HE WANTS FASCISM FOR THE REPUBLICANS ~
~
"ALL PIGS ARE EQUAL BUT SOME ARE MORE EQUAL"
~
IN THIS WORLD OF TEXAS POLITICS AND AND MANIPULATION OF JUDGES BY
BIG BANKS AND CORPORATIONS ~ e.g..~LIKE GASOLINE COMPANIES,
HALLIBURTON AND SUCH....
~
~THE SUPREME COURT JUDGES MANIPULATED BY BUSH ARE ONLY CONCERNED ABOUT
BEING ABOUT IMPEACHED BY CONGRESS PURSUANT TO THE CONSTITUTION NOT
WHAT RIGHTS ARE IN THE CONSTITUTION~THEY CAN EVEN SELL YOUR HOUSE~
~
WOMEN AREN'T ABLE TO DECIDE WHAT TO DO WITH THEIR BODIES~BUT MEN CAN
TELL THEM WHAT IS "LEGAL" AND PUT THE DOCTORS IN JAIL
~
THE JUDGES THAT VOTED TO "PLEASE" BUSH DON'T CARE WOMEN'S RIGHTS OR
EVEN IF WOMEN SHOULD HAVE A VOTE....OR DIE BECAUSE OF THEIR BIAS
CRIMES AND DELIBERATE DISREGARD OF MATERIAL FACTS
~
THEY SAY "HERE WE HAVE DEMOCRACY"~ BUT WHAT WE HAVE IS CAPITAL THAT
RULES.....
~
THEY VIOLATE THEIR OATH OF OFFICE TO UPHOLD THE CONTITUTION DAILY IN
PHONY DECISIONS TO PLEASE OTHER JUDGES IN LOWER COURTS, APPEALS
COURTS, CIRCUIT COURTS....IT'S A FARCE, A CORRUPTION OF AN IDEA
~
THEY VOTE TO "PLEASE" AND
IGNORE MATERIAL FACTS OF CASE
WHEN THESE CERTAIN JUDGES VOTE TO "PLEASE; THEY ARE NOT SERVANTS OF
THE LAW~THEY ARE PHONY~PLASTIC HOLLOW MEN~DOING FAVORS FOR GOLD
BUTTONS AND FAVORS FOR FRIENDS
~
LEAVE CASES IN THE COURTS FOR YEARS WITH NO LAW APPLIED TO ONLY HEAR
CASES THEY WANT TO HEAR
~
DELIBERATE VIOLATIONS OF THE INTENT OF THE CONSTITUTION IS OK IF THEY
CAN GET AWAY WITH IT
~
SO YOU HAVE A STACKED DECK WITH THIS "SUPREME" COURT AS WELL AS WITH
THE PROVEN TO BE DISHONEST AND MANIPULATED GONZALEZ AND A MILITARY
BLUNDER ON THE LEVEL WITH CALIGULA~AND VIET NAM
~
MSNBC.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
Top court upholds abortion ban
'Partial birth' law at issue; first time for justices to ban a
specific procedure
The Associated Press
Updated: 6:41 p.m. ET April 18, 2007
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court's conservative majority upheld a
nationwide ban Wednesday on a controversial abortion procedure in a
decision that sets the stage for additional restrictions on a woman's
right to choose.
For the first time since the court established a woman's right to an
abortion in 1973, the justices said the Constitution permits a
nationwide prohibition on a specific abortion method. The court's
liberal justices, in dissent, said the ruling chips away at abortion
rights.
The 5-4 decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy said the Partial
Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed
into law in 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an
abortion.
Siding with Kennedy were Bush's two appointees, Chief Justice John
Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, along with Justices Antonin Scalia
and Clarence Thomas.
The law is constitutional despite not containing an exception that
would allow the procedure if needed to preserve a woman's health,
Kennedy said. "The law need not give abortion doctors unfettered
choice in the course of their medical practice," he wrote in the
majority opinion.
Doctors who violate the law face up to two years in federal prison.
The law has never taken effect, pending the outcome of the legal
fight.
Kennedy's opinion was a long-awaited resounding win that abortion
opponents expected from the more conservative bench.
In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the ruling "cannot be
understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right
declared again and again by this court."
Dr. LeRoy Carhart, the Bellevue, Neb., doctor who challenged the
federal ban, said, "I am afraid the Supreme Court has just opened the
door to an all-out assault on" the 1973 ruling in Roe. Wade.
