SCOTUS upholds partial birth abortion ban 5-4

[bascule]

Is it me or have there been a lot of 5-4 rulings lately?

 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/18/scotus.abortion/index.html

 

While past Presidents have been almost criminalized for opposing this ban (e.g. Clinton) such rebuke overlooks what was lacking in the proposed legislation all along: medical exemptions.

 

This law essentially condems any woman who would die while giving birth to a death sentence. Never mind if the baby will die as well or be born without a brain (neural tube defects can go undiscovered until the third trimester), you can't get a partial birth abortion even you will die otherwise.

 

Oh, and Roberts made his views on abortion pretty clear with his ruling. I get the feeling he wants Roe vs. Wade overturned.

[ecoli]

I doubt Roe v. Wade will get overturned on the federal level. Although, individual states might do it.

 

Overall, a big backwards step in abortion laws and women's rights, IMO.

[ParanoiA]

This law essentially condems any woman who would die while giving birth to a death sentence. Never mind if the baby will die as well or be born without a brain (neural tube defects can go undiscovered until the third trimester), you can't get a partial birth abortion even you will die otherwise.

 

So, is this your only issue with a partial birth abortion ban? Or do you want to see partial birth abortion completely legal irregardless of any pregnancy complication?

[Pangloss]

What I thought most interesting about today's decision was the specific complaint raised by Justice Ginsberg, writing for the dissenting minority, saying that the decision was clearly about abortion, not partial birth abortion.

 

That's the closest I've ever seen (in modern times) a Supreme Court justice come to accusing another justice of making a political rather than constitutional decision.

[John Cuthber]

Perhaps they usually don't bother to mention it. What is the point of politically apointed judges if they don't make the (politicaly motivated) decisions the politicians want?

[bascule]

So, is this your only issue with a partial birth abortion ban?

 

I have no problem with late term abortions for any neural tube defect, even if the birth would not directly threaten the mother's life.

 

As I mentioned earlier, these defects can go undiscovered until the third trimester. In the case of a severe neural tube defect like anencephaly the child is born with only a brain stem and absolutely no cerebrum whatsoever, in addition to no cranium with the inside of the skull and the small amount of brain tissue they actually developed exposed.

 

Such "children" live for a few hours to a few days.

 

Should an exemption be made in this case?

 

What about cases of severe spina bifida (another neural tube defect) affecting the cervical vertebrae and causing severe hydrocephalus resulting in severe brain damage? Not only will they be born with severe brain damage but their motor function will be severely impared due to an incompletely formed spinal cord.

 

This ban takes an absolutist position with absolutely no consideration for cases where it should be inapplicable.

 

If the baby is healthy and the mother's health isn't in jeopardy then I'm opposed to late term abortions. That's the strawman that Republicans threw up against Clinton when he opposed late-term abortions on the grounds that there were no medical exemptions: Clinton wanted evil mothers who didn't bother to get an abortion earlier to be able to kill their babies.

 

That isn't the case and there's practical reasons why late term abortions should be performed.

[ParanoiA]

I have no problem with late term abortions for any neural tube defect' date=' even if the birth would not directly threaten the mother's life.

 

If the baby is healthy and the mother's health isn't in jeopardy then I'm opposed to late term abortions. [/quote']

 

I agree. That's why I was asking.

[Pangloss]

Perhaps they usually don't bother to mention it. What is the point of politically apointed judges if they don't make the (politicaly motivated) decisions the politicians want?

 

Their job is to determine the constitutionality of the laws put forth by the legislative branch and confirmed by the executive branch. They're charged with the responsibility of doing that without the encroachment of political influences. It is the entire reason for their existence.

 

(Well, aside from a few other minor duties.)

[Sisyphus]

Of course, but I'd say the reality is often rather different, though, wouldn't you? The nomination of judges is a highly disputed, partisan process for a reason: because the President and Congress expect the judge's personal politics to play a role in their interpretations, and they're usually right.

[Pangloss]

They certainly don't operate in a political vacuum. But that doesn't make it a good idea to, as John Cuthber seems to want, make whatever political decisions the elected politicians who put them in office happen to want!

 

At any rate, what was interesting here to me is that Justice Ginsberg thought it significant enough to actually complain about it. Justices criticizing one another is almost unheard of.

[John Cuthber]

I don't want them making political decisions and I can't see why anyone thought I did. I'm just pointing out that that is exactly what they do. Since they do that (and why else would they get the jobs?) there's not much point commenting on it.

[Pangloss]

I don't want them making political decisions and I can't see why anyone thought I did. I'm just pointing out that that is exactly what they do.

 

I'm happy to take your word for what you say you believe, by all means.

 

Since they do that (and why else would they get the jobs?) there's not much point commenting on it.

 

The process for nominating a Supreme Court justice is far more complex, even from a purely political perspective, than just tapping the right ideologue on the shoulder. We saw the practical aspect of that when Bush attempted to nominate Harriet Myers, who was (if you'll pardon the pun) supremely unqualified for the job.

 

The president puts forth a nominee, but that nominee has to survive a bipartisan confirmation process. That causes the scales to tip back towards constructionist judges rather than ideological ones, because constructionists tend to have more bipartisan appeal.

 

There is also the wild-card factor, in the sense that even if a justice is a pure ideologue, they may still appear to go against their ideological affiliation when it comes time to try a specific case, just because of the specific merits of that case. The most ideological judge in the world won't be able to do much in the face of overwhelming evidence and/or a clear constitutional decision.

 

And of course they have to sit there in a meeting with 8 other justices and explain their position, not to mention participating in the majority or minority opinion. They don't have to do that every time, of course, but they'll be participating in such decisions for the rest of their natural life, so the motivation to be fair (as opposed to ideological) is pretty strong.

 

All of that having been said, you're certainly right to point out that the process is an ideological one. But we can reasonably expect the justices to not be pure ideologues.

 

And yeah, the subject is worthy of discussion. Just because I feel like talking about it.