Bush Signs Partial-Birth Abortion Ban

HelenKeller

Blind BitchXV
ofn?

By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) signed legislation Wednesday banning a certain type of abortion, but a federal judge blocked implementation of the law in Nebraska less than an hour later.

U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf issued a temporary restraining order citing concerns that the law did not contain an exception for preserving the health of the woman seeking the abortion. Kopf stopped short of prohibiting the new law from being enforced nationwide. He said his order would apply only to the four doctors who filed the lawsuit in Nebraska.

"While it is also true that Congress found that a health exception is not needed, it is, at the very least, problematic whether I should defer to such a conclusion when the Supreme Court has found otherwise," Kopf said.

"For years, a terrible form of violence has been directed against children who are inches from birth while the law looked the other way," Bush said as he signed the ban on a procedure called partial-birth abortion by its critics. "Today at last the American people and our government have confronted the violence and come to the defense of the innocent child."

The White House staged the ceremony, before about 400 cheering lawmakers and abortion opponents, at a federal building named for former President Ronald Reagan (news - web sites), a strong supporter of anti-abortion groups. An "Amen" was heard from the audience as Bush sat down at a desk, before a row of American flags, to sign the bill passed last month by Congress.

Besides Nebraska, hearings were also being held in San Francisco and New York City Wednesday on similar challenges.

Fully aware of the impending legal obstacles, Bush said, to a standing ovation and the longest round of applause during his brief remarks: "The executive branch will vigorously defend this law against any who would try to overturn it in the courts."

The president's signature represented an end to a legislative crusade that began after Republicans captured the House in 1995. Former President Clinton (news - web sites) twice vetoed similar bills, arguing that they lacked an exception to protect the health of the mother.

The law, approved by the House and Senate late last month, prohibits doctors from committing an "overt act" designed to kill a partially delivered fetus and allows no exception if the woman's health is at risk, or if the child would be born with ailments. The procedure, which usually involves puncturing the fetus' skull, is generally performed in the second or third trimester.

Aware of its backing among the religious conservatives that make up a key portion of his base of political support, the president declared himself pleased to sign legislation he said would help him and others "build a culture of life" in America. To that end, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the president supports additional legislative moves — which he did not specify — to further restrict abortion.

"This right to life cannot be granted or denied by government, because it does not come from government — it comes from the creator of life," the president said, receiving another lengthy standing ovation.

But Bush is also mindful of the more moderate voters he cannot afford to alienate, and last week repeated a position he offered during his 2000 campaign. He said he would not seek a total ban on abortion because public opinion had not yet shifted to support such a move.

The new law is similar to a Nebraska statute struck down by the Supreme Court three years ago and imposes the most far-reaching limits on abortion since the high court in 1973 established a woman's right to end a pregnancy.

Supporters argue the law applies only to a procedure done late in pregnancy — and relatively rarely — and that the procedure is never necessary to protect the health of the mother.

"As Congress has found, the practice is widely regarded within the medical profession as unnecessary, not only cruel to the child, but harmful to the mother and a violation of medical ethics," Bush said.

But abortion-rights groups say the law has overly broad language that could criminalize several safe and common procedures, and fear it represents the first step in a larger campaign to eventually bar all abortions.

Outside the ceremony, the National Organization for Women (news - web sites) conducted a protest of about 50 to 100 activists who chanted and held signs saying "Keep Abortion Legal" and "saveroe.com" — a Web site named for the Roe v. Wade (news - web sites) decision legalizing the procedure.



On Capitol Hill, critics urged the courts to declare the ban unconstitutional at a news conference outside the Supreme Court.

"President Bush and Congress have no business inserting themselves between American women and their doctors," said Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031105/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_abortion
 
Every time this kind of shit is in the news I find myself thinking ONE thing:

We need more POST birth abortions.

The world would be a much better place if more parents aborted thier children after they were born.

3,4,5 years old? Who cares.

Hell, most teenagers even.

The world would be a lot better off if we aborted the idiots. :)
 
I think this is all fine and dandy, but this is as far as they should go on banning abortion. I think it should only be done when the mother's life is in danger. The courts are going to overturn this pronto, watch for the first case of this to pop up and hit the supreme court. If they want an abotion they need to decide that in the first month or two, not the last few weeks like fucking idiots...

That's what I also disagree with on this bill is Bush made no exception to the bill if the mother's life is in danger. So I guess now if the mother is in danger of dying he's just gonna kill off the mother along with the baby... Clinton veto'd the same bill pretty much twice stating there was no exception for that.
 
[Golbez-RG-] said:
I think this is all fine and dandy, but this is as far as they should go on banning abortion. I think it should only be done when the mother's life is in danger. The courts are going to overturn this pronto, watch for the first case of this to pop up and hit the supreme court.

That's what I also disagree with on this bill is Bush made no exception to the bill if the mother's life is in danger. So I guess now if the mother is in danger of dying he's just gonna kill off the mother along with the baby... Clinton veto'd the same bill pretty much twice stating there was no exception for that.
actually less than 1 hour after Bush signed it, a judge blocked it on those very grounds

http://www.nbc4.com/health/2614108/detail.html
 
In no way does this law violate anything in the Constitution. Go read a few things about partial-birth abortion. It's disgusting.

I think this is going to be a big political battle, not about abortion but about the role of the courts in lawmaking.
 
Agent_13 said:
In no way does this law violate anything in the Constitution. Go read a few things about partial-birth abortion. It's disgusting.

I think this is going to be a big political battle, not about abortion but about the role of the courts in lawmaking.

I agree, I think it's disgusting too, but when the life of the mother is in danger, why would you ban the only thing that is going to save her life? Why lose both lives when you can atleast save the mothers? Is the administration saying since she got pregnant and her child is dying she deserves to die as well?

I admit I am a republican and even Pro-Bush on many issues but this is one of his policies I am strongly against.
 
This is a ban on LATE TERM abortion, the name 'partial birth' is a misnomer used by anti-abortion activists and somehow absorbed by the press.
 
[Golbez-RG-] said:
I agree, I think it's disgusting too, but when the life of the mother is in danger, why would you ban the only thing that is going to save her life? Why lose both lives when you can atleast save the mothers? Is the administration saying since she got pregnant and her child is dying she deserves to die as well?

I admit I am a republican and even Pro-Bush on many issues but this is one of his policies I am strongly against.



I am not against abortion, but I think there definately needs to be a restriction on how long you can wait before getting an abortion. Adoption is still an option, obviously, so it's not as major of a deal as some people make it out to be, IMO.
I do not, however, think that other than a limitation on when abortion can be done, think that anything should be done to prevent abortions. The general public already does that enough.
 
photo007sid.jpg
 
El Mariachi said:
This is a ban on LATE TERM abortion, the name 'partial birth' is a misnomer used by anti-abortion activists and somehow absorbed by the press.

The kid is partially born, so I don't know how you can call it a misnomer.
 
Back
Top