Justices David Souter, John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, and Ruth Ginsburg dissented. They believed that a woman’s body is hers, and she should have the freedom to do with it as she chooses. They claimed this ban is an invasion of a woman’s privacy.
The other five justices were in favor of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban. They were Justices, Antonio Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
My Own Argument
Partial-Birth Abortion, there’s just no justification there. As was stated by the Supreme, It is never medically necessary for a woman to have this procedure done. There are supplementary steps that can be taken, other abortion procedures that are safer and much less evasive.
I absolutely agree with the ban. Had I been one of the Supreme Court Justices, I would have been amid those who ruled that the procedure be forbidden. Women today have so many choices, there are contraceptive methods. While I agree that human beings have the right to make their own decisions, I diverge that they should never be allowed to just terminate another human beings life at will. What’s the difference with a person just shooting someone? Yet, they would be charged with murder. Why then should a woman, with or without the support of a man, just determine to end a life.
A woman can have power over whether she wants to be pregnant, except for a case of rape, or if she’s in an abusive relation where her partner doesn’t permit contraceptive.
In normal circumstances, she can take the pill, ask her partners to use a condom, ask her Gynecologist for other options that is available. Daily, just by watching television, hundreds of ads are aired on birth control methods. We have a choice.
These unborn babies do not have a voice, therefore someone has to come forward on their behalf, and actions have to be taken to ensure that careless acts don’t result in the death of another human being.
Partial-birth is allowing the fetus to pass through the body half-way through, then killing it and extracting it from the woman’s body. D&E (dilation and evacuation), and D&X (dilation and extraction) are two safer ways to perform an abortion. Doctors argue that the ruling is vague, but their only trying to rationalize their acts, the part they take in assisting these women in these dreadful acts of murder.
Not only is this act illegal, i deem it unethical as well.
I absolutely agree with the ban. Had I been one of the Supreme Court Justices, I would have been amid those who ruled that the procedure be forbidden. Women today have so many choices, there are contraceptive methods. While I agree that human beings have the right to make their own decisions, I diverge that they should never be allowed to just terminate another human beings life at will. What’s the difference with a person just shooting someone? Yet, they would be charged with murder. Why then should a woman, with or without the support of a man, just determine to end a life.
A woman can have power over whether she wants to be pregnant, except for a case of rape, or if she’s in an abusive relation where her partner doesn’t permit contraceptive.
In normal circumstances, she can take the pill, ask her partners to use a condom, ask her Gynecologist for other options that is available. Daily, just by watching television, hundreds of ads are aired on birth control methods. We have a choice.
These unborn babies do not have a voice, therefore someone has to come forward on their behalf, and actions have to be taken to ensure that careless acts don’t result in the death of another human being.
Partial-birth is allowing the fetus to pass through the body half-way through, then killing it and extracting it from the woman’s body. D&E (dilation and evacuation), and D&X (dilation and extraction) are two safer ways to perform an abortion. Doctors argue that the ruling is vague, but their only trying to rationalize their acts, the part they take in assisting these women in these dreadful acts of murder.
Not only is this act illegal, i deem it unethical as well.
Rule of Law
Roe vs. Wade was the case used as precedence.
On January 22nd, 1973 the U.S Supreme Court decided the case of Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)), recognizing the inclusion of a woman’s decision to carry out or terminate a pregnancy under the constitutional right to privacy. The court sided with ‘Jane Roe’, an unmarried woman from Texas seeking a safe and legal abortion. The ruling decriminalized abortion and set a precedent for more than 30 future rulings involving access to abortion.
(http://www.prochoicepower.org/issues/roe-vs-wade.html)
In addition, the Court distinguished the Stenberg case, which previously struck down Nebraska's partial-birth abortion law. The Court held that the state statute at issue in Stenberg was more ambiguous than the later federal statute at issue in Carhart.
(http://www.priestsforlife.org/pba/05-1382respondent.pdf)
These cases have been the controversy for other abortion suits thereafter. While the courts have ruled to prevent the tragic deaths of these unborn babies, it has been said, that the courts only rule to prevent women from having the right to make their own determinations whether or not to keep an unwanted child.
On January 22nd, 1973 the U.S Supreme Court decided the case of Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)), recognizing the inclusion of a woman’s decision to carry out or terminate a pregnancy under the constitutional right to privacy. The court sided with ‘Jane Roe’, an unmarried woman from Texas seeking a safe and legal abortion. The ruling decriminalized abortion and set a precedent for more than 30 future rulings involving access to abortion.
