[Caveat! Conspiracy theorist at work]

But..

Just exactly how 'Catholic' has our Supreme Court become?

www.counterpunch.org/carmichael01302006.html

The ban will have little real effect on women, but it will mobilize a liberal and democratic base, while defusing an issue that has rallied conservatives for years. Giving them this symbolic victory might be the best thing that has happened to America in quite awhile.

It can be done and he's given ample cause. He's failed to recuse himself numerous times when he's had a personal interest in the case being decided. Were he a lower court judge, he'd have been censured multipple times by now.

Firstly, don't paint us conservatives with such a wide brush. We view the evangelical christians and the bush white house as a bunch of reactionaries. They are not conservative, please don't honor them as conservatives. Try the terms "religious fundamentalist" or "reactionary". Quit telling me I am a right to lifer because someday I may tire of correcting you and become one out of spite.

Secondly, the court's strict constructivists claim to take the constitution at face value. That is why they say that abortion should be a state issue. By letting a federal ban stay in place, they are violating the basic precepts of constructionism.

Finally, the Roe v Wade proponents had better pull their heads out of their asses and read the majority opinion. I know from personal experience that anti-abortionists are far more likely to have educated themselves by reading it. The entire trimester argument is based on medical capabilities back in 1973. Over 30 years ago. A much younger fetus is now viable. If you keep hanging your coats on that flimsy hanger, don't cry when it breaks. New arguments must be found.

Hints: 1st trimester, fetus not viable implies insuficient state interest in the fetus' life.

2nd trimester, fetus more likely to survive so state can regulate in ways reasonably related to maternal health.

3rd trimester, fetus is viable, so it begins aquiring constitutional rights and the state can regulate, except when necessary to protect the health of the mother.

...so why do i feel like I've been punched in the gut?

There'll be no reasoned intellectualism for me today...maybe tomorrow I'll be able to think about this without getting choked up.

Looks like Scalia and Thomas might actually have voted _against_ upholding the ban, had the plaintiffs made a commerce clause/states' rights claim, since they both believe that the Fed Gov't has no role in regulating abortion aye or nay. Of course, had the apellants attempted to make that claim, they'd be arguing against Roe itself, so that was a non-starter.

I never actually thought that Bush's goons would ever come right out and overturn Roe vs. Wade. Rather, I thought they would chip away about abortion rights until gradually, getting access to an abortion will be all but impossible for most women-esp. poor and working-class women. Today marks the first step and like Emily, I feel like I have been kicked.

This doesn't necessarily mean that all abortions will get banned, though obviously given the language of the bill people will try.

I was actually quite shocked to learn that Germany doesn't allow abortion after 12 weeks except in "exceptional circumstances". The UK is apparently one of the most liberal countries in Europe for abortion and only allows it for 24 weeks (again, it can go later than that in cases where the physical or mental well-being of the mother are at risk, or for fetal abnormalities.) The UK used to allow 28 weeks but changed to 24 to reflect "better medical practice" (or hmmmm... just before Margret Thatcher lost power...)

It is a disgusting procedure. But I'm a software engineer. I find most medical procedures to be disgusting enterprises. Ever see a doctor lance a boil? Eww. Heart surgery? Nasty.

I'm not the guy you want determining whether these procedures are necessary. And the Supremes are not the guys I want determining what is medically appropriate. The pro-life gurus have been attacking the D&X procedure based on the revulsion factor it produces. I find dental surgery revolting. It doesn't mean it is never necessary or appropriate.

This entire ruling is so legally wrong-headed as to be stunning. It suggests that Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy know more about what is medically necessary for women than trained medical professionals. In reality, it was an opportunity to narrow Roe. It was a politically motivated attack on a previous court's ruling. It has no basis in law.

Congress passed that oedious law based on the fact that D&X is icky. But they really meant that we want to restrict women's right to abortion. The central issue is, as always, when is a fetus a person? This question was never asked in this case. It is the only relevant question in the abortion debate. I have my own answer, but it is a metaphysical one. It is true for me. How do I make it true for everyone without imposing my moral and religious values on everyone else?

The fact is, you can't. This shouldn't be legislated at all. the court never should have heard the case.

This ruling is a problem, but a greater worry is the increasing success that doctors are having extending pre-mature viability. Recently, a child was kept alive after being born at 21 weeks with a 10oz birth-weight. These organisms are now perceived as human beings at a very early age. It then becomes difficult for Americans (Including Justice Kennedy) to make the decision to allow them to be destroyed.

I thought this was rightly decided. Congress' act specifically requires the doctor to perform an affirmative, mortally-wounding act, and it also has a scienter requirement. So a doctor intending to perform a regular D&E , but has the fetus slip out farther than intended, will not be liable, because s/he did not intend at the start to perform the D&E prohibited by the act.

And unless I'm misreading Kennedy's opinion (joined by Alito and Roberts), exceptions for health-based reasons may be considered on as-applied challenges and not the facial challenge that court dealt with here.

Interestingly, neither Alito or Roberts joined Thomas and Scalia, who reaffirmed that the "right" to an abortion is not in the constitution.