NEW YORK - A federal judge declared the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional because it does not contain an exception to protect a woman's health, something the Supreme Court said is required in laws prohibiting types of abortion.
U.S. District Judge Richard C. Casey issued his ruling Thursday — the second such ruling in three months — even as he called the procedure "gruesome, brutal, barbaric and uncivilized."
The law, signed last November, banned a procedure known to doctors as intact dilation and extraction and called partial-birth abortion by abortion foes. The fetus is partially removed from the womb, and the skull is punctured or crushed.
Louise Melling, director of the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project, said her group was thrilled by the ruling.
NEW YORK - A federal judge declared the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional because it does not contain an exception to protect a woman's health, something the Supreme Court said is required in laws prohibiting types of abortion.
U.S. District Judge Richard C. Casey issued his ruling Thursday — the second such ruling in three months — even as he called the procedure "gruesome, brutal, barbaric and uncivilized."
OK. so like here's the deal. I got pregant. You know because nobody told me you could get preggers if ya, like, you know, did it standing up and all. And anyway I like just kinda forgot about being, ya know, preggers and all, for like, gezz I don't know must've been like four months maybe five?, I don't know. Life's just so hard and all. Anyway now I want an abortion. That's OK, right?vauge said:Source: Yahoo News
I glad you and I agree on this issue. I think a lot of American would agree on many more issues if the party spin were removed. As for me being a liberal- not sure I truely fit that bill in all regards. I'm normally conservative on fiscal issues and generally liberal on social issue. Well other than this abortion issue anyway. Basically don't think we should be spending money we don't have and thought this country was founded on liberty.WKL815 said:I'm so glad you understand, Pacridge. I hope there are more liberals like you...and I bet there are. We could take this country to a whole new place if we put party alignments aside and do what is really right and really American.
This is exactly my personal goal as a member of this forum. Being able to interpet and understand the other position. I think it will make me a better person when making a descision at the polls.So I made everyone be quiet until I comprehended the statement they same way he had. It took me a few seconds, but all of sudden I was able to read it the way he had and agreed that I would have answered the same too had I read the statement that way.
I read the statement as "Some criminals can not be rehabilitated, so it is a waste of time to try."
He read the statement as "It is a waste of time to try to rehabilitate at least some of the criminals."
WKL815 said:Pac , =)
It is a waste of time to rehabilitate some criminals.
With this, all the republicans answered "strongly agree" and the democrats answered "disagree" or "strongly disagree".
I was incredulous. "Do you mean to tell me that you think we should try to rehabilitate every criminal, even if they are horribly messed up beyond repair? We should waste our resources further?" I asked.
"That's not what I'm saying. That's not how I read the statement.", he said.
So I made everyone be quiet until I comprehended the statement they same way he had. It took me a few seconds, but all of sudden I was able to read it the way he had and agreed that I would have answered the same too had I read the statement that way.
I read the statement as "Some criminals can not be rehabilitated, so it is a waste of time to try."
He read the statement as "It is a waste of time to try to rehabilitate at least some of the criminals."
Frankly, it's a semantical stretch to me to interpret the statement like he did. My mind defaults to the other. This to me shows the fundamental difference in how people view their world. I read the statement the way I did because I think about the person, in this case the criminal, and what the person is capable of - my base philosophy centers around personal responsibility. But he looked at the sentence and saw the action rather than the person - rehabilitating - something that could be done to help at least "some" of the criminals.
QUOTE]
My background is in law enforcement, 16 plus years as a parole officer, so I have somes thoughts on the issue. Some people can't be rehabilitated, IMHO. But our system is set up so that it's almost impossible to retain them in the system forever. So if you're not at least trying you're probably doing a dis-service to society. Sexual offenders are the worst, again IMHO, I believe their behavior is more "hard wired" then maybe some other types of offenders. I worked an SO unit for 8 years and I'm convinced there's just no "cure" in sight for the majority of sexual offenders. I'm not sure I'm interested in helping the criminals but I am interesting in helping society- you can't do one without the other.
This, in large, is why I'm not a big fan of the death penelty. All research shows that it doesn't do anything to deter violent crime and most research shows it leads to increased to crime rates. I tend to favor an absolute no release for captial cases. Plus I tend to like the ten commandants esp. the thou shall not kill one.
heyjoeo said:That's a terrible strategy. What you are trying to do is take something that is considered "repulsive" and associate it with a practice in order to degrade that practice even if the two are not related at all.
I believe that is what we call in english, propoganda....
heyjoeo said:Fant, that "description of an abortion" is from the National Right to Life Organization. I would NEVER believe anything they said. It's all geared to make you say "OMG! THAT FETUS LOOKS LIKE A BABY AND THEY ARE KILLING IT!"
Who can make the decision that a fetus is a living breathing child? Juf, are you a scientist? Fant, do you have a PhD in biology?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?