Partial-Birth Abortion Ban?
 

Does anyone know what happened to this federal bill? It was supposed to be heard early May, but I haven't been able to find any updated information. Is it being stalled to death in committee, or has it been passed/dismissed?

We are one of a minority of civilized nations that hasn't banned partial-birth abortion yet, and it would be nice for that to change.

Nevermind, I just checked again and found a link:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030605/323/e1lxz.html

I can't believe that there is not even a squeak in the media about this. Liberals must have recognized this as an issue that they have no defense for, and just ignored it or something. :o

This bill will never pass because, simply, it is written without any concern for the mother's health, and it's worded so that it could be used to support a ban on early term abortions.

It's a pretty horrific procedure, true, and I'd like to see it banned, but this bill is mainly intended as a way to start eroding Roe vs Wade.

It's half-way there!

As for eroding Roe vs Wade, that is probably part of the reason behind it, just as targetted gun bans are ways to tip-toe closer to banning all guns.

While we're legislating society- and state-sponsored death, how about abolishing the death penalty for the mentally retarded? They're as capable of taking care of themselves as a fetus is.

I meant "pass" as in "pass judgement". It could very well clear the Senate and will obviously get the President's approval, but it will most likely be bitch slapped by the Supreme Court, and even if THEY don't knock it down, there will be a massive uproar from the ACLU and other civil/women's rights organization.

And seeing as you are obviously against all forms of abortion (and for all guns being legal), I should probably point out that I'm a half way person on both guns and abortion. Partial birth abortions should be banned unless the mother's health is at risk, and guns should be legal unless they're military spec heavy assault weapons (40mm machine guns, 50 caliber sniper rifles, etc).

They want to ban D&E. Nutty.

That's an amazingly bogus statement. Ever encountered a retarded person?

Abortion and Guns and Euthenasia, oh my!
 

Oh yes, let's get ALL that stuff in ONE thread, and really go for it! :p I've seen these discussions many many times over the last 15 years. They generate a lot of waste heat, never convince anyone, and are a bitch to moderate.

I'm in agreement, almost, with you. I figure that normal mortals should be able to own nukes, though. Get annoyed at Washington? Use your nuke. The knowledge that could happen would make them VERY polite. :D

Can someone please point out to me where in the Constitution of the US Congress is given Power to pass a law such as this?

No, it would make them very dead. MAD only works because neither side is crazy or stupid enough to press the button. Give a nuke to everyone in the US, and all it would take is one crazy/stupid person...

And it's not like the US has a shortage.

Usually, people attack the Supreme Court on that basis, Atanvarno.

Is that a problem? What's your point? :D

What is there really to discuss here if the passing of the bill is in itself illegal?

Our current political atmosphere goes for a loose interpretation of the Constitution. IE, unless it says specifically that you can't, you can.

Which is, of course, backwards. The US Constitution was written to limit the powers of the Federal Government, and to delegate all the rest to the states. The Feds have a problem with that, though, and have been fighting it since forever.

(edit: s/delimit/limit/)

It's quite doubtful that the conservative supreme court would rule on this as favorably as it did in 1972.

One of the US Congress's functions is to craft laws. That's their function. The problem, as I see it, is that they feel they have to do it all the time, or people will think they're lazy or something.

My only problem is I can't find anything that even with a good deal of imagination can be used to justify it. So I was wondering if someone knew of any article that could be applied here.

I mean, there has to be some limit as to how far-fetched rulings the Supreme Court can make?

I really don't think the founding fathers forsaw the problems we have right now. At all. Frankly, I wish they had put in some clause that totally reset the country every 100 years with only the constitution and its amendments.

That's the laws they are to craft denim.

Incorrect. That was their original intent when the Constitution was first written, in 1784 IIRC. To determine just what powers Congress has would be a pretty big task, requiring you to sift through volumes of outdated but in force laws, legalese, and various other crud that has accumulated in the wheels of government since it was first set up.

ya know, that is why the call it the <b>Supreme</b> Court.

