[2dogs]

Without turning this into a discussion of abortion (which won't fly around here) maybe someone can tell me:

One hour after the president signed the partial birth abortion ban, passed overwhelmingly and supported (according to Gallup) by 70% of the people in this country, the leftists of the ACLU and Planned Parenthood used a hand picked judge to declare that it is UNCONSTITIONAL to prevent someone from sucking the brains out of a viable human being.

Now according to the FNC legal analyst, while the judge's ruling technically applies only in Nebraska, federal judges in other parts of the country will defer to his decision therefore probably voiding the law for years until it makes it's way to the SCOTUS.

Yet when a gun law is passed, all of which are unconstitutional, we don't see this. Where were the gun rights groups and pro-gun judges (there must be some) when the AWB was passed? Why wasn't this in court one hour after it passed, and side lined for years until it made it's way to SCOTUS?

Am I missing something?

Have we had dimwits fighting for our side?:confused: :cuss:

[Jeff White]

Quite frankly the gun rights organizations are scared to death of the courts. Lose there and lose big, the second amendment suddenly is really meaningless

Jeff

[Moparmike]

Have we had dimwits fighting for our side?Apparently. You forgot to add "apathetic" and "under-funded" and "segregated."

The gun people are "segregated." *Some NRA people dont like KABA people, the GOA thinks the NRA doesnt do enough, the NRA thinks the GOA is a bunch of fanatical upstarts, Assault weapons vs. Shotguns, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseam.:barf: :scrutiny: :fire: Until we become unified and fight together for our rights, we will never truely accomplish anything.

*Those opinions of other groups by certain groups is completely heresay on my part. It is what I have heard, and I base it soley upon that.

[cracked butt]

Problem is, there is no constitutional backing for abortion, yet federal judges have made it an untouchable 'right'. If conservatives were able to use the judiciary system the way liberals do, I would have no problem going down to the local hardware store and picking up a fully auto sturmgewehr 44 replica without having to fill out any silly forms.
The lioberals know that the judicial branch is the most powerful branch of government, and all forms of social 'reforms' that most of the population rejects can be hammered through the courts.

[manwithoutahome]

To reply to what MoparMike said, the organizations of elf, peta, etc.. don't have the numbers that GOA and NRA have, yet they launch into a lawsuit each and very time that a dog pees in a yard and they want to make it into a wetland. And, they WIN!

I think that Jeff is right, the pro-gun organizations are afraid to really be as aggressive in the fight so they let the "small things" through and then pee on our leg to tell us it's raining and that they will fight "the big fight".

We all know the law of the land, the only law but we won't do anything to fight for it. We aren't going toward a police state, we've been there for years but we're just too stupid to know it. Yet, the NRA knows it and, like most organizations, are just in it for the money. Give a a bite every now and then and then continue to lose in the long run.

We're so afraid of losing what little we have that we are not willing to fight for what we should have.

What good is a Right, if it has strings attached?

M

[Desertdog]

the organizations of elf, peta, etc.. don't have the numbers that GOA and NRA have, yet they launch into a lawsuit each and very time
If we had the money for a lawsuit every time we had a problem with gun laws, and sued, chances are we would be farther along.

We also need to find political candidates that actually believe in the 2nd Amendment, and support them with time and money. Then in the end, we would come out ahead.

We also need a whole lot of judges to retire and have Constitutional judges appointed.

[BamBam]

Liberals:

Killing babies= GOOD! :D

Death sentence for serial killers,= BAD! :mad:
right to defend yourself

[Standing Wolf]

We're so afraid of losing what little we have that we are not willing to fight for what we should have.

Sad to say, I'm afraid you'e right.

That said™, the leftist extremists determined half a century ago to take over the judicial system, and have loaded the federal benches from coast to coast with fellow travellers. They have it easy in court. The Constitution doesn't.

[Gray Peterson]

Comparisons aside, the partial birth abortion ban is unconstitutional.

Not because of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton.

It's unconstitutional for the same reason federal gun laws are unconstitutional:

It violates the 10th amendment.

[ARperson]

I totally with Lonnie on that point. No federal ban should exist. However, it doesn't quite hold with the 2nd amendment argument because not even the 10th amendment allows states to infringe upon the rights enumerated in the BoR.

Thought it was funny though when the dem-fems starting agonizing over the decision and how it will "open the doors to a complete ban on abortions of all types and timeframes." I guess they recognize incrementalism when they see it. It's okay to use it against the foes, but God forbid it gets used against them.

Regarding the nonexistent "right to privacy" issue. Had a discussion with a guy at a previous gun show who said the Constitution did not grant a right to privacy (the pretense for many of the decisions that have been passed in the last few decades). True, not explicitly, but there's the issue of knowing that the rights in the Constitution and BoR are not all inclusive. We as citizens have rights that are not listed. And I think right to privacy is one of them. I think it's even implicitly implied in the 4th amendment. So how do we stay with the Constitution when it doesn't specifically mention a right, but not having that right seems anti-thetical to the whole idea of freedom and the Constitution? :confused:

A dilemma indeed.

