More Political Hypocrisy--Partial Birth Ban

[John Cole]

The Senate voted on Thursday to pass a bill banning partial birth abortions, which, according to most critics, has no chance of withstanding a constitutional challenge. The Senate, led by Bush mouthpiece, Rick Santorum, refused to include a proviso addressing the health of the mother, and a similar bill in Nebraska has already failed to meet a constitutional challenge. The bill would outlaw partial birth abortions from the 15th week on and allow for prosecution of doctors who perform the operations.

Sixteen democrats voted for the bill while three republicans--both Senators from Maine and Rhode Island's Lincoln Chafee (carrying on his father's tradition)--opposed passage. Interestingly, democrat presidential hopefuls from Massachusetts and North Carolina missed the vote.

Sandra Day O'Connor has already stated in the Nebraska case, decided by a 5-4 majority, that any modification of Roe should include provisions for both the life and health of the mother. Why, then, have sixteen democrats voted for passage, and why has the bill been structured the way it has when the Senate already knows it has little chance of surviving a Supreme Court challenge?

[Clarkmeister]

"Why, then, have sixteen democrats voted for passage, and why has the bill been structured the way it has when the Senate already knows it has little chance of surviving a Supreme Court challenge? "

Because they hold out hope that the Supreme Court will come to its senses.

[Zeno]

Birth is a biological act. How can something be "partial birth?" And how can you Ban "birth". Partial birth abortion? What is that, anyway? Is the fetus stuck in the birth canal? How can this occur at 15 weeks? Isn't this called a miscarriage? Why should I care?

I am a Republican. It says so on my voter registration card. What does that mean? Does anyone know? Does anyone care?

-Zeno

[adios]

Just because a lower court has found something unconstitutional certainly doesn't make it a certainty that the Supreme Court will uphold the decision. Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas are very likely to overturn such a ruling (Scalia is a shoo-in IMO). The pro-life lobby only needs two more votes most likely IMO.

[BruceZ]

If you agree that it should be illegal to allow a premature baby to die if it could be saved by an incubator, then you must agree that a fourth month abortion should be illegal 300 years from now when the technology could save such fetuses.

- David Sklansky, Poker Gaming and Life


Not every ejaculation deserves a name.

- George Carlin

[adios]

"The Senate voted on Thursday to pass a bill banning partial birth abortions, which, according to most critics, has no chance of withstanding a constitutional challenge."

You mean most critics interviewed by NPR? To repeat myself; Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas are almost assured to find the legislation constitutionally valid. Ginsberg and O'Conner will probably find it to be unconstitutional. I can envision 2 out of the remaining 4 finding that it's constitutionally valid.

"Why, then, have sixteen democrats voted for passage, and why has the bill been structured the way it has when the Senate already knows it has little chance of surviving a Supreme Court challenge? "

John, you can't believe that a Supreme Court decision represents the final word on any issue. Certainly that has not been the case in US history. At one time the Federal Income Tax was found to be unconstitutional. There have been 27 ammendments to the constitution alone:

http://www.legallanguage.com/governm...OfRights01.htm

US history is replete with judicial decisions, followed by legislation, followed by further judicial decisions, etc. on many issues. It's part of the process.