Breaking: Supreme Court Upholds ‘Partial Birth’ Abortion Ban

[babylonsister]

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/18/supreme-partial-birth/

Breaking: Supreme Court Upholds ‘Partial Birth’ Abortion Ban

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court has upheld a nationwide ban on “partial birth” abortion, “marking a shift on the high-profile issue and underscoring the impact of President George W. Bush’s two high court appointments.”

The justices “refused to invalidate the 2003 law even though it lacks an exception for cases posing a risk to the mother’s health. The court also rejected claims that the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act is so vaguely worded it would force doctors to forgo a commonly used, constitutionally protected abortion technique for fear of prosecution. ”

UPDATE: In the majority were swing vote Anthony Kennedy, along with Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Scalia, and Thomas.

UPDATE II: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg penned a scathing dissent:

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, speaking out in the courtroom for the dissenters, called the ruling “an alarming decision” that refuses “to take seriously” the Court’s 1992 decisions reaffirming most of Roe v. Wade and its 2000 decision in Stenberg v. Carhart striking down a state partial-birth abortion law.

Ginsburg, in a lengthy statement, said “the Court’s opinion tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. For the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception protecting a woman’s health.”

Edit to add these updates:

UPDATE III: Justice Clarence Thomas authored, and Justice Antonin Scalia joined, a 137-word concurring opinion, which appears to have the sole purpose of stating: “I write separately to reiterate my view that the Court’s abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), has no basis in the Constitution.”

UPDATE IV: The nation’s leading group of professionals providing health care for women, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, opposed this law because the banned procedure is often the best option for women:

The intact variant of D&E offers significant safety advantages over the non-intact method, including a reduced risk of catastrophic hemorrhage and life-threatening infection. These safety advantages are widely recognized by experts in the field of women’s health, authoritative medical texts, peer-reviewed studies, and the nation’s leading medical schools.

[WiseButAngrySara]

1. This is why I logged on I heard about it 15 minutes ago on CNN and

this is the first thread concerning it.

[stirlingsliver]

2. Damn! Just DAMN!

I hate this news.

I Hate and LOATHE * all the more for what he continues to do to this ocuntry.

No protection for a woman's health!!!

I am in a state of SHOCK!!

[xultar]

3. There is no such thing as a Partial Birth Abortion...that is a WINGNUT term

adopted to make it sound sick and disgusting.

I hate the fuckers.

[durrrty libby]

10. You are correct. It is a shame so many dems fall into their trap

[Catherine Vincent]

12. That is true but I like the way the CNN email alert worded it:

-- U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 ruling upholds a law banning what some call "partial birth" abortions.

[WiseButAngrySara]

22. They also mentioned the method of skull smashing and brain sucking...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (Public Law 108-105, HR 760, S 3)<1> (or "PBA Ban") is a United States law prohibiting intact dilation and extraction, which some refer to by the non-medical term partial-birth abortion. Any person or physician who knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. The bill passed both chambers of Congress: 281-142 in the House of Representatives on October 2, 2003, and 64-34 in the Senate on October 21, 2003, and was signed into law by President George W. Bush on November 5, 2003. The law has been challenged in court (see Gonzales v. Carhart).
This statute deals with pre-viability second trimester abortions,<2> whereas most abortions occur during the first trimester. Although public opinion views second trimester abortion as something that should generally be illegal, this statute is ostensibly directed only at a method of abortion, rather than at preventing any woman from obtaining an abortion.<3> Objections to this statute are primarily related to the health of a woman seeking abortion; a relatively small number of second trimester abortions are due to health concerns.

The Congress finds and declares the following:
(1) A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion--an abortion in which a physician delivers an unborn child's body until only the head remains inside the womb, punctures the back of the child's skull with a sharp instrument, and sucks the child's brains out before completing delivery of the dead infant--is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited.
(2) Rather than being an abortion procedure that is embraced by the medical community, particularly among physicians who routinely perform other abortion procedures, partial-birth abortion remains a disfavored procedure that is not only unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother, but in fact poses serious risks to the long-term health of women and in some circumstances, their lives. As a result, at least 27 States banned the procedure as did the United States Congress which voted to ban the procedure during the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses

[WiseButAngrySara]

25. I don't know how Congress concluded that it poses additional

ling-term health risks to the mother. I don't believe this to be true. Any comments on this for those of you who have researched it would be appreciated.

