Heinous

[Jiro]

I think it'd be easier for the govt to provide free surgical sterilization (that can be reversed at a later time) and the person be compensated for his volunteer sterilization with a few thousand bucks. That way the issue of abortion would hopefully be lessened and that govt won't have to end up paying billions and billions dollars a year to support welfare families with kids they weren't ready for.

or how about better sex education and safe sex campaigns?

 

[Foxrac]

Because in my mind and way of thinking it is wrong and killing an unborn baby and taking of an innocent life. There are lots of couples out there that would love to be able to adopt a healthy baby of any race or sex. It is the way I was raised and the way that I see as right. Many, many agree with me. I would like to see the stats that show years later how many women wish that they had not had an abortion!

My grandma is conservative Christian and she doesn't want abortion to be illegal due to horrible experience with illegal abortion that done on other woman. Ban or make restriction on abortion will result in more illegal abortion so more women will die from that due to risk and complication.

I only have some problem with couple who had sex without any sex protection, especially condoms so they went to abortion because they don't want to raise the babies due to irresponsibility and unprotected sex. If couples are low income so federal or state will fund them to get fetus aborted because of irresponsibility and unprotected sex, that's not very brilliant idea.

I don't want people to use our taxpayer money on abortion for irresponsibility, especially unprotected sex and I don't care if they pay abortion in full with cash or monthly payment on their own.

 

[Foxrac]

or how about better sex education and safe sex campaigns?

Yup, it is best option ever to improve the sex education, correct?

 

[TXgolfer]

you gave a wrong reasoning for Roe v. Wade. It's actually about women's right to privacy... not to debate on legality of abortion.

Nice spin.... Again.

 

[Jiro]

Nice spin.... Again.

well then I'm sorry you feel that way. I guess the articles to Roe v. Wade and its misconceptions didn't help.

 

[Mimsy]

I'd like actual statistic on that.

Hmmm I don't know if I can get that information. I'll ask her if her hospital keeps those kinds of statistics. And I'll ask her how many she personally knows of.

 

[Jiro]

Hmmm I don't know if I can get that information. I'll ask her if her hospital keeps those kinds of statistics. And I'll ask her how many she personally knows of.

no offense but I'm not interested in what she personally knows because it can be argued as purely speculative and subjective.

for argument's sake, I'd prefer to stick with something documented and recorded.

 

[Foxrac]

no offense but I'm not interested in what she personally knows because it can be argued as purely speculative and subjective.

for argument's sake, I'd prefer to stick with something documented and recorded.

Do you think that deafblind and blind can be revealed in fetus?

 

[TXgolfer]

well then I'm sorry you feel that way. I guess the articles to Roe v. Wade and its misconceptions didn't help.

Meh

[QUOT E]**
Supreme Court
ABOUTSEARCHSUBSCRIBELIIBULLETIN PREVIEWS
Roe v. Wade (No. 70-18)
314 F.Supp. 1217, affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Syllabus

Opinion
[ Blackmun ]
Concurrence
[ Stewart ]
Dissent
[ Rehnquist ]
HTML version
PDF version HTML version
PDF version HTML version
PDF version HTML version
PDF version
Syllabus

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

410 U.S. 113

Roe v. Wade

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

No. 70-18 Argued: December 13, 1971 --- Decided: January 22, 1973
A pregnant single woman (Roe) brought a class action challenging the constitutionality of the Texas criminal abortion laws, which proscribe procuring or attempting an abortion except on medical advice for the purpose of saving the mother's life. A licensed physician (Hallford), who had two state abortion prosecutions pending against him, was permitted to intervene. A childless married couple (the Does), the wife not being pregnant, separately attacked the laws, basing alleged injury on the future possibilities of contraceptive failure, pregnancy, unpreparedness for parenthood, and impairment of the wife's health. A three-judge District Court, which consolidated the actions, held that Roe and Hallford, and members of their classes, had standing to sue and presented justiciable controversies. Ruling that declaratory, though not injunctive, relief was warranted, the court declared the abortion statutes void as vague and overbroadly infringing those plaintiffs' Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court ruled the Does' complaint not justiciable. Appellants directly appealed to this Court on the injunctive rulings, and appellee cross-appealed from the District Court's grant of declaratory relief to Roe and Hallford.