[cracked butt]

Comparisons aside, the partial birth abortion ban is unconstitutional.
It violates the 10th amendment.

Plbbbt! Try harder. A few years ago Wisconsin and another state, which I believe might have been Missouri banned partial birth abortion. The law was slapped down by federal courts.

Whetehr you are against or for abortion, it doesn not matter, what matters is that liberals have stacked the courts with activist judges that have way more power than state or ferederal legislative branches. The courts are doing less of interpreting the constitution and more of making up their own rules.

[rock jock]

Lonnie, let me get this straight. It's unconstitutional for the federal govt to meddle in the abortion issue because the power to do so is specifically not granted to them, BUT it's OK for the federal govt to meddle in the homosexuality issue even though the power to do so is also specifically not granted to them????:rolleyes:

Whatever happened to consistency for the sake of truth?

[Poodleshooter]

The simple reason is that abortion is protected by a much more important precedent than Constitutional amendment: It's backed by a Supreme Court decision (Roe vs Wade). That's a big problem we have in the judicial system. If the constitution says "the sky is blue", and the Supreme's say that blue really means "green", then "green" is the law of the land despite the obvious fact to the rest of us that ''green" is not "blue". Such is the absolute power of interpretation. Most of the Supreme's case precedent for guns is contrary to the second amendment, so that is the law of the land.

[tyme]

Why stop at complaining about Bush's ban on partial birth abortions? Let's go all the way. Legalize infanticide! If the child can't defend itself (if only by running away), should parents have the right to kill it? How do you distinguish between a 6-month-old child and a chimp, intellectually? If killing one isn't murder, why is the other? Because of the potential of a 6-month-old child? Then we're back to banning all abortions!

(Portions of the above are laden with sarcasm, so if you quote the above, particularly the infanticide bit, and start screaming at me or calling me an axe murderer, I'll just laugh. I really don't know what to think of abortion. The only solid opinion I have is that the religious right's position - that abortion in the first trimester is wrong - is untenable.)

[Jack Peters]

The first "assault weapon" ban was passed by California in 1989. The NRA did file a lawsuit against it in federal court based on the 2nd Amendment.

NRA did a whole lot of fundraising on that. I got a bucket full of "give us money to defend your rights" appeals.

NRA lost at the district and appeals levels and then sent out a bunch more fundraising letters to fund an appeal to the Supreme Court. They milked it to death.

And then what happened? NRA pulled the plug. They did NOT file an appeal to the Supreme Court. Instead, they quietly pocketed our money and walked away. Unfortunately for NRA, the liberal media got onto the story after a few days and wrote it up big. But it was over.

That was the day I became a critic of the NRA. They commited fraud. Solicited a ton of money and then bailed out on our rights.

Worse, during the early court battles NRA kept encouraging people to refuse to register their weapons with teh promise that NRA would make sure the law never stuck. So anyone who followed NRA's advice ended up looking at a felony charge.

Jack Peters

[2dogs]

Jack Peters

If true, that is a sad, sad story. As in pathetic.:(

[Carlos Cabeza]

If the doctor is coming at the child with a razor sharp vacuum cleaner nozzle, would it be self defense if the baby pulled his NAA .22 and shot the doctor in the head ?????????

Abortion Sucks !

[Obiwan]

The right tends to legislate the old fashioned way..through congress..with differing amounts of sucess.

The lefts new thing is to legislate Judicially...IE: through the courts.

If I hear one more story about how this group or that has their lawsuit prepared in case they lose I will:barf:

The interesting parallel I see is that gun owners are paranoid because they see a possible "slippery slope" erosion of our rights....

But nobody says that about the abortion rights people and their fears that if we don't allow killing a child outside the womb we won't allow doing it inside....:scrutiny:

[sw442642]

The lesson I take away is that GWB will get a big one for a crotch control bill that satisifies his hard right, sexuality scared friends but will do nothing for the RKBA in a proactive manner.

When the court decision was announced, the White House announced it will vigourously defend the new law.

Have you seen GWB do anything vigourous for the RKBA? NO!!

We don't count. He thinks he needs the votes of those GOP Old biddies of sexuality more than us.

I hope someone makes GWB adopt 10 crack babies and raise them in the White House, if he is so against abortion.

Learn this - the GOP is not for freedom. The economic conservatives fear the armed populace as much as the Democrats. They sucker in the social conservatives (who only think about stopping sex and the races mixing) for their votes. The RKBA folks have no where to go, so vote for George.

[Obiwan]

"biddies of sexuality "

How did we get to this exactly????:confused:

As an aside, I am sure the GOP wanted to be the backers of the Man/Boy Love Assoc. but the Dems beat them to it:uhoh:

[alan]

I haven't read the long series of earlier posts on this subject, however the following thoughts come to mind re guns and abortion.