[Tesha]

44. They used the overwhelming principle of invoking "Some say"... (NT)

[WinkyDink]

59. Because the Republicans wrote it?

[WiseButAngrySara]

60. Well hello. I knew that. ....n/t

[xultar]

39. Finally. Some truth.

[skipos]

4. Yet many will still claim there is "no difference" between Dem candidate X, and Repub candidate Y

I dislike Hillary more than all of our other candidates, but she would appoint much better SC justices than McCain or Rudy or any other Repub. Reason enough for me to vote for her.

This latest ruling is reason # 2435 that Nader was completely wrong in claiming that Bush = Gore.

[WiseButAngrySara]

26. Oh, don't remind me of Nader B* and Gore right now! I'm mad enough! ...n/t

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

28. Do you think this message will get through to the ideologues?

That idiotic, ill-informed, and quite frankly, libelous logic that Dems and Repubs are all the same is pathetic and sickening. If this doesn't strike a chord today, I'm not sure what will.

[Bunny]

40. Congratulations, Nader voters!

You were right - there really *is* no difference between Bush and Gore!




:sarcasm:

[rockymountaindem]

43. I just didn't want to be the first to say it

because I'm in no mood to tangle with his acolytes who troll this site, but yeah.

Thanks a million, asshats.

[Bunny]

45. I'll take a jab at Nader once in a while, but I have generally stayed out of the fray

on those threads. But as a woman, the subject of choice is very important to me, so I feel like commenting. I'm just glad that those ideological purists, bless their hearts, are getting the opportunity to bask in their "choice". :eyes:

[SammyWinstonJack]

52. I'm sure many of them still believe that crap. Even now, after this.

[WinkyDink]

57. Hey, it's not like Ralph will ever be pregnant!

[Tesha]

46. And the Democrats fillibustered this legislation so well! (NOT!)

Sorry, folks, but Nader's right on this one: There's
not a dime's difference (in the final effect) between
an activist Republucan taking your rights and a spineless
Democrat refusing to stand up for your rights.

The Democrats didn't block this legislation when they
could have. And they didn't do it because it would
have required standing up for a politically-difficult
position.

And they didn't block Scalia, Thomas, Alito, or Roberts
when they could have. And don't tell me how hard it is
to block Judicial appointments; the Republicans certainly
do it well enough when *THEY* want to!

Tesha

[rockymountaindem]

47. Oh come on

A Democratic administration would a) never have signed this into law and b) would never have appointed Roberts and Alito to the bench. Back in the day if the Dems had fillibustered the Repubs would have gone "nuclear" anyway.

Want to know why we're in this position today? Not enough people voted for Democrats when they had the chance. Ralph Nader has been and continues to be wrong about every issue re: Dems vs. Repubs in the last ten years at least.

[Tesha]

55. So freaking what?

> Back in the day if the Dems had fillibustered the Repubs
> would have gone "nuclear" anyway.

So freaking what? We run the shop now; not having the
fillibuster would work in *OUR* favor now.

BUT NOOOOOOO...

The Republicans are *SUCCESSFULLY* fillibustering a
number of different Democratic initiatives.


>Not enough people voted for Democrats when they had the chance.

And that would be because not enough elected Democrats stood
for anything when they had the chance, so the people no longer
understood why voting for a Democrat was a worthwhile idea.

Tesha

[rockymountaindem]

58. Bullshit

Had the Democrats fillibustered the nuclear option would have been invoked and it would have passed anyway. The only way to prevent that is by electing a Democratic majority. The reason Republicans are successfully using the fillibuster now is because Democrats have more respect for the traditions of the Senate than Frist and McConnell.

The only reason *some* people (Naderites) don't vote for Democrats is because they cling to the pie-in-the-sky notions that Nader is making some kind of statement. Actually, I guess that's true, it looks like this:



Right back at ya, Nader!