(http://www.prochoicepower.org/issues/roe-vs-wade.html)
In addition, the Court distinguished the Stenberg case, which previously struck down Nebraska's partial-birth abortion law. The Court held that the state statute at issue in Stenberg was more ambiguous than the later federal statute at issue in Carhart.
(http://www.priestsforlife.org/pba/05-1382respondent.pdf)
These cases have been the controversy for other abortion suits thereafter. While the courts have ruled to prevent the tragic deaths of these unborn babies, it has been said, that the courts only rule to prevent women from having the right to make their own determinations whether or not to keep an unwanted child.
Reasoning of the Court
This case didn’t just start in the Supreme Court. Cases have to be tried at other levels and then appealed in order to make it to the Supreme Court. This case was very intriguing. This case was challenging the Constitution.
According to Law Professor Richard Garrett at Notre Dame Law School;
“For as long as Americans have known about partial-birth abortion,” Garnett said, “they have--by comfortable and consistent margins--agreed with the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan that it is ‘infanticide,’ and that ‘one would be too many.’ Nothing in our constitutional text, history, tradition, or structure supports, let alone compels, the conclusion that the American people may not affirm our commitment to decency and human dignity by rejecting partial-birth abortion.”
(http://www.nd.edu/~lumen/2006_11/Lawprofessorarguesforbanonpartialbirthabortion.shtml)
This case started in Nebraska in 1997 as Gonzales vs. Carhart. Dr. brought this suit against the State for ban on Partial-Birth Abortions. That case resulted in the 2000 Supreme Court decision, Stenberg v. Carhart, striking down Nebraska's law. Since then, this case has stirred several State suits across the Country, declaring this ban unconstitutional.
(Taken from the priestforlife website)
This appeal reaches this Court with a factual record compiled after a lengthy trial including testimony from numerous highly-credentialed and respected medical experts with expertise in second-trimester surgical abortions, and a District Court ruling containing detailed findings of fact that are overwhelmingly supported by the evidence.
(http://www.priestsforlife.org/pba/05-1382respondent.pdf)
It is constantly argued that the ruling is vague, and that it should expand to a woman’s health, whereas the Court argued that Partial-Birth Abortions has no bearing on the health of the mother. Other options are given, therefore Partial-birth is never medically necessary. Abortionist, however, disagree with the court’s decision, and constantly find ways to protest.
According to Law Professor Richard Garrett at Notre Dame Law School;
“For as long as Americans have known about partial-birth abortion,” Garnett said, “they have--by comfortable and consistent margins--agreed with the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan that it is ‘infanticide,’ and that ‘one would be too many.’ Nothing in our constitutional text, history, tradition, or structure supports, let alone compels, the conclusion that the American people may not affirm our commitment to decency and human dignity by rejecting partial-birth abortion.”
(http://www.nd.edu/~lumen/2006_11/Lawprofessorarguesforbanonpartialbirthabortion.shtml)
This case started in Nebraska in 1997 as Gonzales vs. Carhart. Dr. brought this suit against the State for ban on Partial-Birth Abortions. That case resulted in the 2000 Supreme Court decision, Stenberg v. Carhart, striking down Nebraska's law. Since then, this case has stirred several State suits across the Country, declaring this ban unconstitutional.
(Taken from the priestforlife website)
This appeal reaches this Court with a factual record compiled after a lengthy trial including testimony from numerous highly-credentialed and respected medical experts with expertise in second-trimester surgical abortions, and a District Court ruling containing detailed findings of fact that are overwhelmingly supported by the evidence.
(http://www.priestsforlife.org/pba/05-1382respondent.pdf)
It is constantly argued that the ruling is vague, and that it should expand to a woman’s health, whereas the Court argued that Partial-Birth Abortions has no bearing on the health of the mother. Other options are given, therefore Partial-birth is never medically necessary. Abortionist, however, disagree with the court’s decision, and constantly find ways to protest.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
What i think of the Supreme Court
As it is currently, the Supreme Court has two women and seven men as Supreme Court Justices. This consists of a Chief Justice, and eight Associate Justices. The Supreme Court is the highest court. Here is where matters that have not been suitably resolved in lower courts get decided, if they ever get taken. Despite the thousands of cases that are sent in to the court annually, only a small number gets chosen approximately 100.
