This story is archived
Supreme Court upholds partial birth abortion ban »
Posted by: TechnologyExpert 2 years, 6 months agoThe 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 constitutiona
Read Full Story at msnbc.msn.com »
Submitted By:
TechnologyExpert
I am Editor-in-Chief at Alice Hill's RealTechNews (http://www.realtechnews.com). I also have my own blog (Tech-Ex) at http://TechnologyExpert.Blogspot.com. Finally ...
Who Also Submitted:
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 870
-
All4Life
April 18, 2007, 12:38 p.m.It is so good to know that morality still exists somewhere in this world where evil seems to penetrate everything.
-
-
-
vettenut
April 18, 2007, 12:53 p.m.It is refreshing to know that the killing of a partially-born human by decapitation, crushing of the skull or by severing of the spinal cord is not constitutionally allowable, while the method of killing an unborn human by en utero dismemberment is STILL allowable.
(end of sarcasm)
How in the world can the Abortion Advocates still talk of the "health and well-being of the mother" WITH ANY CREDIBILITY regarding either of these BRUTAL procedures?
-
proud2bamerican
April 18, 2007, 12:55 p.m.This law to me is nothing to do with Religious fundamentalism... do u even know what partial abortion is?? let me explain for you: when a woman is in her 3rd trimester meaning that baby or fetus ( whatever you want to call it) has a heart beat and can even live outside the womb. (dont believe me im a pre-natal nurse and babies as premature of 5 months have survived) As I was saying the "fetus's" head is detached and brains are SUCKED out and the body is first expelled from the body then what is left of the head. So if you think that is necessary or its a womans right to do this barbariac procedure then your sick. Statisticly woman in the US dont need to terminate a pregnancy due to health reasons. It is extremely rare!
-
simonsez
April 18, 2007, 12:55 p.m.This is not about religion, jovial. Its about decency. How this procedure ever was allowed is the shocking part.
I would think a physician couldn't sleep if he/she had to perform one of these.
-
openyoureyes
April 18, 2007, 1:01 p.m.This is a sad day for women's health. I consider this a personal and sexist attack on all women, putting political and religious agenda ahead of a person's right to protecting their own health. If this ruling is not changed, I will have officially lost all hope in America! I call for all women to unite (even those of you that don't understand that this is an attack on women's autonomy and health, we are not property)because we have to protect ourselves. The govt. approach: deny info on reproduction and sex ed and sentence women to lives of which they have no control over. P.S. there is no medical term of "partial birth abortion."
-
openyoureyes
April 18, 2007, 1:08 p.m.Not to have a provision for a woman's health in this law is an irreverance to human life, namely the PERSON that is pregnant. We are not disposable incubators, we are people! Pregnancies go wrong every day! Extremely rare is a number worth protecting.
-
GODIMMAD
April 18, 2007, 1:11 p.m.Okay...Heres The Talking points.
"The decision pitted the court's conservatives against its liberals, with President Bush's two appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, siding with the majority."
If they both voted the same way, wouldnt they be on the majority?
"Abortion rights groups have said the procedure sometimes is the safest for a woman."
Sometimes, not always! If its sometimes the safest, then let them have it IF there is no other way!
"Said Eve Gartner of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America: "This ruling flies in the face of 30 years of Supreme Court precedent and the best interest of women's health and safety."
WOW many ppl could be wrong? Or OMG how dare them to say that!!
contd
-
Tigra
April 18, 2007, 1:18 p.m.I am prochoice. BUT, I do agree with this ban. After a certain gestational period, it's just wrong to kill a fetus who is almost term. Collapsing the skull- wow. What pain that fetus must experience! I do agree, the health of the mother and mother's decision to terminate should be a consideration, but all in all- I agree with this ban. Let's just hope that lawmakers dont get carried away and start implementing more bans and restrictions!
-
itsallcomedytome
April 18, 2007, 1:23 p.m.I think George Carlin said it best: "Pro-life conservatives want live babies so they can grow up to be dead soldiers."