This "partial birth abortion" business is largely a creation of media hype, as are "assault weapons" and "the Saturdaynight Special". When and if one realizes that, the thinking behind all the hype bcomes unmistakeably clear.

End of rant.

[Jeff White]

Lets stay focused here. A discussion of the differences in how the pro-abortion lobby works compared to how the RKBA lobby works is fine. Stray off into other issues not related to the title of the thread and it won't be open long.

Jeff

[tyme]

If you word a question right, a gallup pole will show that most people believe in UFOs, too. You can ask the same thing two different ways and get 70% with one and 30% with the other.

More importantly, what does 70% have to do with anything? Does this country look like a democracy to anyone here? Was it intended to be a democracy? Should it be a democracy?

The fact that the class with the most to lose (women) under a law like this has been historically marginalized helps the pro-abortion movement. The pro-RKBA movement has been assumed to be represented primarily by dumb white males. Guess which group can accomplish more? And appearances are all that matter.

[Gray Peterson]

Lonnie, let me get this straight. It's unconstitutional for the federal govt to meddle in the abortion issue because the power to do so is specifically not granted to them, BUT it's OK for the federal govt to meddle in the homosexuality issue even though the power to do so is also specifically not granted to them????

Who mentioned homosexuality here?

Even so, unrelated issues. The partial birth abortion ban at it's core is a criminal statute. Similar to the firearms bans, laws, and such on the federal level.

In my statement I did not touch upon whether or not those same statutes if passed on the state level would stand up to legal scrutiny under the US or state constitutions. What I'm trying to say is: If the US Congress were to pass a federal criminal or civil statute against sodomy that's applicable to the general public (I believe someone did introduce a bill for that in the 104th Congress), the very first thing it would be in violation is the 10th amendment.

[CleverNickname]

Comparisons aside, the partial birth abortion ban is unconstitutional.

Not because of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton.

It's unconstitutional for the same reason federal gun laws are unconstitutional:

It violates the 10th amendment.

Agreed, it does violate the 10th amendment. There shouldn't be any federal laws that have anything to do with abortion.

However, any state laws that make abortion legal should be found to violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Currently, it's illegal to murder someone, unless it's a child in the womb. Sure doesn't sound like equal protection to me.

[jimpeel]

True, not explicitly, but there's the issue of knowing that the rights in the Constitution and BoR are not all inclusive. We as citizens have rights that are not listed. And I think right to privacy is one of them. I think it's even implicitly implied in the 4th amendment. So how do we stay with the Constitution when it doesn't specifically mention a right, but not having that right seems anti-thetical to the whole idea of freedom and the Constitution?Then the right to privacy should extend to the private right to infuse drugs into the body of those who are so inclined without government interference. Why is the right to insert something into the body less sacrosanct than the right to remove something from the body?

[bountyhunter]

Lonnie, let me get this straight. It's unconstitutional for the federal govt to meddle in the abortion issue because the power to do so is specifically not granted to them, BUT it's OK for the federal govt to meddle in the homosexuality issue even though the power to do so is also specifically not granted to them????

I've got to admit I don't get that one. The only things the courts have said is that it is not legal to arrest and prosecute people for being homosexual or pursuing that lifestyle as long as it is done between consenting adults. The laws those courts threw out were both unconstitutional and also based on religous text. The supreme court is certainly empowered to protect the rights of people to live without being persecuted if they choose not to abide by the standards of the Christian Bible.... in fact, that right is a core value of our government.

[ARperson]

Lonnie, let me get this straight. It's unconstitutional for the federal govt to meddle in the abortion issue because the power to do so is specifically not granted to them, BUT it's OK for the federal govt to meddle in the homosexuality issue even though the power to do so is also specifically not granted to them????

Boy are you missing the point.

Yes, it is unconstitutional for the federal govt to meddle in the abortion issue because the power to do so is not specifically granted to them.

However, you're wrong when you make you're next statement. On two counts. First, Congress hasn't passed a law concerning homosexuality at a federal level. If it did, it would be unconstitutional because Congress wasn't given the power to legislate that area. Secondly, it was the Judicial branch that handed down a decision regarding homosexuality. And that doesn't make it right either. So just because something is, doesn't make it right.

[ARperson]

Then the right to privacy should extend to the private right to infuse drugs into the body of those who are so inclined without government interference. Why is the right to insert something into the body less sacrosanct than the right to remove something from the body?

Do you have an answer? Because if you do, I'd love to hear it. You must've missed the end of the part you quoted because I specifically stated it was a conundrum to deal with an expected right of privacy but still be able to limit what society considers bad behaviors. That I didn't know what the answer was to the apparent contradiction is evident in my post, I thought. And that it was a disturbing thing not to have the "right to privacy" idea layed out a little more concretely precisely because it leads to so much confusion and very little legal basis for issues of our day was my point.

[bountyhunter]

Currently, it's illegal to murder someone, unless it's a child in the womb.

That is so false it goes off the scale on the BS meter.

