Supreme Court upholds partial birth abortion ban

[JaJae]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a law that banned a type of late-term abortion, a ruling that could portend enormous social, legal and political implications for the divisive issue.

The sharply divided 5-4 ruling could prove historic. It sends a possible signal of the court's willingness, under Chief Justice John Roberts, to someday revisit the basic right to abortion guaranteed in the 1973 Roe v. Wade case.

At issue is the constitutionality of a federal law banning a rarely performed type of abortion carried out 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.

In the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy, the key swing vote in these divided appeals, said the federal law "does not have the effect of imposing an unconstitutional burden on the abortion right." He was joined by his fellow conservatives, Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Roberts.
Sole woman on bench reads bitter dissent

In a bitter dissent read from the bench, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the only woman on the high court, said the majority's opinion "cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away a right declared again and again by this court, and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives."

She called the ruling "alarming" and noted the conservative majority "tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases" by doctor's groups, including gyncecologists.

The Justice Department and abortion rights groups have offered differing views of the legislation's impact on women's overall second trimester access to the procedure, and whether the procedure is ever medically necessary.

This was the first time the high court had heard a major abortion case in six years, and since then, its makeup has changed, with Roberts and Alito now on board.

Their presence on the bench provided the solid conservative majority needed to allow the federal ban to go into effect, with Kennedy providing the key fifth vote for a majority.

Alito replaced Sandra Day O'Connor, a key abortion rights supporter over her quarter century on the bench.

Doctors call this type of late-term abortion an "intact dilation and evacuation." Abortion foes term it a "partial-birth abortion."

Three federal appeals courts had ruled against the government, saying the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is unconstitutional because it does not provide a "health exception" for pregnant women facing a medical emergency. The outcome of this latest challenge before the court's new ideological makeup could turn on the legal weight given past rulings on the health exception.

In states where such exceptions are allowed, the lists of possible health risks include severe blood loss, damage to vital organs and loss of fertility. Court briefs noted pregnant women having the procedure most often have their health threatened by cancer, heart disease, high blood pressure or risk of stroke. Doctors are given the discretion to recommend when the late-term procedure should be performed.

The federal law has never gone into effect, pending the outcome of nearly three years of legal appeals.

Specifically, the ban encompasses what doctors call "intact dilation and evacuation" (also known as IDX), which Congress in its legislation termed inhumane.

It is a rarely used second-trimester procedure, designed to reduce complications to the woman. More common is "dilation and evacuation" (D&E), used in 95 percent of pre-viability second-trimester abortions, according to Planned Parenthood. Both are generally performed after the 21st week of pregnancy.

A major part of the legal dispute was whether the federal ban also includes the relatively more common "standard D&E abortions." The government contends the law does not, and is sufficiently narrow not to place an "undue burden" on a woman's reproductive choices.

Raw numbers were also at the heart of the debate, because the two sides disagreed on how often the procedure is performed. Solicitor General Paul Clement, the Justice Department's top lawyer before the court, suggested it is rarely performed, and that other medical options are available, so banning it would therefore not be a real barrier to women.

Abortions rights supporters say "intact" abortions are a medically accepted pre-viability, second-trimester procedure.

Since the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion, some states have tried to place restrictions and exceptions on access to the procedure, prompting a string of high court "clarifications" on the issue over the years.

Justices uphold ban on abortion procedure - CNN.com
One thing I noticed about this article is that it didn't use the words "Partial Birth" until the 12 paragraph of the article. Nowhere in the story highlights or in the opening section does it mention the words partial birth. It mentions it halfway down in the sub-article about the a female Supreme Court justice's response to the ruling. No mention of the responses from those who supported it and why. The article centers around the conservative judges taking away female rights and the offended female.

Fox News had a slightly different article. Not only was it a lead story and not a listed number 9 on their list of top stories, they mentioned the words partial birth up front. They mentioned it was a ruling on the Partial Birth Abortion Act in the very beginning of their article. CNN decided to slip that information in towards the end. CNN never explained what a partial birth abortion was, instead they described it as what doctors call "intact dilation and evacuation." CNN decided to cite Planned Parenthood, Fox News didn't bother and just gave stats.

Fox was right up front about what partial birth abortion was and after describing the dissent they explained what it was:
"The procedure at issue involves partially removing the fetus intact from a woman's uterus, then crushing or cutting its skull to complete the abortion.

Abortion opponents say the law will not reduce the number of abortions performed because an alternate method — dismembering the fetus in the uterus — is available and, indeed, much more common"
FOXNews.com - Supreme Court Upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

Two very clear cut different articles on the same story. One news organization obviously felt it was worth front page cover time and the other felt it should be buried a bit. One wanted to sugar coat partial birth abortions and blame the conservatives and the other wanted to go out of their way to describe what exactly the court decided on and go into details rather than discuss the victim role.

Some may say this is a bias of Fox, but I say good for them for being up front on the issue and I'm glad they didn't dance around it like a smelly political fart.

