An Analysis of the Supreme Court Ruling Regarding Partial-Birth Abortion
The Supreme Court has ruled 5-4 that partial-birth abortion be banned as a medical procedure. The procedure, also known as Dilation and Extraction, involves the performance of abortion after the 20th week of pregnancy. Pro-rights activists are loudly criticizing the ruling, including the extension of the ban on situations deemed medically-necessary to save the life of the mother.
The punishment for physicians convicted of the crime of performing this banned procedure is a maximum of two years imprisonment. Pro-life supporters are particularly anxious that this ruling will foreshadow a total ban on abortion on more states. They criticized the ruling as being ultra-conservative and an expression of some of the justices' allegiance to President Bush. They rationalize their observations by pointing out that two of the members of the Supreme Court were personally appointed by President Bush, and would therefore support Bush's views, even though these conservative views lacked popular support.
It is hard to verify Pro-choice activists' allegations that the Supreme Court decision reflects the views of only a minority of the people. Pro-life supporters see the ruling as a triumph for their cause, and as further motivation to curb women's rights concerning abortion. The political implications of this decision would most likely be felt in the outcome of the Presidential elections and the next mid-term elections.
Many people are left to wonder if the Supreme Court decision is truly a legal decision, or nothing more than a very carefully selected group of ultra conservative judge's who are following Bush's wishes and desires in regards to the case. The case was sitting before a panel of judge's who seem to thrive off of the acceptance of Bush, and Bush was noted as being encouraged by the ruling and declaring it as a victory for his administration.
The Supreme Court, for their part, emphasized that the ruling is meant to define the boundary on what constitutes the killing of an infant as against what is abortion. They point out that abortion at this stage of pregnancy deprives the infant of taking his first breath through his lungs, a basic element in the definition of life.
It seems questionable that though the Supreme Court has nobly acted to protect the life of the unborn infant, they seem not to have given the same consideration for mothers who are not physically able to continue with their pregnancy due to medical complications. By not allowing any exemptions to the ruling, the Supreme Court seems to have turned its back on its duty to protect the lives of these women.
The author is a multifaceted writer. She writes articles for a variety of topics like marriage and relationship advices, great deals on swimsuits and halter swimsuits, family and parenting concerns, fashion and beauty tips and a lot more.
Related posts:
- Within What Scenarios Could Abortion Be Regarded As A Sensible Choice?
- Abortion: A Public Health Crisis
- Thorough Understanding Of Abortion In St. Louis
- ProChoice Vs ProLife – Which Side Do You Think You’re On?
- Abortion St. Louis Is Severely Restricted By Missouri Law
- Many Families Want To Adopt My Baby, But Who Will Support Me While I Consider Abortion Alternatives?
- When Considering Abortion Alternatives, Adoption May Be The Only True Solution
- Things To Anticipate From A Twin Pregnancy: Basics Of Twin Birth
- What To Expect During DNC Surgery
- How To Select A Doctor For Your Baby