Out here in kali, haven of the liberal, causing the death of a child in the womb (if that child is of a viable age where it might survive) is considered murder under the law. People are prosecuted for killing unborn children.

That's why this "partial birth" ban is a tempest in a teapot. There are already severe restrictions on third trimester abortions and only allowed if threat to the mother's life is involved or the fetus is dead or grossly deformed, etc. The spec I read was that the so called "partial birth" abortion made up about one tenth of one percent of all abortions performed, for reasons as outlined.

The only gray area we now have is that advances in technology have moved the "viable" cutoff date back about a week or two into the end of the second trimester. When my wife ran a neonatal ICU about 10 years ago, babies born with weight under a kilogram (about 2 pounds) were pretty much screwed. If they lived, they had both blindness and massive brain damage from the high levels of oxygen required to keep them alive... many had also cerebral palsy. They do better now, and there are a few (very rare) cases of 1 pound fetuses surviving and being somewhat "normal".

Doctors understand these things. Most don't even do second trimester abortions, and if they do it is for a good reason. They are not not wild eyed butchers looking for children to kill.

[rock jock]

However, you're wrong when you make you're next statement. On two counts. First, Congress hasn't passed a law concerning homosexuality at a federal level. If it did, it would be unconstitutional because Congress wasn't given the power to legislate that area. It was the Judicial branch that handed down a decision regarding homosexuality. And that doesn't make it right either.
Well, yes and no. It was the judicial branch, but they were legislating from the bench. And you are right, it wasn't right.

What I'm trying to say is: If the US Congress were to pass a federal criminal or civil statute against sodomy that's applicable to the general public (I believe someone did introduce a bill for that in the 104th Congress), the very first thing it would be in violation is the 10th amendment.
I agree, for the very same reason that was wrong for the SCOTUS to rule against Texas in the recent sodomy case, i.e., it is outside the purview of the federal govt., judicial or legislative.

[Dex Sinister]

Then the right to privacy should extend to the private right to infuse drugs into the body of those who are so inclined without government interference. Why is the right to insert something into the body less sacrosanct than the right to remove something from the body?

If one thinks of the history of the Prohibition Amendment, - something one generally associates with a successful attempt to amend the Constitution to control people's behavior - it is interesting to note how much of an unnamed, but certainly implicitly assumed, right to privacy existed in the early 20th Century (or at least a right to have the government fail to tell you what you could do with your individual behavior or body.)


Amendment XVIII (1919)
Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

You'll notice that what doesn't appear anywhere in the text is, "use or possession, (or even buying) of alcohol by individuals is forbidden."


But of course all this begs the original question, which was (approximately), "Are there no judges anywhere in America who are conservative enough to issue an injunction against a gun law, and since it seems rather likely that at least 10 or 12 must be, why aren't we attempting this strategy??"

It's not exactly as if you need a 16 million member organization to ask a judge to issue an injunction against a given law...


Dex }:>=-

[Don Galt]

Congress has passed laws about homosexuality, when they criminalized homosexual marriage. And it is unconstitutional.


Any federal laws on these subjects are all unconstitutional:
homosexuality
religion
abortion
gun ownership.

The reason this country is so fsked up is that half the people want to throw out the constitution to ban abortion, and the other half want to throw out the constitution to ban guns, and ALL of them want to throw out the constitution and let the federal income tax stand. (the constitution was never property ammended.)

So, what do we have? You all want to throw out the constitution on some issue... if its not guns, its gays, if its not abortion its "terrorism". etc.

The number of people who stand behind the constitution in this country is less than %1.

[Moparmike]

Well now, this thread has gone on the "abortion arguement" path for quite some time. Look for its closure in

5...

4...

3...

2...

[Don Galt]

There's a difference between debating the morality of abortion (verboten) and debating whether the constitution allows the feds to pass laws on it (which is appropriate).

The reason we have the right to keep and bear arms is not because the second ammendment exists. Its because the right to regulate it was not given to the government. The bill of rights clarifies and narrows the constitution, and the 9th ammendments makes just about every congress in the last 100 years a tyranical one.

We can't hope to preseve our rights if we don't call for strict enforcement of the constitution, on all issues.

I think that's what the debate is about-- are there issues that we can ignore the constitution on? (or at least, that's what the argument I'm making is about.)

Don

[MeekandMild]

Seems like its a matter of temperment of the customers of the two types of advocate.

The average RKBA advocate is elected by the socially conservative rather peaceful NRA members who have never raised their voices in anger, avoid argument and dislike strife. OTOH the abortion industry advocate is a marketing expert who pushes an expensive impulse-buy product which has no lasting utility to the individual customer.

You'd be surprised how hard it is to motivate people who know they are right and are at ease with their lives compared with motivating people who are prone to fear, guilt and shame.

[CommonSense]

I’m not a lawyer, but from what I’ve read of Roe V Wade isn’t partial birth abortion against the law now anyway? RvW stated that you could not abort a viable fetus. With all of the advances in prenatal medicine, isn’t partial birth abortion already against the law? If not, why would one have to deliver the child up to a point only to kill him/her?