Held:

1. While 28 U.S.C. §*1253 authorizes no direct appeal to this Court from the grant or denial of declaratory relief alone, review is not foreclosed when the case is properly before the Court on appeal from specific denial of injunctive relief and the arguments as to both injunctive and declaratory relief are necessarily identical. P. 123.

2. Roe has standing to sue; the Does and Hallford do not. Pp. 123-129.

(a) Contrary to appellee's contention, the natural termination of Roe's pregnancy did not moot her suit. Litigation involving pregnancy, which is "capable of repetition, yet evading review," is an exception to the usual federal rule that an actual controversy [p114] must exist at review stages, and not simply when the action is initiated. Pp. 124-125.

(b) The District Court correctly refused injunctive, but erred in granting declaratory, relief to Hallford, who alleged no federally protected right not assertable as a defense against the good faith state prosecutions pending against him. Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66. Pp. 125-127.

(c) The Does' complaint, based as it is on contingencies, any one or more of which may not occur, is too speculative to present an actual case or controversy. Pp. 127-129.

3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.

4. The State may define the term "physician" to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined. P. 165.

5. It is unnecessary to decide the injunctive relief issue, since the Texas authorities will doubtless fully recognize the Court's ruling [p115] that the Texas criminal abortion statutes are unconstitutional. P. 166. [/QUOTE]

But everybody knows this. RvW ruled on abortion based on right to privacy....As I proved earlier as well

 

[Foxrac]

Meh

Supreme Court
ABOUTSEARCHSUBSCRIBELIIBULLETIN PREVIEWS
Roe v. Wade (No. 70-18)
314 F.Supp. 1217, affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Syllabus

Opinion
[ Blackmun ]
Concurrence
[ Stewart ]
Dissent
[ Rehnquist ]
HTML version
PDF version HTML version
PDF version HTML version
PDF version HTML version
PDF version
Syllabus

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

410 U.S. 113

Roe v. Wade

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

No. 70-18 Argued: December 13, 1971 --- Decided: January 22, 1973
A pregnant single woman (Roe) brought a class action challenging the constitutionality of the Texas criminal abortion laws, which proscribe procuring or attempting an abortion except on medical advice for the purpose of saving the mother's life. A licensed physician (Hallford), who had two state abortion prosecutions pending against him, was permitted to intervene. A childless married couple (the Does), the wife not being pregnant, separately attacked the laws, basing alleged injury on the future possibilities of contraceptive failure, pregnancy, unpreparedness for parenthood, and impairment of the wife's health. A three-judge District Court, which consolidated the actions, held that Roe and Hallford, and members of their classes, had standing to sue and presented justiciable controversies. Ruling that declaratory, though not injunctive, relief was warranted, the court declared the abortion statutes void as vague and overbroadly infringing those plaintiffs' Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court ruled the Does' complaint not justiciable. Appellants directly appealed to this Court on the injunctive rulings, and appellee cross-appealed from the District Court's grant of declaratory relief to Roe and Hallford.

Held:

1. While 28 U.S.C. §*1253 authorizes no direct appeal to this Court from the grant or denial of declaratory relief alone, review is not foreclosed when the case is properly before the Court on appeal from specific denial of injunctive relief and the arguments as to both injunctive and declaratory relief are necessarily identical. P. 123.

2. Roe has standing to sue; the Does and Hallford do not. Pp. 123-129.

(a) Contrary to appellee's contention, the natural termination of Roe's pregnancy did not moot her suit. Litigation involving pregnancy, which is "capable of repetition, yet evading review," is an exception to the usual federal rule that an actual controversy [p114] must exist at review stages, and not simply when the action is initiated. Pp. 124-125.

(b) The District Court correctly refused injunctive, but erred in granting declaratory, relief to Hallford, who alleged no federally protected right not assertable as a defense against the good faith state prosecutions pending against him. Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66. Pp. 125-127.

(c) The Does' complaint, based as it is on contingencies, any one or more of which may not occur, is too speculative to present an actual case or controversy. Pp. 127-129.

3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.

4. The State may define the term "physician" to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined. P. 165.

5. It is unnecessary to decide the injunctive relief issue, since the Texas authorities will doubtless fully recognize the Court's ruling [p115] that the Texas criminal abortion statutes are unconstitutional. P. 166.