[Tesha]

62. And disrespect for the wishes of their constituents and supporters.

> The reason Republicans are successfully using the fillibuster now
> is because Democrats have more respect for the traditions of the
> Senate than Frist and McConnell.

And disrespect for the wishes of their constituents and supporters.
Which is why they end up losing votes in the long run.

"Oh, we know you don't really want the war ended..."

"Oh, we know you really don't care about abortion..."

"Oh, we know you don't really care about gay rights..."

"Oh, we know you don't really care about the growing
economic disparities..."

"Oh, we know you don't really care about the off-shoring
of all the middle-class jobs..."

"Oh, we know you don't really care about health care..."

Tesha

[rockymountaindem]

70. Or not

Somehow they keep winning. Believe it or not there are a lot of conservatives out there, and they vote. And when they vote, they all vote for the Republicans. If the left wing in this country is fractured by egomaniacial fantasy-peddlers like Nader, it's no surprise that we will lose. That's why the conservatives send Ralph so much money. They're not dumb. Nader, on the other hand, with his politique du pire mentality is knowingly playing chicken with peoples' lives and economic security. Today's decision is case in point.

And no, there was no way the Democrats could have stopped the appointment of Alito and Roberts in 2005. Even if they did, the conservative "compromise" candidate would still have voted the same way today. You can't convince me that Bush would ever have nominated a candidate who would have sided with Ginsburg and Souter on this. In that way the fillibuster argument doesn't even matter. We might have won more rulings on the margins with a "compromise" candidate, but not the big ones like these. This is exactly why we needed Gore to win in 2000, because he would have replaced O'Connor and Rhenquist with two John Paul Stevens style justices, making Kennedy's swing vote immaterial. This has nothing to do with 2005 fillabusters and everything to do with the fact that in 2000 Nader stayed on the ballot in swing states and continued to campaign there in the final days of the campaign. It also has everything to do with the fact that people *still* think that their vote doesn't count so they might as well vote for Nader, and that some people still belive the lies that Democrats and Republicans are the same.

[Tesha]

73. Then we should have fillibustered candidate after candidate...

Then we should have fillibustered candidate after candidate,
citing good reasons for blocking each one. There's no rule
that says the Senate must allow the filling of a SCotUS seat,
*ESPECIALLY BY AN UNELECTED PRESIDENT SEATED BY SCotUS*.

We could have fillibustered; our representatives just
didn't have the guts to do it.

Tesha

[rockymountaindem]

75. No. *Then* they would have used the nuclear option.

See? There's just no way out of this while the Democrats have a minority. We need a *majority*, and that can only realistically happen when the left win non-Republicans of the country unite, especially in areas with a strong conservative presence.

[Tesha]

76. And as I said, we now run the Senate.

And as I said erlier, we now run the Senate so "No
fillibuster!" would now work in our favor.

The fillibuster is fundamentally undemocratic anyway.

Tesha

[rockymountaindem]

79. You have no idea what you're talking about

The Senate must accomodate minority rights because it is not based on population. Without the fillabuster, it would be possible for 51 Senators representing small states accounting for only a fraction of the US population to run the entire show. Is that what you want? That's why we have fillabuster rules in the Senate but not in the House, as a straight vote in the House by and large represents a population-based division of the country, whereas the Senate does not.

If anything, fillabuster rules need to be further entrenched so as to prevent the "nuclear option" threat from ever emerging in the future.

[Tesha]

80. No, of course I don't.

> You have no idea what you're talking about

No, of course I don't. That's why a fillibuster is
defined in the Constitution and not the Rules of
the Senate.

Oh wait!

Fillibusters *AREN'T* defined by the Constitution,
they're just a rule that the Senate made up one time
when it suited the whims of the Senators who voted
for it.

Tesha

[rockymountaindem]

82. Right

And I for one think it's a damn fine idea that we ought to keep if we're going to have a Senate.

[Tesha]

90. We'll see if you think so highly of it after 2009...

We'll see if you think so highly of it after 2009
when the Democrats can't appoint to the Supreme Court
any justices who are to the left of Robert Bork due
to Republican fillibusters.

Tesha

[rockymountaindem]

93. Didn't stop us from appointing Ginsburg

Besides, I don't think the 08 election is a sure thing and besides, I believe in the fillabuster on principle not just because it may or may not be politically valuable at a given time. I believe in winning elections, not changing the rules to make things easier for us.