[TheBluesMan]

CommonSense - Let's try to keep the subject going in the direction that MeekandMild had it going in.

Continuation of the abortion topic alone *will* get this thread shut down.

Thanks! :)

-Dave

[Gray Peterson]

I agree, for the very same reason that was wrong for the SCOTUS to rule against Texas in the recent sodomy case, i.e., it is outside the purview of the federal govt., judicial or legislative.

It was also illegal at one point for people of one race to to have sexual relations with another, or to marry one another. In a decision to which the opponents of it said that the Supreme Court was "Destroying the sanctity of marriage" and "legislating from the bench", the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Loving v. Virginia (1967) that state criminal statutes that prohibited marriage between different races and sexual acts between different races was repugnant to the spirit and letter of the constitution.

This was most definitely an overreach of federal judicial authority, no?

[CommonSense]

Sorry for going off thread, TheBluesMan. My mistake.

[Gordon Fink]

I’m not a lawyer, but from what I’ve read … isn’t partial birth abortion against the law now anyway?

It’s kind of like laws banning plastic guns. These guns don’t really seem to exist, and if they do, they aren’t much of a problem.

~G. Fink

[AnklePocket]

Just the fact that we seem to need to legislate against partial birth abortion makes a disturbing statement about our society. I can't think of a more barbaric, inhuman act. Not sure where the Constitution comes in, but it's really a no-brainer.
It's correlation to gun grabbing might be that some of our esteemed legislators want us to be as helpless as our unborn children.

[Don Galt]

What the hell, anklepocket? You want this thread shut down?

Back on topic:

The thing is the constitution says that states cannot pass laws that violate the rights protected in it, right?

Thus, for instance, Texas could not ban the publication of books written in spanish, if it wanted to. Such a law would be a violation of the first ammendment.

I think the constitution is a good document-- it prevents the government from doing wide swaths of things that it wants to do (And has been doing.)

But they are getting away with all these violatiosn because people let their feelings override their logic-- they let their disgust with something override the fact that the government does not have the RIGHT to ban it. (And I'm not talking about anything in specific, here. Could be guns, could be abortion.)

A large part of this problem is because schools teach that the government is a good thing, that it has brought peace to people, and that democracy is so wonderful and lovely, etc. etc. But the reality is, we are not a democracy for a reason.

IF we were a democracy, the bill of rights would be meaningless... a majority-- say christians since they are apparently more than %50 of the country-- could vote a new government based along the lines of what they want. (EG: a theocracy, which banned pre-marital sex, dancing, alcohol, wearing skirts shorter than knee high, etc. just to come up with some plausible examples.)

The constitution deliberately stands in the way of this type of democratic action. And I'm firmly convinced that as long as people support undermining its purpose in one area, that they weaken its ability to protect other areas-- specifically the right to keep and bear arms.

That's why, for instance, abortion and guns are linked-- if you support gun rights, you have to oppose weakening the constitution.

[Geech]

Out here in kali, haven of the liberal, causing the death of a child in the womb (if that child is of a viable age where it might survive) is considered murder under the law. People are prosecuted for killing unborn children.

Unfortunately, many states do not enforce even that much of the law, even though this does clearly represent a violation of equal protection. Look at that recent case in Illinois were a child was murdered, and a court ruled that a child outside the womb wasn't a person as long as it was still connected. Yet, if that woman had been murdered before the birth took place, the killer could easily have been charged with two counts of murder. Abortion is a legal oddity.

[w4rma]

American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Press Release
For Release: October 3, 2003
Contact: ACOG Office of Communications
communications@acog.org

Statement on So-Called "Partial Birth Abortion" Law
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

Washington, DC -- The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) continues to oppose so-called "partial birth abortion" laws, including the conference committee bill approved by the US House of Representatives yesterday and sent to the US Senate. "Partial birth abortion" is a non-medical term apparently referring to a particular abortion procedure known as intact dilatation and extraction (intact D&X, or D&X), a rare variant of a more common midterm abortion procedure know as dilatation and evacuation (D&E).

In 2000, the US Supreme Court struck down a Nebraska "partial birth abortion" law in the case of Stenberg v. Carhart, ruling that the law violated the US Constitution by (1) failing to provide any exception "for the preservation of the health of the mother," and (2) being so broadly written that it could prohibit other types of abortion procedures such as D&E, thereby "unduly burdening a women's ability to choose abortion itself." The bill now before the Senate, which its supporters claim can meet any constitutional test, blatantly disregards the two-pronged test the Supreme Court carefully established in Stenberg.

As noted in a 1997 ACOG Statement of Policy, reaffirmed in 2000, and in ACOG's amicus curiae brief filed in the Stenberg case, ACOG continues to object to legislators taking any action that would supersede the medical judgment of a trained physician, in consultation with a patient, as to what is the safest and most appropriate medical procedure for that particular patient.

