The Virginia Late-Term Abortion Ban Litigation
What the 4th Circuit did: A panel of the U.S. 4th Circuit appeals court ruled 2-1 to strike down Virginia's legislative ban on late-term abortions:
Judge Michael (Bill Clinton) -- voted to strike down Virginia's law.
Judge Motz (Bill Clinton) -- voted to strike down the law.
Judge Niemeyer (George H.W. Bush) -- voted to uphold that law.
What happens next: Virginia might ask for an en banc (full court) re-hearing; the state also has the option of asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.
Who supports the decision: Those who prefer federal dominion over state laws. Those who believe in non-democratic means to achieve policy ends. Left-wing Democrats. Liberal law professors and other leftist academics. NARAL, Emily's List, and other leftist groups (abortion-specific and otherwise).
Those who oppose the decision: States' rights/Federalism advocates. Anti-judicial activism advocates. Separation of powers advocates. Constitutional originalists. Fidelis, the Pro-Life Action League, and other pro-life groups. Social conservatives.
Permalink | Linking Blogs | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
Abortion, Elections, Judges, Justice, Law, Politics
Comments (3)
I clicked on the link and i... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Geoffrey Britain | May 21, 2008 3:49 AM | Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
I clicked on the link and if I understand it correctly, (its in legalese), translated into plain english it says if a doctor is performing a late term abortion and in the course of that procedure the fetus is expelled (born) or 'extracted' by the doctor and its alive, the 'doctor' can still proceed with the 'termination'.
The courts implied rationale seems to be that only the doctors intent when beginning the procedure is of import.
Virginia's legislation essentially was saying that once a fetus is 'born' whatever the circumstances of its 'birth' it is now a baby with an individual right to life.
Personnally I don't see how this can be disputed.
The 'accident' of its premature birth or existence whether through unintentional expelling (birth) or the doctors extraction changes this not at all.
A baby's inability to survive on its own is just as true of a wanted premie, so the inability to survive on its own is a logical irrelevency from the standpoint of an individual's right to life.
The court is essentially saying that its ok to kill a baby so as not to place the doctor in jeopardy of lawsuits, or criminal procecution...the moral bankruptcy in the placing of these priorities is indefensible.
If someone disagrees or I am in error in understanding please explain. If not how can anyone object to a ban on infanticide?
1. Posted by Geoffrey Britain | May 21, 2008 3:49 AM |
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on May 21, 2008 03:49
2. Posted by Oyster | May 21, 2008 6:38 AM | Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Geoff, if you're correct in the interpretation then this is the slippery slope that so many have poo-pooed for so long.
2. Posted by Oyster | May 21, 2008 6:38 AM |
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on May 21, 2008 06:38
3. Posted by ODA315 | May 21, 2008 12:04 PM | Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
HOW DARE legislators make laws the judiciary doesn't agree with!
And those foolish citizens in California.....don't they KNOW they have no voice without the state supreme court's approval?
The future looks brighter every day.
3. Posted by ODA315 | May 21, 2008 12:04 PM |
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on May 21, 2008 12:04