Supreme Court ruling on late-term abortions may trigger more limits

Posted on Sun, Mar. 26, 2006
Supreme Court ruling on late-term abortions may trigger more limits
Justices may change way laws can be challenged, paving way for legislators to pass stringent restrictions
By Stephen Henderson
KNIGHT RIDDER

WASHINGTON - The latest high-profile battle in the abortion wars may prove to be a sideshow to a monumental shift in abortion law that could take place this fall.

South Dakota legislators enacted a sweeping ban on abortion last month that will retest the strength of Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that overturned all state laws banning or restricting abortion. Other states are threatening to follow suit as anti-abortion activists flex what they think is new muscle: two new Supreme Court justices who are thought to be less sympathetic to abortion rights.

Legal experts say the courts almost certainly will strike down South Dakota's ban in short order. But this fall, when the Supreme Court considers the federal ban on late-term abortions, the justices could make it easier for state legislators to pass stringent restrictions on abortion without much fear that the courts might overturn them.

The high court could force those who challenge abortion restrictions to prove that restrictive laws prevent a significant number of women from getting abortions. Currently, the courts bar restrictions if it is plausible that they could impose burdens on women seeking abortions.

more...
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/cctimes/news/nation/14191091.htm?source=rss&channel=cctimes_nation

and many Americans will make it a point to not comply with them too.

After all, they use it only as an election issue.

If the SC upholds the Federal ban on PBA, it will open the floodgates for onerous new restrictions, just as Casey did over a decade ago. It doesn't have the shock value of the SD case, but it poses a far, far greater risk to the rights of women.

The Phantom Procedure which has been called a 'PBA' by the Anti Abortion Propaganda Industry (AAPI)
IS NOT a Late Term Abortion (LTA).

The Phantom Procedure which has been called a 'PBA' by theAnti Abortion Propaganda Industry (AAPI)
IS NOT a D&X Abortion (or ID&X).

The Phantom Procedure (PBA) is an undefined procedure and can be used to refer to almost any abortion performed after 12 weeks.

Please read my - previous DU post -

As a further reference to the truth of these statements you could read - an excellent article - in Women's eNews.

Please do not permit this propaganda term to deceive you.

In fact the Supreme Court has ruled twice already that this Phantom Procedure term "PBA" has no meaning - the last ruling being Steinberg v Carhart and quoting Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in that case:

Second, Nebraska’s statute is unconstitutional on the alternative and independent ground that it imposes an undue burden on a woman’s right to choose to terminate her pregnancy before viability. Nebraska’s ban covers not just the dilation and extraction (D&X) procedure, but also the dilation and evacuation (D&E) procedure, “the most commonly used method for performing previability second trimester abortions.” Ante, at 27. The statute defines the banned procedure as “deliberately and intentionally delivering into the vagina a living unborn child, or a substantial portion thereof, for the purpose of performing a procedure that the person performing such procedure knows will kill the unborn child and does kill the unborn child.” Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. §28—326(9) (Supp. 1999) (emphasis added). As the Court explains, the medical evidence establishes that the D&E procedure is included in this definition. Thus, it is not possible to interpret the statute’s language as applying only to the D&X procedure. (my emphasis E) - SOURCE -

- Eileen`s always in process page -

Eileen

I've been through this with you before, as well as with others. Keep your lectures to yourself. I know every bit of information you just posted, but I'm not going to be bullied by a bunch of brightly colored caps. The name of the legislation is the Federal PBA ban. I am not in the least bit deceived by the propaganda from the right, but I don't care for your haranguing. I often use the phrase so called PBA, but I when talking about the legislation that's due to be heard by the SCOTUS, I don't. If you have anything but lectures on terminology to add to the debate, great, but this thread to thread militant policing gets old rather quickly.

Please remember my name and DON'T direct your little lecture at me again.

:wow:

reject or accept it, but why such angry bullying? It's like people who insist upon adding "selection, not election" when people mention the 2002 process. Adding input isn't a criticism.

When inappropriate propaganda terms are given credibility by use it is absolutely necessary to counter the propaganda - no matter what the source.

If you - or anybody else - continue to use propaganda terms you might just as well submit to any of the atrocities the Radical Reich pushes because by doing so you give them "credibility".

It was just such propaganda that has resulted in the belief that a fetus is not a part of a reproductive graft which is a part of a pregnant woman. Thirty years of careful orchestration of that propaganda has led to the belief that a fetus is an independent seperate entity that can be granted separate rights. Constant use produces acceptance of factoids.

The only way to counter propaganda successfully is to refuse to submit to it and refuse to use it yourself.

The O'Connor quote covers far more than terminology BTW.

The post was not meant to be directed at anybody in particular but simply added to the general discourse - I just hit the wrong "reply" link, so sorry that led to your taking it personally because it appeared to be so.

Eileen

when speaking of the Iraq war. Language matters.