It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Supreme Court To Hear Abortion Case (moved from ATSNN)
page: 10
share:
As Rehnquist time is running short a whopping ham has been put on his plate. And this ham is boneless. Abortion is back in the Supreme Court after
almost 32 years. Recently the Courts denied hearing a case challenging landmark Roe Vs. Wade. Are the stakes higher this time and what will be the
outcome?
apnews.myway.com
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court, re-entering the politically charged abortion debate, agreed Monday to hear a state appeal seeking to reinstate a law requiring parental notification before minors can terminate their pregnancies.
Justices will review a lower court ruling that struck down New Hampshire's parental notification law. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the 2003 law was unconstitutional because it didn't provide an exception to protect the minor's health in the event of a medical emergency.
The decision to review the emotional case, which came amid wide speculation that Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist's retirement is looming, will be heard in the next term beginning in October. Liberal groups have vowed to fight any Rehnquist replacement who opposes the high court's landmark 1973 decision legalizing abortion.
Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
Living in China where abortion has been a state practice of population control and recently coming to light as a practice of gender selection the world of abortion in the U.S. is far, far away from me.
If I had to throw my two bits in I probably would be out of place because I haven't been back to the states in almost 3 years.
It is big news to hear the courts aruging such a highly and moraly charged case. What will the outcome be? I have no idea!
apnews.myway.com
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court, re-entering the politically charged abortion debate, agreed Monday to hear a state appeal seeking to reinstate a law requiring parental notification before minors can terminate their pregnancies.
Justices will review a lower court ruling that struck down New Hampshire's parental notification law. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the 2003 law was unconstitutional because it didn't provide an exception to protect the minor's health in the event of a medical emergency.
The decision to review the emotional case, which came amid wide speculation that Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist's retirement is looming, will be heard in the next term beginning in October. Liberal groups have vowed to fight any Rehnquist replacement who opposes the high court's landmark 1973 decision legalizing abortion.
Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
Living in China where abortion has been a state practice of population control and recently coming to light as a practice of gender selection the world of abortion in the U.S. is far, far away from me.
If I had to throw my two bits in I probably would be out of place because I haven't been back to the states in almost 3 years.
It is big news to hear the courts aruging such a highly and moraly charged case. What will the outcome be? I have no idea!
"1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the 2003 law was unconstitutional because it didn't provide an exception to protect the minor's health in
the event of a medical emergency. "
this is the second law that was shot down on this basis....
what I am wondering is why, oh, why, they refused to just rewrite the law to include something about the health of the mother, and try it again!!! Since this is what the courts are having problems with...
I mean, they have no problem with invading a country because THEY MIGHT BE a threat to us.....hey as a country, the reserve the right to protect themselves....
and there is no way anyone will convince me that if someone was coming at them with the obvious intention to do bodily harm to them, that they would reserve the right to protect themselves....
but, they refuse to entertain the idea that hey, abortions might save the life of some women and therefore should be allowed in those cases?
they cannot hold the life of the unborn ABOVE that of the mother....and this is what they want to do.
this is the second law that was shot down on this basis....
what I am wondering is why, oh, why, they refused to just rewrite the law to include something about the health of the mother, and try it again!!! Since this is what the courts are having problems with...
I mean, they have no problem with invading a country because THEY MIGHT BE a threat to us.....hey as a country, the reserve the right to protect themselves....
and there is no way anyone will convince me that if someone was coming at them with the obvious intention to do bodily harm to them, that they would reserve the right to protect themselves....
but, they refuse to entertain the idea that hey, abortions might save the life of some women and therefore should be allowed in those cases?
they cannot hold the life of the unborn ABOVE that of the mother....and this is what they want to do.
new topics
-
Search to Resume for MH 370
Disaster Conspiracies: 1 hours ago -
Sue Gray, Sir Keir Starmer's former Chief of Staff, Nominated for Peerage
Regional Politics: 2 hours ago -
Biden Nationalizes Another 50,000+ Student Loans as He Heads for the Exit
US Political Madness: 3 hours ago
0