The only check on it is the constitutional amendment, which must be passed by 2/3 of the House and Senate, and ratified by 3/4 of the states' legislatures.

Not wishing to overly encourage this tangent, but I draw your attention to:

http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/s...tion/art1.html

"ENUMERATED, IMPLIED, RESULTING, AND INHERENT POWERS"

IANAL, but in my understanding, the doctrine of enumerated powers as expressed by Atanvarno has been rejected on the basis that implied within the right to wage war and acquire territory is the right to govern such territory. Similarly, subscriber states to the Union are subject to the influence of the Federal Govermnent, which excercises appropriate implied powers, such as a legislative mandate.

~deep breath~

On the subject of partial birth abortion. The main problem with this technique lies in the emotive name it has been given.

D&X, dilation and extraction procedures seem to me no worse than any other form.

The issue of abortion is a terribly difficult one, and somewhat beside the point.

The main problem in the US is that a judgement based on the XIIIth amendment to the US Constitution was used to decide on abortion, and the subsequent legislative mish-mash is a serious problem.

It is vital that some substantive, legislative initiative be taken to clear the mess up, and prevent Judicial Activism from having to do it.

Since Congress cannot decide what powers Congress would have without creating Amendments I don't see how their Powers could be mentioned anywhere but in the Constitution and it's Amendments ...


Sparhawk, I don't think the Supreme Court can make rulings in direct contradiction to the Constitution. I mean, if the people let them do that something is seriously wrong.

That's stretching it very far. Were I one of the citizens who were supposed to be protected from the government by that Constitution I certainly would not accept that agrument.

And many of the States have not been aquired by war.
Besides, the powers enumerated do nowhere state the right of the Congress to "govern such territory".


As for using the 13th Admendment against abortion, well .. what can I say ... some people's imagination is truely amazing.
For the record:

Yes, so how does that conflict with what I said?

Yup.


You're 2 for 2!


And how, pray tell, would you stop them?

Yup.

this is what bush wanted all along, probably another "calling from god" or something like that.

& w/ the gop in control of both houses and whitehouse, there is nothing stopping them.

in my mind, this is a verison of a "blue law".

the purpose of this bill is NOT to prevent partial birth abortion, but to make abortions hard to obtain.

denim, make an oproar? In the end, what do the politicians want? votes :)

Could someone explain (in very simple words) what this Congress issue is about. I take it that Atanvarno is trying to say that Congress has no legal right to do anything beyond that list of war and tax related things he listed above.

Surely there must be someone who can prove him wrong here, otherwise something is very much amiss.

Of course being British I have no idea of what Parliament can and cannot do. We rely almost wholly on the wisdom of a few Parliamentary clerks and the British sense of fair play! Of course this isn't very safe, but is very quaint and tourists like it. However I thought that American legislature (with its much vaunted checks and balances) was pretty black and white. So where has thei grey come in?

that's one of the things that the supreme court will consider when/if they accept this. "does congress have jurisdiction to enact a law like this"

It looks like Congress will pass the bill and it will be signed into law by the President, who supports the ban.

However, it appears this law is hopelessly unconstitutional, and will be struck down by any self-respecting judge. Which will happen soon after the law is signed in. Here is your checks-and-balances, 4thTime. Congress can pass and the president can sign into law whatever they please - but it must be within the boundaries of the framework (the constitution and legal interpretations).

I think the grey you refer to here comes in cause certain members of Congress are pandering to certain specail interest groups. They will make a show of passing the law - even though they know it will probably be struck down. A waste? Perhaps. But then they can say they tried to do something.

4th, that made me laugh. :) Quaint. i like it.

as for US govt, well... it seems to me, who can barely follow this discussion and wont' even begin to speak to it, that all our checks and balances muddy the waters considerably. We have to ask, "does this fall under the power of this body of government?" "Can i justify what i want to do with hte law?" And many a stupid law has been passed, and many a stupid law has been repealed. problem is, it takes time. So, for those of us minions who aren't rich lobbiests, our only real recourse is to wait till this get's pulled up before the supreme court, and hope they see it our way.