US Supreme Court Nears Crucial Abortion Ruling
By Suzanne Goldenberg for The Guardian UK.

The US supreme court moved a step closer yesterday to taking up its first case on abortion since the appointment of two judges of President George Bush's choosing, after two federal appeals courts ruled that a ban on a termination procedure was unconstitutional.

The rulings, in courts in California and New York, were handed down on Tuesday, the same day that the deeply conservative Samuel Alito was sworn in as a supreme court justice, and underlined how quickly his appointment could change federal abortion law.

"This is likely to be the next abortion case before the court and probably the first one Alito will hear," said Lorraine Kenny, a spokeswoman for the American Civil Liberties Union, which fought the case in New York. "We are concerned."

Both rulings said the ban on the procedure, which involves partly removing an intact foetus from the body after the first trimester before aborting it, was unconstitutional because it failed to provide an exception when alternative methods could endanger the woman's health.

The ban, which was signed into law by President Bush in 2003 but never enforced because of legal challenges, would make what the anti-abortion movement calls partial birth abortion punishable by up to two years' jail for doctors who carry it out.

In a unanimous ruling, the court in San Francisco said the law placed an unfair burden on a woman's right to an abortion, and put doctors at risk of criminal liability for virtually all abortion procedures after the first 12 weeks of pregnancy...

The twin rulings make it increasingly likely that the federal ban on the procedure would be the next abortion case before the US supreme court, and the first that Justice Alito will hear. The issue is already before the supreme court after a court in Missouri became the first to strike down the ban by Congress last year.

here's the whole text of the entire article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1700001,00.html

Also available at truthout.org:
http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/020306WA.shtml

US Supreme Court Nears Crucial Abortion Ruling
By Suzanne Goldenberg
The Guardian UK

Thursday 02 February 2006

Washington - The US supreme court moved a step closer yesterday to taking up its first case on abortion since the appointment of two judges of President George Bush's choosing, after two federal appeals courts ruled that a ban on a termination procedure was unconstitutional.

The rulings, in courts in California and New York, were handed down on Tuesday, the same day that the deeply conservative Samuel Alito was sworn in as a supreme court justice, and underlined how quickly his appointment could change federal abortion law.

"This is likely to be the next abortion case before the court and probably the first one Alito will hear," said Lorraine Kenny, a spokeswoman for the American Civil Liberties Union, which fought the case in New York. "We are concerned."

Both rulings said the ban on the procedure, which involves partly removing an intact foetus from the body after the first trimester before aborting it, was unconstitutional because it failed to provide an exception when alternative methods could endanger the woman's health.

The ban, which was signed into law by President Bush in 2003 but never enforced because of legal challenges, would make what the anti-abortion movement calls partial birth abortion punishable by up to two years' jail for doctors who carry it out.

In a unanimous ruling, the court in San Francisco said the law placed an unfair burden on a woman's right to an abortion, and put doctors at risk of criminal liability for virtually all abortion procedures after the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.

The ruling from the New York court was less of a victory for the abortion rights movement, with an unusually sharp dissent from one judge and a rebuke from the chief judge, John Walker. Mr. Walker overturned the ban, but called the abortion procedure "morally repugnant." He called on the supreme court to issue a ruling that would require opponents of the ban to demonstrate how it would harm women.

The twin rulings make it increasingly likely that the federal ban on the procedure would be the next abortion case before the US supreme court, and the first that Justice Alito will hear. The issue is already before the supreme court after a court in Missouri became the first to strike down the ban by Congress last year.

ROE V. WADE AT CROSSROADS: Abortion foes are just one Supreme Court justice away from victory
In Newsweek.

Anyone who thinks abortion rights aren't in serious jeopardy should consider the plight of Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

Specter has been a Republican for 40 years. He's in line to become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in January. He has voted to confirm every single one of President George W. Bush's judicial nominees. Despite that record, angry conservatives are determined to block his rise to chairman. Why?

Because Specter supports abortion rights. And because he had the temerity to state the obvious: That Bush would have trouble winning Senate confirmation of any Supreme Court nominee who is notoriously anti-abortion rights. That's a simple mathematical fact.