ACOG's Statement of Policy explains why ACOG believes such legislation to be "inappropriate, ill advised, and dangerous." The policy statement notes that although a select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which intact D&X would be the only option to protect the life or health of a woman, intact D&X "may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances, can make this decision (emphasis added)."

The Statement of Policy further reads that such legislation has the potential to outlaw other abortion techniques that are critical to the lives and health of American women. This was the second basis upon which the Supreme Court struck down the Nebraska law in the Stenberg case. The Court will invariably strike down laws that are overly broad or imprecisely drawn. Bills that frequently using terms -- such as "partial birth abortion" -- that are not recognized by the very constituency (physicians) whose conduct the law would criminalize, and that purport to address a single procedure yet describe elements of other procedures used in obstetrics and gynecology would not meet the Court's test.

In this case, the bill before the Senate fails to respect the Stenberg test because bill supporters flagrantly refuse to include an exception for the health of a woman. Instead, legislators try to circumvent the Court's requirements by issuing their own opinion to the nation's physicians and patients that such a procedure is never needed to protect a woman's health -- notwithstanding opposing opinions from the medical community.

The medical misinformation currently circulating in political discussions of abortion procedures only reinforces ACOG's position: in the individual circumstances of each particular medical case, the patient and physician -- not legislators -- are the appropriate parties to determine the best method of treatment.

# # #

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) is the national medical organization representing 45,000 members who provide health care for women.
http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/press_releases/nr10-03-03.cfm
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=569189

[Geech]

Bills that frequently using terms -- such as "partial birth abortion" -- that are not recognized by the very constituency (physicians) whose conduct the law would criminalize, and that purport to address a single procedure yet describe elements of other procedures used in obstetrics and gynecology would not meet the Court's test.

Bills that frequently use terms -- such as "assault weapons" -- that are not recognized by the very constituency (gun manufacturers) whose conduct the law would criminalize, and that purport to address a specific list of firearms yet describe elements of other firearms used by legitimate gun owners would not meet the Court's test.

It sounds like a reasonable argument either way.

[Sean Smith]

I don't think there is any sound argument for placing abortion under the purview of federal legislation, whether or not you consider abortion a crime. I also think the legal basis for Roe v. Wade is completely bogus. In fact, I think any sensible interpretation of the Constitution leads to the conclusion that the states should be able to legislate it as they please and that the federal government has no purview in abortion one way or the other. To make abortion a federally protected right, you'd need to amend the Constitution. To make abortion a crime at the federal level... same deal.

And as a matter of objective fact, the partial-birth abortion law was deeply stupid on several levels. It made no provision for the safety of the mother, which is guaranteed to get it shot down in court. If intended to be the thin edge of an anti-abortion wedge, it is thin to the point of lunacy; the number of partial-birth abortions is minimal in the extreme, and even Roe v. Wade placed severe constraints on late-term abortions in general, making its practical necessity (even if the law is legal, which it soon won't be) rather doubtful.

Abortion existed at the time of the Constitution, and was not enumerated therein as a right OR as something proscribed. Apparently, the Founding Fathers, on average, didn't give a rat's butt about it either way, at least insofar as federal law was concerned.

On the other hand, the Constitution gives the federal government (and by extension, the states, courtesy of Amendment XIV Article 1 to the Constitution) very explicit instructions concerning ownership of firearms, i.e. butt out, and they have done the exact opposite.

The fun bit of the 14th Amendment reads as follows:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That covers ALOT of territory, and to my mind was a sensible clarification, since tyranny by a state government is no better than tyranny by the federal government, and maybe worse since they are closer.

[Grey54956]

There is no good reason for trying to legislate morality. It has been done before, with awful consequences.

While I find abortion morally reprehensible in most situations, I cannot support any action which tries to force one person's morality on another. My belief is simple: everyone has the choice to be good or bad or neither, based upon their own religious and moral point of view.

Prohibition of liquor was an awful mistake. It was pushed by religiously devout temperance groups. Personally, I like liquor and I don't happen to have a problem with it. In fact, alcoholic beverages are part of my religion. I don't appreciate someone telling me that I cannot partake of something that I don't think is wrong when it isn't harming them one bit.

The gun-control crowd is similar to the temperance movement of the early 20th century. They don't think that people should have weapons of any sort. Whether this belief stems from a religious position (why does anyone really want to be a martyr - just a random thought) or from a public safety mindset (hmmm... public safety, see 1930's Germany) or more insidious reasons (*cough* fascist dictatorship *cough*), I do not appreciate their efforts. I like guns. They are an integral part of my happiness (hunting and shooting) and they lend me some degree of protection against harm (i.e. don't tread on me, or goblin repellent). Since my ownership of firearms isn't hurting anyone else, they can sod off.

Abortion is a little tricky, but should be looked at in a similar light. Does it hurt your neighbor? No. Is it morally questionable? Yes (depending on what set of morals you measure things by; morality, contrary to popular belief, is not universal) it is. Does this give anyone the right to ban it? No. While I find the practice morally reprehensible in most situations, others may not view it as being so, and so I must stand aside.

