| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Papa Jack" |
| Date: |
13 Jan 2004 10:25:21 AM |
| Object: |
Federal Court Upholds Ohio PBA Ban |
On Jan. 19, 2004,AMedNews posted an article by Tanya Albert titled:
Appeals Court Upholds Ohio "Partial-Birth Abortion" Law." Go to:
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2004/01/19/gvsa0119.htm
________________________________________________________________________
Excerpts:
"A panel of federal appeals judges has ruled that Ohio
lawmakers found the right language to legally ban
dilatation and extraction, a procedure that has become
commonly known as 'partial-birth abortion.'
"The 2-1 decision in December 2003 from the 6th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati states that
Ohio's law meets requirements the U.S. Supreme Court
outlined in two earlier cases. The high court requires
such laws include an exception to protect the mother's
health and that they not place an undue burden on a
woman's right to end her pregnancy.
"Anti-abortion activists were pleased that the court
panel called Ohio's statute a commonsense law. It
identifies three abortion procedures that remain legal.
'The actual law specifically excludes the majority of
abortions,' said Denise Mackura, executive director
of Ohio Right to Life. 'This is not an abortion ban, it
is just a procedure ban.'
[...]
"In January, Dr. Haskell appealed the panel's ruling to
the full 6th Circuit. The law -- which carries penalties
of two to eight years in prison for physicians who vio-
late it -- has yet to go into effect.
"Ohio joins more than 20 states and Congress in pass-
ing bans on this type of abortion that supporters hope
can stand up in court. There have been as many lawsuits
as there are laws.
[...]
"The U.S. Supreme Court in June 2000 struck down a
Nebraska statute in part because it didn't have a health
exception "where it is necessary, in appropriate medical
judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of
the mother." And that is a central question in the latest
Ohio case, as it will likely be in challenges to the fed-
eral law passed in 2003.
"Ohio's ban was signed into law by Gov. Bob Taft a month
before the June 2000 U.S. Supreme Court decision came
down. Its exception allows dilatation and extraction only
when 'it is necessary, in reasonable medical judgment, to
preserve the life or health of the mother as a result of
the mother's life or health being endangered by a serious
risk.'
"The law goes on to define serious risk as 'any medically
diagnosed condition that so complicates the pregnancy of
the woman as to directly or indirectly cause the substantial
and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.'
"Two judges on the 6th Circuit are satisfied that this
exception makes the statute constitutional.
"'In the [doctor's] view ... a health exception must make the
partial birth abortion method available whenever any physi-
cian deems it 'simply safer' than using alternative methods,'
the judges wrote.
"'Ohio responds that a valid health exception need only per-
mit the partial birth procedure when necessary to prevent
significant, as opposed to negligible, health risks. ... We
agree.'
[...]
________________________________________________________________________
Papa Jack comments:
For those who are unaware, Doe v Bolton 410 U.S. 179
(1973) was a "companion" case to Roe v Wade -- also
written by Justice Blackmun. He built a huge loophole
in the "law" he wrote:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/410/179.html
Section IV.D.
"...the medical judgment may be exercised in the
light of all factors - physical, emotional, psycho-
logical, familial, and the woman's age - relevant
to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors
may relate to health. This allows the attending
physician the room he needs to make his best
medical judgment...."
Given this extremely loose definition of "health,"
any first-year medical student could justify an
abortion for any pregnant woman on earth.
Compare the wording in the Ohio law:
"The law goes on to define serious risk as
'any medically diagnosed condition that so
complicates the pregnancy of the woman
as to directly or indirectly cause the sub-
stantial and irreversible impairment of a
major bodily function.'
Thanks for considering my point of view.
.
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Court Upholds Ohio PBA Ban |
13 Jan 2004 10:32:35 PM |
|
|
Papa Jackass <papajack@stic.net> wrote:
On Jan. 19, 2004,AMedNews posted an article by Tanya Albert titled:
Appeals Court Upholds Ohio "Partial-Birth Abortion" Law." Go to:
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2004/01/19/gvsa0119.htm
________________________________________________________________________
Excerpts:
"A panel of federal appeals judges has ruled that Ohio
lawmakers found the right language to legally ban
dilatation and extraction, a procedure that has become
commonly known as 'partial-birth abortion.'
"The 2-1 decision in December 2003 from the 6th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati states that
Ohio's law meets requirements the U.S. Supreme Court
outlined in two earlier cases. The high court requires
such laws include an exception to protect the mother's
health and that they not place an undue burden on a
woman's right to end her pregnancy.
Notice the the law recently passed by congress fails those tests.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