The administration defended the law as drawing a bright line between
abortion and infanticide.
Bush 'pleased'
Reacting to the ruling, Bush said that it affirms the progress his
administration has made to defend the "sanctity of life."
"I am pleased that the Supreme Court has upheld a law that prohibits
the abhorrent procedure of partial birth abortion," he said. "Today's
decision affirms that the Constitution does not stand in the way of
the people's representatives enacting laws reflecting the compassion
and humanity of America."
It was the first time the court banned a specific procedure in a case
over how - not whether - to perform an abortion.
Abortion rights groups as well as the leading association of
obstetricians and gynecologists have said the procedure sometimes is
the safest for a woman. They also said that such a ruling could
threaten most abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy, although Kennedy
said alternate, more widely used procedures remain legal.
Action at state level likely
The outcome is likely to spur efforts at the state level to place more
restrictions on abortions.
"I applaud the Court for its ruling today, and my hope is that it sets
the stage for further progress in the fight to ensure our nation's
laws respect the sanctity of unborn human life," said Rep. John
Boehner of Ohio, Republican leader in the House of Representatives.
Jay Sekulow, a prominent abortion opponent who is chief counsel for
the conservative American Center for Law and Justice, said, "This is
the most monumental win on the abortion issue that we have ever had."
Said Eve Gartner of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America:
"This ruling flies in the face of 30 years of Supreme Court precedent
and the best interest of women's health and safety. ... This ruling
tells women that politicians, not doctors, will make their health care
decisions for them." She had argued that point before the justices.
More than 1 million abortions are performed in the United States each
year, according to recent statistics. Nearly 90 percent of those occur
in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and are not affected by
Wednesday's ruling. The Guttmacher Institute says 2,200 dilation and
extraction procedures - the medical term most often used by doctors -
were performed in 2000, the latest figures available.
Six federal courts have said the law that was in focus Wednesday is an
impermissible restriction on a woman's constitutional right to an
abortion.
Ginsburg writes dissent
"Today's decision is alarming," Ginsburg wrote in dissent for the
court's liberal bloc. She said the ruling "refuses to take ...
seriously" previous Supreme Court decisions on abortion.
Ginsburg said the latest decision "tolerates, indeed applauds, federal
intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper
in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists."
Ginsburg said that for the first time since the court established a
woman's right to an abortion in 1973, "the court blesses a prohibition
with no exception safeguarding a woman's health."
She was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul
Stevens.
The procedure at issue involves partially removing the fetus intact
from a woman's uterus, then crushing or cutting its skull to complete
the abortion.
Abortion opponents say the law will not reduce the number of abortions
performed because an alternate method - dismembering the fetus in the
uterus - is available and, indeed, much more common.
In 2000, the court with key differences in its membership struck down
a state ban on partial-birth abortions in a challenge also brought by
Carhart. Writing for a 5-4 majority at that time, Justice Breyer said
the law imposed an undue burden on a woman's right to make an abortion
decision in part because it lacked a health exception.
The Republican-controlled Congress responded in 2003 by passing a
federal law that asserted the procedure is gruesome, inhumane and
never medically necessary to preserve a woman's health. That statement
was designed to overcome the health exception to restrictions that the
court has demanded in abortion cases.
But federal judges in California, Nebraska and New York said the law
was unconstitutional, and three appellate courts agreed. The Supreme
Court accepted appeals from California and Nebraska, setting up
Wednesday's ruling.
Kennedy's dissent in 2000 was so strong that few court watchers
expected him to take a different view of the current case.
Kennedy acknowledged continuing disagreement about the procedure
within the medical community. In the past, courts have cited that
uncertainty as a reason to allow the disputed procedure.
"The medical uncertainty over whether the Act's prohibition creates
significant health risks provides a sufficient basis to conclude ...
that the Act does not impose an undue burden," Kennedy said Wednesday.
While the court upheld the law against a broad attack on its
constitutionality, Kennedy said the court could entertain a challenge
in which a doctor found it necessary to perform the banned procedure
on a patient suffering certain medical complications.
The law allows the procedure to be performed when a woman's life is in
jeopardy.
The cases are Gonzales v. Carhart, 05-380, and Gonzales v. Planned
Parenthood, 05-1382.
=A9 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may
not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18174245/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
=A9 2007 MSNBC.com
.
|
