Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Answered prayer

9:01am: The US Supreme Court has upheld a ban on partial birth abortions - outlawing the practice

KTVB news report

Supreme Court to Consider Partial-Birth Abortion Ban (Fox News)

Supreme Court Upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban (CBS news, Dallas)

Partial Birth Abortion Ban Upheld by U.S. Supreme Court - A Pro-Life Legacy for Bush Established (Lifesite News)

ACLJ APPLAUDS SUPREME COURT DECISION OUTLAWING PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION (CR Newswire)









GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL v. CARHART
et al.

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit

No. 05-380. Argued November 8, 2006--Decided April 18, 2007*

Respondents have not demonstrated that the Act, as a facial matter, is void for vagueness, or that it imposes an undue burden on a woman's right to abortion based on its overbreadth or lack of a health exception. For these reasons the judgments of the Courts of Appeals for the Eighth and Ninth Circuits are reversed.

It is so ordered.





Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Scalia joins, concurring.

I join the Court's opinion because it accurately applies current jurisprudence, including Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992). I write separately to reiterate my view that the Court's abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), has no basis in the Constitution. See Casey, supra, at 979 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part); Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U. S. 914, 980-983 (2000) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I also note that whether the Act constitutes a permissible exercise of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause is not before the Court. The parties did not raise or brief that issue; it is outside the question presented; and the lower courts did not address it. See Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 727, n. 2 (2005) (Thomas, J., concurring).




Justice Ginsburg, with whom Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting.

I dissent from the Court's disposition. Retreating from prior rulings that abortion restrictions cannot be imposed absent an exception safeguarding a woman's health, the Court upholds an Act that surely would not survive under the close scrutiny that previously attended state-decreed limitations on a woman's reproductive choices.






now, can we move from a recognition that we should not kill our children in a particular way, to we should not kill our children???



No comments:

Post a Comment

Post a Comment