partial birth abortions, which Congress passed a year ago, and President Bush signed into law.

I have mixed feelings on this, but I see this as Federal intrusion on states' rights, which is the same reason that I am in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade. IMHO, activist judges made Roe v. Wade a reality, and activist judges have just upheld a ban on a type of abortion. Both Liberals and Conservatives are screaming at each others' activist judges, but have no problems with activist judges who support their own views. The same Liberals who bash this decision support the equally repugnant Roe v. Wade, and vice versa with those who call themselves Conservative but are not. This issue is one of many in a war between the extreme left and the extreme right, with the vast majority of Americans caught in the middle.

Article is here.

BTW, the law and subsequent ruling does not really stop this kind of abortion, since there is a loophole that allows a doctor to dismember the fetus within the womb itself.
 
You beat me by this --> || much.

Those who live by SCotUS decisions die by SCotUS decisions -- Roe v Wade, the terrible a decision it is, clearly supports this decision in that it says abortions after the 1st trimester can indeed be regulated.

And I cannot imagine why anyone would support the 'right' to have an aboortion such as this.
 
Re: Court backs ban on abortion procedure

3rd thread, but ok here we go

I see what you are saying, but if there is a federal law already, albeit one you disagree with, is it not ok for the court to rule on another law, and congress to enact said law, since it is in regards to a previous federal law

also, how do you see this as activist judges when they did not act.
they just said there is nothing wrong with this law, albeit a split decision
seems to me the minority would have been activist judges if they had been the majority, no?
 
Re: Court backs ban on abortion procedure


The decision is in line with Roe on that post 1st-trimester procedures can be regulated, and so by ruling in concurrance with established case law, those justices that supported this ruling are -not- 'activist'.

You can argue Roe is crappy law, and I do, but it IS established law.
Ruling in line with established law is certainly not 'activist'.
 
Meh, I don't really have any moral problem with partial birth abortion and I think it's silly to ban it. With that said, the court is justified in upholding this. They should overturn Roe v Wade while they're at it, as there is no right to an abortion - stated or implied - anywhere in the Constitution. Preserving federalism is more important than preserving partial birth abortion IMO.
 
Abortion is clearly a state issue. I do have a problem with partial birth abortion as it's when the child is being born and you basically vacuumed its brains out. There can be arguments for first trimester or what have you for something not being a viable human (I don't buy it, but the argument can be made). But when a child is in the birth canal, it's human at that point. Partial birth abortion is without question a disgusting example of the bad side of humanity.
 
Supreme Court upholds law limiting controversial abortion procedure

This is the first step and a great victory for the Bush Administration in eventually overturning Roe V Wade.........This could not have been accomplished without the confirming of the two Conservatives Justices...God willing I will live long enough to see that horrific law overturned...

CNN.com - CNN Political Ticker

WASHINGTON (CNN) --The Supreme Court Wednesday upheld a controversial congressional law banning a specific abortion procedure critics call "partial birth," a ruling that could portend enormous social, legal, and political implications for the divisive issue.

The sharply divided 5-4 ruling could prove historic, and offer a possible signal of the new Roberts court's willingness to someday revisit the basic right to abortion guaranteed in the 1973 Roe v. Wade case.

At issue now is the constitutionality of a federal law banning a type of abortion typically performed by doctors in the middle to late second trimester. The legal sticking point was that the law lacked a "health exception" for a woman who might suffer serious medical complications, something the justices have said in the past is necessary when considering abortion restrictions.
 
Re: Supreme Court upholds law limiting controversial abortion procedure

Seriously, does anyone actually read these forums before posting? This is like the 4th thread on the same topic.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This could have never happened without the appointmeent of Justice Alito....The 4 Liberals on the court were defeated.......

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the first step and a great victory for the Bush Administration in eventually overturning Roe V Wade.........This could not have been accomplished without the confirming of the two Conservatives Justices...God willing I will live long enough to see that horrific law overturned...
 
Good. If you can't decide within 6 months then obviously someone else needs to decide for you.
 
Re: Court backs ban on abortion procedure

Moderator's Warning:
Merged into first authored
 
Re: Supreme Court upholds law limiting controversial abortion procedure

Navy Pride said:
This is the first step and a great victory for the Bush Administration in eventually overturning Roe V Wade.
Click to expand...

LOL
Bush doesn't care about abortion. His mother is pro-choice, his wife is pro-choice, his daughters are pro-choice...In that kind of environment, I suspect that even the President himself is pro-choice (or at least neutral).

It's one of those issues that he campaigned on to take the votes of gullible fools like you, but never had any intention of changing.
 
Re: Supreme Court upholds law limiting controversial abortion procedure

Kandahar said:
It's one of those issues that he campaigned on to take the votes of gullible fools like you, but never had any intention of changing.
Click to expand...

And yet, he put the people on the court who made this change, and the people who will likely make others...?

Isnt that what he said he would do?
 
Re: Supreme Court upholds law limiting controversial abortion procedure

M14 Shooter said:
And yet, he put the people on the court who made this change, and the people who will likely make others...?

Isnt that what he said he would do?
Click to expand...

He can trim around the edges on this issue, so that his base feels like he's doing something and everyone else doesn't get too pissed off. But the court is still 5-4 in favor of Roe v Wade, and I doubt that will change for a while. Do you think that Bush could get another anti-Roe justice confirmed? Do you think he'd even try? Do you think he'd even WANT to? I doubt he could get another Alito confirmed even with the previous Senate.
 
Re: Supreme Court upholds law limiting controversial abortion procedure

Kandahar said:
He can trim around the edges on this issue, so that his base feels like he's doing something and everyone else doesn't get too pissed off. But the court is still 5-4 in favor of Roe v Wade, and I doubt that will change for a while.
Click to expand...
Fact remains that he said he'd get a more conservative bench -- and he did.
He said that he'd get this more conservative bench in order to address abortion, among other things -- and they did.

He added 2 conservative justices -- what else do you suppose he would/could/do?

Do you think that Bush could get another anti-Roe justice confirmed? Do you think he'd even try? Do you think he'd even WANT to? I doubt he could get another Alito confirmed even with the previous Senate.
Click to expand...
So...
He managed to put the people he did on the bench, but now he wont be able to add any more -- so, he's done all he could.
Right?

Again, this contrasts sharply with your "It's one of those issues that he campaigned on to take the votes of gullible fools like you, but never had any intention of changing" statement. Adding 2 conservative justices illustrates that he DID have the intention to make a change and did what he could to affect that change.
 
Re: Supreme Court upholds law limiting controversial abortion procedure


Yeah right, that is why he appointed 2 very conservative justices to the SCOTUS...Get a ****ing clue.........:roll:
 
Re: Supreme Court upholds law limiting controversial abortion procedure


You have no clue if that is true at all..wishful thinking..........
 
Re: Supreme Court upholds law limiting controversial abortion procedure

well that would be interesting if true
never heard that before, got a link please?
no need to prove the gullible fools part
we all know that part is dead on balls accurate :lol:
 
Repost of something I wrote in another thread:

"It is important to know that this ruling really does not change anything. Roe v. Wade gave states the right to regulate abortion after a certain point in the pregnancy. Partial-birth abortions are late-term. The right to have an early-term abortion is still legal. The Court basically upheld Rove v. Wade with this ruling."
 

:spin: The regime of Roe just may be on its way out. :applaud :toilet: :2party:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…