Supreme Court Plunges Into Abortion Debate
By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer
13 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will consider the constitutionality of banning a type of late-term abortion, teeing up a contentious issue for a newly-constituted court already in a state of flux over privacy rights.

The Bush administration has pressed the high court to reinstate the federal law, passed in 2003 but never put in effect because it was struck down by judges in California, Nebraska and New York.

The outcome will likely rest with the two men that President Bush has recently installed on the court. Justices had been split 5-4 in 2000 in striking down a state law, barring what critics call partial birth abortion because it lacked an exception to protect the health of the mother.

But Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who was the tie-breaking vote, retired late last month and was replaced by Samuel Alito. Abortion had been a major focus in the fight over Alito's nomination because justices serve for life and he will surely help shape the court on abortion and other issues for the next generation.

Alito, in his rulings on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, has been more willing than O'Connor, the first woman justice, to allow restrictions on abortions, which were legalized in the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.

The federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act prohibits a certain type of abortion, generally carried out in the second or third trimester, in which a fetus is partially removed from the womb, and the skull is punctured or crushed.

Justices on a 9-0 vote vote in a New Hampshire case reaffirmed in January that states can require parental involvement in abortion decisions and that state restrictions must have an exception to protect the mother's health.

The federal law in the current case has no health exception, but defenders maintain that the procedure is never medically necessary to protect a woman's health.

I think it's probably a good idea to re-examine roe v wade. Abortion technology has progressed a lot, as have ideas about when life really begins. Why not set new standards more in line with contemporary values?

That would be fine except that the values of the majority on the Supreme Court are contemporary for the McKinley administration.

I find it hard to believe that abortion would really be make illegal anytime soon. There will be a lot of talk and debate and votes, but I'm not sure anyone really wants to face the chaos that would erupt from abortion being made illegal. And if they are stupid enough to actually do so, then let the chaos and uproar begin.

A lot of people vote based only on Pro-Life. Not that many vote only on Pro-Choice.

i've had one pregnancy scare with an ex-girlfriend and i now have to say that i am incredibly grateful that the option does exist (thankfully, we didn't have to follow that option).

Could you clarify that? I'm just not sure what you mean. What kind of vote are you talking about?

I mean when "they" vote for politicians, they vote purely on a pro-life stance. Gun nuts are often the same way, single issue voters. I think most pro-choice people tend to vote based on a spectrum of issues.

This is precisely the reason anybody is against abortion. I guarantee if it was only used in cases such as rape, life-threatening defects, etc., most conservatives wouldn't have a problem with it.

It's the "we just had sex and don't want to live with the consequences" attitude that the moderate conservatives hate.

That would be fine except that the values of the majority on the Supreme Court are contemporary for the McKinley administration.

How can you say this when 72% of Americans think partial birth abortion should be banned?

i completely agree. needless to say, my thoughts on sex have changed significantly since the episode.
.

Because about 3% of them actually understand the procedure and when it is used.

It's hilarious to me that anyone would argue that it's OK to not have a "mother's health" exception in the law (like EVERY other abortion law is required to have, and has been upheld and upheld again by the Supreme Court). With late-term abortions, they are nearly ALWAYS done because the pregnancy poses a health threat (usually a very serious threat) to the mother. The number of elective late-term abortions has to be microscopic.

The number of elective late-term abortions has to be microscopic.

Since when should the number of times an event occurs deem if it should be legal.

Babies are dumb. Kill 'em! That's part of evolution. If they're meant to survive, they'll find a way to overcome the burden of legal abortions.