Lawmakers do not sustain USSC decision on Abortion

[Psychoblues]

Even pResident shrub said it was a “settled issue”.



WASHINGTON (AFP) - Two US lawmakers introduced legislation Thursday aimed at codifying a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy, one day after the Supreme Court banned a controversial late-term abortion procedure.

The proposed law would codify abortion rights for the first time, said Democratic Representative Jerrold Nadler (news, bio, voting record), who joined the effort launched by Senator Barbara Boxer (news, bio, voting record).

The legislation "would bar government -- at any level -- from interfering with a woman's fundamental right to choose to bear a child, or to terminate a pregnancy," Nadler said.

"We can no longer rely on the Supreme Court to protect a woman's constitutional right to choose" he said.

More: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070419/pl_afp/usjusticeabortion


Why do we keep arguing about it?

[avatar4321]

Let them, the legislation would be completely unconstitutional because the federal government has no authority to enact such legislation.

[theHawk]

The proposed law would codify abortion rights for the first time, said Democratic Representative Jerrold Nadler (news, bio, voting record), who joined the effort launched by Senator Barbara Boxer (news, bio, voting record).
.............

"We can no longer rely on the Supreme Court to protect a woman's constitutional right to choose" he said.


Why "codify" the right to get an abortion if its supposedly already in the constitution?

Could these libs possibly contradict themselves anymore?

[Kathianne]

Even pResident shrub said it was a “settled issue”.



WASHINGTON (AFP) - Two US lawmakers introduced legislation Thursday aimed at codifying a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy, one day after the Supreme Court banned a controversial late-term abortion procedure.

The proposed law would codify abortion rights for the first time, said Democratic Representative Jerrold Nadler (news, bio, voting record), who joined the effort launched by Senator Barbara Boxer (news, bio, voting record).

The legislation "would bar government -- at any level -- from interfering with a woman's fundamental right to choose to bear a child, or to terminate a pregnancy," Nadler said.

"We can no longer rely on the Supreme Court to protect a woman's constitutional right to choose" he said.

More: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070419/pl_afp/usjusticeabortion


Why do we keep arguing about it?

Funny thing, The SCOTUS was upholding legislation passed by Congress, including Reid and other Democratic leaders.

[Gaffer]

They are just worried about losing control of the supreme kings.

[Little-Acorn]

The Supremes only said that a law against partial birth abortion, wasn't unconstitutional.

They didn't say it was mandatory.

Laws for PBA are also not unconstitutional.

[darin]

I wonder when Lawmakers will uphold a FATHER's "right" to terminate a pregnancy?

[5stringJeff]

I'm all for abortion being decided in the legislative branch of the government, instead of the judicial branch. If the Democrats think they can pass a law allowing PBA to become legal, they should go ahead and try.

[theHawk]

I'm all for abortion being decided in the legislative branch of the government, instead of the judicial branch. If the Democrats think they can pass a law allowing PBA to become legal, they should go ahead and try.

Agreed. Let the people decide about abortion, not a court.

[avatar4321]

Agreed. Let the people decide about abortion, not a court.

They cant let the people decide on the matter. Because then abortion wouldnt be legal in alot of states or it would be severely limited.

[loosecannon]

Let them, the legislation would be completely unconstitutional because the federal government has no authority to enact such legislation.

I don't think you really want to advance this argument because doing so would enable the same argument to be used in hundreds of other applications that won't support your particular cause.

AND the first such example will be states enforcing laws making abortion protected under state law and the SC ruling rendered moot by your very argument.

[loosecannon]

Why "codify" the right to get an abortion if its supposedly already in the constitution?

Could these libs possibly contradict themselves anymore?

Because the right to abortion is based on a SC interp of the inherent rights to privacy, not on any specific listing in the const.

That doesn't prevent Congress from codifying it either as a right or as a right reserved to the fed gummit via a law which can be subject to the SC rulings or an amendment which can not.

[loosecannon]

They are just worried about losing control of the supreme kings.

The constitution trumps the supreme kings.


The states and the congress have the power to over rule them with amendments.

[loosecannon]

I wonder when Lawmakers will uphold a FATHER's "right" to terminate a pregnancy?

or to NOT terminate it. Which is my one and only gripe about abortion rights. Men have none.

[loosecannon]

They cant let the people decide on the matter. Because then abortion wouldnt be legal in alot of states or it would be severely limited.

They can't allow the people to rule because the constitution provides no vehicle for the citizens to effect direct democracy.

We are a republic. Only representatives get real votes.

[loosecannon]

I'm all for abortion being decided in the legislative branch of the government, instead of the judicial branch. If the Democrats think they can pass a law allowing PBA to become legal, they should go ahead and try.

Even if they pass a law it is still subject to the SC ruling(s).

[Little-Acorn]

They cant let the people decide on the matter. Because then abortion wouldnt be legal in alot of states or it would be severely limited.

Yes, it would probably turn out that way, after the states had time to make laws for themselves one way or another.

What's wrong with that? If you, personally, feel abortion should be legal everywhere, but the people of, say, Wyoming don't want it in their state, why should they worry about what you think?

