Judge finds abortion ban unconstitutiona

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Judge finds abortion ban unconstitutiona
2
Wed, 09-08-2004 - 6:10pm

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apus_story.asp?category=1110&slug=Abortion%20Trials


Wednesday, September 8, 2004 · Last updated 2:07 p.m. PT


Judge finds abortion ban unconstitutional


By KEVIN O'HANLON
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER


LINCOLN, Neb. -- A third federal judge has ruled the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional, adding judicial weight that some experts say could keep the issue from reaching the U.S. Supreme Court.


U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf of Lincoln ruled against the measure Wednesday, saying Congress ignored the most experienced doctors when it determined that the banned procedure would never be necessary to protect the health of the mother - a finding he called "unreasonable."


His ruling echoed decisions by federal judges in New York and San Francisco. The abortion ban was signed last year by President Bush but was not enforced because the three judges agreed to hear constitutional challenges in simultaneous non-jury trials.


The ban, which President Clinton twice had vetoed, was seen by abortion rights activists as a fundamental departure from the Supreme Court's 1973 precedent in Roe v. Wade. But the Bush administration has argued that the so-called partial birth procedure is cruel and unnecessary and causes pain to the fetus.


If each judge is upheld by federal appeals courts, the high court might not take up the issue, said Pricilla Smith, a lawyer with the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights.


"If all the appellate courts uphold those decisions, there is no reason for it to go to the Supreme Court," Smith said.


Not everyone agreed.


"It's very unusual for the court not to take a case where an act of Congress has been struck down," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, which opposes the ban. "I would be very surprised if the court took a pass on this."


The Nebraska lawsuit was filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights on behalf of physicians including Dr. LeRoy Carhart, who also brought the challenge that led the high court in 2000 to overturn a similar ban passed by Nebraska lawmakers.


"The Supreme Court already said what the law is four years ago," Smith said. "The judges all across the country, from different political persuasions, applied the law and uniformly found it unconstitutional."


Louise Melling, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Reproductive Freedom Project, agreed with Smith.


"What you have is a decision of a mere four years ago striking a similar ban," she said. "And now you have three courts striking a ban for the same reason."


Smith said, however, that if there is a change in the makeup of the high court through presidential appointments, it might still hear the issue even if the appeals courts uphold the decisions. "And that, of course, is what the proponents of the law have been hoping for all along," she said.


The Justice Department already has filed an appeal of the San Francisco ruling and said in a statement Wednesday that it "will continue to defend the law to protect innocent new life from partial-birth abortion."


In his ruling, Kopf said "according to responsible medical opinion, there are times when the banned procedure is medically necessary to preserve the health of a woman and a respectful reading of the congressional record proves that point.


"No reasonable and unbiased person could come to a different conclusion."


The federal law bars a procedure doctors called "intact dilation and extraction," or D&X, and opponents call partial-birth abortion. During the procedure, generally performed in the second trimester, a fetus is partially removed from the womb and its skull is punctured or crushed.


The law contains an exception when the life of the mother - but not her health - is at risk. Backers of the ban said a health exception would open a major loophole, allowing abortions even when the mental health of the mother is in question.


Kopf agreed with Carhart and his lawyers, who said the law is vague and could be interpreted as covering more common, less controversial procedures, including "dilatation and evacuation," or D&E, which is the most common method of second-trimester abortion.


A total of 1.3 million abortions are performed in the United States each year. Almost 90 percent occur in the first trimester.


An estimated 140,000 D&Es take place in the United States annually, compared with an estimated 2,200 to 5,000 D&X procedures.


---


On the Net:


National Right to Life Committee: http://www.nrlc.org


Planned Parenthood: http://www.plannedparenthood.org

   Kerry/Edwards   cl-nwtreehugger   


Community Leader:  In The News Newspaper 3  & Sports Talk   Football 


I can also be found at Washington Washington   ,


TV ShowsTV 2 & QOTW Question Mark   


iVillage Member
Registered: 07-04-2003
Wed, 09-08-2004 - 10:13pm
Is anyone else sad about this? I am. If a woman's health and/or life is in jeopardy because of a pregnancy, then end the pregnancy by inducing labor to deliver the baby, or performing a c-section. I can not think of any reason why the baby must be killed on the way out. I also can't imagine how horrible of an experience this must be for the mother--a "normal" birth is difficult and painful enough!

If anyone reading this has had a "partial-birth abortion" I would really like to hear WHY you choose this option and WHY you thought it was necessary.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Thu, 09-09-2004 - 12:28am
Color me sad also..

I too would love to hear from those who have had late term abortions.