fishin wrote:How is this new?? How long have we had the "You can't yell fire in a crowded theater" limitation of the 1st Amendment? I'm fairly confident that there are limitations on every right set forth in the Constitution. There are tests for determining how far though limitations can go in each and every case though... That whole "compelling state interest" thing.
The
Gonzalez decision is, I believe, unprecedented, in that:
(1) It declared that a particular method of accomplishing a constitutional right can be banned by the government; and
(2) It held that the threshold for banning that method is whether or not that method is "necessary."
This isn't a case of "shouting 'fire!' in a crowded theater." Instead, it is a case where a person is prohibited from exercising a right
in the manner in which they choose simply because the congress has declared that it's not "necessary" for that person to exercise that right in that fashion. I don't believe we've ever before had a case that rests on that basis.
joefromchicago wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote:So your complaint is sloppy drafting of the decision? Or faulty reasoning for it? Or both?
It strikes me as a very poorly reasoned opinion.
I'll buy that. It sounds to me like they're chipping away at it from a viability- means-sanctity perspective rather than facing it head on, which is pretty ridiculous for the highest court in the land.
21 weeks isn't
that much earlier than standard capabilities these days. I disagree with you that it shouldn't be considered a benchmark... and frankly think we should err on the side of life and spot the kids an
extra week.
fishin wrote:Advocate wrote:You are wrong. Also, the fire thing is a bad example. The courts have said that this is action, and not speech.
Really? Maybe you should read
Schenck v. United States before posting again. That is where Justice Holmes stated
"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." You might also be interested in the later
Brandenburg v. Ohio case.
Quote:The rights in the B of R are absolute. For instance, the press is free to publish anything; however, it may have a price to pay when there is, say, libel.
Absolute rubish. There are limitations on every right.
Funnily, the cases you cite back what I said. If the speech causes an imminent danger (e,g, a stampede in a theater), it is not, in law, considered speech per the First Amendment, but is an action causing the, say, stampede.
Can you show me where an explicit right in the B of Rs is conditioned by someone.
I think if you spoke to any OB physician you would learn that that virtually all the women getting late-term abortions very much wanted to give birth, but learned very late that the fetus was horribly deformed. How can this court tell women that they must give birth under this circumstance.
I read yesterday - but can't find the link - about obstetricians in California, can't remember if LA or SF, saying that in some cases, the now not allowed surgery was the safest choice. I guess they weren't asked to testify.
Advocate wrote:fishin wrote:Advocate wrote:You are wrong. Also, the fire thing is a bad example. The courts have said that this is action, and not speech.
Really? Maybe you should read
Schenck v. United States before posting again. That is where Justice Holmes stated
"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." You might also be interested in the later
Brandenburg v. Ohio case.
Quote:The rights in the B of R are absolute. For instance, the press is free to publish anything; however, it may have a price to pay when there is, say, libel.
Absolute rubish. There are limitations on every right.
Funnily, the cases you cite back what I said. If the speech causes an imminent danger (e,g, a stampede in a theater), it is not, in law, considered speech per the First Amendment, but is an action causing the, say, stampede.
Can you show me where an explicit right in the B of Rs is conditioned by someone.
You've created your own loop of fallacy here that makes it very clear that you have absolutely NO CLUE what you are talking about. Your argument at this point is that the 1st Amendment has no limitations because the limitations in place on it preclude all of the examples of limitations.
Ummm.. yeah.
Advocate wrote:I think if you spoke to any OB physician you would learn that that virtually all the women getting late-term abortions very much wanted to give birth, but learned very late that the fetus was horribly deformed. How can this court tell women that they must give birth under this circumstance.
I doubt that a woman could find a doctor who would do a late-term abortion unless he or she knew that the fetus was terribly deformed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How abortion ruling will cuff doctors' hands
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BY CHRISTOPHER ESTES
Sunday, April 22nd 2007, 4:00 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Print Email Suggest a Story
Be Our Guest
Just hours after the Supreme Court upheld the first federal ban on an abortion procedure this week, I met with a group of pro-choice physicians and medical students in Washington. Many of us are abortion providers, and we were all struggling to understand the ruling. We were concerned for ourselves, but even more for our patients.
Questions about the decision flew around the room. Exactly which abortion methods were now illegal? When would the law go into effect? What did this mean for the patients we were scheduled to see next week?
Some were easy to answer. The law would go into effect in 25 days. Doctors would not be liable if we unintentionally violated the ban. There is no gestational age included in the legislation - meaning that abortions as early as 12 to 15 weeks will be affected. Most troubling of all, there is no exception for a woman whose health is threatened by her pregnancy.
Many of our questions had no answers - at least, not yet. Justice Kennedy's majority opinion makes it clear that the Supreme Court expects this law to be enforced, meaning that doctors like me face stiff penalties and even jail time if we violate the act. But who will enforce the law, and how? It's bad enough that Congress can dictate how I practice medicine. Should I expect federal marshals to supervise me in the operating room?
As an abortion provider, my primary concerns are how this law could harm my patients' health. Last year, I treated a woman I'll call Lisa. She had two children at home and was pregnant with her third. Lisa suffered from heart disease - a condition that developed after her last delivery. Her condition had worsened substantially within the last week, and we were not sure how much longer her heart could withstand the strain of her pregnancy. After extensive counseling, we proceeded with an abortion using the method I deemed to be the safest for her at that time - the method Congress has banned. According to the Guttmacher Institute, about 2,200 women and their doctors reach that same decision every year.
But I will have to think long and hard about what I will do the next time I take care of a patient like Lisa. What am I supposed to say to her? "I'm sorry, but you're part of the small fraction of women our laws ignore?"
For decades, we've seen state and federal laws chip away at the right to abortion. Now, with one blunt stroke, the Roberts court has demolished a cornerstone of abortion rights in America: the health exception. As much as I deplored previous abortion laws, I knew I could count on the legal system to protect women's health. Not any more.
Beyond the erosion of abortion rights, I am afraid this ruling will cause many doctors to stop offering abortions altogether. We already have a shortage of providers in the United States - 87% of counties have no abortion provider. I fear this ruling will be too much for those of us who already face harassment and intimidation over our choice to protect women's health.
Doctors need to speak up about the effect this law will have on our patients and our practices. We must ensure that we preserve the right to abortion and that medical decisions are made by patients and their doctors, not politicians and judges.
Dr. Estes is an obstetrician/gynecologist in New York City and a member of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health.