I know that some people are going to say that the rights of the unborn child are being infringed, and that abortion is murder. But, if you are going to apply that standard to abortion, then you must also apply it to miscarriage. I suggest that if abortion is murder, then miscarriage is child neglect, or possibly unintentional manslaughter. But do we really want to have to do that?

[rock jock]

the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Loving v. Virginia (1967) that state criminal statutes that prohibited marriage between different races and sexual acts between different races was repugnant to the spirit and letter of the constitution.
It is appropriate for the Supreme Court to step in when deciding issues of equality based on physiology, not on behavior. Behavior, in fact, is the basis for our criminal code, i.e., we incarcerate people based on their bahavior, not on who they are.

[Obiwan]

Grey

Killing YOUR 6 month child wouldn't affect your neighbor...but that wouldn't make it right.

Should murder be legal as long as nobody misses the deceased?

My understanding is that this is a little used procedure , but generally it is performed on a viable fetus and invloves (by definition) delivering that fetus and then stabbing it in the brain.

And the legislation in question reportedly has exceptions for the life of the mother...just not her "convenience"

Pro-Abortion foes just fear the slippery slope...much like gun owners do.

(Bet you didn'tthink I was gonna make a firearm conncection...did ya?)

And the slippery slope is the same reason the Govt. doesn't want to aknowledge same sex marriage...

Cause the next step is partner rights in bestiality, NMBLA, etc.

And if you don't believe it, we had the NMBLA asking for a parade on the strength of the gay pride parade being allowed.:barf:

If you want to change those laws, maybe you should start by legalizing polygamy and incest??

[whoami]

And as a matter of objective fact, the partial-birth abortion law was deeply stupid on several levels. It made no provision for the safety of the mother, which is guaranteed to get it shot down in court. If intended to be the thin edge of an anti-abortion wedge, it is thin to the point of lunacy; the number of partial-birth abortions is minimal in the extreme, and even Roe v. Wade placed severe constraints on late-term abortions in general, making its practical necessity (even if the law is legal, which it soon won't be) rather doubtful.

Actually, thats not entirely correct, and it's a point I've been mentioning in a lot of places, re: misinfo. The current bill as signed by President Bush DOES contain a 'saftey of the mother' clause, a point in where it differs from the earlery PBA ban. The issue with this one is that the bill specifically limits the safety concers to the 'physical' realm. That's the reason that you don't hear the 'life of the mother' argument from opponents of the ban, but instead the 'health of the mother' argument. They present it that way from the point of it containing no clause regarding the MENTAL health of the mother. I won't get into that aspect, as aside from being sticky I'd rather not contribute to this thread being locked. I just wanted to point out the facts of the law. Now, as to whether the 'phsyical' clause will stand up to judicial scrutiny....I think it will. Will it escape with having no 'mental health' clause....that's doubtful.

Abortion existed at the time of the Constitution, and was not enumerated therein as a right OR as something proscribed. Apparently, the Founding Fathers, on average, didn't give a rat's butt about it either way, at least insofar as federal law was concerned.

They cared......ergo the 10th Amendment. :D

[Grey54956]

I am not saying that abortion is right. If a fetus is viable, I think that the procedure is already illegal, except in extreme circumstances...

I disagree with abortion in general. I also tend to disagree with the legality of marriage (even though Ijust got married .:confused: ). I dislike gun control, speech control, hate control, and thought control. I hate progressive taxes, marriage taxes, inheritance tax, etc.

What it comes down to is this: I hate being controlled. I hate someone telling me what I can and can't do. I hate someone telling someone else what they can and can't do. I hate it when someone tries to decide for someone else, against their will and consent, what is right for them.

There are some who disagree with gay marriage. Heck, I don't care whether homosexuals want to marry. I don't care if they want to paint themselves blue and yellow and run around naked in their front yard wearing tophats. It doesn't bother me one bit. It's not something I would do, because it isn't part of my lifestyle. But, I don't think that anyone should say you can't do it.

I don't think the government should get involved with marriage at all. If they are going to do so, then why not make it fair. Marriage is a contract between two consenting adults to share financial and social responsibilities. It will never get to the point where animal partners will be recognized legally, as a pig can't read or sign a contract.

I won't even dignify your other suggestions with a response, and I am rather insulted.

However, my point is this: the slippery slope is a danger to all of us. We talk about how dangerous it is to pass any sort of 'reasonable' gun control because in time, it weakens our position. Well, its the same thing for every issue. The more power we hand over to those who control us, the easier it gets to pass even more restrictive legislation. When it comes doen to it, think to the last 10-20 years on how things have changed in this country, and how particular legislation/social engineering have shaped things for the 'better'...