It takes only 51 of 100 Senate votes to confirm a judicial nominee. But it takes 60 votes to cut off debate and move to a confirmation vote. Come January, there will be 55 Republicans in the Senate. Do the math. That's not enough to derail a determined Democratic filibuster. Specter said he was alluding to that numerical reality when he made the remark that has haunted him all week.

But conservative foes of abortion rights have been emboldened by the perception that they provided Bush's margin of victory Nov. 2. They aren't of a mind to tolerate even the barest hint of resistance to their agenda, which is reversal of Roe v. Wade. That would be a tragedy. It would strip women of the right to control their bodies and turn the clock back to the grisly days of back-alley abortions.

Bush has a choice to make. Option 1: He could opt for polarizing political warfare by nominating anti-abortion absolutists for the top court. He could push for a change in Senate filibuster rules to deprive Democrats of that time-honored tactic and rely on raw political power to beat back all opposition. Option 2: Do what he promised during the campaign - impose no abortion litmus test for judicial candidates, while nominating people who will strictly interpret the Constitution rather than legislating from the bench. That's the better course...

Replacing Rehnquist, a solid vote against abortion rights, isn't likely to alter the court balance. But that balance could tip decisively should any one of the abortion-rights supporters leave the bench. That includes Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, as well as swing voters David Souter, Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy, whose positions on abortion are less black and white.

The nation may be approaching a legal sea change that could end or sharply curtail a woman's right to abortion. But change that profound should be approached through reasoned debate, not a political beat-down.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vproe134040507nov13,0,6398338.story?coll=ny-editorials-headlines

Abortion foes are just one Supreme Court justice away from victory

Email this story
Printer friendly format

November 13, 2004

Anyone who thinks abortion rights aren't in serious jeopardy should consider the plight of Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

Specter has been a Republican for 40 years. He's in line to become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in January. He has voted to confirm every single one of President George W. Bush's judicial nominees. Despite that record, angry conservatives are determined to block his rise to chairman. Why?

Because Specter supports abortion rights. And because he had the temerity to state the obvious: That Bush would have trouble winning Senate confirmation of any Supreme Court nominee who is notoriously anti-abortion rights. That's a simple mathematical fact.

It takes only 51 of 100 Senate votes to confirm a judicial nominee. But it takes 60 votes to cut off debate and move to a confirmation vote. Come January, there will be 55 Republicans in the Senate. Do the math. That's not enough to derail a determined Democratic filibuster. Specter said he was alluding to that numerical reality when he made the remark that has haunted him all week.

But conservative foes of abortion rights have been emboldened by the perception that they provided Bush's margin of victory Nov. 2. They aren't of a mind to tolerate even the barest hint of resistance to their agenda, which is reversal of Roe v. Wade. That would be a tragedy. It would strip women of the right to control their bodies and turn the clock back to the grisly days of back-alley abortions.

Bush has a choice to make. Option 1: He could opt for polarizing political warfare by nominating anti-abortion absolutists for the top court. He could push for a change in Senate filibuster rules to deprive Democrats of that time-honored tactic and rely on raw political power to beat back all opposition. Option 2: Do what he promised during the campaign - impose no abortion litmus test for judicial candidates, while nominating people who will strictly interpret the Constitution rather than legislating from the bench. That's the better course.

Partisan warfare over the abortion positions of Supreme Court nominees would inflame the country's political division and undermine public confidence in the independence of the judicial system.

Bush has the right to nominate people who share his political views. But he should engage Democrats in the process in search of nominees acceptable to both sides. Democrats have blocked 10 of his lower court picks, employing the filibuster as their weapon of choice. But Bush is in the driver's seat. The Senate confirmed more than 200 of his judicial nominees, many of whom share his anti-abortion convictions.

Anti-abortion forces won't like a less confrontational approach because they're just one justice away from achieving their objective. Roe v. Wade, which established a constitutional right to abortion, commanded a 7 to 2 majority in 1973. More recent abortion decisions have seen that majority slip to 5 to 4. There are no immediate Supreme Court vacancies. There haven't been any for a decade. But the court is aging and Chief Justice William Rehnquist was recently diagnosed with thyroid cancer. There will probably be one or more spots to fill in the next four years.

Replacing Rehnquist, a solid vote against abortion rights, isn't likely to alter the court balance. But that balance could tip decisively should any one of the abortion-rights supporters leave the bench. That includes Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, as well as swing voters David Souter, Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy, whose positions on abortion are less black and white.

