# Fucking SCOTUS upholds woman-hating "partial-birth" abortion ban. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 18, 2007, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fucking-scotus-upholds-woman-hating-partial-birth-abortion-ban/400628 "2007-04-18T14:49:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2007, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fucking-scotus-upholds-woman-hating-partial-birth-abortion-ban/400628/41 "2007-04-18T16:31:49Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] The Constitutional issue is that it imposes an unreasonable burden on an already established right. It’s like passing a law that says you still have freedom of speech but you can only speak in Pig Latin. [/QUOTE] The law imposes a variety of burdens on Constitutional rights. The campaign finance law, for instance, imposes burdens on free speech. Various gun control laws impose burdens on the right to keep and bear arms. These are actual rights spelled out in the Constitution, and they are curtailed in certain ways. It’s certainly debatable whether Congress should be able to enact such restrictions on these rights, but it seems a pretty settled issue that they can. For a right that is not spelled out in the Constitution, merely found in its “prenumbras,” it seems quite reasonable that restrictions can be placed on it. Furthermore, as noted above, _Casey_ basically overruled _Roe_ and explicitly said that certain restrictions on abortion were fine as long as they were reasonable. You may not think that a ban on partial birth abortion is reasonable, but as even you pointed out, it won’t really affect much of anything. So banning a little used procedure seems a pretty reasonable restriction to me. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2007, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fucking-scotus-upholds-woman-hating-partial-birth-abortion-ban/400628/42 "2007-04-18T16:34:01Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] This decision doesn’t actually address the Constitutionality of Roe or the right to abortion at all. It essentially says than banning this procedure doesn’t _violate_ Roe.It doesn’t chip at any of its foundations. [/QUOTE] If you prefer… chips away at some of the SCOTUS decisions that followed on the heels of _Roe_. ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2007, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fucking-scotus-upholds-woman-hating-partial-birth-abortion-ban/400628/43 "2007-04-18T16:36:46Z")
[QUOTE=Siege] **Friar Ted** , you asked for a cite. Please read [this article.](http://www.msmagazine.com/summer2004/womanandherdoctor.asp) Yes, I know it’s from _Ms._ That’s where I first read it. The woman in the article learned her child had died in utero. The safest way to extract it was by dilation and extraction, one of the procedured I gather is banned by the partial-birth abortion ban. According to the article, less than 7% of obstetricians are trained to do dilation and extractions. As a result, this woman had to go through quite an ordeal to find one. Keep in mind she wasn’t seeking an abortion. Her child was already dead within her. I doubt this ban will accomplish much good, and I fear the harm it will do will be worse. [/QUOTE] Thanks, Siege but since it’s not about PBA’s per se, it’s not what I’m needing. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2007, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fucking-scotus-upholds-woman-hating-partial-birth-abortion-ban/400628/44 "2007-04-18T16:39:24Z")
I partially agree that this decision doesn’t really chip away at Roe, or more importantly, Casey. But that’s only because the evaluation of undue burden was pretty subjective to begin with. This court’s evaluation of undue burden does seem to be different from how the Casey court saw it. Most importantly, the court says medical uncertainty about whether the procedure is ever the safest option is enough to mean that there is no undue burden. I think medical certainty is too high a standard to ask for. Fortunately, AFAICT, this is only going to be meaningful for a facial challenge. Once a woman that needed the procedure doesn’t get it, it’s a whole new ballgame. Also, the majority conspicuously refers to fetus as life now, instead of potential life. I’m not sure that has any legal consequence, but it is certainly a shift. ---
**Author:** ![Ensign\_Edison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7ab992/32.png) [@Ensign\_Edison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ensign_Edison)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2007, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fucking-scotus-upholds-woman-hating-partial-birth-abortion-ban/400628/45 "2007-04-18T16:41:56Z")
[QUOTE=FriarTed] Because, of course, I’m a woman-hating psycho. [/QUOTE] Just for the record, I think it’s way off-base to attack you on those grounds. I think it’s important to call attention to the way in which unwanted pregnancy and childbirth can destroy women’s lives precisely _because_ pro-lifers like you _don’t_ hate women at all or grasp why reproductive legislation is bad for them. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2007, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fucking-scotus-upholds-woman-hating-partial-birth-abortion-ban/400628/46 "2007-04-18T16:48:49Z")
