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.
posted by homunculus on May 8, 2007 - 26 comments

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."
posted by XQUZYPHYR on Apr 18, 2007 - 219 comments

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.
posted by serazin on Jul 14, 2006 - 90 comments

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.
posted by justkevin on Dec 23, 2005 - 22 comments

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)
posted by schoolgirl report on Nov 29, 2005 - 27 comments

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.
posted by amberglow on Jul 19, 2005 - 185 comments

Speaking in TonguesCode --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.
posted by amberglow on Oct 11, 2004 - 73 comments

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.
posted by magullo on Jun 20, 2003 - 51 comments

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?
posted by ed on Feb 26, 2003 - 39 comments

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.
posted by Ty Webb on Dec 4, 2002 - 26 comments

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.
posted by jewishbuddha on Oct 4, 2002 - 22 comments

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.
posted by raysmj on Feb 7, 2002 - 24 comments

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.
posted by baylink on Nov 1, 2000 - 15 comments