Supreme Court Reopens Abortion Issue on Alito's First Day

[Wezas]

From what I've read it looks like the matter is partial birth abortions and while both sides are against it, one side wants it outlawed entirely, while the otherh side want a clause in there for when the life/health of the mother may be threatened.

Without Sandra there and with Roberts & Alito there, it will be interesting to see what comes of this.

[Hulkein]

All of the Supreme Court justices are reasonable enough to include a clause that looks out for the health of the mother, so long as that clause won't/can't be abused.

[Wezas]

A shame the administration doesn't think so. From what I've read it looks like Bush is standing by his "It is never medically necessary"

Group of Doctors:
"The group says intact dilation and evacuation reduces the risk of trauma to the uterus and cervix and is the safest method for some women with infections, bleeding or clotting disorders, heart problems and cancer of the placenta."

Administration:
"The Bush administration contends that Congress studied the issue over nine years and concluded that the procedure isn't safer than other abortion techniques and actually creates additional risks for the mother."

I guess it's "my study" vs. "your study" at this point.

[xtc]

It should be an interesting case. Outside of the nine year study done by Congress I am unaware of any other study done on the issue. I have yet to hear of a single case where a partial birth abortion is medically necessary. Personally I think it is a brutal and unnecessary procedure and I hope the new Supreme Court upholds the law.

[Hulkein]

I think it's horrible too...

But I have faith that the Justices are reasonable enough to include a clause only if it's necessary and viable.

[Warriorbird]

It's real easy for you. You're a conservative.

[Ilvane]

I don't think anyone wants it legal as a regular procedure..we're talking about life of the mother situations for the most part with this.

At least that is what I've gathered.

-A

[Hulkein]

we're talking about life of the mother situations for the most part with this.

Yeah, we are.

And I've gathered that the justices would choose to include a clause to allow them if it's actually helpful to the life of the mother, and won't be misused.

[Alfster]

Uh oh, I better run the other half to Walmart's pharmacy for some morning after pills...

wait, they don't sell them!!!!!!!

I'M FUCKED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !

[xtc]

I don't think anyone wants it legal as a regular procedure..we're talking about life of the mother situations for the most part with this.

At least that is what I've gathered.

-A

Congress studied the issue for nine years and didn't find a situation where a partial birth abortion was medically necessary. I haven't yet found any studies to say otherwise. If they exist I am unaware of them.

[Warriorbird]

Curiously...the Congress has been Republican for ten years and you despise the notion of abortion at all. Hmm...

[xtc]

Curiously...the Congress has been Republican for ten years and you despise the notion of abortion at all. Hmm...

point being?

Maybe you have been reading to many of Xyelin's posts. I have stated many times I am a political independent and I was once a Republican. I am not against abortion to save a mother's life. I am afraid that the inclusion of such a clause is a ploy to invalidate the law. So far I am unaware of a single case where it was medically necessary to perform a partial birth abortion. If there is a study that says otherwise I am unaware of it.

Roe vs Wade didn't call for abortion without restrictions yet that is what we have today.

[Hulkein]

Curiously...the Congress has been Republican for ten years and you despise the notion of abortion at all. Hmm...

I love your responses, especially ones like this one, haha.

[Warriorbird]

I love your refusing to engage in discussions and just waggling fingers. Reminds me of the Presidency.

[Warriorbird]

http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/2300/scalito0bf.jpg

[Hulkein]

I love your refusing to engage in discussions and just waggling fingers. Reminds me of the Presidency.

What is there to say in response to you? There was a study that came to a conclusion that you dislike, your response was REPOUBLIKANS!, where do we go from here?

[Warriorbird]

I don't give a fuck about the studies involved.

I was responding to your statement.


But I have faith that the Justices are reasonable enough to include a clause only if it's necessary and viable.

It's really easy to have faith in conservative judges...if you're a conservative. If anything, that was the pointless statement of the thread.

[Hulkein]

Has nothing to do with conservative or liberal. I think the liberal SC judges are reasonable people too...

A liberal SC judge isn't like Backlash, and a conservative SC judge isn't like Dave.

I have faith in all of them being reasonable in their decisions.

[Ilvane]

You have faith in them being reasonable, I have some hope that they will not be activist judges, and will judge on the law as opposed to "personal agenda."

Angela

[Hulkein]

If you don't want 'activist judges' then how about we follow the Constitution exactly how it is written; no living document... See how much you like things then, Ilvane. ;)

[Ilvane]

I don't disagree with you. I don't support partial birth abortion for anyone except if the mothers life is in danger, or some other life threatening issue. Anyway else is just not acceptable.