Comments on: New abortion protocol allowed

By: iuris causa

iuris causa — Sat, 25 Feb 2006 05:04:40 +0000

‘A new procedure for a medical abortion that does not involve surgery must be allowed later in pregnancy, the Sixth Circuit Court ruled Friday in a major new decision involving the drug known as “RU-486.”‘

Is it just me or is that opening statement rather misleading about what the Sixth Circuit actually ruled? From what I gather, it ruled that a state ban on the procedure would require a health exception, and not, as it sounds, that any such law would be unconstitutional.

By: Commentator

Commentator — Fri, 24 Feb 2006 21:03:23 +0000

The court also signalled to the district court that it should tone down its aversion to the State’s expert, revisit its evidentiary rulings, and noted that the ruling on this preliminary injunction was so because of the paucity of evidence on the State’s behalf (likely due to the time and discovery constraints). It also mapped out precisely what evidence the State could supply to garner a contrary ruling. It is not a gimme for the pro-abortion side, at all, as the bitter and unnecessary concurrence makes clear.

By: Mary

Mary — Fri, 24 Feb 2006 18:30:16 +0000

Rick, Simon — please refer to your earlier questions under the previous Tues. partial birth abortion thread.

I think if SCOTUS overrules abortion, without ensuring absolute adherence to Title II of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to ensure all disabled people who are born “independent living” and “economic self-sufficiency,” then there will be another Constitutional issue — the imposition of unconstitutional conditions.

I stand by what I said for the reasons I have posted in response to your previous comments.