[Sgent]

97. There is no nuclear option here

The nuclear option is only on the table when it comes to appointments, not even the R's threatened to use it when we filibustered bills.

[AuntPatsy]

5. Cant think well right now, can you explain what this decision means?

[babylonsister]

20. Here's a more indepth article that explains it further:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/04/18/supreme_court_upholds_federal_ban_on_disputed_abortion_procedure/

Supreme Court upholds federal ban on disputed abortion procedure

By Mark Sherman, Associated Press | April 18, 2007

WASHINGTON --The Supreme Court upheld the nationwide ban on a controversial abortion procedure Wednesday, handing abortion opponents the long-awaited victory they expected from a more conservative bench.

The 5-4 ruling said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

The opponents of the act "have not demonstrated that the Act would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of relevant cases," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion.

The decision pitted the court's conservatives against its liberals, with President Bush's two appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, siding with the majority.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia also were in the majority.

It was the first time the court banned a specific procedure in a case over how -- not whether -- to perform an abortion.

Abortion rights groups have said the procedure sometimes is the safest for a woman. They also said that such a ruling could threaten most abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy, although government lawyers and others who favor the ban said there are alternate, more widely used procedures that remain legal.

The outcome is likely to spur efforts at the state level to place more restrictions on abortions.

More than 1 million abortions are performed in the United States each year, according to recent statistics. Nearly 90 percent of those occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and are not affected by Tuesday's ruling.

Six federal courts have said the law that was in focus Wednesday is an impermissible restriction on a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

The law bans a method of ending a pregnancy, rather than limiting when an abortion can be performed.

"Today's decision is alarming," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in dissent. She said the ruling "refuses to take ... seriously" previous Supreme Court decisions on abortion.

Ginsburg said the latest decision "tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists."

She was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.

[AuntPatsy]

34. These people make me sick.

[Beaverhausen]

74. It means that my friend would be dead if this ban was in effect 3 years ago

she had to abort a 5 month old fetus- a child she wanted - because it was found to be severly deformed and the pregnancy was starting to interfere with my friends health.

FUCK THE SUPREME COURT! :mad:

[MonkeyFunk]

81. I've read a few articles on this now

trying to figure it out.

It seems to me that your friend could still have gotten an abortion. It's one particular method that's been outlawed, but they are NOT outlawing late-term abortions. Just one medical procedure - there are others available.

That said, it's a ridiculously stupid decision, and I'm really surprised at Kennedy.

[Beaverhausen]

92. But every method should be available to all women

I am beyond pissed at this.

from the OP:

UPDATE IV: The nation’s leading group of professionals providing health care for women, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, opposed this law because the banned procedure is often the best option for women:

The intact variant of D&E offers significant safety advantages over the non-intact method, including a reduced risk of catastrophic hemorrhage and life-threatening infection. These safety advantages are widely recognized by experts in the field of women’s health, authoritative medical texts, peer-reviewed studies, and the nation’s leading medical schools.

[MonkeyFunk]

95. I agree entirely

and I'm pissed, too. I'm just pointing out that this decision does not prohibit later-term abortions at all. It prohibits one specific procedure.

[rockymountaindem]

6. Can the law itself be overturned by an act of Congress?

...paging Senator Reid...

[stirlingsliver]

11. Yes, But...

Two BIG obstacles to a new law:

1. Filibuster

2. Veto

We need a veto-proof majority in BOTH houses of Congress

And we need a PRO-CHOICE DEMOCRAT in the White House

[Bacchus39]

56. and the States can pass their own ban now too

no matter if Congress nullified the law, any State that wanted to enact the same law would be free to do so.

[Freddie Stubbs]

68. The law was passed with significant Democratic support

63 Democrats in the House voted for it:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll530.xml

17 Democratic Senators voted for it:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00402

Senator Reid was one of the Senators who voted in favor of this law.

[Freddie Stubbs]

69. dupe

[Horse with no Name]

7. I hear a giant sucking sound

in women's health rights around the corner...

