Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act declared unconstitutional
 

SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- A federal judge Tuesday declared the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional, saying the measure infringes on a woman's right to choose.

The ruling applies to the nation's 900 or so Planned Parenthood clinics and their doctors, who perform roughly half of all abortions in the United States.

U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton's ruling came in one of three lawsuits challenging the legislation President Bush signed last year.

"The act poses an undue burden on a woman's right to choose an abortion," she wrote.

Federal judges in New York and Nebraska also heard challenges to the law earlier this year but have yet to rule.

Planned Parenthood lawyer Beth Parker welcomed the ruling, saying it sends a "strong message" to Attorney General John Ashcroft and the Bush administration "that the government should not be intruding on very sensitive and private medical decisions."

Government attorneys did not immediately return calls for comment.

Bush signed the law in November, saying "a terrible form of violence has been directed against children who are inches from birth while the law looked the other way."

The law represented the first substantial federal legislation limiting a woman's right to choose an abortion, and abortion rights activists said it ran counter to three decades of Supreme Court precedent.

In the banned procedure -- known as intact dilation and extraction to doctors, but called partial-birth abortion by opponents -- the living fetus is partially removed from the womb, and its skull is punctured or crushed.

Justice Department attorneys argued that the procedure is inhumane, causes pain to the fetus and is never medically necessary.

Abortion proponents, however, argued that a woman's health during an abortion is more important than how the fetus is terminated, and that the banned method is often a safer solution that a conventional abortion, in which the fetus is dismembered in the womb and then removed in pieces.

The measure, which President Clinton had twice vetoed, was seen by abortion rights activists as a fundamental departure from the Supreme Court's precedent in Roe v. Wade. It shifted the debate from a woman's right to choose and focused on the plight of the fetus.

Abortion advocates said the law was the government's first step toward outlawing abortion. Violating the law carries a two-year prison term.

Two other cases pending
Late last year, Hamilton, a Clinton appointee, and federal judges in New York and Lincoln, Nebraska tentatively blocked the act from being enforced pending the outcome of the court challenges. They began hearing testimony March 29.

Doctors have construed the Supreme Court's decision in Roe. v. Wade to mean they can perform abortions usually until the 24th to 28th week after conception, or until the "point of viability," when a healthy fetus is thought to be able to survive outside the womb. Generally, abortions after the "point of viability" are performed only to preserve the mother's health.

Doctors at about 900 abortion clinics practice under the Planned Parenthood umbrella, performing about half the nation's 1.3 million annual abortions.

The Nebraska and New York cases are expected to conclude within weeks. The outcomes, which may conflict with one another, will almost certainly be appealed to the Supreme Court. The New York case was brought by the National Abortion Federation, which represents nearly half the nation's abortion providers. The Nebraska case was brought by a few abortion doctors.

The U.S. Supreme Court had overturned a Nebraska partial-birth abortion law because it did not allow the banned procedure even when a doctor believes the method is the best way to preserve the woman's health.

To get around the decision, Congress simply declared that the procedure is never medically necessary -- and during weeks of testimony, doctors testifying for the government stressed that same point -- claiming there are better alternatives to the method, and that it may even be harmful to women.

Witnesses for the abortion providers, however, testified in all three trials that the banned method is often preferred and sometimes necessary to preserve a woman's health.

Congressional sponsors said the ban would outlaw only 2,200 or so abortions a year. But abortion providers testified the banned method can happen even at times when doctors try to avoid it, such as when they attempt to remove the fetus from the womb in pieces.

Because of the possibility that the fetus may partially exit a woman during an otherwise legal procedure, abortion rights advocates said the law could ban almost all second-trimester abortions, which account for about 10 percent of all abortions in the United States.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

crushing a fetus' skull is just plain wrong...there are sick fuckers in the world annoy:

Pro-choice. Good call from the judge...

[quote="Garry Coleman":17219]crushing a fetus' skull is just plain wrong...there are sick fuckers in the world annoy:[/quote:17219]
that procedure was done when it was late in the pregnancy and it was done to save the mothers life. This is one aspect of abortion that was outlined in Pres Bush's proposal.

My take on abortion is...if the girl is allowed to kill the child and get an aboration...If the father doens't want the kid and the girls wants it...he should have the right to make her get an abortion...it is only fair...it shouldn't be entirly the girls choices...where is this fucking equality women seek?

Abortions fuckin [img]http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gerald.marley/Smilies/bullshit.gif[/img] end of story. No matter what way you slice it, its basically "legalised murder".

No one should be forced to get an abortion, if he doesnt want the kid and she does, she can go ahead and raise it herself.

that too...i'm just saying the guy shouldn't be forced to pay money...

thats touchy because there are alot of shitbag dads out there who abandon women just because they get pregnant by them. If he's willing to do the time, he should pay the crime too, no?

lets say the girl doens't want the kid, but the dad does...the women can get an aboration and the guy has no say...

I can see why the catholic standpoint on abortion is as it is, if jesus were to be reborn in this day and age he'd have a pretty hard fucking time of it, probably been aborted like 50 times by now because of shit like " hmm im pregnant, dont remember who i done it with...i dont want it time to get an abortion". oOo: eek:

[quote=Pyro]lets say the girl doens't want the kid, but the dad does...the women can get an aboration and the guy has no say...[/quote:6049d]
Yeah because its her body. The spirit of legal abortion is the notion that a woman has the right to make her own decisions regarding her body. The secondary thought behind this process is, to me at least, the concept of parenthood. So far women are the only ones who can carry and give birth to a baby, so they get the long end of the stick on that one.

I dont know if that is an accurate representation of what goes on in a young girls mind, but I would think it goes more along the lines of "shit im too young to have a baby, im not ready to be a mother." But other than that, I still think its her choice and dont think anyone has a right to tell her otherwise.

Imo if you;re old enough to wanna "fuck" you're old enough to take responsibilty of the consequences of you not using protection.

You cant put a price on a life.