Partial-Birth Abortion Ban? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

seretogis · 06-09-2003, 02:01 PM

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.

seretogis · 06-09-2003, 02:04 PM

Nevermind, I just checked again and found a link:

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

Quote:

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US House of Representatives voted to outlaw "partial birth" abortions -- a controversial form of late-term abortion that has become a battleground pitting pro-choice and anti-abortion partisans in the United States against each other.

The measure passed by a vote of 282-139.

A similar bill banning the operation was passed by the Senate in March. The two bills now will have to be reconciled by a bicameral "conference committee."

US President George W. Bush, a fierce abortion opponent, wasted no time congratulating the lower chamber of Congress on the ban.

"I applaud the House for passing legislation banning partial-birth abortions. Passage of this important legislation is a shared priority that will help build a culture of life in America," Bush said in a statement.

"I urge Congress to quickly resolve any differences and send me the final bill as soon as possible so that I can sign it into law."

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.

komodo · 06-09-2003, 02:47 PM

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.

seretogis · 06-09-2003, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by komodo
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.

Sparhawk · 06-09-2003, 02:58 PM

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.

komodo · 06-09-2003, 03:01 PM

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).

denim · 06-09-2003, 03:03 PM

They want to ban D&E. Nutty.

denim · 06-09-2003, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sparhawk
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.

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

denim · 06-09-2003, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by komodo
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).

Oh yes, let's get ALL that stuff in ONE thread, and really go for it!

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.

Atanvarno · 06-09-2003, 03:09 PM

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?

komodo · 06-09-2003, 03:10 PM

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.

denim · 06-09-2003, 03:11 PM

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

denim · 06-09-2003, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by komodo
No, it would make them very dead.

Is that a problem? What's your point?

Atanvarno · 06-09-2003, 03:16 PM

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

komodo · 06-09-2003, 03:19 PM

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

denim · 06-09-2003, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by komodo
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/)

Sparhawk · 06-09-2003, 03:21 PM

Quote:

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

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

denim · 06-09-2003, 03:23 PM

Quote:

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

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.

Atanvarno · 06-09-2003, 03:25 PM

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?

komodo · 06-09-2003, 03:26 PM

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.

Atanvarno · 06-09-2003, 03:30 PM

Quote:

The Constitution of the United States of America; Article I
Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the Credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

That's the laws they are to craft denim.

komodo · 06-09-2003, 03:41 PM

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.

Sparhawk · 06-09-2003, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atanvarno
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?

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.

manalone · 06-09-2003, 04:21 PM

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.

Atanvarno · 06-10-2003, 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by komodo
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.

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.

Quote:

Originally posted by manalone
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.

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:

Quote:

The XIII Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America
(Ratified Dec. 6, 1865)

Section 1. Neither Slavery, nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

denim · 06-10-2003, 05:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atanvarno
That's the laws they are to craft denim.

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

denim · 06-10-2003, 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atanvarno
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 ...

Yup.

Quote:

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.

You're 2 for 2!

Quote:

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 how, pray tell, would you stop them?

Quote:

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

Yup.

The_Dude · 06-10-2003, 06:57 AM

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.

Atanvarno · 06-10-2003, 07:09 AM

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

4thTimeLucky · 06-10-2003, 07:23 AM

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?

The_Dude · 06-10-2003, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 4thTimeLucky
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"

gov135 · 06-10-2003, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 4thTimeLucky
Could someone explain (in very simple words) what this Congress issue is about. I thought that American legislature (with its much vaunted checks and balances) was pretty black and white. So where has thei grey come in?

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.

cheerios · 06-10-2003, 08:49 AM

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.

06-09-2003, 02:01 PM	#1 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	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. __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

06-09-2003, 02:58 PM	#5 (permalink)
Sparhawk Dubya Location: VA	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. __________________ "In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

06-09-2003, 03:09 PM	#10 (permalink)
Atanvarno Tilted Location: Norway	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? __________________ Memorization is a poor excuse for intelligence." - Cesar Martinez-Garza (1973 ->) -

06-09-2003, 03:16 PM	#14 (permalink)
Atanvarno Tilted Location: Norway	What is there really to discuss here if the passing of the bill is in itself illegal? __________________ Memorization is a poor excuse for intelligence." - Cesar Martinez-Garza (1973 ->) -

06-09-2003, 03:25 PM	#19 (permalink)
Atanvarno Tilted Location: Norway	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? __________________ Memorization is a poor excuse for intelligence." - Cesar Martinez-Garza (1973 ->) -

06-09-2003, 02:47 PM	#3 (permalink)
komodo Tilted	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.

06-09-2003, 03:01 PM	#6 (permalink)
komodo Tilted	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).

06-09-2003, 03:03 PM	#7 (permalink)
denim Banned Location: Massachusetts, USA	They want to ban D&E. Nutty.

06-09-2003, 03:10 PM	#11 (permalink)
komodo Tilted	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.

06-09-2003, 03:11 PM	#12 (permalink)
denim Banned Location: Massachusetts, USA	Usually, people attack the Supreme Court on that basis, Atanvarno.

06-09-2003, 03:19 PM	#15 (permalink)
komodo Tilted	Our current political atmosphere goes for a loose interpretation of the Constitution. IE, unless it says specifically that you can't, you can.

06-09-2003, 03:26 PM	#20 (permalink)
komodo Tilted	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.

06-09-2003, 03:41 PM	#22 (permalink)
komodo Tilted	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.

06-09-2003, 04:21 PM	#24 (permalink)
manalone Once upon a time...	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. __________________ -- Man Alone ======= Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a pleasure. Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.

06-10-2003, 06:57 AM	#28 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	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. __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

06-10-2003, 07:09 AM	#29 (permalink)
Atanvarno Tilted Location: Norway	denim, make an oproar? In the end, what do the politicians want? votes __________________ Memorization is a poor excuse for intelligence." - Cesar Martinez-Garza (1973 ->) -

06-10-2003, 07:23 AM	#30 (permalink)
4thTimeLucky Psycho Location: 4th has left the building - goodbye folks	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? __________________ I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

06-10-2003, 08:49 AM	#33 (permalink)
cheerios Banned Location: 'bout 2 feet from my iMac	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.