Nasty business, that. Good thing to get rid of.

Abortion is a sick procedure no matter how it is performed. Democrats went to the mat again and again for this particularly monstrous procedure. I hope they are proud of themselves.

Excellent news! It's a start.

I guess Kenendy is only 95% evil...

Is partial birth abortion considered to be violent by Mr. Obama?

Will the race pimps Jesse and Bookman chime in on this, or, are they still in the back room counting $$ after their latest media blitz?

US courts need to decide once and for all if a fetus is a life, or not. Many want to have it both ways, it is a life if a pregnant woman is killed, or if there is a miscarriage, but it isnt if you want to murder it.

Bravo! for doing away with this grisly procedure.

After the tragic loss of life earlier this week, this is very good timing for this great bit of news.

Fetuses everywhere are celebrating (twins and triplets are high-fiving each other)

When Kennedy writes, "have not demonstrated that the Act would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of relevant cases," is he saying that they have indeed demonstrated that it is unconstitutional in some number of cases?

I'm no fan of abortion of any type, but being a non-lawyer,this language bothers me. Can a law be upheld if it is "sometimes unconstitutional"? Am I being naive if I feel that a law is either constitutional or unconstitutional. Like being pregnant - you either are or are not pregnant, you're never "a large fraction" pregnant.

That's how I see things - can anybody shed some scholarly light on this?

How many of you condemning this procedure have actually been part of one? I have. My first was when a baby was literally stuck in the mother's pelvis and there was nothing else that could've been done. Everyone was upset -- but it was clearly the best thing that could be done. The mother's reproductive capacity was saved -- she later gave birth to healthy twins after being properly medically monitored unlike the previous pregnancy.

None of these procedures I witnessed over the years were gratuitous and all were done to preserve the mother's health, sometimes including her life. None of the aborted fetuses were unwanted but, in every case, something had gone tragically wrong.

You are, in my opinion, the callous ones disrespectful of life.

Late term abortions are either legal or not. To allow some types of procedures and not others is a loss for anyone.

This ruling will not eliminate abortions. The only difference is that now all fetuses will be torn apart (D&C) in the womb instead of punctured in the brain.

Marla, the statute in question provides this:

This subsection [imposing penalties] does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

Aparently Marla has never heard of a C Section.

Marla,

Why couldn't the doctor have done a C-section and pulled the baby out that way? My tailbone sticks way too far into my pelvis, so I can't deliver any baby vaginally. Therefore, I am forced to have c-sections.

It makes me want to vomit to think of the pain that poor baby, full term I'm guessing, went through having his/her brains sucked out when he/she was still alive. I would have demanded the doctor break my pelvis bone rather than kill my baby. I would give my life for the life of my kids.

The 'health of the mother' phrase has always been used as a means of creating a technicality which could be exploited. Note that those who use this phrase are careful not to use terminology that says the 'physical health' of the mother.

"Health of the mother' is interpreted by the abortion lobby in the very broadest sense, including mental ailments such as 'severe depression' which cannot be proven with physical evidence and must be taken at the word of the abortion provider. This gives the provider wide latitude to declare a mother's 'health' in jeopardy, so that the abortion may be carried out despite what the law intended.

I'm concerned about how this was approached. From what I have gathered from links at Instapundit, this ruling completely disregarded the fact that the ban was based on the commerce clause... which apparently was the right thing to do from a legalese standpoint.

My concern is this: if there are a bunch of BS laws Congress has given itself the power to legislate based on this overly broad commerce clause, will we miss an opportunity to drastically reduce its power just to uphold the ban?

My other concern is, if it's a bad idea to use the commerce clause to enact laws we don't like, why is it a good idea to use it to enact laws we do like? I'd like to see abortion be illegal... including for rape and incest, but not necessarily for the life of the mother... but I'd like to see it done right.

