Supreme Court Ruling Inspires Abortion Foes

The Washington Post:

Mike Flood, the 35-year-old speaker of Nebraska's legislature, had a problem: He wanted to stop the state's well-known abortion provider from offering late-term abortions.

A long line of Supreme Court precedents seemed to stand in his way. But Flood believes that a 2007 decision offers hope for him and other state legislators looking for ways to restrict abortion.

Read the whole story: The Washington Post

Comments

[ManuOB1]

11:15 AM on 01/04/2011

There are more natural miscarriages than abortians. Who's responsible for killing these babies? Also, if God creates all life and is all powerful, can't God simply send the soul of the aborted/miscarried baby to a more willing and able recipient?

[myth buster]

08:53 PM on 01/20/2011

Who are you, a mortal, to talk back to God? Human lives belong to God, and He has the right to claim them at any time.

[Bob Wood]

02:32 PM on 12/29/2010

If there is no choice...there is no freedom. Do we really want to return to a time when women had to seek abortions in back alleys and risk the criminal penalties involved ? Is that what we really, really want ? Should such decisions be made by the white-haired old mens club ? I suspect that such decisions are hard enough to make without the risk of criminal penalties. Roe Vs Wade was and is necessary...leave it be. If there's a god, goddess, troll under a bridge, or leprechuan that is offended...they can deal with it on another plane...(sigh)

[Hard Truth]

05:22 PM on 12/30/2010

No, I would rather return to the times when people were required to accept responsibility for their actions, rather than seeking the final solution.

But that flies in the face of the lefts "It's not my fault" response to everything.

[TuoulumneFlower]

11:31 AM on 12/31/2010

Here's a thought for you: deciding not to continue a pregnancy IS taking responsibility. You just don't like women having the right to decide for themselves.

[pdferguson]

01:07 PM on 01/03/2011

When exactly were "the times when people were required to accept responsibility"? I've never seen that in my lifetime, or in any history book I've read.

Then again, I was always taught one can only truly accept responsibility voluntarily, that it can only come from within. Perhaps your definition of responsibility is a little more authoritarian and you have convinced yourself that punishment has something to do with responsibility.

[Gravity 78]

01:16 PM on 12/29/2010

The Christian Right really needs to read their bible, because the bible really does not talk about abortion. What it does say is that if a husband claimed his wife got pregnant by another man, she was to be given a prison that would induce a miscarriage. This prison was very commonly used for this, by the Greeks, Romans and Egyptians. What the bible said about this is if the woman was judged by god she would not miscarriage; if she did miscarriage she would be stoned by the men in town including her husband.

[myth buster]

08:55 PM on 01/20/2011

No, it said that if a man suspected his wife had been unfaithful (whether she conceived or not), she was to be given a trial by ordeal that would sicken her if she was guilty.

[Nana Red]

12:14 PM on 12/29/2010

Roe v Wade was always a ridiculous law. Drs did do abortions but called them D & C's. But of course some activist had to go complicate matters thus the controversy.

[lisalulu]

01:09 PM on 12/30/2010

Its not a law Nana. Its a Supreme Court Decision that affirms our right to privacy when making personal medical decisions and affirms a women's right to reproductive freedom.

Those simple minded activists are still active - witness the attempts by state legislatures to continue to enact obstacles to choice.

[Julepandme]

04:14 PM on 01/04/2011

The problem with that is that it becomes the doctor's choice, and not the pregnant woman, as to whether or not the procedure is performed. Someone with no money and few options who lived someplace without a doctor willing to perform a D&C had no choice. As always, those with money could pretty much do as they please. The only reason there is any controversy over this matter is because there are those who believe women do not have autonomy over their bodies, and if this issue didn't exist they'd come up with some other way to try to control women. They are in the minority though, despite how vocal they are. What we need to do in this country is to stop letting the righ wing minority control debate and social agenda.

[Nana Red]

10:24 AM on 01/05/2011

I was raised in a generation with no birth control and abortions were illegal. Frankly I think abortion is wrong. What is more wrong is for anybody in this day and age to have an unwanted pregnancy with all the birth control available. So that is my opinion on the matter. Until the public accepts responsibility for their actions I don't see much changing!

I would probably be what you would call right wing but I absolutely think it is no one's business what goes on in a Dr.'s office between a Dr and his patient. I firmly believe in confidentiality. I frankly find all the controversy bogus since I think all medical procedures fall under the heading of no body's business but mine.