-
GODIMMAD
April 18, 2007, 1:32 p.m.Congrad, You found one. Okay in a nation up in millions?? You must be great at numbers since you only had a number. I disagree a complete ban, but you should be able to agree that within most cases, it should be banned. They arent saying all, read the article. In addition, In the same type of words, Are you someone that should be able to kill if you had a chance, whenever, or where ever, no matter why bc you thought you got to choice who dies.
-
DeadHead13
April 18, 2007, 1:37 p.m.If one person can give me a legitimate reason why abortion is immoral, I will never say another word in favor of it. 'Wow' me.
-
pawfoots
April 18, 2007, 1:38 p.m.Glad to see they got this vote right (just missed the other 4 people making the right choice) !!!
-
NelsonR
April 18, 2007, 1:41 p.m.The Supreme Court uphold the laws for their own righteousness since they feel they are god. Just like the Eminent domain issue where government can take private property, only for the public good, now they ruled the rich good, This is despite of years of past laws governing property rights and Eminent Domain.
So you anti abortionist who think you have won the day against a womens right but instead your right to dictate, another day will come when this abominable conservative Supreme Court is off the bench. You the religous righteous who think you have won your gods victory have only made the back room abortions prevelent again, with deaths ensuing.
But I know, your god who loves mankind and produces your proteges like, Newt Gingrich, Haggard, Limbaugh (pill popper) and the rest of your arrogant ilk, rule supreme. Get a life, starvation, death, misery, wars and the elite of the world is gods will? Do you not realize you religous are actually the devil in disguise?
-
-
walden3
April 18, 2007, 1:50 p.m.another example of republicon hypocrisy. this is judicial activism of the highest order. what happens between a doctor and their patient is of no concern to the government. what's the next decision you all will be willing to cede to the government, when to be disconnected from life support? ooops.
where have all the small government conservatives gone?
-
-
Searchbeam
April 18, 2007, 1:58 p.m.The Dark S.T.A.R.s - S(calia), T(homas), A(lito) and R(oberts) "shine" with the help of Kennedy, and write a dark chapter in the history of women's suffering!
These Dark S.T.A.R.s are the four justices who still live in the Dark Ages and refuse to let the light of knowledge and enlightenment enter into their minds. Real Darth Vaders of Justice!
Alito and Roberts have served their Master well, just as Thomas did in 2000.
It is a "Gift" that just keeps on giving!
-
msmsuzie2
April 18, 2007, 1:56 p.m.Everyone seem to think that legislating morality is good public policy. It isn't. If abortion is made illegal, it will not stop abortions. All it will do is force poor women to use coat hangers, while rich women will still be able to either pay enough money to get a dcotor to perform the procedure, or go to a jurisdicton where it is legal. We should all learn the serenity prayer:
God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference....
The only real answer to abortion is birth control, but most of those who oppose abortion also oppose birth control.
-
SlapALib
April 18, 2007, 1:58 p.m.Reproductive rights are not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution. It's a state government issue.
-
ades
April 18, 2007, 2:03 p.m."women's health"... that's the big argument for abortion. i'd be curious to know how often the woman's health is in jeopardy vs. "i'm irresponsible, screwed up, and now I need someone to make it go away."
course in America, no one is actually responsible for their own actions.
-
edromar2
April 18, 2007, 2:08 p.m.Well, what did the Dumbocrats expect when they allowed the votes to put thes last two bustards on the Court? We now have a Court that feels free to abandon the original meaning of our Constitution by getting the private and sectarian feelings of "Justices" in place of the rule of Constitutional Law.
Impeach the bustards!
-
Helixbuilder
April 18, 2007, 2:08 p.m.I have two questions.
1) Has this procedure ever been used?
2) What cirrcumstances would dictate the use of this procedure?
-
ades
April 18, 2007, 2:08 p.m.The issue here isn't abortion... it's PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION. At this stage in a fetus' devolopment, the baby is moving, thinking, dreaming. It has arms and legs, eyes and ears. I was born earlier than some of these infants are being aborted.
It's hard to argue that this isn't taking human life. It's hard to argue that this isn't wrong.
As far as government dictated morality... no one seems to mind when they make laws against stealing, murder, rape, etc. This is a crime just the same.
The first 466 comments are shown. Show all 870 comments »
Submit a Story
Advertisement
