Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobi
Ok I did not see this type of rationale coming.
Virginia used concerned for the health and well being of the women involved.
|
Well apparently the U.S. Supreme Court did in 1973 because they clearly stated in the Roe vs. Wade decision that the state is not allowed to promote its interests until the second trimester and even then only in regards to the health of the mother.
FOR THE STAGE PRIOR TO APPROXIMATELY THE END OF THE FIRST TRIMESTER, THE ABORTION DECISION AND ITS EFFECTUATION MUST BE LEFT TO THE MEDICAL JUDGMENT OF THE PREGNANT WOMAN'S ATTENDING PHYSICIAN. The state has no right to interfere in this at all, in any way, with the exception of making sure the physician is licensed in the particular state where the abortion is to take place. The decision of the woman's physician as to what is necessary is final. So the state can take its concern for the health and well-being of the women involved and save it for the second trimester, where they have already shown their deep concern for the health of women when they banned the IDX procedure.
Since the number of abortions performed in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters are relatively miniscule and the debate over late-term and the banned IDX procedure (politically not medically named partial-birth abortions) has to do with abortions performed for emergency medical reasons, not elective abortions, it is increasingly frustrating for anti choice people. They have banned a procedure but since the abortion itself is medically necessary the only thing they have done is to force the woman into having a more difficult procedure. It is clear to the anti choice faction that the only way to stop a woman's right to choose is to eliminate first trimester abortions. These are where the abortions of choice exist. However they are at the moment protected by the Supreme Court, albeit not by the Supreme Court in its present configuration.
So anti choice people have found a plethora of ways to make exercising one's constitutionally protected right to a first trimester abortion a very difficult thing to do.
According to the N.Y. Times in 2004 "Immediately after taking office, Bush eliminated U.S. funding to any international family planning organization that provided abortion counseling or services -- even if they did so with private funds. The lengthening string of anti-choice executive orders, regulations, legal briefs, legislative maneuvers, and key appointments emanating from his administration suggests that undermining the reproductive freedom essential to women's health, privacy and equality is a major preoccupation of his administration - second only, perhaps, to the war on terrorism."
And the anti women sentiment of his administration lives on in a very busy republican controlled House. If they should regain control of the senate it will be very bad for the reproductive rights of women. Worse case scenario, and I'm talking Armageddon here, if they should control the White House as well it will be like living in a time warp.
This may not be the time to challenge the constitutional legality of the laws being passed by various states because it is a very right leaning supreme court, however, there may not be a better time. It is possible that the republicans in the very near future will control the house, the senate, the white house and the supreme court. The only option at that point will be to emigrate.