Re: President Signs Bill That Prohibits Type of Abortion
From: art fougner, md (evsono@pipeline.com)
Wed Nov 5 15:42:34 2003
And just like that the Courts intervene. The ink might not even have
been dry.
http://www.nbc4.com/health/2614108/detail.html
art
At Wed, 05 Nov 2003, Dean Huffman wrote:
>
>..
>
>President Signs Bill That Prohibits Type of Abortion
>By DAVID STOUT
>
>November 5, 2003 -- N.Y. Times
>
>WASHINGTON, Nov. 5 — President Bush signed a law today outlawing a certain
>type of abortion, declaring that it would benefit "the innocent child" yet
>unborn.
>
>With a few ceremonial pen strokes in the Ronald Reagan Trade Center here,
>Mr. Bush gave abortion opponents something they have sought for years.
>
>"For years, a terrible form of violence has been directed against children
>who are inches from birth while the law looked the other way," Mr. Bush
>said against a backdrop of American flags before an audience of several
>hundred people. "Today, at last, the American people and our government
>have confronted the violence and come to the defense of the innocent child."
>
>The bill makes it a crime for a doctor to undertake a procedure sometimes
>used to terminate pregnancies after the first trimester that doctors call
>intact dilation and extraction. Abortion opponents call the procedure
>"partial-birth abortion," although that is not a medical term.
>
>The Senate approved the bill, 64 to 34, on Oct. 21. Earlier, the House
>approved it, 281 to 142. The majorities were so overwhelming because many
>lawmakers who generally favor the right to choose abortion voted in favor
>of this bill.
>
>"I'm about 99 percent pro-choice," said Senator Blanche Lincoln of
>Arkansas, one of many Democrats who nevertheless voted in favor of the
>bill. Other Democrats who crossed over and sided with Republican
>conservatives said they, too, had anguished.
>
>Polls have shown that a majority of Americans support the Roe v. Wade
>decision, but there is little support for the procedure that the bill
>prohibits. Even so, some lawmakers said the language of the bill was so
>broad that it could call into question some safe, common medical procedures.
>
>In any event, the signing ceremony marks a turning point in the 30-year
>history of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that established a
>woman's right to choose abortion.
>
>Abortion-rights advocates have long insisted that the law taking effect
>today cannot possibly be sustained in court in view of Roe v. Wade.
>Moreover, three years ago the Supreme Court voted, 5 to 4, to overturn a
>Nebraska law similar to the one signed today.
>
>In highly unusual pre-emptive strikes, three advocacy groups filed federal
>court suits against the latest law even before it had the president's
>signature. Hearings on the suits were taking place today in Nebraska, San
>Francisco and New York City.
>
>Judge Richard Kopf, who was presiding over a hearing in Omaha, Neb., called
>the new law "highly suspect, if not a per se violation of the
>Constitution," The Associated Press reported.
>
>Aware of the legal challenges, Mr. Bush said, "The executive branch will
>vigorously defend this law against any who would try to overturn it in the
>courts."
>
>The president's remarks drew loud and sustained applause from an audience
>that included House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois and several other
>Republican lawmakers, including Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, one
>of the chief supporters of the law signed today.
>
>Ralph G. Neas, president of People for the American Way, issued a statement
>asserting that the bill contains language that is so broad it could forbid
>some safe and common abortion procedures.
>
>"It shifts the focus from the fact that women should make decisions about
>their own health care with their doctors rather than the government making
>those decisions," Mr. Neas said. "This bill is an affront to women, defies
>the U.S. Supreme Court and should be ruled unconstitutional."
>
>Former President Bill Clinton twice vetoed bills similar to the one Mr.
>Bush signed today. Even before the ceremony in the Reagan building,
>abortion-rights supporters and abortion opponents were gathering to
>demonstrate for their causes.
>
>The competing demonstrations were a reminder that abortion remains a highly
>sensitive issue, both personally and politically as the 2004 presidential
>campaign gets under way.
>
>Abortion opponents hope to see the Roe v. Wade decision overturned one day,
>which is why nominations to federal courts have become increasingly
>controversial. The lineup of the United States Supreme Court has not
>changed in nine years. But three justices are in their 70's and one,
>Justice John Paul Stevens, is 83.
--
art fougner, md
ich bin ein New Yorker
