The Courts Strike Again
LINCOLN, Neb. -- A federal appeals court on Friday upheld a ruling that the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act is unconstitutional.
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis agreed that the ban, while containing an exception to save the life of the mother, is unconstitutional because it makes no such exception for the health of the woman. The court upheld an earlier decision by U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf of Lincoln, who heard one of three cases brought over the issue last year.
Kopf's ruling followed decisions overturning the law by federal judges in New York and San Francisco. Those decisions also have been appealed and are expected by many legal experts to eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
"When `substantial medical authority' supports the medical necessity of a procedure in some instances, a health exception is constitutionally required," Judge Kermit Bye of the 8th Circuit wrote in the opinion issued Friday. "In effect, we believe when a lack of consensus exists in the medical community, the Constitution requires legislatures to err on the side of protecting women's health by including a health exception."
President Bush signed the abortion ban in 2003, but it was not enforced because of the legal challenges.
The Justice Department had argued that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act prohibits "one particular method of abortion that Congress, after nine years of hearings, found to be gruesome, inhumane, never necessary to preserve the health of women, and less safe than other readily available abortion methods."
The ban refers to a procedure doctors call "intact dilation and extraction," or D&X. Opponents call it partial-birth abortion. During the procedure, generally performed in the second trimester, a fetus is partially removed from the womb and its skull is punctured.
Kopf said that the ban is vague and could be interpreted as covering more common, less controversial procedures, including "dilatation and evacuation," or D&E, which is the most common method of second-trimester abortion.
The above is a report from NewsMax, and it is similar to the piece I read on Friday in the Washington Times. The point I am about to make is going to irritate a lot of people. You know what? I don’t care. I don’t care because this debate has gone on long enough. Despite what the Supreme Court ruled in 1973, the act of abortion is not a constitutionally protected right. From a legal point of view, if one reads the Court records, including the oral arguments, one can’t come to the conclusion they did; it is still amazing to me how nine of the "best and brightest legal minds"—supposedly—approved and endorsed this brutal act.
But as it is the "law of the land," as so many judicial nominees attest, an act of a legislature really can’t overturn the high court’s lame-brained decision. In an effort to curtail the amount of abortions, Congress enacted the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban of 2003. The Left went absolutely bonkers—screeching to high heaven that the life of the mother wasn’t taken into account. Congress, prior to enacting the ban, consulted with medical experts to see if the "life or health of the mother" was ever an issue in the procedure. Those experts answered with a resounding "no." So, they made the law, the president signed it into law, and seemingly overnight the law was tied up in court.
D&X is the most common abortion method once the second and third trimesters have been entered. The laws on the books state that such an abortion can’t be performed unless the life and safety of the mother is at risk. Fine. I get that. But striking down the ban is a precedent I wouldn’t have opted to take. In doing so, you remove the last check in an operation that should never have been allowed in the first place. That check is the one thing that keeps a woman from having an abortion on a whim—and I mean that with no disrespect to a woman—and actually saving her life.
Arguments can be made that in the first trimester, the child isn’t "cognitive" or "sentient." But once a child has entered the second and third trimesters, that argument goes right out the window. Any pregnant woman will tell you that the child growing within them, at that point, reacts to outside stimuli; from the bean burrito with extra hot sauce, to the occasional pokes and prods from the expectant parents-to-be, the child reacts. It knows—to a point—it is not alone.
But my argument against abortion does not rely on religious principle, or moral values. That is not to say I’m devoid of that, but my roots are within the law, especially Constitutional law. I have destroyed many a abortion advocates arguments when I introduce the law into the discussion. Why? Because they can’t show me anywhere in the Constitution where abortion is mentioned, or even alluded to that it is allowed. It’s nowhere in the Constitution. What is in the Constitution is the right of the States to make laws to govern their citizens, which is what the state of Texas did, along with 27 other states—New York and California included—prior to the "landmark" case of Roe v. Wade in 1973. Those states had made the practice of abortion illegal.