[in_cog_ni_to]

16. Not if we win big in '08. When we take back the WH AND Congress, things will change for the better.

'08 is one of the most important elections of our lives. These people MUST be stopped.

[Horse with no Name]

23. The problem is

that we will have to start impeaching SCOTUS justices--which really shouldn't be hard considering their illegal ruling in Bush v. Gore.
AND we will have to fire every single USA--cept for maybe Fitzgerald.
There is a lot of work that has to be done--unfortunately.

[Demeter]

38. I Don't Have a Problem Wirh That

The whole government will need a good purge--there is no more accurate term for it.

Those who were directly guilty of committing crimes against individuals or the Constitution must go to jail, those who enabled must be removed from power, and those who fought must be acknowledged, rewarded, and made whole from the consequences they suffered for their patriotic good citizenship.

[orleans]

49. hopefully SOMEONE has been drawing up articles of impeachment

for these freaks on the supreme court who installed the fuckhead in the white house, and those articles will be good to go at the right moment.

[TnDem]

41. Well...

If we keep rattling on about renewing the so-called "assault weapon ban" and other such laws in the wake of the current tragedy, you can forget winning in the south and midwest...and without the south and midwest, no presidency..

[hang a left]

8. So this is regarding abortions after 5 months of pregnancy???

I am not real clear on partial birth abortions??

[wicket]

18. Here some info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_dilation_and_extraction">Intact dilation and extraction

[MissB]

9. So if there isn't really a procedure called this, what are they banning?

Everyone always says there is no medical procedure known as a "partial birth abortion". What does this really outlaw?

[Demeter]

13. It Mandates Women Dying

That's the bottom line, really.

Denying a safe, life-saving procedure to a woman with a pregnancy gone really wrong, a pregnancy which would not produce a viable child.

Anything else is irrelevant.

[MissB]

17. I would assume that the medical profession will just work around it.

Except in some hospitals.

It sucks.

[Horse with no Name]

42. We had a situation at our hospital

where the baby was anencephalic--meaning without a brain. At the time, our hospital was run by the Catholics so termination of this pregnancy was not an option.
The baby was approx. 6 months along and would be born dead. However, it grew at a normal pace because it basically it was being nurtured by the mother, but when born, did not even have enough brainstem to take a breath on it's own.
There is a procedure called a prostaglandin-induced abortion. Basically a vaginal suppository is inserted in the cervix and the prostaglandins induce labor. There is none of the blood and gore that the anti-abortion crowd wants you to believe.
The woman simply labors and the deceased infant is born intact. The parents can hold it and grieve their loss, take a picture, whatever they want.
HOWEVER, the attending physician was not able to get permission to deliver this baby from the hospital and he was unable to find any other hospital willing to do it because of the ethics. If it was their own patient, it wouldn't have been an issue, but they didn't want to take someone else's patient and do the procedure.
The mental health of the mother was at stake. She knew her baby would be born dead and it was upsetting her when well-meaning people asked her if it was a boy or a girl, when she was due, how excited she must be...etc.
The only option at this point was for her to go to an abortion clinic to have the pregnancy terminated.
They were very nice, but their only option was to basically cut the baby out--they weren't licensed to do anything else.
After all was said and done, the woman wrote a letter to the hospital castigating them for taking away her opportunity to bond with her child and have something to bury...something to remember.
Because of fundie principles, she was unable to have closure on her grief.

[Clark2008]

54. That' s what I was going to ask.

They could "deliver" by C-Section, knowing full well the fetus would die.

[gollygee]

19. There's a procedure when a fetus has a particular disorder

that causes their head to swell full of a liquid and enlarge to the point where it isn't safe for a vaginal birth, and a c-section scar of that size could create serious complications in future pregnancies. The safest way to abort a fetus in this condition (this is a condition that is incompatible with life by the way) is to break the skull and pull the head out in pieces. It sounds gruesome and that's why people want to ban it, but we can't make medical decisions for people in this country based on an emotional response to how a procedure sounds.

[MissB]

21. I know what the ID&E is... I was really just wondering

if the ruling barred that or something non-existant called a pba.

[gollygee]

24. Oh I see

sorry, I thought it was a serious question. Well some people reading the thread might not know so it's just as well it's explained in the thread anyway.

