Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Supreme Court upholds Partial Birth Abortion ban
Posted by: McQ on Wednesday, April 18, 2007

This should stir the feminist side of the blogosphere from the somnolence brought on by the decision by the NC AG to drop all charges against the Duke 3:
The Supreme Court Wednesday upheld a controversial law banning a specific abortion procedure critics call "partial birth," a ruling that could portend enormous social, legal, and political implications for the divisive issue.

The sharply divided 5-4 ruling could prove historic, and offer 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.

Roberts joined Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia in Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion.

Dissenting were Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.

At issue now is the constitutionality of a federal law banning a type of abortion typically performed by doctors 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.
Obviously, on top of the decision, the real significance of the ruling is to be found in the highlighted paragraph.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
I’ve always said that abortion is something that should be debated in the legislative branch of government, not decided by the judicial branch. I think that there would have been much less rancor if it had gone this path instead of r vs w in 73. People on both sides could at least had felt that they had a voice in the outcome instead of it being sent down from the SC.
 
Written By: Paul
URL: http://
Better yet, it could be debated in the states, as it was before Roe v Wade stopped them from doing so. Then people could have even more of a voice in the outcome where they live, no?

Not that I particularly have the time or the energy to get involved in an abortion debate...
 
Written By: Bryan Pick
URL: http://www.qando.net
Hmmm.

I wonder if we will get the feminist version of the "truther" visit?
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Justice Thomas’s invitation for the matter to be revisited on "commerce clause" grounds seems to be saying he would have liked to have strike it down on those grounds, except that question wasn’t in front of him.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
I doubt that Roe is in serious jeopardy just yet, unfortunately, but this ruling is a significant first step. Soon, very soon God willing...
 
Written By: John
URL: http://averagegayjoe.blogspot.com
This question is none of Government’s business. It’s between the Woman, her Physician and her Conscience. If you believe in limited government start in those areas involving government control of your personal life. Republicans want to control your morals, Democrats your finances. A ‘Limited’ government can control neither. Defend me from Enemies, Foreign and Domestic” Don’t defend me from me.
 
Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://faroutfishfiles.blogspot.com/
Actually James, yes it is. As long as abortion involves another life the Government has every right to step in if not to protect that life than at least to regulate the extermination of it. Perhaps the Woman should see her Doctor before having sex to ensure this doesn’t become an issue for us to argue over in the first place. It’s not like condoms are difficult to find in our society nowadays...
 
Written By: John
URL: http://averagegayjoe.blogspot.com
Here’s something, McQ...

Check Harry Reid’s comments about the SCOTUS ruling, and then check how he voted for the bill they were ruling on...
 
Written By: Scott
URL: http://
As long as abortion involves another life
At that point you have two individuals, so governmental protections come into effect. Government has jurisdiction in disputes between individuals. The question is at one point does the government get jurisdiction. Perhaps when the guy first gets the idea he is going to “Get Lucky”? In the past it has been at the point of viability. That seems a good time.
 
Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://faroutfishfiles.blogspot.com/
If "viability" is your standard, than you should have no argument against the PBA or this ruling from SCOTUS.
 
Written By: John
URL: http://averagegayjoe.blogspot.com

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider