Home  |  About Us  |  Contact Us  |  Subscribe
Search NSRC:      Advanced search  
Sexual Literacy Logo Sexual Literacy spacer American Sexuality Magazine Logo American Sexuality magazine spacer Sexual Research and Social Policy Logo Sexual Research and Social Policy spacer spacer spacer

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Court upholds Federal Abortion Ban

Big news today from the Supreme Court. The new Supreme Court, including Bush nominee's Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito, has ruled to uphold the Federal Abortion Ban. The legislation is officially called the Partial Birth Abortion since it was written and passed by anti-choice lobbyists and legislators. We'll have more for you soon...

Update 1: ThinkProgress has an excellent post on the decision that you can go to for more info. Justice Ginsburg wrote a scathing dissent. Here's an excerpt:

...the Court’s opinion tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. For the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception protecting a woman’s health.

Update 2:
Both NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood have actions up on their websites to take. These are organizations on the front lines protecting a woman's right to choose.


  • I, for one, am scared of back alley abortions with this kind of decision. how much more can the radical and thoughtless right in this country control our destiny. thank g-d we'll have a dem in the white house soon...!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wed Apr 18, 05:37:00 PM PDT  

  • Actually, “many otherwise pro-choice individuals have found intact D&X too close to infanticide to ethically justify its continued use,” and this majority need to be heard from and respected. I sense that many voices in today’s reactions aren’t fully aware of all of the details. For starters, see Sprang & Neerhof, Rationale for Banning Abortions Late in Pregnancy, JAMA. 1998;280:744-747. I fully understand people’s fears about any restrictions giving the awful experiences of the past and today’s power of the religious right. Nevertheless, late term intact D&X is pretty extreme. Consider the following, summarized from Sprang and Neerhof:

    Some fetuses are viable by 23 weeks and the majority are by 24 weeks. There is compelling evidence that periviable fetuses experience pain and “forcibly incising the cranium with a scissors and then suctioning out the intracranial contents is certainly excruciatingly painful.” According to Boston University ethicist and health law professor George Annas, JD, MPH, Americans see "a distinction between first trimester and second trimester abortions. The law doesn't, but people do. And rightfully so. After approximately 20 weeks, the American public sees a baby.

    You have a right to disagree, but please respect the silent majority who feel otherwise and don’t lump us in with the crazy anti’s. Thanks.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wed Apr 18, 06:56:00 PM PDT  

  • anonymous (second comment)...If you feel so strongly about the intact D&X procedure, then don't get one. But don't tell other women what we should do with our bodies, for what this ban and others like it get down to, is taking control of our bodies away from those who own them.

    By Anonymous RachelPhilPa, at Wed Apr 18, 07:05:00 PM PDT  

  • I feel like our anonymous friend is not fully aware of the intact dilatation and extracton (D&X) procedure either. First off, D&X procedures are RARE and are mostly performed to SAVE THE HEALTH OF THE WOMAN or due to miscarriage late in pregnancy, which is why this decision is so devastating. Perhaps we should look to the medical community who performs these procedures. The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists stated in their amicus brief to oppose the ban that, "The Act will chill doctors from providing a wide range of procedures used to perform induced abortions or to treat cases of miscarriage and will gravely endanger the health of women in this country."
    Furthermore, the government has absolutely no right to go between women and their families, their doctors and their God(s) on these personal and private matters, period. Women have complications in pregnancy--kidney failure, blindness, infection, hemorraging to name just a few.
    The D&X procedure is NOT infanticide. It is a procedure that is sometimes necessary to save the health and lives of women. It is quite sad that you didn't even bring that up in your blog. While this decision does mark the power of the religious right, what we really should be thinking about is the devastating affects this will are have on our health and lives. Now the religious right is going to push abortion ban legislation across the nation and the D&X ban may very well be the beginning.

    By Blogger Ky, at Thu Apr 19, 10:28:00 AM PDT  

  • Women need to stand up to this frontal attack on our rights by the old paternal order. Reactionary politics are detrimental to freedom and equality. Turning back the clock will only result in over four thousand deaths and many injuries. At the end of the day, we need legislation that will take the issue out of the hands of Bush's appointed block heads.

    By Blogger luluford, at Thu Apr 19, 12:16:00 PM PDT  

  • Think about it. The Supreme Court is now practicing medicine. Do we really want politicians getting between a doctor/patient relationship?

    By Blogger luluford, at Thu Apr 19, 12:21:00 PM PDT  

  • It's kind of sad to read the comments here, because they represent a common problem with politics/ethics today. Why do we all have to be assumed to fall into one of two monolithic blocks of thinking. We are not all right wing, pro life, "christian", republican or left wing, pro choise, athiest, democrat. It's positions like this that discourage honest open debate on the truth of issues such as this so called "abortion ban", be honest with yourselves, it's a ban on one specific, and controversial, procedure. I happen I agree with banning the D&X procedure as I believe it IS infanticide, the unborn foetus has as much right to life as the mother. It is very easy to disguise this fact within the rhetoric of protecting the "mothers health", just how many of these procedures are genuinley done for that reason, a very small proportion. I also happen to be transsexual, pro "gay marriage", and a practicing christian (not evangelical fundamentalist, I'm a "real" christian). The goal of organizations defending people with differences from the "mainstream" are to ensure minorities such as myself are afforded the same protections under the law as everybody else, to include the unborn, who are unable to speak for and defend themselves.

    By Anonymous Carol, at Thu Apr 19, 06:36:00 PM PDT  

  • I for one am quite happy with this decision as I am pro life. I believe a woman has a right to what is done to her body until it affects another being. If the baby was outside her body connected to the umbilical cord, the baby would be protected...Imagine pulling the life support from someone without knowing their wishes, it is the same thing!

    By Anonymous RapheinOrangeCounty, at Wed May 02, 11:16:00 AM PDT  

  • Raphelius - thanks for your honest post. Just curious, but what did you think about the Terri Shiavo case?

    By Blogger Isaac, at Wed May 02, 12:26:00 PM PDT  

Post a Comment

<< Home