The nation may be approaching a legal sea change that could end or sharply curtail a woman's right to abortion. But change that profound should be approached through reasoned debate, not a political beat-down.

This is from the June 24, 2004 program.

The Daily Show On The Largest Class Action Lawsuit In History Against Walmart
(For paying women less than men -- and paying them $2,000 a year under the poverty line.)

The Daily Show (The best news on television.)

A nice accomplishment indeed, courtesy of the Center for Reproductive Rights.

Federal judge blocks late-term abortion ban
By the Associated Press.

A federal judge blocked implementation of a federal ban on certain late-term abortions Wednesday, less than an hour after President Bush signed the measure into law.

"Congress and the president ignored the Supreme Court and women's health in enacting this law," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which filed the lawsuit to block the law.

"The Nebraska court's order will protect doctors from facing prison for providing their patients with the best medical care."

U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf issued a temporary restraining order, citing concerns that the law did not contain an exception to the ban for preserving the health of a woman seeking the abortion.

"While ... Congress found that a health exception is not needed, it is, at the very least, problematic whether I should defer to such a conclusion when the Supreme Court has found otherwise," Kopf said.

The judge stopped short of prohibiting the new law from being enforced nationwide...

Kopf did not immediately schedule the next hearing in the case, at which time he could decide whether to issue a preliminary injunction against implementation of the law.

The judge's ruling followed a three-hour hearing in a lawsuit brought by abortion supporters trying to block the ban. The four doctors sought to block the ban of the procedure opponents call partial-birth abortion.

In making his ruling, Kopf referred to a legal challenge from Carhart that led to the U.S. Supreme Court overturning Nebraska's partial-birth abortion ban in 2000. The high court said the Nebraska law and others like it were an "undue burden" on women's rights.

"The Supreme Court, citing factual findings of eight different trial judges, appointed by four different presidents, and the considered opinion of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, has found a very similar law unconstitutional because it banned `partial-birth abortions' with the requisite exception from the preservation of the health of the woman," Kopf said...

Judge Kopf voiced his concerns at the start of the hearing. "It seems to me the law is highly suspect, if not a per se violation of the Constitution," he said...

Kopf said he could find no record of a doctor who performs abortions in the second and third trimesters testifying before Congress on late-term abortions. "Isn't that important if Congress was really interested in knowing about this procedure?" Kopf said.

The law also appears to have a "serious vagueness problem," Kopf said.

Priscilla Smith, an attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights, said that if the law is allowed to take effect "physicians across the country will risk imprisonment for providing abortion care in accordance with their best medical judgment."

Here is the full text of the article, in case the link goes bad:

http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2003/11/06/news/national_world/e73bbeca8c05196f86256dd6001965f6.txt

Thursday, November 06, 2003
Sioux City, Iowa

Federal judge blocks late-term abortion ban

LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) -- A federal judge blocked implementation of a federal ban on certain late-term abortions Wednesday, less than an hour after President Bush signed the measure into law.

"Congress and the president ignored the Supreme Court and women's health in enacting this law," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which filed the lawsuit to block the law.

"The Nebraska court's order will protect doctors from facing prison for providing their patients with the best medical care."

U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf issued a temporary restraining order, citing concerns that the law did not contain an exception to the ban for preserving the health of a woman seeking the abortion.

"While ... Congress found that a health exception is not needed, it is, at the very least, problematic whether I should defer to such a conclusion when the Supreme Court has found otherwise," Kopf said.

The judge stopped short of prohibiting the new law from being enforced nationwide.

He said his order would apply only to the four doctors who filed the lawsuit in Nebraska and their "colleagues, employees and entities ... with whom plaintiffs work, teach, supervise or refer" patients.

The four are: Dr. LeRoy Carhart, who practices in Bellevue, Neb. and is also licensed in Iowa, Indiana, Kansas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Wisconsin; Dr. William Fitzhugh, who is licensed to practice in Virginia; Dr. William Knorr, medical director and co-owner of the Savannah Women's Medical Clinic in Savannah, Ga., and also licensed in Alabama, South Carolina and New York; and Dr. Jill Vibhakar, who practices medicine at Emma Goldman Clinic for Women and at the University of Iowa College of Medicine Hospital in Iowa City, Iowa.