Marla, I think you are lying. Why are you lying?
==============================

Abortion is a very, very terrible procedure. It sickens me also to know that most abortions are done for convenience. It is the new method of birth control. I wish people would discuss this on the merits and morality of abortion and not on the political. Women are sometimes portrayed as the mature responsible ones of the species, but there are millions of dead babies at the hands of mature responsible women. So sad. ww

Thank God for this Supreme Court decision. May the future babies rejoice. Thank God for putting President Bush in the office for the two Justices Alito and Roberts in the mold of Justices Scalia and Thomas. Thanks to Justice Kennendy for doing the right thing. Hope he will continue to support future life and family decisions.
Hope, Stevens retires in June and a third conservative is nominated by President Bush.

Thank God for this Supreme Court decision. May the future babies rejoice. Thank God for putting President Bush in the office and thus appointing the two Justices Alito and Roberts in the mold of Justices Scalia and Thomas. Thanks to Justice Kennendy for doing the right thing. Hope he will continue to support future life and family decisions.
Hope, Stevens retires in June and a third conservative is nominated by President Bush.

I found it interesting that Kennedy wrote this opinion and that he included some graphic details and testimony about parital birth abortion. One nurse testified that the fetus having been partially delivered was grasping with its tiny hands until the head was punctured when it twiched with a start then went limp. He also includes some additional graphic content about normal abortions stating that normally the fetus is torn apart within the uterus and extracted in 10 to 15 pieces. It seems clear to me that Kennedy was including this to indicate his disgust with abortions.

Kim P.:
From your original post "If a late term pregnancy was so harmful to the mother's health, then the mother should just deliver the baby and give the baby a chance to survive." are you saying she should give birth even if it will kill her?

BarneyG2000:
D&C is not the only remaining option -- how about abortion via C-section?

Not that my opinion matters (I think only women should have the final say in this), but I think that PBA should be an option of very last resort (i.e., given extreme circumstances), but should still remain an option.

ij, do you see mantis's post at 12:15 PM. I think this point is not at controversy. What still could be at controversy is the physician's judgment with respect to threat to mother's life. I'm surprised there isn't language requiring two physicians, if only to protect them, forget about the wee human of such potential.
==================================

ijosha,

The point I was making refers to the fact that a PBA pulls the entire baby out except for the head. If the doctor can get the shoulders out, which is the widest part of the baby, then surely, the mother can survive having the head pulled out as well. Besides, PBA's require the head to remain in the birth canal for legal, not medical, reasons. If all the baby were delivered and then killed, it would be murder. However, if the head remains in the birth canal, then it's still an unborn fetus, and, therefore, can be killed at will.

Hence, my point: PBA's aren't about the health of the mother; they're about legally killing an unwanted baby.

kim: thanks... but I was asking if what KP stated was in actuallity how she felt given those circumstances, not what the actual law now states. Good point about the "two physicians". Given how most see it as an execution, maybe it should be a jury of 12.

Kim P: thanks -- sorry for my confusion (maybe if you had said something like "... should just complete the delivery of the baby ..." I would have better understood).

Obama has a comment up on his blog
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/group/ObamaHQ/

Kim P...you nailed it! If the shoulders are clear, its BORN! They're just committing murder at that point!

Uh, isn't head biggest?
===============

It certainly can be.

kim:

A baby's head is definitely the heaviest part of the baby. Additionally, the bones in babies' heads can shift to allow for the birth process, which is why many are born with cone heads. The shoulders, however, are the widest part of the baby. Take a look at this picture. Note how the baby's shoulders are wider than the diameter of the baby's head. The point I was making is that if the baby's feet, legs, torso, arms and shoulders can be delivered safely without any harm to the mother, then why can't the baby's head also be delivered without any harm to the mother? The answer is, it can. Therein lies the deceit of this awful process.

"Note how the baby's shoulders are wider than the diameter of the baby's head."

I disagree Kim. The DIAMETER of that baby's head is definitely larger than his shoulders. Now if you meant to say that the WIDTH of the baby's head is larger, then you are probably correct, but the DIAMETER is definitely larger than the shoulders. When it comes down to it though, I don't even think the WIDTH of that babie's head is larger, or at least much larger, than the shoulders, and I believe the shoulders can be compacted and scrunched in a lot easier.

D-Hoggs, the diameter is technically the width.

Oops, my apologies, I am thinking circumference, still in food coma from lunch!