by James Oliphant
A federal appeals court in Richmond Tuesday threw out the state's ban on late-term or so-called "partial birth" abortions, even after the U.S. Supreme Court last year ruled a similar federal ban was constitutional.
In the ruling, the three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit said the state's ban "imposes an undue burden on a woman's right to obtain an abortion," Judge M. Blane Michael wrote in the majority opinion, joined by Judge Diana Gribbon-Motz.
The same court reached a similar decision in 2005, but agreed to review the Virginia law again after the Supreme Court upheld the federal ban last year in Gonzales v. Carhart.
Judge Paul Niemeyer who dissented in the 2005 ruling, also dissented this time, writing that the law "is virtually identical to the federal statute upheld as constitutional" in the Supreme Court's 2007 ruling.
The key difference between the two statutes: The federal law protects doctors who intend to perform a legal abortion that by accident becomes the banned procedure. The Virginia statute provides no such protection.
The ruling comes at a time when the judiciary is again emerging as a major campaign issue in the general election. Last week, the California Supreme Court ruled that gays in that state could legally marry. Both that decision and the Virginia abortion ruling were bitterly attacked by conservative advocates.
Wednesday, the Washington Times carried a front-page story saying that conservatives were now rallying around the presumptive GOP nominee, John McCain, over this very issue, fearing that Democratic president could loosen the foothold conservatives have carefully built in the federal courts since the Reagan administration.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
The notion that we have a Liberal media is laughable. Time and again they call this procedure "partial birth" a loaded phrase created by the Pro-Life zealots. Crack open a medical book and you'll see there is no such procedure. There is something called Dialation and Extraction. As in Dialate and Extract a near term fetus that has little chance of surviving and prenatal disease or Dialate and Extract a near term fetus that will cause death or severe injury to the mother if she were to give birth. It is VERY rare and is NOT A BIRTH CONTROL MEASURE. It is used to protect a baby from being stillborn or severely mentally and physically handicapped or to protect the mother.
Posted by: Susan W | May 21, 2008 11:20 AM
There goes Frank James' dream of a blue Virginia.
Posted by: Jeff | May 21, 2008 11:22 AM
Thank you Susan W for clarifying that. So many people don't know this.
As for me, personally, I do not believe in abortion unless absolutely neccesary for the life of the mother. The bottom line is that we have no
right to tell a woman what she can do with her own body. My ex wife and I were very yong when we had our abortion adn to this day I think of what my child would be like. We were young, reckless and penniless. If I could do it over again I woul dhave opted out of this procedure, but again, this would not be my decision to make.
I wish the right and the pro lfe people would understand that this is America not Sudan. The supreme Court has ruled for decades that abortionis legal. Let it go and mind your own business!
Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | May 21, 2008 11:43 AM
Swamp, why is it okay for "Susan W" to post that killing a fetus in the womb via blunt force trauma to its head (that's what partial birth abortion is) can "protect a baby from being stillborn or severely mentally and physically handicapped" but I can't post a rebuttal that only an abortionist would consider said blunt force trauma "protection?"
I guess all handicapped people should just be euthanized in the womb or shortly thereafter in "susan's" spartan ideal.
Posted by: Jeff | May 21, 2008 12:06 PM
hey Jeff, what the heck are you talking about?? where in Susan W's statement do you see the phrase " killing a fetus in the womb via blunt force trauma to its head"??
I am guessing your're one of those Pro-life zealots she does mention. And by the way Jeff, what right do you have -as a man - to tell a woman what to do with HER body??? I suppose you really hate the fact that woman can vote now too!
Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | May 21, 2008 12:50 PM
Scot, I posted you a diagram of what she believes "dialation and extraction" is. The Swamp won't post it. Search for partial birth abortion in google and you'll find it and see how the scissors are used.
Posted by: Jeff | May 21, 2008 2:46 PM
Jeff,
The scissors are used because when you have Prenatal Encephalitis, the head swells to the size of a beachball or merely a volleyball if you're lucky. Do you want the government to force your mother, wife, daughter pass an object that big thru their birth canal? Or would you like the doctor to drain the fluid that has accumulated around the brain?
IT IS NOT USED FOR BIRTH CONTROL. It is medically necessary.
Posted by: Susan W | May 21, 2008 3:29 PM
Susan W's last post is just a lie. The procedure is being used and has been used on healthy fetuses. There have been several documented cases of it being used on fetuses that don't have prenatal encephalitis.
Remember, folks, piercing a nearly-born fetus' skull with scissors is "protecting" it.
Or maybe we're calling it "draining the fluid around the brain" now instead of what it is, death by scissors.
p.s. Judging by their overreactions I bet they'll be shocked that I'm all for keeping abortion safe and legal. Just not this particular type.
Posted by: Jeff | May 21, 2008 4:19 PM
This quote accurately blows "susan's" lies about this never being used for birth control out of the water: Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers (a trade association of abortion providers), told the New York Times (Feb. 26, 1997): "In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along."
Medically necessary, sure.
Posted by: Jeff | May 21, 2008 4:25 PM
Jeff,
So today we are supposed to believe what the New York Times prints? Will you folks make up your mind about that paper. Is that person quoted talking about Dilation & Extraction or Dilation & Evacuation?
Posted by: Susan W | May 21, 2008 5:15 PM
It's a direct quote, Susan (or John E, I know Susan Whitehurst is one of his aliases) from a reporter I trust (not Jason Blair or anyone involved in their hit pieces). It's dilation and extraction. But you don't have to believe me or the Times, you can go directly to the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, they'll set you straight.
Posted by: Jeff | May 21, 2008 5:33 PM
But you don't have to believe me or the Times, you can go directly to the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, they'll set you straight.
Posted by: Jeff | May 21, 2008 5:33 PM
Then provide the link.
Posted by: Doug Goodyear | May 21, 2008 9:49 PM
So what is your alternative Jeff! How do you propose your mother, wife, daughter deliver a fetus in the THIRD trimester suffering from Prenatal Encephalitis. You said you'd take this option away. So now you'd have the government either force your mother, wife, daughter either pass this swollen, beach ball size head thru her birth canal or you would have the government force a doctor to cut up your mother's, wife's, daughter's stomach and have a C-section birth? What is your alternative???
Posted by: Susan W | May 22, 2008 9:36 AM