The Supreme Court—activist as all hell, then—bowed to the public pressure of the Left, and opened up a Pandora’s Box when they deemed abortion was "legal." And since then the best legal minds in the US—including Associate Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, and Chief Justice Rehnquist—have chastised their fellow jurists when they continue to expand the notion of abortion, rather than sticking to the legal "checks and balances" established when Roe was decided. Justices like O’Connor, Souter, and Kennedy have been all over the map of jurisprudence when it comes to abortion—from late-term abortions to parental notification. These people can’t seem to stay on track with their decisions.
This is why I hope and pray that someday, in my lifetime, I can see Roe overturned.
((Gunshot)). I think Hillary just committed suicide. Or maybe that was Gloria Steinham.
Regardless, that may have emitted a laugh out of you, but that is how the Left looks at the idea of abortion, and what they’d do if it were ever overturned. Because they believe that if it is ever overturned, it’ll be illegal in all fifty states. Au contraire (and Hillary should know better. She IS a lawyer, after all) that is not the case. Should it be overturned, it will technically be remanded back to the venue—the court—it originated from. In this case, it originated in Texas. Their decision will stand until one of two things happens.
Either the voters will approve it through the means of voting directly at the polls.
Or the state legislature will change the law.
And guess what? All fifty states will get to decide on that, too. Yes, I believe a fair majority of the nation will probably outlaw the act, unless it is to save the life of the mother, or the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest. And there will be a few states that keep abortion as it is right now, but it will not be outlawed wholly, or across the board. These abortion advocates are nuts when they stand up and spew their talking points without ever really thinking about what they’re saying.
But the Eighth Circuit Court made a mistake on Friday. They’re joining others in the attempt to overturn a federal law because they don’t like the fact that the government slapped a check on the procedure. It is one thing to protect legal precedent, which Roe is right now. It’s another to lose one’s mind, and legislate from the bench, which is what that court did.
Publius II
LINCOLN, Neb. -- A federal appeals court on Friday upheld a ruling that the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act is unconstitutional.
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis agreed that the ban, while containing an exception to save the life of the mother, is unconstitutional because it makes no such exception for the health of the woman. The court upheld an earlier decision by U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf of Lincoln, who heard one of three cases brought over the issue last year.
Kopf's ruling followed decisions overturning the law by federal judges in New York and San Francisco. Those decisions also have been appealed and are expected by many legal experts to eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
"When `substantial medical authority' supports the medical necessity of a procedure in some instances, a health exception is constitutionally required," Judge Kermit Bye of the 8th Circuit wrote in the opinion issued Friday. "In effect, we believe when a lack of consensus exists in the medical community, the Constitution requires legislatures to err on the side of protecting women's health by including a health exception."
President Bush signed the abortion ban in 2003, but it was not enforced because of the legal challenges.
The Justice Department had argued that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act prohibits "one particular method of abortion that Congress, after nine years of hearings, found to be gruesome, inhumane, never necessary to preserve the health of women, and less safe than other readily available abortion methods."
The ban refers to a procedure doctors call "intact dilation and extraction," or D&X. Opponents call it partial-birth abortion. During the procedure, generally performed in the second trimester, a fetus is partially removed from the womb and its skull is punctured.
Kopf said that the ban is vague and could be interpreted as covering more common, less controversial procedures, including "dilatation and evacuation," or D&E, which is the most common method of second-trimester abortion.
The above is a report from NewsMax, and it is similar to the piece I read on Friday in the Washington Times. The point I am about to make is going to irritate a lot of people. You know what? I don’t care. I don’t care because this debate has gone on long enough. Despite what the Supreme Court ruled in 1973, the act of abortion is not a constitutionally protected right. From a legal point of view, if one reads the Court records, including the oral arguments, one can’t come to the conclusion they did; it is still amazing to me how nine of the "best and brightest legal minds"—supposedly—approved and endorsed this brutal act.
