Gwen

A: No, a fetus is not a person.
B: No, not even people have the right to someone else's body, even in order to keep themselves alive.

Does that satisfy you?

----
Oh yeah, and wow is this a screwed-up decision. Do they honestly think that women do this for fun?

Why don't they just call it like it is: "some people have an opinion that the procedure is never medically necessary, and the actual experts who perform and recommend this procedure have the fact that it is."
"Fair and balanced" doesn't mean pretending like ignoramuses' opinions are the same as expert fact.

Nonsupernaturalist

Actually, the alternative is allowing physicians to carry out surgical procedures they deem necessary to save a life.

Dave Roberts

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBA...hers_Place.htm

James Madison

I am not in favor of the federal government banning it, as I do not think they possess the power to do so in the U.S. Constitution.

However, despite the less than convincing argument in Roe v. Wade, abortion is not a "right" actually protected in the U.S. Constitution. Consequently, I do think the states can legitimately regulate abortion.

James Madison

You are going to an extreme here.

Damian

My first reaction was "oh gees, i'm guessing this is another thread title completely misinterpreting/misrepresenting the case." And then...yep, that's what it was.

sentinel00

Any chance the lawyerly types could tell us laypeople what the case is actually about? I could click all the links in the world and probably not understand what's really going on.

Patronus Potter

We most likely would have gotten the same result with the previous two judges.

Pavlov's Dog

O'Connor would have likely swung the vote back the other way.

Damian

It's actually not that complicated of a decision. However, i think it's rather alarmist to paint it as the beginning of the end of abortion rights. The "constitutional right of abortion" is acknowledged throughout the case. However, there has never, ever been an absolute restriction of laws pertaining to abortion rights. The rule is that any law cannot put an "undue burden" on a woman's ability to have an abortion. It's that "undue burden" that is the gray area and is almost always at the center of any abortion law challenge, as it was here. So, the court was absolutely not upholding the legislature's ability to ban abortion, for example. The decision just says that this particular law did not put an undue burden on the acknowledged constitutional right.

I predict that the current congress will change the law promptly now that it's been upheld.