But everybody knows this.

still quibbling?

It is better to make new friends instead of quibbling over everything.

 

[Jiro]

Meh

[QUOT E]**
Supreme Court
ABOUTSEARCHSUBSCRIBELIIBULLETIN PREVIEWS
Roe v. Wade (No. 70-18)
314 F.Supp. 1217, affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Syllabus

Opinion
[ Blackmun ]
Concurrence
[ Stewart ]
Dissent
[ Rehnquist ]
HTML version
PDF version HTML version
PDF version HTML version
PDF version HTML version
PDF version
Syllabus

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

410 U.S. 113

Roe v. Wade

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

No. 70-18 Argued: December 13, 1971 --- Decided: January 22, 1973
A pregnant single woman (Roe) brought a class action challenging the constitutionality of the Texas criminal abortion laws, which proscribe procuring or attempting an abortion except on medical advice for the purpose of saving the mother's life. A licensed physician (Hallford), who had two state abortion prosecutions pending against him, was permitted to intervene. A childless married couple (the Does), the wife not being pregnant, separately attacked the laws, basing alleged injury on the future possibilities of contraceptive failure, pregnancy, unpreparedness for parenthood, and impairment of the wife's health. A three-judge District Court, which consolidated the actions, held that Roe and Hallford, and members of their classes, had standing to sue and presented justiciable controversies. Ruling that declaratory, though not injunctive, relief was warranted, the court declared the abortion statutes void as vague and overbroadly infringing those plaintiffs' Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court ruled the Does' complaint not justiciable. Appellants directly appealed to this Court on the injunctive rulings, and appellee cross-appealed from the District Court's grant of declaratory relief to Roe and Hallford.

Held:

1. While 28 U.S.C. §*1253 authorizes no direct appeal to this Court from the grant or denial of declaratory relief alone, review is not foreclosed when the case is properly before the Court on appeal from specific denial of injunctive relief and the arguments as to both injunctive and declaratory relief are necessarily identical. P. 123.

2. Roe has standing to sue; the Does and Hallford do not. Pp. 123-129.

(a) Contrary to appellee's contention, the natural termination of Roe's pregnancy did not moot her suit. Litigation involving pregnancy, which is "capable of repetition, yet evading review," is an exception to the usual federal rule that an actual controversy [p114] must exist at review stages, and not simply when the action is initiated. Pp. 124-125.

(b) The District Court correctly refused injunctive, but erred in granting declaratory, relief to Hallford, who alleged no federally protected right not assertable as a defense against the good faith state prosecutions pending against him. Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66. Pp. 125-127.

(c) The Does' complaint, based as it is on contingencies, any one or more of which may not occur, is too speculative to present an actual case or controversy. Pp. 127-129.

3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.

4. The State may define the term "physician" to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined. P. 165.

5. It is unnecessary to decide the injunctive relief issue, since the Texas authorities will doubtless fully recognize the Court's ruling [p115] that the Texas criminal abortion statutes are unconstitutional. P. 166.

But everybody knows this. RvW ruled on abortion based on right to privacy....As I proved earlier as well

for proving me right. Supreme Court has ruled this case on the basis of women's right to privacy..... not whether or not if abortion was legal or not.... or abortion based on right to privacy... thus ruling state's anti-abortion law as unconstitutional for violating women's rights to privacy.

 

[Mimsy]

She said three second trimester abortions were done to babies with Mohr-Tranebjaerg syndrome, it causes profound deafness. One was from a mother passing herpes to the fetus, making it deaf when the defect showed up on ultrasound and one was a genetic inner ear malformation, also seen on ultrasound. These are the ones she knows of personally from her hospital. I don't know if she can get her hands on the statistics documents, but she said she'll try.

 

[rolling7]

I only care about Constitution.

Since we AD members are not discussing the Constitution right here, why are you even posting?

 

[rolling7]

you gave a wrong reasoning for Roe v. Wade. It's actually about women's right to privacy... not to debate on legality of abortion.

CORRECT....so why did you use it as an answer to post #224 when it has nothing to do with the subject?

 

[Jiro]

She said three second trimester abortions were done to babies with Mohr-Tranebjaerg syndrome, it causes profound deafness.

ah... you missed out quite a portion of crucial part.