"This will prevent the (U.S.) Attorney General and his staff from using this act against me, my patients, all physicians that I refer to and all physicians that refer to me," Carhart said.

Kopf did not immediately schedule the next hearing in the case, at which time he could decide whether to issue a preliminary injunction against implementation of the law.

The judge's ruling followed a three-hour hearing in a lawsuit brought by abortion supporters trying to block the ban. The four doctors sought to block the ban of the procedure opponents call partial-birth abortion.

In making his ruling, Kopf referred to a legal challenge from Carhart that led to the U.S. Supreme Court overturning Nebraska's partial-birth abortion ban in 2000. The high court said the Nebraska law and others like it were an "undue burden" on women's rights.

"The Supreme Court, citing factual findings of eight different trial judges, appointed by four different presidents, and the considered opinion of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, has found a very similar law unconstitutional because it banned `partial-birth abortions' with the requisite exception from the preservation of the health of the woman," Kopf said.

Meanwhile, federal judges in New York and San Francisco are scheduled to soon hear arguments in similar challenges to the ban by Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union.

At the White House, Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said the president believes the new law will be upheld.

"We believe it is constitutional and you could expect that we would vigorously defend this law in the courts," McClellan said.

Judge Kopf voiced his concerns at the start of the hearing. "It seems to me the law is highly suspect, if not a per se violation of the Constitution," he said.

U.S. Justice Department attorney Anthony Coppolino told Kopf that he should show deference to Congress' findings that the abortion procedure has not been studied enough to prove it's necessary.

"We ask that you give consideration to the deep concerns that were expressed by Congress," Coppolino said. "It is an abhorrent and useless procedure."

Kopf said he could find no record of a doctor who performs abortions in the second and third trimesters testifying before Congress on late-term abortions. "Isn't that important if Congress was really interested in knowing about this procedure?" Kopf said.

The law also appears to have a "serious vagueness problem," Kopf said.

Priscilla Smith, an attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights, said that if the law is allowed to take effect "physicians across the country will risk imprisonment for providing abortion care in accordance with their best medical judgment."

The ban defines so-called partial-birth abortion as delivery of a fetus "until, in the case of a headfirst presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of the breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus."

Carhart said the method is one of the safest abortion procedures because it reduces the risk of leaving parts of the fetus inside the woman.

The procedure is used most often in cases where the woman has developed heart disease, diabetes or other life-threatening ailments.

Here is the full text of the announcement, in case the link goes bad:

http://www.crlp.org/pr_03_1105pba.html

Federal Abortion Ban Blocked by Nebraska Judge Minutes After President Bush Signs it into Law

Judge Issue Restraining Order Protecting Plaintiffs in Nebraska

November 5, 2003 |Lincoln, NE | Learn More

Today, a Nebraska federal judge issued a temporary restraining order preventing the first-ever federal abortion ban from being enforced against the plaintiffs in the Nebraska lawsuit challenging the ban. Judge Richard G. Kopf’s order allows the plaintiffs and the people with whom they "work, teach, supervise, or refer" to continue to perform safe abortion procedures without fear of prosecution. The order was issued minutes after President Bush signed the ban into law.

"Congress and the President ignored the Supreme Court and women’s health in enacting this law. The Nebraska court’s order will protect doctors from facing prison for providing their patients with the best medical care," said Nancy Northup, President of the Center for Reproductive Rights.

The Center for Reproductive Rights filed the case in Nebraska federal court last Friday in order to prevent the law from taking effect. The challenge was filed on behalf of Dr. LeRoy Carhart, the lead plaintiff in the Supreme Court case striking down Nebraska’s ban, and three other doctors in Iowa, New York and Virginia. The ban, which contains no health exception and outlaws the safest abortion procedures used as early as 12 weeks, is almost identical to a Nebraska ban struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court just three years ago in Stenberg v. Carhart – a case argued by the Center for Reproductive Rights.

The Center for Reproductive Rights filed its case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska. Lawyers on the case include Priscilla J. Smith of the Center for Reproductive Rights and Nebraska attorneys Jerry M. Hug and Alan G. Stoler.

If anyone knows for sure when on what channel this is airing, will you shoot me an email please at lisarein@finetuning.com?

I'd like to tape it and make it available for everyone online.