These justices are put in place to protect the law of the country; they interpret and carry out the law. These people are supposed to be trust-worthy. Their decisions are final.
However, they are humans like everyone else. They may not be the people you like, people you trust, and your decisions may vary from theirs. Truth is, they disagree with each other sometimes, why then can’t you disagree with the final decision?
Changes are slowly being made. Women are chosen as justices. Even recently a Hispanic woman was chosen. What I would like to see is a more mixed pool of justices. More women, different races, varied religions, and just as the country itself is set up, the court should reflect that just the same.
This would make a tremendous difference. Cases would be decided differently. With more men, the decisions are one-sided, but add women to the mix and you have a wider perspective on things. When it comes to the issue of race, this will also be effective when everyone has a voice in these issues. If you’re not from a certain race or sex, it’s more difficult for you to make a decision on an issue concerning such, but if there is someone who is able to identify with that issue, then the discussion gets to be more interesting. More light will be shed and the decision might end up being more justified and fair.
These justices are put in place to protect the law of the country; they interpret and carry out the law. These people are supposed to be trust-worthy. Their decisions are final.
However, they are humans like everyone else. They may not be the people you like, people you trust, and your decisions may vary from theirs. Truth is, they disagree with each other sometimes, why then can’t you disagree with the final decision?
Changes are slowly being made. Women are chosen as justices. Even recently a Hispanic woman was chosen. What I would like to see is a more mixed pool of justices. More women, different races, varied religions, and just as the country itself is set up, the court should reflect that just the same.
This would make a tremendous difference. Cases would be decided differently. With more men, the decisions are one-sided, but add women to the mix and you have a wider perspective on things. When it comes to the issue of race, this will also be effective when everyone has a voice in these issues. If you’re not from a certain race or sex, it’s more difficult for you to make a decision on an issue concerning such, but if there is someone who is able to identify with that issue, then the discussion gets to be more interesting. More light will be shed and the decision might end up being more justified and fair.
Decision of the Court
Though the argument of the case Roe vs. Wade which was used as precedent for this case, which the ruling for that case was somewhat different, the court made a 5-4 ruling to ban partial –birth abortion.
In the Roe vs. Wade case, it dealt with a young woman wanting the right to terminate a pregnancy under the advice and supervision of her doctor.
The Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first trimester and defined different levels of state interest for the second and third trimesters.
(The Oyez Project, Roe v. Wade , 410 U.S. 113 (1973) available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_18)
Meanwhile, abortion is still legal. Certain types of abortions, that is. There is D&X, which is dilation and extraction. In this method the doctor uses forceps to extract the fetus from the mother. The other legal procedure is D&E, dilation and evacuation; this is a more evasive method.
In the court’s decision, it stated that it was never medically necessary for a woman to have this partial-birth procedure to ensure the mother’s health. It was however a very cruel way to end life. Some stated that the decision made by the supreme court was vague because it raised the question on who could perform this procedure, and under what circumstances.
Below, taken from Cornell University’s website, is a brief description on the court’s decision and the argument raised from it:
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 does not include an exception for situations that endanger the health of the woman. Pursuant to Casey and Stenberg, an abortion regulation is unconstitutional when it fails to include such a provision if the regulated procedure may occasionally be necessary “to preserve a woman’s life or health.” In the wake of Stenberg, however, Congress concluded that the partial-birth abortion procedure would never be so required. Congress’s finding notwithstanding, a number of circuit courts have found the Ban unconstitutional on its face because of the lack of a health exception or otherwise. Thus, the Court’s decision will not only impact the future of abortion regulation, but also resolve the conflict between Congress and the courts.
(http://topics.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/05-1382)
In the Roe vs. Wade case, it dealt with a young woman wanting the right to terminate a pregnancy under the advice and supervision of her doctor.
The Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first trimester and defined different levels of state interest for the second and third trimesters.
(The Oyez Project, Roe v. Wade , 410 U.S. 113 (1973) available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_18)
Meanwhile, abortion is still legal. Certain types of abortions, that is. There is D&X, which is dilation and extraction. In this method the doctor uses forceps to extract the fetus from the mother. The other legal procedure is D&E, dilation and evacuation; this is a more evasive method.
In the court’s decision, it stated that it was never medically necessary for a woman to have this partial-birth procedure to ensure the mother’s health. It was however a very cruel way to end life. Some stated that the decision made by the supreme court was vague because it raised the question on who could perform this procedure, and under what circumstances.