Deafness-dystonia-optic neuronopathy syndrome - Genetics Home Reference

Deafness-dystonia-optic neuronopathy (DDON) syndrome, also known as Mohr-Tranebjærg syndrome, is characterized by hearing loss that begins early in life, problems with movement, impaired vision, and behavior problems. This condition occurs almost exclusively in males.

The first symptom of DDON syndrome is hearing loss caused by nerve damage in the inner ear (sensorineural hearing loss), which begins in early childhood. The hearing impairment worsens over time, and most affected individuals have profound hearing loss by age 10.

People with DDON syndrome typically begin to develop problems with movement during their teens, although the onset of these symptoms varies among affected individuals. Some people experience involuntary tensing of the muscles (dystonia), while others have difficulty coordinating movements (ataxia). The problems with movement usually worsen over time.

Individuals with DDON syndrome have normal vision during childhood, but they may begin to develop an increased sensitivity to light (photophobia) or other vision problems during their teens. These people often have a slowly progressive reduction in the sharpness of vision (visual acuity) and become legally blind in mid-adulthood.

People with this condition may also have behavior problems, including changes in personality and aggressive or paranoid behaviors. They also usually develop a gradual decline in thinking and reasoning abilities (dementia) in their forties. The lifespan of individuals with DDON syndrome depends on the severity of the disorder. People with severe cases have survived into their teenage years, while those with milder cases have lived into their sixties.

One was from a mother passing herpes to the fetus, making it deaf when the defect showed up on ultrasound and one was a genetic inner ear malformation, also seen on ultrasound. These are the ones she knows of personally from her hospital. I don't know if she can get her hands on the statistics documents, but she said she'll try.

passing herpes to fetus? let's see....

Birth-acquired herpes: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia

Possible Complications
Bacterial or fungal infection of skin lesions
Coma
Death
Developmental delay
Excessive bleeding, disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC)
Eye problems (chorioretinitis, keratitis)
Gastrointestinal problems, including diarrhea
Hepatitis
Jaundice
Liver failure
Lung problems including pneumonia or pneumonitis
Brain and nervous system (neurological) problems
Respiratory distress
Seizure
Shock
Skin lesions

then... they did not perform abortion simply because they found out their babies will be born deaf. It's because of these terrible conditions would lead to serious health complications.

 

[Jiro]

Since we AD members are not discussing the Constitution right here, why are you even posting?

because Roe v. Wade is about women's constitutional rights and I'm here to defend it.

CORRECT....so why did you use it as an answer to post #224 when it has nothing to do with the subject?

huh? can you please for once be coherent? I cannot understand probably 80% of your posts.

what in God's name are you talking about???

 

[Foxrac]

ah... you missed out quite a portion of crucial part.

Deafness-dystonia-optic neuronopathy syndrome - Genetics Home Reference

passing herpes to fetus? let's see....

Birth-acquired herpes: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia

then... they did not perform abortion simply because they found out their babies will be born deaf. It's because of these terrible conditions would lead to serious health complications.

Interesting... Did you see my post #388? I have question for you about blind.

 

[Mimsy]

ah... you missed out quite a portion of crucial part.

Deafness-dystonia-optic neuronopathy syndrome - Genetics Home Reference



passing herpes to fetus? let's see....

Birth-acquired herpes: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia


then... they did not perform abortion simply because they found out their babies will be born deaf. It's because of these terrible conditions would lead to serious health complications.

I didn't know all that. She said they can't cope with a deaf baby. I see there could be more reasons for them to abort.

 

[rolling7]

because Roe v. Wade is about women's constitutional rights and I'm here to defend it.


huh? can you please for once be coherent? I cannot understand probably 80% of your posts.

what in God's name are you talking about???

Could you for once not playing games and re-read post #224, which is addressed to you, and give a logical answer because post#240 sure as hell is not logical.

 

[Mimsy]

There was a woman who gave her deaf baby up for adoption because it was deaf, my mom was very upset over it, but it worked out better for the baby. One of the new parents is deaf so they will take very good care of the baby. But I still can't imagine giving away your own baby just because she's deaf. I'd never give my deaf baby away if I have one. That's my blood!