This Just In...SCOTUS on Abortion

Forums: News
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Court Backs Ban on Abortion Procedure

By MARK SHERMAN
The Associated Press
Wednesday, April 18, 2007; 10:30 AM

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court upheld the nationwide ban on a controversial abortion procedure Wednesday, handing abortion opponents the long-awaited victory they expected from a more conservative bench.

The 5-4 ruling said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

(more at WashingtonPost.com)

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 886 • Replies: 13

No top replies

you're surprised that bushs' lap dog rubber stamps did this?

0 Replies

I have to say I am a little surprised. Not a lot, but a little.

0 Replies

The only surprise to me is that Kennedy switched his vote from his previous rulings.

0 Replies

Awfully close vote. 5 to 4. If Sandra Day O"Connor were still on the bench, I'm sure it would have gone the other way.

0 Replies

I hate getting in this,... but elective "partial birth" is too frequently killing a viable human for comfort. 20 weeks after the fact seems like an inordinate amount of time to make a decision, really, and I've read that some are performed as late as 7 months which is well beyond the point where a babies head being pulled out (instead of scissors going in it) results in a viable baby. I don't believe that was ever supposed to be covered by Roe Vs Wade. Baby Amelia was born at 21 weeks and I have difficult time imagining how a man who dedicated his life to Medicine Kills kids more viable for a living. It just doesn't make sense to me.

0 Replies

For clarification: Baby Amelia is a healthy baby girl... and the linked news video clip shows only this miraculous story, so don't be afraid to click on it.

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

you're surprised that bushs' lap dog rubber stamps did this?

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the SCOTUS simply rubber stamped this according to the president's desires, as opposed to voting their understanding of the law after careful consideration?

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
you're surprised that bushs' lap dog rubber stamps did this?

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the SCOTUS simply rubber stamped this according to the president's desires, as opposed to voting their understanding of the law after careful consideration?

oh go away... speaking of lap dogs....

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
you're surprised that bushs' lap dog rubber stamps did this?

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the SCOTUS simply rubber stamped this according to the president's desires, as opposed to voting their understanding of the law after careful consideration?

oh go away... speaking of lap dogs....

As usual, you have no capacity whatever to support any of your assertions. Nothing is discussed objectively with dignity. Every challenge to your position turns immediately into a comment about the other poster. Imagine someone expecting you to support your ideas on the Politics forum!

0 Replies

Quote:

Nothing is discussed objectively with dignity.

amazing

0 Replies

actually I am willing to, and regularly discuss things objectively with those I deem worthy of any consideration or respect...

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

actually I am willing to, and regularly discuss things objectively with those I deem worthy of any consideration or respect...

And, specifically, why am I not? What is it that I have done, exactly? It can't be rudeness, since you're regularly rude to lots of people here. I'm virtually always polite to anyone who's polite to me, no matter how strong the disagreement. What are these horrible crimes I've committed on the Politics board that make me undebatable?

The truth is that you have neither the ability nor the desire to back up your assertions. This is just another of your scams to avoid having to put your ideas in honest competition with those who disagree. You cannot provide the tiniest atom of evidence to support your contention that the SCOTUS are motivated by loyalty to the President rather than by their honest legal opinions. You're just making up nonsense, none of which you even try to defend.

0 Replies

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v288/stevetheq/give_a_damn_progress5795.gif

0 Replies

This Just In...SCOTUS on Abortion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know