[Chris]

11:13 AM on 12/29/2010

For all those that state keep the govenrmetn out of a woman's body, do you beleive in abortions on demand for any reason?

[dbl48]

11:27 AM on 12/29/2010

What difference does that make?
You are trying to confuse two issues here:
One: A woman's right to choose
Two: Some sort of moral issue

Those are two seperate issues.
It is not my right to tell any woman what to do with her body.
It is not up to me to judge a woman's choice.
It is none of my business.
If you had any sense you would be able to step back off of your own narrow minded judgemental beliefs and move on with your own life and stop trying to tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies.

[lisalulu]

01:10 PM on 12/30/2010

F/F The right to an abortion is the right of any women to have access to safe sterile medical care. Period.

[Cacey]

11:51 AM on 12/29/2010

Yes.  The woman wanting one has a reason and that is none of your business, mine or the state's.

[TuoulumneFlower]

11:38 AM on 12/30/2010

Yes, exactly. Nor is it anyone's business if a woman is pregnant, or not.

In Ceausescu's Romania, they had a police force the population called "The Menstrual Police." Women had to submit to pregnancy tests and gynecological exams every few months. All women. Every few months. If a pregnant woman was found to have had a miscarriage, she was under threat of legal action for failing to carry the pregnancy.

So much for either liberty or privacy, huh?

[tulane-grad]

11:10 AM on 12/29/2010

Based on some of your responses my previous comment must have been somewhat too vague. I meantioned that what we need is more "reasonable" abortion control legislation, and for that I am truly sorry. What I should have said is that what we need is more "common sense" abortion control legislation. I certainly hope this helps clear up any misunderstanding.

[Chris]

11:25 AM on 12/29/2010

What we need is for the Supremes to not be deeming medical procedures as a constitutional right. Which Roe V Wade did. What other medical procedure is thought to be a constitutional right

[dbl48]

01:13 PM on 12/29/2010

What we need are people to stop feeling the need to control a woman's reproduction rights.
The Supreme ct gave a woman the right to choose what to do with her body.
And what other medical proceedure would need the okay from the state or federal government would be a better question to ask.

[SirReal1]

06:49 PM on 12/29/2010

The Constitution was not written in a vacuum. The Declaration of Independence recognized Inalienable Rights, The Constitution sought to codify those rights, and how the Government would work to provide them. The two can not be read, side by side, without recognizing the right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness (amongst other unstated rights) as being assured by the Constitution.

The Founding Fathers were smart enough to realize that they could not possibly list EVERY RIGHT that might come into question if the Country survived long enough to consider these things.

I imagine that it was their hope that WE would be smart enough to realize that too.

I guess in your vision, if a portion of the populace decides that CPR, or organ transplants, somehow offends them, you wouldn't want the SCOTUS to declare that CPR and transplants are perfectly LEGAL?

I call B.S.

[medic628]

10:36 AM on 12/29/2010

STOP NARROW MINDS NOW!

[dbl48]

09:39 AM on 12/31/2010

Stop trying to control a woman's reproductive rights now.

[Harvee Wallbanger]

09:36 AM on 12/29/2010

It's a good thing Roberts is not an activist judge...

[TYRANNASAURUS]

09:35 AM on 12/29/2010

Supreme Court Ruling Inspires Abortion Foes.........

With over 7,000,000,000 people clogging a planet that can't support them......
with millions dying every year by starvation.........
I think all those stupid bible backers are hot on putting the population on the fast tract to extinction.

[lldem1]

01:57 PM on 12/29/2010

yes, exactly. and we should do away with health care altogether. healing people only contributes to the over population problem.

[midwestgirl1960]

08:05 AM on 12/29/2010

Here are the stats the religious( who are the main fighters of this war) do not want you to know it is them who are having the most in this nation (over 80%) from a anti abortion sight no doubt. The facts do not lie
The religious need to persuade the flock to follow their own rules instead of trying to make others follow their rules.

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

Who's having abortions (religion)?
Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as "Born-again/Evangelical"

[devildog09]

09:06 AM on 12/29/2010

I believe little or none of the published statistics on abortion any longer. The doctor who admitted lying to congress about late term abortions helped me make up my mind on that. As they say- statistics never lie, only statisticians do

[Cacey]

10:17 AM on 12/29/2010

That's sooo Baggerish.  "I'll believe what I believe:  to heck with the facts."

[dbl48]

10:20 AM on 12/29/2010

So what? The point is: A woman's right to choose is just that - a woman's RIGHT to choose.

