To try and look on the brighter side of things:
Interesting reading the law and the opinion it almost seems that the law was designed to almost never apply. For example previous bans have outlawed any abortion in which a substantial portion of the body is delivered.
“The statute in Stenberg prohibited ‘deliberately and intentionally delivering into the vagina a living unborn child, or a substantial portion thereof, for the purpose of performing a procedure that the person performing such procedure knows will kill the unborn child and does kill the unborn child.’”
This bill only prohibits delivering the whole head or the trunk up to the navel.
“The Attorney General concedes, and we agree, that if an abortion procedure does not involve the delivery of a living fetus to one of these “anatomical ‘landmarks’”—where, depending on the presentation, either the fetal head or the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother—the prohibitions of the Act do not apply.”
Regular D&E’s, the vast majority of 2nd trimester abortions, are untouched.
“The Act prohibits intact D&E; and, notwithstanding respondents’ arguments, it does not prohibit the D&E procedure in which the fetus is removed in parts.”
Also the act that “kills” the fetus must occur after this delivery.
“For purposes of criminal liability, the overt act causing the fetus’ death must be separate from delivery. And the overt act must occur after the delivery to an anatomical landmark. This is because the Act proscribes killing “the partially delivered” fetus, which, when read in context, refers to a fetus that has been delivered to an anatomical landmark.”
Finally there must be intent to both deliver to the prohibited point and to “kill”.
“To begin with, the physician must have “deliberately and intentionally” delivered the fetus to one of the Act’s anatomical landmarks. §1531(b)(1)(A). If a living fetus is delivered past the critical point by accident or inadvertence, the Act is inapplicable. In addition, the fetus must have been delivered “for the purpose of performing an overt act that the [doctor] knows will kill [it].” If either intent is absent, no crime has occurred.”
This is key. In many D&E’s the intent may be to partially dilate and remove in pieces however often more extreme dilation can occur and you can get delivery past the landmarks. The Court here and later states that if the intent at the onset was to remove in pieces, a regular D&E, then no crime has been committed.
There is also this possibility.
“If the intact D&E procedure is truly necessary in some circumstances, it appears likely an injection that kills the fetus is an alternative under the Act that allows the doctor to perform the procedure.”
While of course the federal government or the courts should not be intruding into this realm. However, in my opinion it does not seem like this ban will have much effect at all. Kennedy also seemed to go out of his way to reaffirm the principles of Casey and Roe. Unlike Scalia and Thomas he goes through the Casey standards to come to his conclusion. All told while certainly a bad decision it does not appear that Kennedy is willing to overturn abortion rights…
you forgot Kucinich and Nader.
after all, we can't forget their people who helped elect our current President.
Where's all the talk of "activist judges" now?
Nader yes, but I think you give Kucinich to much credit. Nader is the like the brother-in-law who gets drunk and beats up your grandma at Easter. Kucinich justs sits in the corner and mumbles nonsense to himself.
“The Attorney General concedes, and we agree, that if an abortion procedure does not involve the delivery of a living fetus to one of these “anatomical ‘landmarks’”
... they can't even be bothered to say vagina?
Sam, the "anatomical landmarks" refer to the fetus. They are the entirety of the head or the belly button. Basically the previous law said a substantial part of the fetus. That was found to be overly broad. This bill defines the exact moment you go from legal D&E to illegal D&E to avoid that.
how did kucinich help bush get elected? sure people voted for him in the primary, but im sure they switched to kerry in the general.
@7 - are you sure?
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).