But as it is the "law of the land," as so many judicial nominees attest, an act of a legislature really can’t overturn the high court’s lame-brained decision. In an effort to curtail the amount of abortions, Congress enacted the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban of 2003. The Left went absolutely bonkers—screeching to high heaven that the life of the mother wasn’t taken into account. Congress, prior to enacting the ban, consulted with medical experts to see if the "life or health of the mother" was ever an issue in the procedure. Those experts answered with a resounding "no." So, they made the law, the president signed it into law, and seemingly overnight the law was tied up in court.
D&X is the most common abortion method once the second and third trimesters have been entered. The laws on the books state that such an abortion can’t be performed unless the life and safety of the mother is at risk. Fine. I get that. But striking down the ban is a precedent I wouldn’t have opted to take. In doing so, you remove the last check in an operation that should never have been allowed in the first place. That check is the one thing that keeps a woman from having an abortion on a whim—and I mean that with no disrespect to a woman—and actually saving her life.
Arguments can be made that in the first trimester, the child isn’t "cognitive" or "sentient." But once a child has entered the second and third trimesters, that argument goes right out the window. Any pregnant woman will tell you that the child growing within them, at that point, reacts to outside stimuli; from the bean burrito with extra hot sauce, to the occasional pokes and prods from the expectant parents-to-be, the child reacts. It knows—to a point—it is not alone.
But my argument against abortion does not rely on religious principle, or moral values. That is not to say I’m devoid of that, but my roots are within the law, especially Constitutional law. I have destroyed many a abortion advocates arguments when I introduce the law into the discussion. Why? Because they can’t show me anywhere in the Constitution where abortion is mentioned, or even alluded to that it is allowed. It’s nowhere in the Constitution. What is in the Constitution is the right of the States to make laws to govern their citizens, which is what the state of Texas did, along with 27 other states—New York and California included—prior to the "landmark" case of Roe v. Wade in 1973. Those states had made the practice of abortion illegal.
The Supreme Court—activist as all hell, then—bowed to the public pressure of the Left, and opened up a Pandora’s Box when they deemed abortion was "legal." And since then the best legal minds in the US—including Associate Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, and Chief Justice Rehnquist—have chastised their fellow jurists when they continue to expand the notion of abortion, rather than sticking to the legal "checks and balances" established when Roe was decided. Justices like O’Connor, Souter, and Kennedy have been all over the map of jurisprudence when it comes to abortion—from late-term abortions to parental notification. These people can’t seem to stay on track with their decisions.
This is why I hope and pray that someday, in my lifetime, I can see Roe overturned.
((Gunshot)). I think Hillary just committed suicide. Or maybe that was Gloria Steinham.
Regardless, that may have emitted a laugh out of you, but that is how the Left looks at the idea of abortion, and what they’d do if it were ever overturned. Because they believe that if it is ever overturned, it’ll be illegal in all fifty states. Au contraire (and Hillary should know better. She IS a lawyer, after all) that is not the case. Should it be overturned, it will technically be remanded back to the venue—the court—it originated from. In this case, it originated in Texas. Their decision will stand until one of two things happens.
Either the voters will approve it through the means of voting directly at the polls.
Or the state legislature will change the law.
And guess what? All fifty states will get to decide on that, too. Yes, I believe a fair majority of the nation will probably outlaw the act, unless it is to save the life of the mother, or the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest. And there will be a few states that keep abortion as it is right now, but it will not be outlawed wholly, or across the board. These abortion advocates are nuts when they stand up and spew their talking points without ever really thinking about what they’re saying.
But the Eighth Circuit Court made a mistake on Friday. They’re joining others in the attempt to overturn a federal law because they don’t like the fact that the government slapped a check on the procedure. It is one thing to protect legal precedent, which Roe is right now. It’s another to lose one’s mind, and legislate from the bench, which is what that court did.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 9:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home