Below, taken from Cornell University’s website, is a brief description on the court’s decision and the argument raised from it:
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 does not include an exception for situations that endanger the health of the woman. Pursuant to Casey and Stenberg, an abortion regulation is unconstitutional when it fails to include such a provision if the regulated procedure may occasionally be necessary “to preserve a woman’s life or health.” In the wake of Stenberg, however, Congress concluded that the partial-birth abortion procedure would never be so required. Congress’s finding notwithstanding, a number of circuit courts have found the Ban unconstitutional on its face because of the lack of a health exception or otherwise. Thus, the Court’s decision will not only impact the future of abortion regulation, but also resolve the conflict between Congress and the courts.
(http://topics.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/05-1382)
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Issues of the Case
The issues of this partial-birth abortion case, was whether or not it was clear enough for the doctors to be able to differentiate what abortion procedures were covered under the law and what weren’t.
Doctors claim this is a necessary procedure. They are in the business of saving lives, why do they feel obligated to kill the innocent?
In an interview conducted by Chief Justice Roberts with Mr. Clement, a representatives for the doctors who performed these operations, when asked:
Justice Kennedy: Well, my question is the same as Justice Breyer's.
Is there anything in the literature, including medical literature, that talks about significant or minor risks?
I mean, you fill out forms when you go to the dentist about risks.
Now, if... if the chance of death is one out of 100, is that significant?
I mean, I don't know.
His response was:
Mr. Clement: Well, it's a very difficult question to evaluate in the abstract, Justice Kennedy.
And I think it actually, that question, though, has direct bearing on this case, because Congress after all found that there was some risks with the D&X procedure.
The most prominent one that I would point to is the risk of cervical incompetence because the D&X procedure does... it does require additional dilation, which can be associated with risks of losing future pregnancies.
And that was born out, although not at a level of statistical significance, in the Chasen study by a plaintiff practitioner, where 2 of the 17 women who had the D&X procedure and were available for follow up care had an early preterm pregnancy in the follow up.
So I think those risks are born out in the only study that's available.
And I think the question becomes, now, if D&X were some life saving procedure for something that there was no other known cure for, you might think, well, those are the risks you run.
But when there remains available the D&E procedure, which has been well tested and works every single time as a way to terminate the pregnancy, then I think risks that, if you were talking about a life saving treatment for some life threatening condition with no known cure, those risks might not be significant in that context.
(Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood - Oral Argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2006/2006_05_1382/argument/)
If these people know of the risks, yet deem them insignificant, how can they be trusted?
These are the people you trust with your health on a daily basis.
Doctors claim this is a necessary procedure. They are in the business of saving lives, why do they feel obligated to kill the innocent?
In an interview conducted by Chief Justice Roberts with Mr. Clement, a representatives for the doctors who performed these operations, when asked:
Justice Kennedy: Well, my question is the same as Justice Breyer's.
Is there anything in the literature, including medical literature, that talks about significant or minor risks?
I mean, you fill out forms when you go to the dentist about risks.
Now, if... if the chance of death is one out of 100, is that significant?
I mean, I don't know.
His response was:
Mr. Clement: Well, it's a very difficult question to evaluate in the abstract, Justice Kennedy.
And I think it actually, that question, though, has direct bearing on this case, because Congress after all found that there was some risks with the D&X procedure.
The most prominent one that I would point to is the risk of cervical incompetence because the D&X procedure does... it does require additional dilation, which can be associated with risks of losing future pregnancies.
And that was born out, although not at a level of statistical significance, in the Chasen study by a plaintiff practitioner, where 2 of the 17 women who had the D&X procedure and were available for follow up care had an early preterm pregnancy in the follow up.
So I think those risks are born out in the only study that's available.
And I think the question becomes, now, if D&X were some life saving procedure for something that there was no other known cure for, you might think, well, those are the risks you run.
But when there remains available the D&E procedure, which has been well tested and works every single time as a way to terminate the pregnancy, then I think risks that, if you were talking about a life saving treatment for some life threatening condition with no known cure, those risks might not be significant in that context.
(Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood - Oral Argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2006/2006_05_1382/argument/)
If these people know of the risks, yet deem them insignificant, how can they be trusted?
These are the people you trust with your health on a daily basis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
