Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

4th Circuit Court strikes down late term abortion ban

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 4th Circuit Court strikes down late term abortion ban

    Court Strikes Down Virginia Abortion Ban


    A federal appeals court has ruled that Virginia's ban on late-term abortions, approved by the General Assembly in 2003 over objections from then governor Mark R. Warner (D), is unconstitutional.
    In a ruling issued this afternoon, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals said the procedures covered under Virginia's ban "imposes an undue burden on a woman's right to obtain an abortion."
    The ruling will likely reignite the abortion debate in Virginia.
    Supporters of Virginia's ban say it would stop the practice of killing infants moments after they are prematurely delivered. But the 2003 Virginia law did not include a health exception. Warner vetoed the law, and the legislature overrode his veto.
    The 4th Circuit, one of the most conservative appellate courts in the nation, initially struck down the Virginia law in 2005 because it lacked an exception to safeguard a woman's health.
    But in 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a federal ban on some types of late-term abortions. The Supreme Court then sent the Virginia case back to the 4th Circuit for further reconsideration. Arguments were heard in November.
    In today's 2 to 1 ruling, the appellate court noted there are differences between the federal ban and Virginia's law as it relates to the types of procedures that are prohibited.
    The Richmond-based Family Foundation, which fought for the Virginia ban, said in a statement it hopes the U.S. Supreme Court will now reverse today's 4th Circuit ruling.
    June 9, 1973 - The day athletic perfection was defined.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-Kva...eature=related

  • #2
    I don't see how they overturn this vote, there has to be an exception for the mothers health.
    Be passionate about what you believe in, or why bother.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by madyaks View Post
      I don't see how they overturn this vote, there has to be an exception for the mothers health.
      As a staunch pro-lifer, this is the kind of crap that really upsets me. I'm upset at the morons who crafted this legislation -- HOW CAN IT NOT INCLUDE AN EXCEPTION FOR THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER? Who's drafting these bills?
      Former 2017 OFFICIAL SPONSOR of Braves' Fill-In Matt Adams,
      Jesus is . . .


      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by drobny23 View Post
        As a staunch pro-lifer, this is the kind of crap that really upsets me. I'm upset at the morons who crafted this legislation -- HOW CAN IT NOT INCLUDE AN EXCEPTION FOR THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER? Who's drafting these bills?
        Morons?

        Moon

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Moon Man View Post
          Morans?

          Moon
          ftfy.
          Former 2017 OFFICIAL SPONSOR of Braves' Fill-In Matt Adams,
          Jesus is . . .


          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by drobny23 View Post
            As a staunch pro-lifer, this is the kind of crap that really upsets me. I'm upset at the morons who crafted this legislation -- HOW CAN IT NOT INCLUDE AN EXCEPTION FOR THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER? Who's drafting these bills?
            I was thinking the same thing. Like this aspect of the question hasn't gotten any attention the past 20 years? They just somehow overlooked it?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by drobny23 View Post
              ftfy.
              Could it be that they value the life of the unborn child over that of the mother?
              Damn these electric sex pants!

              26+31+34+42+44+46+64+67+82+06 = 10

              Bring back the death penalty for corporations!

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Reggie Cleveland View Post
                I was thinking the same thing. Like this aspect of the question hasn't gotten any attention the past 20 years? They just somehow overlooked it?
                I hope there are some unreported details which explain this.

                I am as pro-life as one gets, and even I see the moral (not just legal) mandate for an exception to save the life of the mother.
                Former 2017 OFFICIAL SPONSOR of Braves' Fill-In Matt Adams,
                Jesus is . . .


                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by dredbyrd View Post
                  Could it be that they value the life of the unborn child over that of the mother?
                  I honestly hope not.
                  Former 2017 OFFICIAL SPONSOR of Braves' Fill-In Matt Adams,
                  Jesus is . . .


                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by dredbyrd View Post
                    Could it be that they value the life of the unborn child over that of the mother?
                    Or it could be that anti-abortion laws are actually about restricting female sexuality. Yep.
                    Official sponsor of the St. Louis Cardinals

                    "This is a heavyweight bout indeed."--John Rooney, Oct. 27, 2011

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by kah View Post
                      Or it could be that anti-abortion laws are actually about restricting female sexuality. Yep.
                      Oh, gee. Now you blew for everyone, just putting that out there in the open.

                      What a fucking idiotic thing to say, even for you.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        As much as it pains me to say it, the Virginia legislators are likely not morans. In the Supreme Court decision in 2007 referenced in the article, the justices allowed a federal late term abortion ban that did not include an exception for the health of the mother. As a result, Virginia had no reason to believe that their statute would fail because it lacked a health exception. As the article notes, Virginia prohibits more methods of abortion than the federal ban, which is probably why it was struck down.

                        Moon

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Moon Man View Post
                          As much as it pains me to say it, the Virginia legislators are likely not morans. In the Supreme Court decision in 2007 referenced in the article, the justices allowed a federal late term abortion ban that did not include an exception for the health of the mother. As a result, Virginia had no reason to believe that their statute would fail because it lacked a health exception. As the article notes, Virginia prohibits more methods of abortion than the federal ban, which is probably why it was struck down.

                          Moon
                          Oh, there you go again, actually reading the article.

                          Even so, though, there's no good reason not to include a health exception.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Reggie Cleveland View Post
                            Oh, there you go again, actually reading the article.

                            Even so, though, there's no good reason not to include a health exception.
                            Well, again, let me take the position with which I disagree for the sake of...of...well, my own amusement.

                            The Court said that there was little, if any, evidence that the 'intact dilation and extraction' method of performing an abortion is ever necessary for the sake of the mother's safety. The ban is not on all abortions, but on a single particular method of abortion. The more common method which is the standard 'dilation and extraction' is still allowed, and used for almost all abortions.

                            Moon

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Moon Man View Post
                              Well, again, let me take the position with which I disagree for the sake of...of...well, my own amusement.

                              The Court said that there was little, if any, evidence that the 'intact dilation and extraction' method of performing an abortion is ever necessary for the sake of the mother's safety. The ban is not on all abortions, but on a single particular method of abortion. The more common method which is the standard 'dilation and extraction' is still allowed, and used for almost all abortions.

                              Moon
                              OK, but since tossing in a health exception doesn't hurt the bill in the slightest, and would thereby serve as a shield against precisely this kind of case....why not just do it? Seems like common sense to me.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X