Don't like it? Don't move to Wyoming.

The biggest single difference between conservatives and modern liberals, is that modern liberals think rules should be imposed from above (via strong central govt), whether people like them or not. But conservatives think people (via state or local governments) should make their own rules and take the consequences for them, themselves. This difference is well illustrated in this abortion debate. The Democrat party reflects such modern-liberal philosophy in spades, while the Republican party still has a few conservatives among its growing population of modern liberals (misleadingly named "neocons").

[5stringJeff]

Even if they pass a law it is still subject to the SC ruling(s).

Only to the extent that there may be a Constitutional question. The USSC is not the final arbiter of the doings of the legislative and executive branches.

[Abbey Marie]

Only to the extent that there may be a Constitutional question. The USSC is not the final arbiter of the doings of the legislative and executive branches.

True. Some members just think they are. :(

[Kathianne]

Yep, in the case in question, SCOTUS upheld the ban passed by the US legislature in 1993. It had been vetoed by Clinton, then signed by Bush. Both Reid and Leahy voted for the ban. Now they are trying to unwind the vote. I'm sure it has zero to do with politics.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/novak/353423,CST-EDT-NOVAK23.article


Abortion ruling has Reid, Dems in tricky spot
(http://www.suntimes.com/news/novak/353423,CST-EDT-NOVAK23.article)

April 23, 2007

BY ROBERT NOVAK novakevans@aol.com

When the Supreme Court Wednesday upheld the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act passed by Congress in 2003, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told a press conference: "I would only say that this isn't the only decision that a lot of us wish that [Justice Samuel] Alito weren't there and [former Justice Sandra Day] O'Connor were there." Does that mean Reid was repudiating his Senate vote for the bill restricting abortions? No, he told me Thursday, he was talking about other decisions by Alito.

Reid, an effective legislator and canny politician, reflects a dilemma on abortion among Democrats who are flying high against dispirited Republicans. Delivering a fetus and then crushing its skull, a procedure called "partial birth abortion" by its critics, is massively unpopular. Its prohibition is favored 61 percent to 28 percent in the most recent poll (Fox News, March 2006). The late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who was pro-choice, called the practice "infanticide." But the abortion rights lobby is adamant against any erosion of the Roe vs. Wade decision.

The leading Democratic presidential candidates -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (who voted against the ban in 2003), Sen. Barack Obama, former Sen. John Edwards and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson -- lashed out against last Wednesday's ruling. The party's tone was set on the House floor Thursday by Rep. Carolyn Maloney, who represents the "Silk Stocking" district of New York including Manhattan's Upper East Side: "We need to stand up to right-wing, conservative extremist efforts and protect the basic rights of women."

But 17 Democratic senators voted for the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act (as it passed, 64-34). Their ranks included Sen. Patrick Leahy, the current Judiciary Committee chairman, and Sen. Joseph Biden, a former chairman -- both rated 100 percent for 2006 voting by NARAL Pro-Choice America. Biden, who is running for president, and Leahy seldom withhold their comments on anything. But they have been silent on the court's abortion decision.

Reid, another of the 17 Democrats, had a 65 percent pro-choice record in 2006. He tried to resolve his quandary last week by noting that the Supreme Court's 5-4 lineup on partial birth abortion flipped when Alito replaced O'Connor last year (with Reid opposing his confirmation). Reid's public preference for O'Connor over Alito Wednesday was widely interpreted as backtracking on his 2003 vote. The Roll Call newspaper said Reid "seemed to think the Supreme Court's decision was unwise."

"Not at all," Reid told me, when I asked him. Recalling his many votes against partial birth abortion, he indicated he supported the court's abortion decision. "I just don't like what Alito has done on other cases," he said. What other cases? "I can't recall," Reid replied, but promised aides would let me know.

They did so several hours later. Out of more than 50 decisions participated in by Alito, I was told Reid disagreed with four of them. They include Alito dissents, in 5-4 opinions, on mandating the federal government to consider global warming and the Hamdan case granting habeas corpus rights to U.S. detainees. Alito concurred in a 5-4 decision limiting federal regulation of wetlands and wrote the majority opinion in a 6-3 outcome (concurred in by usually liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg) rejecting federal funding of an educational consultant under the disabilities act. But there is no record of Reid criticizing Alito's court opinions before last Wednesday.

Thomas Carper, the low-profile junior senator from Delaware, tries to walk down the middle of the road on abortion. He was rated 55 percent pro-choice in 2006, but was one of the 17 Democrats voting to ban partial birth abortion three years earlier. Sometimes disarming in his comments, he said last week after the court upheld the 2003 bill: "I think a number of people who voted for it thought that the court would ultimately strike it down."

Carper's comment pointed to Democrats who are partial pro-lifers when it comes to partial birth abortion. The presence of Alito on the court instead of O'Connor undermines that posture. The party's presidential candidate will be on record for partial birth abortion. How many Democrats will follow in 2008?

[Psychoblues]

What does any of this got to do with the article in question? So far the article is supported by the evidense and only obvuscated by it's detractors.

Get up or grow up is about all I can say so far.