I fully expect congress to pass laws banning unsafe medical procedures, based on scientific evidence of same, I do not expect them to pass laws banning safe medical procedures due to religous/emotional rhetoric. Those that feel that fetus’s (feti?) are living babys always have the choice to not have an abortion, those that do not agree with that, and believe that they have the right to choose termination, should be able to choose the procedure that they and thier doctor agree upon. \*safe is a relative word here, no procedure is always safe in all cases, point is that some medical procedures should be ‘banned’ (icepick lobotomy as an example) because of thier obvious risk/reward bits… but don’t our tort/malpractice laws already deal with most, if not all, of those issues? ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2007, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fucking-scotus-upholds-woman-hating-partial-birth-abortion-ban/400628/47 "2007-04-18T16:55:51Z")
[QUOTE=OneCentStamp] Suppose we said you (and I and everyone else) can get a root canal whenever you need it, but you must opt for the less-safe and more painful “rusty corkscrew” method. I would feel as if my rights were being violated. You? [/QUOTE] I’m not trying to say it’s all rainbows and fluffy bunnies. It’s bad law, it’s going to potentially place women at risk, it will make many people very unhappy. As shitty a situation as it is, bad things happen to people without the government violating their constitutional rights. The government has the authority to ban procedures like this for any reason, or no reason, or a crappy reason, as long as they’re not stepping directly on your rights. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2007, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fucking-scotus-upholds-woman-hating-partial-birth-abortion-ban/400628/48 "2007-04-18T17:02:02Z")
[QUOTE=Cheesesteak] The government has the authority to ban procedures like this for any reason, or no reason, or a crappy reason, as long as they’re not stepping directly on your rights. [/QUOTE] What is the federal source of this authority? The commerce clause? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2007, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fucking-scotus-upholds-woman-hating-partial-birth-abortion-ban/400628/49 "2007-04-18T17:03:49Z")
Of course, the new Dem Congress can always repeal the ban, W will veto the repeal, and we’ll see how that affects the 2008 election. IMO, it will hurt the Pubs and help the Dems at the polls. **Immensely.** Most of the American people, however squeamish they may feel about the whole thing, **want** abortion clinics to be available in case their teenage daughter gets knocked up, period. This genie will never be forced back into the bottle. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2007, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fucking-scotus-upholds-woman-hating-partial-birth-abortion-ban/400628/50 "2007-04-18T17:07:37Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Of course, the new Dem Congress can always repeal the ban, W will veto the repeal, and we’ll see how that affects the 2008 election. IMO, it will hurt the Pubs and help the Dems at the polls. **Immensely.** Most of the American people, however squeamish they may feel about the whole thing, **want** abortion clinics to be available in case their teenage daughter gets knocked up, period. This genie will never be forced back into the bottle. [/QUOTE] Maybe so, but something like 70% also supported this legislation, which many see as a reasonable limit on abortion. Maybe with more education that number would change, but that’s a big if. ---
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2007, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fucking-scotus-upholds-woman-hating-partial-birth-abortion-ban/400628/51 "2007-04-18T17:10:04Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Of course, the new Dem Congress can always repeal the ban, W will veto the repeal, and we’ll see how that affects the 2008 election. [/QUOTE] Since it had fairly strong bipartisan support when it passed Congress (including Senate Majority Leader Reid and Pres pro tem Byrd), it’s unlikely the Democrats will be pushing any sort of repeal measure. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2007, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fucking-scotus-upholds-woman-hating-partial-birth-abortion-ban/400628/52 "2007-04-18T17:10:34Z")
[QUOTE=FriarTed] _Does Happy Dance!_ This means nothing RE the larger struggle but it is a symbolic victory! Btw, Dio, your link failed to demonstrate that the four Justices do indeed suck cock. [/QUOTE] :: lights a cigarette indoors and blows smoke at someone’s face just to be a dick :: Okay. I can understand why someone like **I** would say this, Ted. I mean, I’m supposed to be evil and all. But, um,what’s your excuse, exactly? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2007, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fucking-scotus-upholds-woman-hating-partial-birth-abortion-ban/400628/53 "2007-04-18T17:11:11Z")
[QUOTE=Siege] **Friar Ted** , you asked for a cite. Please read [this article.](http://www.msmagazine.com/summer2004/womanandherdoctor.asp) Yes, I know it’s from _Ms._ That’s where I first read it. The woman in the article learned her child had died in utero. The safest way to extract it was by dilation and extraction, one of the procedured I gather is banned by the partial-birth abortion ban. [/QUOTE] You’re wrong. > [@](#): > > b. The Act does not impose an undue burden. (Slip op. at 20-26.) Its reach is limited to physicians who carry out the intact D&E after intending at the outset both to deliver the fetus until its head lodges in the cervix and to pierce or crush the fetal skull. It does not apply to D&Es in which the doctor intends from the outset to remove the fetus in pieces. The Act differs in this respect from the Nebraska statute struck down in Stenberg v. Carhart. The identification of specific anatomical landmarks and the inclusion of an overt-act requirement also distinguish the Act from the Nebraska statute. Also, the canon of constitutional avoidance, which “has, in the past, fallen by the wayside when the Court confronted a statute regulating abortion,” also calls for us to give a statute a reasonable construction that would save it from unconstitutionality. This is from the decision. Obviously most D&E’s are still protected. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2007, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fucking-scotus-upholds-woman-hating-partial-birth-abortion-ban/400628/54 "2007-04-18T17:11:36Z")