If they used the phrase "partial birth abortion" without a definition it might not be worth anything, but my guess is that they defined it as an ID&E.

[wicket]

14. Those rat bastards!

:grr: :grr: :grr:

[stirlingsliver]

15. In Related News, Stocks of Wire Hanger Companies

In related news, stocks of companies manufacturing wire hangers are reported up.

[WiseButAngrySara]

27. Boo! (and broken coke bottles?) ....n/t

[Puppyjive]

29. Plan B/C

This is the Bush/Cheney Plan.  I call it Plan B/C.  If women
have control over their reproductive rights, that would
threaten the very existence of the Bush Administration.  A
recent 8th Circuit Court of Appeals decision goes as far as to
say that employers can cover viagara, yet covering oral
contraceptives does not constitute discrimination.  The case
is Standridge vs. Union Pacific Railroad.  2 judges overturned
a lower court ruling, while one judge dissented.  You can
listen to the oral arguments for yourself.  Go the the 8th
District court of Appeals website and listen to the argument. 
One judge claimed that every woman he knew enjoyed being
pregnant.  He just never asked any women when they were in
their ninth month.   The decision by the judges is evidence
that the justice system has become a political right wing
platform.  When a judge cannot rule without a political bias,
democracy has failed.    

[Ignacio Upton]

30. I don't think this spells the end of Roe v. Wade itself

As this deals with late-term abortion, which Roe v. Wade doesn't directly protect. However, for those in mushy middle who said that we should have "just let the President have his judges," we can now say "we told you so." If the Roberts-led SCOTUS overturns Roe v. Wade, and if there is a Democrat in the White House, he should pull an Andrew Jackson (I don't endorse the ends for which he did this, obviously) and get Congress (hopefully controlled by Democrats) to pass a federal law codifying Roe to piss off the SCOTUS. "John Roberts has made his decision, now let him enforce it," s/he should say.

[babylonsister]

32. Just added Update#3; they might be getting around to fighting R v. W. nt

[Ignacio Upton]

37. It's Scalia and Thomas

I expect them to write something like that. However, I don't think that Alito and Roberts want to show their true colors on Roe v. Wade just yet.

[Beelzebud]

31. Thank the Gang of 14 for this!

* Joe Lieberman, Connecticut
* Robert Byrd, West Virginia
* Ben Nelson, Nebraska
* Mary Landrieu, Louisiana
* Daniel Inouye, Hawaii
* Mark Pryor, Arkansas
* Ken Salazar, Colorado

Everyone on that list should be voted out of office.

[cmkramer]

61. Bullshit

No sensible person believed that Bush would appoint a pro-choice Supreme Court justice. It's not like by voting for cloture they effectively prevented a pro-choice liberal alternative from being chosen.

Thank you, Ralph Nader.

[Beelzebud]

63. I'd take Nader over Lieberman any day of the week....

[Tesha]

65. A'yup -- another stunning victory (for keeping their jobs over our rights) (NT)

[blogslut]

33. The five should be ashamed

Does anyone know the specifics of the ruling? Did they rule for the ban or simply bump it back down to a lower court? I just woke up and my legalese translator is still asleep.

[babylonsister]

35. FYI: Updates just added to OP. nt

[ThomCat]

36. #@$%!&

x(

We knew this shit was coming, but still...
:grr:

The fucked up Religious Right has far too much power in this country. I'm sick and tired of religion dictating public policy.
:mad:

And then we have to listen to whiners complaining that religion isn't the problem, and that all the millions of christians who back this kind of thing aren't really christians because only saints are really christians, so christianity can't be blamed for anything.
:nuke:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

48. Isn't wonderful the Dems kept their "powder dry" rather than filibuster?

Even my usually reliably liberal and courageous (for a politician) senator, Patty Murray, voted for Roberts rather than risk a filibuster.

[Bluebear]

50. Marvellous.

Powder dry my ass.

[countryjake]

85. Exactly. I checked her off my list of pols with conscience that day...

she knew very well this sort of decision was what would be at stake, too.

