MetaFilter posts tagged with SupremeCourt and Abortion

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban

homunculus — Tue, 08 May 2007 21:25:58 -0800

New Justices, New Rules: How the Supreme Court's Validation of the Federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act Affects Women's Constitutional Liberty and Equality. A two-part FindLaw analysis of Gonzales v. Carhart.

Abortions for none, miniature American flags for others

XQUZYPHYR — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 07:57:08 -0800

The Supreme Court has upheld the federal ban on "Partial-Birth Abortion," in a 5-4 decision. The federal ban provides no exceptions for the health of the mother, the reason previous Courts overturned the law. Justice Kennedy argued the law banning the procedure should stay, as opponents "have not demonstrated that the Act would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of relevant cases." In a scathing dissent, Justice Ginsburg alluded to the politics of recent judicial appointments, noting "...the Court's defense of it cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this Court -- and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives. A decision of the character the Court makes today should not have staying power."

Legislatures in 14 states have considered or are considering almost complete bans on abortion.

serazin — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:18:22 -0800

The Supreme Court is increasingly anti-abortion, and they have already agreed that next year they will be deciding on so-called partial birth abortion bans. Given this context, you might need to learn how to do it yourself. (Here's more on some useful equipment.) Also see more inside.

Alito's Roe v. Wade comments

justkevin — Fri, 23 Dec 2005 07:22:20 -0800

NewsFilter: Supreme Court nominee Alito advocated overturning Roe v. Wade in 1985 DOJ Memo. The National Archives have just released a new collection of records pertaining to Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito. One document in particular (pdf) will likely draw considerable fire during his nomination hearings.

Ayotte v Planned Parenthood

schoolgirl report — Tue, 29 Nov 2005 20:58:49 -0800

Tomorrow, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood. At its core, the case is about the constitutionality of New Hampshire's abortion notification law. In reality, the two questions before the Court are a bit more complex. This may be one of the most significant abortion-related cases in years, and a ruling in favor of New Hampshire may put a serious dent in in the pro-choice movement. As a result, the Court has taken the rare step of allowing C-Span to air audio of the arguments soon after they conclude. (more inside)

at least it's not Luttig?

amberglow — Tue, 19 Jul 2005 16:51:09 -0800

the Supreme Court Short List --read it and weep, or not. CNN is already reporting it's John Roberts, and not Edith Clements. Bush announces at 9pm est. Roberts worked for both Reagan and Bush 1, btw.

...semaphoring to hard-core abortion opponents...

amberglow — Mon, 11 Oct 2004 17:51:59 -0800

Speaking in ~~Tongues~~Code --Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade and the Supreme Court and a President who signals his base in terms that fly over the heads of most of the country.

On second thought ...

magullo — Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:19:18 -0800

Jane Roe of Roe vs. Wade wants veredict of Roe vs. Wade overturned
CNN's legal expert says it will not happen. Findlaw.com has a summary of the case for your perusal pleasure. Also worth remembering are the ambiguous opinions of the current administration on the issue.

An Abortion Clinic Nightmare or An Activism Boon?

ed — Wed, 26 Feb 2003 14:59:35 -0800

A Supreme Court ruling with interesting implications: All lower court racketeering convictions against pro-life protestors have been effectively overturned. Operation Rescue is quite free to harass patients and blockade clinics again. Is this a major dent in the campaign to save Roe vs. Wade? Or does this open up new possibilities for activists of all stripes?

civil disobedience

Ty Webb — Wed, 04 Dec 2002 12:57:44 -0800

National Organization for Women v. Scheidler Is being heard by SCOTUS today. The case may decide whether non-violent civil disobedience can be prosecuted under federal RICO laws. Here's the ACLU's amicus brief. And comments from NRO's Rod Dreher.

jewishbuddha — Fri, 04 Oct 2002 09:28:44 -0800

The Supreme Court begins its term this coming Monday. There are lots of exciting cases on the calendar (99k PDF). For example, Ewing v. California, which will test California's 3 strikes rule. Scheidler v. NOW, which has to do with anti-abortion activists blocking access to clinics. And of course, Eldred v. Ashcroft, where the issue is whether or not the 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (PDF) is Constitutional. The last has been mentioned in a couple threads and has gotten loads of web attention, including this new piece from WIRED. A lot to look forward to, whether you're interested in one of the specific issues or you're just an avid armchair justice.

raysmj — Thu, 07 Feb 2002 20:31:29 -0800

Scalia: Think the dealth penalty wrong? Resign In particular, he says, any Catholic jurist who agrees with the Vatican's anti-death penalty stance should resign. One to raise an eyebrow over, given that Scalia - a jurist who just happens to be Catholic - has been a consistent foe of Roe v. Wade and legalized abortion. He says his opposition to Roe, however, is mainly legal, and adds that his religious views should play no role in his decisions.

baylink — Wed, 01 Nov 2000 18:26:09 -0800

Asshole of the year? G.W. Bush, who is expected to use opposition to Roe v Wade as a litmus test for new Supremes... got a 15 year old girl preggers in the 70s and paid for the abortion? Ethel seems convinced... make up your own mind.