Trying to ban abortions before a fetus can live outside the mother’s womb “flies in the face” of U.S. Supreme Court rulings, said Paul B. Linton, a lawyer with the Chicago-based Thomas More Society whose group, an opponent of abortion, isn’t involved in defending early-pregnancy curbs.
Efforts to limit early-pregnancy abortions are unlikely to succeed, he said.
Federal Courts
“I cannot see the Supreme Court upholding any of these laws with respect to the pre-viability applications,” Linton said in an interview, adding: “I can’t see those laws being upheld by lower federal courts.”
Well, Thomas Moore, FYI, was a Roman Catholic who helped lead the inquisitions for the Papacy a few centuries ago. No surprise that the Thomas Moore Society is controlled-opposition(at least judging by this guy's comments here).
It has been 40 years since the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade established a woman’s constitutional right to terminate an early pregnancy. Thirty states limited or prohibited abortions at the time. Colorado became the first to legalize it in 1967, after about 80 years of legislation against the procedure in the U.S., according to the pro-choice National Abortion Federation.
But it was Ronald Reagan who signed a big pro-abortion bill when governor of CA in 1967, which not only lead to 1m abortions during his term there, but all but paved the way for Roe V Wade as more states followed in CA's lead.
Leading the anti-abortion campaign in the states are the Washington-based groups Americans United for Life and National Right to Life Committee. The latter organization started lobbying before “Roe,” said Mary Spaulding Balch, its state-legislation director.
“Not a single year has gone by where we didn’t pass some piece of substantive legislation,” she said. “Our state affiliates have been in the trenches from the beginning.”
But Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush, and George W. Bush continue to get free rides for appointing Sandra Day O'Conner, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the USSC? You DO know that it was O'Conner's appointee by Reagan that was the clincher to the 1992 5-4 upholding of Roe V Wade, right?
“We believe that in the end, the abortion issue ought to be left to the states, that it was a serious judicial error for the United States Supreme Court to put itself in the position of being the abortion control board for the country,” said Ovide Lamontagne, the organization’s general counsel and a two-time Republican candidate for governor of New Hampshire. “We are essentially providing a resource for legislators across the country.”
Uhm...WHAT?
Abortion IS MURDER, PERIOD! And should NOT be legalized anywhere!
Exo_20:13 Thou shalt not kill. “The courts are incredibly important stopgaps, but nobody should be sanguine to think the courts are the solution to this,” Louise Melling, the ACLU’s deputy legal director, said in a telephone interview, adding that resistance is needed in the state legislatures.
Yes, they have been compromised. It's not just Clinton/Obama appointed judges making rulings for pro-abortion groups, Reagan/Bush appointed judges are doing so as well.
An adjacent page states that more than 300 abortion-restrictive laws have been introduced by state legislators this year.
And ALMOST ZERO of these laws were introduced by state legislators when George W. was President for 8 years!
In his state, a measure curbing abortions at the 12th week of pregnancy was passed this year by the legislature over Governor Mike Beebe’s veto. Then it was blocked in court by U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright.
A George HW Bush appointee, that is.
Peter Rofes, a Marquette University law professor in Milwaukee, said there’s a positive side to investing “the time, the effort, the money to engage the challenge” of proposing laws almost certain to prompt lawsuits they may not survive.
“It’s a victory for those who seek to keep it in the nation’s consciousness,” he said.
Or the love of money(as it sounds like you said).
“I don’t think the current court is inclined to revisit Roe,” he said. “Until there’s a one-justice switch, I think it’s going to rest in the lower courts.”
Chief Justice John Roberts and associate justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito are perceived as the most likely to vote to revisit the issue and perhaps alter the status quo, Rofes said.
Wrong! Both John Roberts and Samuel Alito have made rulings in favor of pro-abortion when they were lower court judges(prior to George W. appointing them in 2005).
National Right to Life is pushing for a different kind of legislation, barring abortion at the 20th week of a pregnancy on the ground that a fetus at that point can feel pain.
Why is it that these "pro-life" groups set out to "compromise"? Either it's right, or it's wrong. Jesus Christ says either you are with me or against me. There's no gray areas.
Balch of National Right to Life said her organization hopes the Supreme Court finds a compelling state interest in protecting the life of a child that can feel pain, based on science that wasn’t available in 1973.
Huh? Wasn't this science available in 1992, when Roe V Wade was sent to the USSC to review? Or shouldn't have this science been available to all of the lower court judges that made rulings recently?