What, and rob you psychos of your moral victory?
There’s no “if” about it - this outlaws an uncommon yet safe procedure, forcing doctors to instead perform a more risky procedure. It places more (I think “undue” is a horrible word to try and define) burden on the woman and doctor making the decision because she is at more risk than she need medically be. I take it then, that you’re retracting your little tap-dance on the corpse of human rights?
(And yes, I am on record as despising Roe v Wade as bad law, simply because I think the abortion issue is already dealt with under the 10th Amendment and the definition of “citizen” as one “born or naturalized”. I still think that.)
That’s correct. Dictating the circumstances under which abortions can be performed is not the same as dictating HOW they can be performed.
There is no constitutional role for Congress to dicatate HOW medical procedures are performed and there is certainly no public interest being served by Congress mandating that doctors must unnecessarily forgo safer procedures in favor of more dangerous ones.
I hope they do, but we have to get a decent human being in the White House first.
Or a Congressional majority that could override a veto. Good luck with that.
The state has a compelling interest in protecting non-citizens. I think what you’re looking for is the definition of personhood under the constitution, which is a little stickier (but *Roe *does state that a fetus isn’t a person).
There is now. Remember, the constitution says whatever the SCOTUS says it says. If it helps in your comprehension, just think of this restriction as having been found in the penumbra of the constitution as opposed to the actual text.
Seriously, though, I gotta agree with **Moto **here. There are hundreds of instances when Congress (or the agencies it created) restrict medical procedures and/or treatments. Medicinal marijuana anyone? This is no different. Congress acted, and the SCOTUS allowed it to act. I don’t like it, personally, but that’s all part of living in a democracy.
Does it help if I don’t approve of them, either? 
(I reserve the right, as always, to change my mind if someone comes up with a compelling example, but I can’t think of a single medical procedure that could be consented to that I would like to see outlawed. Consent, of course, being the key word.)
Name another law which prohibits a safer surgical procedure in favor of a more dangerous one.
What difference does that make? Show me where in the constitution it says Congress can’t do that?
It’s in the penumbras.
Seriously. 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.
The argument is a substantive due process argument under the 14th amendment that one has a fundamental liberty to choose the safest medical care available. That there is a zone of personal decision-making into which the government cannot intrude. Now you might disagree with that analysis, or substantive due process altogether, but it certainly isn’t an open and shut issue as you suggest.
Just a quick note- I’ve done a bit of searching, and I am willing to be convinced that PBA procedures may be necessary to prevent severe harm to the physical health of women. I am not yet convinced. If I come across such convincing info, I will retract my “happy dance”. Of course, I’m still for the repeal of RvW & the eventual elimination of all-but-tragic-necessity abortions.
Because, of course, I’m a woman-hating psycho.
If anyone wants to read the actual decision, it can be found here. Warning: PDF.
Where did I suggest it was open and shut? It’s **Dio **who is insisting that. I understand how it could go either way. But *Roe *stands on the shakiest of judicial grounds, and it doesn’t surprise me that this court “chips away” at some of its foundation.
Too late to edit, but since we’re talking about the Feds not states, obviously that would be the 5th not 14th amendment.
You seemed to be suggesting that **Dio **had no legal leg to stand on with his argument. Obviously that is false. If you’re not saying that, what are you saying?
Friar Ted, you asked for a cite. Please read this article. 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.
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.
I was responding to this, from Dio:
Which is factually incorrect. If that were true, we’d see someone challenge the existence of the FDA, and the SCOTUS would uphold that challenge. What are the odds of that happening?