[QUOTE=Cheesesteak] I’m not trying to say it’s all rainbows and fluffy bunnies. It’s bad law, it’s going to potentially place women at risk, it will make many people very unhappy. As shitty a situation as it is, bad things happen to people without the government violating their constitutional rights. The government has the authority to ban procedures like this for any reason, or no reason, or a crappy reason, as long as they’re not stepping directly on your rights. [/QUOTE] Also, the government cannot ban procedures for “no reason” or a “crappy reason.” They have to have a rational basis. ---
**Author:** ![DiosaBellissima](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a8b319/32.png) [@DiosaBellissima](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DiosaBellissima)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2007, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fucking-scotus-upholds-woman-hating-partial-birth-abortion-ban/400628/55 "2007-04-18T17:12:39Z")
I’m an idiot _waves_. I was under the understanding that PBA meant that whole thing where they yank a baby halfway out, then let it die in one way or another. I’m probably a victim of propaganda or something or another. So enlighten me, please. Fight my ignorance. What _exactly_ are we talking about here when we say Partial Birth Abortions? _puts on dunce cap and sits in the corner_ ---
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2007, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fucking-scotus-upholds-woman-hating-partial-birth-abortion-ban/400628/56 "2007-04-18T17:12:57Z")
[QUOTE=Richard Parker] Also, the government cannot ban procedures for “no reason” or a “crappy reason.” They have to have a rational basis. [/QUOTE] Yeah, “rational” to a majority of Congress and the President. What is rational to this group may be pretty crappy to the rest of us. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2007, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fucking-scotus-upholds-woman-hating-partial-birth-abortion-ban/400628/57 "2007-04-18T17:13:27Z")
[QUOTE=Siege] The woman in the article learned her child had died in utero. The safest way to extract it was by dilation and extraction, one of the procedured I gather is banned by the partial-birth abortion ban. According to the article, less than 7% of obstetricians are trained to do dilation and extractions. As a result, this woman had to go through quite an ordeal to find one. Keep in mind she wasn’t seeking an abortion. Her child was already dead within her. [/QUOTE] According to the decision, that’s not banned by the law: > [@](#): > > First, since the doctor must “vaginally delive[r] a living fetus,” §1531(b)(1)(A), the Act does not restrict abortions involving delivery of an expired fetus or those not involving vaginal delivery, e.g., hysterotomy or hysterectomy. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2007, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fucking-scotus-upholds-woman-hating-partial-birth-abortion-ban/400628/58 "2007-04-18T17:14:28Z")
[QUOTE=Renob] Yeah, “rational” to a majority of Congress and the President. What is rational to this group may be pretty crappy to the rest of us. [/QUOTE] No, rational to the court. I mean, it’s a very deferential test, but it isn’t true that just any justification no matter how wrong will suffice. ---
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2007, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fucking-scotus-upholds-woman-hating-partial-birth-abortion-ban/400628/59 "2007-04-18T17:16:57Z")
[QUOTE=Richard Parker] No, rational to the court. I mean, it’s a very deferential test, but it isn’t true that just any justification no matter how wrong will suffice. [/QUOTE] The Supreme Court isn’t really supposed to be determining if a law is rational or even good. It’s supposed to be determining if the law is Constitutional. As long as it is Constitutional, it can be a particularly crappy law and the Court, if it is doing its job, should not overturn it. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2007, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fucking-scotus-upholds-woman-hating-partial-birth-abortion-ban/400628/60 "2007-04-18T17:20:25Z")
[QUOTE=Richard Parker] No, rational to the court. I mean, it’s a very deferential test, but it isn’t true that just any justification no matter how wrong will suffice. [/QUOTE] And oddly enough, by their unwillingness to grant sexual orientation a degree of heightened scrutiny and deciding gay rights cases based on rational basis scrutiny, the Courts might finally be putting some teeth back into rational basis review. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fucking-scotus-upholds-woman-hating-partial-birth-abortion-ban/400628.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fucking-scotus-upholds-woman-hating-partial-birth-abortion-ban/400628.md?page=4)