Here's a short list to contemplate:

Anti-Hate Legislation
Flag Burning
Sensitivity Training
Sexual Harasment
Zero-Tolerance School Policies (Drugs and Weapons)
Affirmative Action
Brady Law
Background Checks
Hillary Clinton
The In-God-We-Trust Fiasco (wasn't actually added until the 50's, though)
PATRIOT Act
The War on Drugs
The War on Terror
The War on Illiteracy

Our rights to free speech, guns, privacy, and safety are in constant danger from both the Left and the Right. This is because they work to ban things they disagree with, as opposed and mandate things they like. They do not want to give people the option to live their own lives, they want to force you to live your life as they see fit. In other words, they want to be kings.

Maybe we read the Constitution to much. Maybe we need to start reading the Declaration of Independence, too.

[rock jock]

Maybe we read the Constitution to much.
The problem with that is that the Constitution is the law of the land, take it or leave it. It is by no means perfect, but every society needs some ground rules to live by. Redefining our legal rights in an extra-Constitutional context opens the door to everone else doing the same, including the antis and socialists. Remember that they too gripe about the Constitution and would love to change it to more closely match their own twisted view of govt.

[Gray Peterson]

It is appropriate for the Supreme Court to step in when deciding issues of equality based on physiology, not on behavior. Behavior, in fact, is the basis for our criminal code, i.e., we incarcerate people based on their bahavior, not on who they are.

But sex between different races is a behavior, right?

And the slippery slope is the same reason the Govt. doesn't want to aknowledge same sex marriage...

and since when has the government ever protected us from the onslaught of anything? They do nothing to keep illegals from pouring through our borders, along with Islamic terrorists slipping in through that route.

Yet in some circles, gays are more hated than Islamic terrorists who killed thousands of our people and who would if they had the opportunity wipe out every American on the face of this planet.

Yet gays are such an overarching concern and such a huge threat to this country that the Congress is seriously considering a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage and other forms of domestic partnership, even if a state WANTS to do it?

Political football is something I don't like playing. Gun owners have been a political football for 70 years. Gays have been the same for 30.

The only evidence you can show me that homosexuality is not innate is non-peer reviewed and flawed studies by organizations like the "Family Research Council" and "American Family Association", all organizations with an agenda. When you support the bigotry and hatred of these groups, you support the same kind of non-peer reviewed, biased, bigoted, lying BS that pervades our common opponent: Supporters of gun control.

There is no difference between Arthur Kellerman (The main person who started the anti-gun onslaught of flawed statistics and methodology) and Paul Cameron (the main person in the 80's who used studies using flawed and biased methodology to wage political war with gays). They both work the same way.

It's all about money. These "Pro-Family" groups are making millions from gullible people much like the NRA is milking the gun control war for all it's worth. They benefit from the war, not from the peace.

I can never change people's religious mindsets on what they believe. If you believe it's againsts your diety's law, then FINE! Great! The only thing I want is that I just wish they would stop using the power of the government to criminalize everything about me in particular.

[Sean Smith]

If the anti partial birth abortion law does have a clause for the mother's health, then I stand corrected. That'll teach me to believe the news! ;)

My overall position still stands, however.

By the way, the slippery slope is a logical fallacy anyway, but people constantly appeal to it. It is an appeal to stupidity.

[Geech]

I know that some people are going to say that the rights of the unborn child are being infringed, and that abortion is murder. But, if you are going to apply that standard to abortion, then you must also apply it to miscarriage. I suggest that if abortion is murder, then miscarriage is child neglect, or possibly unintentional manslaughter. But do we really want to have to do that?

Uhh... No. Not every unintentional death is neglectful or manslaughter. I don't see how abortion being murder in any way requires miscarriages to be criminal unless you can show that certain destructive behaviour caused the death (ie drug use).

Incidentally, and this is just from memory, I recall a case where a drug addict mother was charged with murder or manslaughter for the death of an unborn child. I don't recall the outcome.

[rock jock]

But sex between different races is a behavior, right?
If they are male and female, yes, it is called heterosexuality. Homosexual acts are a different type of sexual conduct. From a physiological point of view, males and females of different races are still males and females.

[dustind]

Heterosexuality is a behavior??? I beg to differ, I was born strait, I can remember looking at girls differently at a very young age. I am psychologically attracted to females and I could not stop that if my life depended on it. Saying it is a behavior is like saying that my favorite color being green is a behavior. I have about as good of a chance at choosing be black as I do choosing to be gay. Assuming I am not harming anyone else, no state can deny me my rights as a heterosexual.

My second point is that marrying, being with, and loving people is a pretty basic human right that can not be legislated away.

Can you honestly say that you think the state of Texas has the right to break up your marriage and say that you can not touch your wife? If that does not violate the 9th, nothing does.

As for the main topic, seems like a perfect match, the feds where they should not be. Everyone cheering on the destruction of the constitution when it suits their goal, but crying foul when it goes against them.

Crap like this has weakened the constitution to the point where mentioning it in a debate does not phase people, example the Patriot Act.

[TheBluesMan]

Closed for being hopelessly off topic.

Thanks to those who tried to keep it going in the intended direction.

There's another attempt being made here: http://www.TheHighRoad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=48591