NOW Hosts Presidential Candidate Forum on Women's Rights

What: Presidential Candidates Forum on Women's Rights

Who: Confirmed candidates include Gov. Howard Dean, Ambassador Carol Moseley-Braun, Rep. Dennis Kucinich and Rev. Al Sharpton

When: Friday, July 11
5:15 PM to 7:00 PM

Where: DoubleTree Crystal City - Crystal Ballroom
300 Army Navy Drive
Arlington, Virginia

"NOW's Presidential Candidates Forum will bring women's rights activists from across the country - the backbone of many a campaign - face to face with the candidates challenging Bush in 2004," Gandy said. "Going on the record as a strong supporter of these critical issues is a sure-fire way to mobilize women to get to the polls next year."

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/071103J.shtml

NOW Hosts Presidential Candidate Forum on Women's Rights
Press Release

Thursday 10 July 2003

"At this critical time in politics, voters need and want to know where the candidates stand on the issues women care about," said National Organization for Women (NOW) President Kim Gandy. "Because women's votes will make or break this election, our concerns and our rights need to be addressed." On Friday, July 11 the nation's largest group of feminist activists is hosting the first forum of 2004 presidential candidates to address the full spectrum of women's rights. The forum is part of the 2003 National NOW Conference, and will precede the Saturday kickoff of NOW's Drive for Equality, a 5-year campaign to register, educate and mobilize women to vote on issues that affect their lives and their families.

Participating in the NOW forum are Governor Howard Dean, Ambassador Carol Moseley-Braun, U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich and Reverend Al Sharpton. Gandy will moderate the event with political comedian and activist Elayne Boosler. Unable to attend the forum due to scheduling conflicts, John Kerry will send a videotaped message and John Edwards will send a representative. Gandy, audience members and journalists-include legendary questioner of Presidents, Helen Thomas-will ask the candidates hard-hitting questions on a broad range of women's rights issues.

What: Presidential Candidates Forum on Women's Rights

Who: Confirmed candidates include Gov. Howard Dean, Ambassador Carol Moseley-Braun, Rep. Dennis Kucinich and Rev. Al Sharpton

When: Friday, July 11
5:15 PM to 7:00 PM

Where: DoubleTree Crystal City - Crystal Ballroom
300 Army Navy Drive
Arlington, Virginia

"NOW's Presidential Candidates Forum will bring women's rights activists from across the country - the backbone of many a campaign - face to face with the candidates challenging Bush in 2004," Gandy said. "Going on the record as a strong supporter of these critical issues is a sure-fire way to mobilize women to get to the polls next year."

These clips were from the live CSPAN feed less than an hour ago.

The Repubs are trying to pass legislation banning "partial birth abortions," a term that doesn't even have any meaning in the medical profession. (The Repubs made it vague on purpose so that its meaning could be interpreted later, and could potentially apply to procedures it was not originally intended for.)

Here are some short video clips from some of the Democrats fighting for our right to choose that I thought provided some simple, concise explanations about what this legislation tries to do exactly and why it is unconstitutional on so many different levels.
Rep. Nita Lowey - NY (Small - 4 MB)

Rep. Jerrold Nadler - NY (Small 5 MB)

Martha Burk, chair of the National Council Of Women's Organizations, was on the Daily Show a few weeks ago. Martha has been protesting and speaking out against the
Male-only policy at the Augusta Golf Club (owned by Augusta National, Inc.).

According to Burk, Augusta members such as Bill Gates and the CEOs of General Electric and Bank of America won't stand up for women's rights because they don't want to cross "Hootie", the President of the Club.

Burk also explains how the Klu Klux Klan have stepped up to support the Club's discriminatory poilcy, saying "This civil rights stuff has gone too far. We support the club. Keep the women out."

She also explains why this battle is one worth fighting.

Audio - Martha Burk On The Daily Show - All (MP3 - 10 MB)

Martha Burk On The Daily Show Part 1 of 2 (Small - 7 MB)
Martha Burk On The Daily Show Part 2 of 2 (Small - 8 MB)

Martha Burk On The Daily Show Part 1 of 2 (Hi-res - 93 MB)
Martha Burk On The Daily Show Part 2 of 2 (Hi-res - 113 MB)

The Daily Show -- the best news on television.