What we said: “The constitutionally dubious aspects of this particular restriction — the first ban on an abortion procedure since the landmark Roe vs. Wade ruling of 1973 — show the danger of mixing politics and medicine. Pro-choice groups argue that the legislation was worded so loosely that it could apply to many pre-viability abortions in the second trimester. Significantly, the newly signed bill does not allow for an exceptionfor the health of the pregnant woman. That omission may prove to be a fatal flaw from a constitutional perspective.’’ — Editorial, Nov. 7, 2003, after President Bush signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.
What happened: On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton, acting on a lawsuit by Planned Parenthood, found that the law was unconstitutional because it was vague, imposed an undue burden on women seeking abortions and failed to provide an exception to protect a woman's health.
What's next: Attorney General John Ashcroft's Justice Department continues to litigate two other cases (in New York and Nebraska) involving challenges to the law, and has not ruled out an appeal of Hamilton's ruling. "The president is committed to building a culture of life in America and the administration will take every necessary step to defend this law in the courts," White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said this week.
What you can do: Let the Bush administration know your views. You can e-mail President Bush at president@whitehouse.gov.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/06/03/EDGPU6V6BR1.DTL
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