I'm pro-choice, but against partial birth abortions and I feel Fox News put together the better article. And I despise the media for downplaying the act of partial-birth as they do.

Imagine if Fox did a story on the assualt weapons ban and listed the name of the bill in the 53rd paragraph and only used the term assualt weapon once towards the end of the article and rather preferred to call it "projectile machinery", while citing the NRA and only conservative mouthpieces. We'd probably all laugh at the bias, but for some reason we're just used to this behavior with the liberal media.

[Linzyhop]

hmm. interesting comparison. well done.

[JaJae]

I'm pro-choice, but I don't understand the type of person it must take to partially birth a child. Doing what they have to do to a living moving human and killing it and then taking the rest of the body out and throwing it in with the other medical waste. I really don't understand how a human can do that to another human. Enjoy your Mercedes, but I think you're a cruel and ruthless.

Why are you against partial birth abortions and not the other "more common" procedure of dismembering the fetus in utero?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by 03 white zx3

Why are you against partial birth abortions and not the other "more common" procedure of dismembering the fetus in utero?

Who said I wasn't against them?

Originally Posted by JaJae

Who said I wasn't against them?

Bad assumption I guess.

So what do you suggest a mother do when she is in her third trimester and something goes terribly wrong with her pregnancy?

You say you are pro-choice, but are you only pro-choice in some situations?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by 03 white zx3

Bad assumption I guess.

So what do you suggest a mother do when she is in her third trimester and something goes terribly wrong with her pregnancy?

You say you are pro-choice, but are you only pro-choice in some situations?

If the mother's health is at risk I am not against them having access to an abortion at any time. And yes I am pro-choice up until a certain point.

Originally Posted by JaJae

If the mother's health is at risk I am not against them having access to an abortion at any time. And yes I am pro-choice up until a certain point.

What if we're not talking the mother's health, but severe fetal abnormalities that were not found earlier? Just curious where you stand.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by 03 white zx3

What if we're not talking the mother's health, but severe fetal abnormalities that were not found earlier? Just curious where you stand.

Depends. I think people should have the right to be born retarded, etc. There is a lot of shaky ground on abortion to where I have a concrete opinion and could be swung either way. However what remains steadfast with me is simply that abortion should be legal, women should always have access to an abortion if it is to save their health (to most degrees) and we need to carry out the process as if it is a necessary evil in our society and not an unquestionable right. Certain forms of abortion should be banned in my opinion, however, the mother's health should always have number one priority.

Originally Posted by JaJae

Depends. I think people should have the right to be born retarded, etc. There is a lot of shaky ground on abortion to where I have a concrete opinion and could be swung either way. However what remains steadfast with me is simply that abortion should be legal, women should always have access to an abortion if it is to save their health (to most degrees) and we need to carry out the process as if it is a necessary evil in our society and not an unquestionable right. Certain forms of abortion should be banned in my opinion, however, the mother's health should always have number one priority.

Why does the method matter when the end result is the same? Genuinely curious question.

Shouldn't the parents have the right to decide whether to terminate the pregnancy when dealing with something like Trisomy 18, in which the child will not live for much longer than a couple of months if they are lucky enough to make it past birth?

Why should it be anybody else's decision besides the mothers to decide whether or not she should have to continue such a pregnancy?

[Diamond Cross]

Because they know what's best and you (general you) don't.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by 03 white zx3

Why does the method matter when the end result is the same? Genuinely curious question.

Based on what is deemed the most humane way of doing it.

Shouldn't the parents have the right to decide whether to terminate the pregnancy when dealing with something like Trisomy 18, in which the child will not live for much longer than a couple of months if they are lucky enough to make it past birth?

I'm on the fence on that.

Why should it be anybody else's decision besides the mothers to decide whether or not she should have to continue such a pregnancy?

Because there comes a point where you have to decide if a fetus has rights. I believe an 8 month old fetus should have some protections under the law and should not be treated as an inhuman growth of the uterus.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by JaJae

If the mother's health is at risk I am not against them having access to an abortion at any time. And yes I am pro-choice up until a certain point.

Who determins if her health is at risk? Child birth is inherently one of the most risky things a woman will ever do, It is extremely stressful on the body and sometimes bad things happen.

I'm against partial birth abortion and I'm against abortions past the first trimester (which is what RoeVWade was initially). If it is past the first trimester then I think two doctors need to certify the pressing need to the mothers health not that there is a "risk" to her health there is always that risk with pregnancy.

Originally Posted by JaJae

Based on what is deemed the most humane way of doing it.


I'm on the fence on that.


Because there comes a point where you have to decide if a fetus has rights. I believe an 8 month old fetus should have some protections under the law and should not be treated as an inhuman growth of the uterus.

