God help us if the first Catholic VP is him. What a Scandal. Besides again Senator Biden's bad habit of getting Catholic history and dogma wrong as we see in this piece he also really says the most damnedest things.
Aside from the other problems with Senator Biden's statement, he also badly mischaracterizes the Supreme Court's doctrines on abortion.
Biden, although he has served on the Senate Judiciary Committee for decades and was once its chairman, appears to be unaware that the U.S. Supreme Court completely repudiated the "trimester scheme" in 1992.
In the 1992 Casey v. Planned Parenthood ruling, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the "core holdings" of Roe v. Wade on a vote of 5 to 4. At the same time, the Court explicitly repudiated any distinction whatever between the first and second trimester, writing, "We reject the trimester framework, which we do not consider to be part of the essential holding of Roe."
That ruling made clear that the same standard (which allows abortion for any reason) applies all the way up to "viability."
Biden does not accurately characterize even the "trimester notion" from the original Roe v. Wade. In the Roe original decision, and in many subsequent decisions, the Court made it clear that abortion had to be allowed FOR ANY REASON through the second trimester. The original ruling left the door open for minor regulations to protect women's health during the second trimester, but it was clear from the language of the original decision that these regulations could not amount to much, and they never did. So when the Court abolished any distinction between the first and second trimesters in the 1992 ruling, it really did not make much difference?
So what about the final three months of pregnancy?
After months of research on the partial-birth abortion debate, Washington Post medical writer David Brown accurately summarized the Roe v. Wade ruling in an article published Sept. 17, 1996. Dr. Brown wrote, "The landmark Supreme Court decisions Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, decided together in 1973, permit abortion on demand up until the time of fetal 'viability.'" ("Viability," the capacity of the baby to survive independently of the mother (albeit with technological assistance), is reached in the latter portion of the second trimester.)
Dr. Brown went on to explain that even after "viability," the Court said that states could not restrict abortion sought for reasons of "health," defined to include "all factors -- physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman's age -- relevant to the well-being of the patient.' Brown wrote, "Because of this definition, life-threatening conditions need to exist in order for a woman to get a third-trimester abortion."
In other words, "health" means whatever an abortionist wants it to mean.
The so-called "Freedom of Choice Act" (S. 1173), of which Barack Obama is a cosponsor, would nullify any state or federal policy that would "interfere with" access to abortion for any reason before "viability," which is in the sixth month. The bill would also prohibit any law or policy that would interfere with access to abortion AFTER "viability" if justified by a "health" claim -- and states would be powerless to narrow the meaning of that all-encompassing term.
Douglas Johnson Legislative Director National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) Washington, D.C. www.nrlc.org
Aside from the other problems with Senator Biden's statement, he also badly mischaracterizes the Supreme Court's doctrines on abortion.
ReplyDeleteBiden, although he has served on the Senate Judiciary Committee for decades and was once its chairman, appears to be unaware that the U.S. Supreme Court completely repudiated the "trimester scheme" in 1992.
In the 1992 Casey v. Planned Parenthood ruling, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the "core holdings" of Roe v. Wade on a vote of 5 to 4. At the same time, the Court explicitly repudiated any distinction whatever between the first and second trimester, writing, "We reject the trimester framework, which we do not consider to be part of the essential holding of Roe."
That ruling made clear that the same standard (which allows abortion for any reason) applies all the way up to "viability."
Biden does not accurately characterize even the "trimester notion" from the original Roe v. Wade. In the Roe original decision, and in many subsequent decisions, the Court made it clear that abortion had to be allowed FOR ANY REASON through the second trimester. The original ruling left the door open for minor regulations to protect women's health during the second trimester, but it was clear from the language of the original decision that these regulations could not amount to much, and they never did. So when the Court abolished any distinction between the first and second trimesters in the 1992 ruling, it really did not make much difference?
So what about the final three months of pregnancy?
After months of research on the partial-birth abortion debate, Washington Post medical writer David Brown accurately summarized the Roe v. Wade ruling in an article published Sept. 17, 1996. Dr. Brown wrote, "The landmark Supreme Court decisions Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, decided together in 1973, permit abortion on demand up until the time of fetal 'viability.'" ("Viability," the capacity of the baby to survive independently of the mother (albeit with technological assistance), is reached in the latter portion of the second trimester.)
Dr. Brown went on to explain that even after "viability," the Court said that states could not restrict abortion sought for reasons of "health," defined to include "all factors -- physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman's age -- relevant to the well-being of the patient.' Brown wrote, "Because of this definition, life-threatening conditions need to exist in order for a woman to get a third-trimester abortion."
In other words, "health" means whatever an abortionist wants it to mean.
The so-called "Freedom of Choice Act" (S. 1173), of which Barack Obama is a cosponsor, would nullify any state or federal policy that would "interfere with" access to abortion for any reason before "viability," which is in the sixth month. The bill would also prohibit any law or policy that would interfere with access to abortion AFTER "viability" if justified by a "health" claim -- and states would be powerless to narrow the meaning of that all-encompassing term.
Douglas Johnson
Legislative Director
National Right to Life Committee (NRLC)
Washington, D.C.
www.nrlc.org