[Dave From Canada]

51. I'm confused, I thought there was no such thing as partial birth abortion?

[Tesha]

66. It gained truthiness when voted into law. (NT)

[wicket]

84. It's not a medical term, it's a term invented by the radical right-wing

n/t

[orleans]

53. damn! n/t

[Hepburn]

64. Disgusting ruling....

...there is absolutely NO excuse to substitute the thinking of the legislature for the informed decision of a medical professional who is on the spot and dealing with an emergency that a particular treatement or procedure is NECESSARY to save a life.

This is obscene, IMO.

Edit for typo

[Tesha]

67. You don't live in America anymore; you live in Jesusland.

[Dave From Canada]

71. You do realize that in Canada we have publicly funded Catholic schools?

[rockymountaindem]

78. Yep

And as an American student in Canada I was shocked, shocked I tell you to find out about that.

[Hepburn]

77. Isn't that the obscene and unfortunate truth.

Only in the USA could "moral" judgment be substituted for the legit medical opinon of a licensed medical provider on the spot.

IMO, we all know that someone, or even a few, are gonna die because of this BS ruling. There simply is NO evidence to support a law which says that abortions are NEVER medically required as does the law which the USSC said is OK. There is ALWAYS and exception to every rule.

What the hell position does this "Jesusland" ruling put a medical provider in? Stand by and watch a women die....or break the law to save a life?

What an utter and total obscenity, IMO, we witnessed today from the USSC. I hope they rot in hell for the life of each woman who dies because their version of morality is more important than the sound medical opinion of a doctor.

[Tesha]

103. The really weird part is that SCotUS recognized Congress was wrong...

The really weird part is that SCotUS recognized Congress
was wrong; that all the "science" that Congress stated in
the law was bullshit. But they allowed Congress the
authorityto make their "moral" judgement anyway.

We really have entered "Bizzaroworld".

I can't wait for the SCotUS ruling that Congress has the
moral authority to declare that Pi really *IS* 3, and
not that pesky 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288...

Tesha

[IronScorpio5]

72. Religion over Science....Fuck these bastards.

i'm mad as hell.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

87. Not religion - it's Ignorance over Science

Plenty of folks believe in God and in the right to choose a safe abortion.

I know of one, f'rinstance.

[Mr. Ected]

83. Women Used To Vote For Democrats For Self-Protection

When women stopped voting for Dems and started casting their votes for the Repiglican Party, they should have known this would be the result.

[wicket]

86. I just *knew* this was all the women's fault

:eyes:

[Mr. Ected]

88. Since Women Represent Over Half the Voting Public

Any deviation in their voting behavior DOES have an impact on the final tally.

[wicket]

89. Kerry won a majority of women voters in 2004

:shrug:

[Mr. Ected]

94. And Gore Won A Majority of Women in 2000

My God, how wrong I was. Relied on hearsay in lieu of facts. My bad, my apologies, my embarrassment.

[wicket]

96. No worries

:hi:

It would be interesting to see, though, what percentage of women voted for Nader in 2000.

[robinlynne]

91. I can remember Roberts and Alito in front of the senate... and how people

pretended they were being honest....

[mmonk]

98. Watch out for Roe v Wade.

Also, watch advancement of unitary executive. Thanks to all those elected to office that wouldn't stand up on the court nominations.

[Tesha]

104. Please remember this when those folks ask for your vote again...

> Thanks to all those elected to office that wouldn't stand
> up on the court nominations.

Please remember this when those folks ask for your vote again,
and they remind you how important it is to vote for the "D"
just because they're a D, even though they're a cowardly
schmuck on every issue that actually matters to you...

Tesha

[Megahurtz]

99. Words Cannot Even Describe

how Fucking Pissed Off I am over this Extreme RightWingNut Phoney
"Born Again" Faux-Christian Fundamentalist Control over Women Shit!!!!:nuke:

[DancingBear]

100. Aren't you glad they didn't filibuster Roberts or Alito?

Keepin' that powder dry, baby.

"Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?"

Step SLOWLY AWAY from the two-party system....

[countryjake]

101. kicking

[countryjake]

106. again

[Zhade]

102. KICK

kick

[bread_and_roses]

105. I am just sick. N/T, because no words right now.