How can you be on the fence with that? I have a friend right now who is 2 weeks ahead of me (so she's 23 weeks pregnant). Well into her second trimester. She is still having tests done and is waiting on results and won't get the "final" results until she is around 25-26 weeks along. Her doctors are fairly convinced that her son has Trisomy 18.
Expectations (prognosis) Return to top
The abnormalities of trisomy 18 are generally not compatible with more than a few months of life. Fifty percent of the affected infants do not survive beyond the first week of life. More than 10 children have survived to teenage years, but usually with marked handicaps. MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia: Trisomy 18
How could anyone possibly tell her that she has to continue her pregnancy and go through 15ish more weeks of it to give birth to a child with such severe deformities that it will more than likely not live more than 1 week? THIS is the situation in which late term abortions should not even be questioned. There is no reason she should be forced to endure such pain and hardship as to carry her son any longer simply because YOU believe that her fetus "has the right to live".

Generally speaking, fetuses aren't aborted at 8 months. Amniocentesis and ultrasound has enabled doctors to find deformities much earlier, but it still takes time to go through the testing (especially since most aren't found until the routine level 2, 20 week ultrasound) and make the decision on what to do.

Yes, this situation hits pretty close to home right now, so forgive me if I seem passionate about it.

BTW, I do agree with you that fetuses should be protected to some extent. But there has to be exceptions, and with late term abortion it is all about the exceptions.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by 03 white zx3

Yes, this situation hits pretty close to home right now, so forgive me if I seem passionate about it.

BTW, I do agree with you that fetuses should be protected to some extent. But there has to be exceptions, and with late term abortion it is all about the exceptions.

It's perfectly fine to passionate. I take no offense. I'm saying I'm literally on the fence meaning I don't know which way I stand. I think if I had to make up my mind in that case I would consider the child terminally ill and wouldn't be able to survive on its own without extreme medical interference to slow the death. And thus as a minor/fetus the mother has the ability to determine its fate much like a spouse deciding life support.

But that's that particular case, there's a very vague line between what is so serious to warrant such action and what isn't. Where that line should be drawn, if at all, is beyond my scope of medical knowledge or consciousness right now. What I do know is taking a normally healthy child into 8 months of pregnancy and sucking out it's brain because the mother changed her mind I disagree with.

I strongly dislike that this bill doesn't have a clause for the mother's health, but there are other methods available, so she still has options. Anything that shows the courts will not allow people to butcher unborn children and sends society a signal that it is not ok is a step in the right direction in my opinion. From here on out they have to proceed with caution though based on the lack of health clause. It wasn't handled properly, but there are alternatives and therefore I think this is good for us as a society.

[JaJae]

Let's put it this way I don't think a mother should ever have to give birth to a child and watch it slowly die an inevitable death over the course of a week or a month if she chooses not to. And I don't think the law should interfere or prevent that.

But I also don't think our courts and legal system should be ok with parents bringing a child to 8months+ and changing their mind. There must be a good reason for a partial birth or late term abortion in my opinion. And I think our government needs to start moving towards that mentality. The idea is to be as humane as possible while still allowing abortion to be legal.

Originally Posted by JaJae

It's perfectly fine to passionate. I take no offense. I'm saying I'm literally on the fence meaning I don't know which way I stand. I think if I had to make up my mind in that case I would consider the child terminally ill and wouldn't be able to survive on its own. And thus as a minor/fetus the mother has the ability to determine its fate much like a spouse deciding life support.

But that's that particular case, there's a very vague line between what is so serious to warrant such action and what isn't. Where that line should be drawn, if at all, is beyond my scope of medical knowledge or consciousness right now. What I do know is taking a normally healthy child into 8 months of pregnancy and sucking out it's brain because the mother changed her mind I disagree with.

I strongly dislike that this bill doesn't have a clause for the mother's health, but there are other methods available, so she still has options. Anything that shows the courts will not allow people to butcher unborn children and sends society a signal that it is not ok is a step in the right direction in my opinion. From here on out they have to proceed with caution though based on the lack of health clause. It wasn't handled properly, but there are alternatives and therefore I think this is good for us as a society.

I obviously disagree that this is good for society, but I am thankful that there are other options available.

For the record, I am completely 100% against late term abortions done simply because the mother changed her mind. I find it hard to believe that there would be very many doctors (aside from the infamous Tiller) that would perform an abortion for that reason though. Personally, I believe it is more rhetoric to even discuss that reason for a late term abortion as it is so incredibly rare.

I would be perfectly fine with abortion only being available during the first trimester and after that for health reasons of the mother or for problems with the fetus.

Originally Posted by JaJae

Let's put it this way I don't think a mother should ever have to give birth to a child and watch it slowly die an inevitable death over the course of a week or a month if she chooses not to. And I don't think the law should interfere or prevent that.

But I also don't think our courts and legal system should be ok with parents bringing a child to 8months+ and changing their mind. There must be a good reason for a partial birth or late term abortion in my opinion. And I think our government needs to start moving towards that mentality. The idea is to be as humane as possible while still allowing abortion to be legal.

So we agree

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by 03 white zx3