[Cacey]

07:06 AM on 12/29/2010

Once the Baggers get in office based on a campaign of jobs and lowering the deficit, points all can agree on, they show thier true adgenda and go after social issues.  May they do a lot more of this in the next two years so Americans will remove this cancer from public office.

[Cacey]

07:00 AM on 12/29/2010

The Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade but was one more step in the march toward democracy and equal rights this country has been taking since our founding.  It is indeed a civil rights issue.  And in this country, we continually give rights, we do not take them away.  Choice is an established law of the land and those who would seek to take away those rights both waste our time and are foolish in trying to take away those rights. 

[devildog09]

09:09 AM on 12/29/2010

Too bad you can't talk to someone who remembers what it was like in the 1800s- I seriously doubt if you would find many who believe we have more rights now compared to then. In some areas certainly but the continued accumulation of federal and state laws generally serve to reduce individual rights, not expand them.

[dbl48]

10:02 AM on 12/29/2010

In the 1800's it was illegal to give birth out of wedlock.
In the 1800's a man was allowed to beat his wife or sister to d3Ath.
I'd say that things are better now than in the 1800's.
The continued accumulation of federal and state laws huh? Then let there be NO laws! That means that women can do what ever they want with regards to their bodies and cr@zy people can buy as many guns as they want! See, a win win situation!

[Wolfsghost]

10:10 AM on 12/29/2010

More rights in 1800s devildog09, than now? Surely you jest. Let's see, then no women could vote, no American Indian could vote, blacks were bought and sold like horses, forced to work for nothing. Senators were appointed, not elected, dueling was legal, forced prayer in schools. Where are you getting your indormation?

[Chris]

11:39 AM on 12/29/2010

What other medical procedures do you beleive are a civil right?

[Cacey]

11:49 AM on 12/29/2010

The right involved is that of a woman to decide what happens to her body and assure it is done in maximum safety.  It is also the right of a medical professional to practice his or her belief safely.

[SirReal1]

07:15 PM on 12/29/2010

What other medical procedures do you believe ARE NOT a civil right?

[IMOPINIONH8D]

04:40 AM on 12/29/2010

Abortion is a choice if you are against abortion that is your choice.mind your own business.

[devildog09]

09:10 AM on 12/29/2010

Guess you could say the same about gun ownership

[dbl48]

09:59 AM on 12/29/2010

Yes you could, sheppy. Don't want to own a gun, don't buy one. Don't want an abortion, don't get one.

[IMOPINIONH8D]

04:24 PM on 12/29/2010

I agree. I have myself a cabinet full of guns. Grew up in the country and cant remember not owning one gun or another. Got a bb gun when I was 8. THey taught hunter safety whenever I was in grade school 40yrs ago. Just because I'm for letting the woman make her choice doesnt mean I have a problem with gunownership. I've shot nearly everything from a b b gun to shooting a 8" Howitzer. 83-87 US ARMY.

[TexasTreader]

08:49 PM on 12/28/2010

My wife and I have a wonderful 7 year old son. It's REPULSIVE to us that anyone would rationalize killing a child.

[RainbowPhoenix]

09:15 PM on 12/28/2010

A fetus is not a child.

[ShellyintheWest]

09:32 PM on 12/28/2010

You must have never been pregnant. It is the beginning of a life, dependent on us to carry it through. Enough said.

[devildog09]

09:14 AM on 12/29/2010

So what magic even occurs that once a baby is completely free of the birth canal it is a child, but before that instant it is a "fetus" deserving of no rights or protection? That seems more like a technicality than a scientific fact

At least the original Roe v Wade decision addressed the "viability" of the fetus as the distinguishing event between fetus and person. But with the advent of late term abortions that no longer exists.

[MIVOTE]

10:34 PM on 12/28/2010

t repulses me that someone would try to dictate my right to choose.

[mdcolli]

10:51 PM on 12/28/2010

Yep.....Couldn't agree with you more...These are personal choices...

[reasonshouldrule]

11:02 PM on 12/28/2010

Totally agree. Talk about government intrusion into health issues! What hypocrites are these anti-abortionists.

[DnDCfromChi-town]

07:37 PM on 12/28/2010

Germaine Greer:
"Too many women are forced to abort by poverty, by their menfolk, by their parents ... A choice is only possible if there are genuine alternatives.

[lisalulu]

09:47 PM on 12/28/2010

Sometimes abortion is the choice. F/F