WASHINGTON (AP) ? The Bush administration has asked the Supreme Court to reinstate a ban on a procedure that critics call "partial birth" abortions, setting up a showdown that could be decided by the president's new choice for the court.

The appeal, which had been expected, follows a two-year, cross-country legal fight over the law.

 

An appeals court in St. Louis said this summer that the ban is unconstitutional because it makes no exception for the health of the woman.

 

The Supreme Court has already scheduled arguments in another abortion case, involving New Hampshire's parental notification statute. That case also asks whether the law is unconstitutional because it lacks an exception allowing a minor to have an abortion to protect her health in the event of a medical emergency.

 

The court should deal with both cases, Solicitor General Paul Clement said in the appeal, which was filed Friday and released on Monday.

 

The earliest that justices could review the federal law, known as the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, is next spring. By then, the court could have two new members.

 

The Senate is expected to vote this week on President Bush's nomination of John Roberts to be chief justice. Bush will also soon name a replacement for retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who in the past has provided the fifth vote to strike down abortion laws without health exceptions.

 

The case is Gonzales v. Carhart, 05-380.

 

credit USAtoday.com

Are there any legitimate reasons to allow partial birth abortions? Honestly, can anyone give me one?

An appeals court in St. Louis said this summer that the ban is unconstitutional because it makes no exception for the health of the woman.

 

That case also asks whether the law is unconstitutional because it lacks an exception allowing a minor to have an abortion to protect her health in the event of a medical emergency.

 

 

 

That right there is all the reason I need to keep it, Dodge. To let a woman or girl die, maybe, just to prevent an abortion from taking place is absolutely absurd. For any other argument, I feel ya but that reason surpasses them all.

An appeals court in St. Louis said this summer that the ban is unconstitutional because it makes no exception for the health of the woman.

 

That case also asks whether the law is unconstitutional because it lacks an exception allowing a minor to have an abortion to protect her health in the event of a medical emergency.

 

 

 

That right there is all the reason I need to keep it, Dodge. To let a woman or girl die, maybe, just to prevent an abortion from taking place is absolutely absurd. For any other argument, I feel ya but that reason surpasses them all.

 

 

That I agree with you on.

 

 

I'm still waiting for a Republican to write a bill that is fair to both parties. I see no reason that the woman's health can't be part of this bill.

An appeals court in St. Louis said this summer that the ban is unconstitutional because it makes no exception for the health of the woman.

 

That case also asks whether the law is unconstitutional because it lacks an exception allowing a minor to have an abortion to protect her health in the event of a medical emergency.

 

 

 

That right there is all the reason I need to keep it, Dodge. To let a woman or girl die, maybe, just to prevent an abortion from taking place is absolutely absurd. For any other argument, I feel ya but that reason surpasses them all.

 

 

That I agree with you on.

 

 

I'm still waiting for a Republican to write a bill that is fair to both parties. I see no reason that the woman's health can't be part of this bill.

 

Bingo. Make the woman's health part of the bill, and be fair to both parties (and the life of the women).

 

Other than that, I see no reason why partial birth abortion should stay legal. None.

An appeals court in St. Louis said this summer that the ban is unconstitutional because it makes no exception for the health of the woman.

 

That case also asks whether the law is unconstitutional because it lacks an exception allowing a minor to have an abortion to protect her health in the event of a medical emergency.

 

 

 

That right there is all the reason I need to keep it, Dodge. To let a woman or girl die, maybe, just to prevent an abortion from taking place is absolutely absurd. For any other argument, I feel ya but that reason surpasses them all.

 

 

That I agree with you on.

 

 

I'm still waiting for a Republican to write a bill that is fair to both parties. I see no reason that the woman's health can't be part of this bill.

Because partial birth abortion is a red herring. This issue was resolved under the Clinton administration. Clinton said he would pass a Republican bill banning PBA only if there was an exception for the health of the mother. It wasnt enough for the religous right. They want to end the use of abortion all together, regardless of whether the child is 1 day in the womb or 9 months. They are using the same strategy of the civil rights movement in the 50s and 60s in ending segregation. Rather than bringing it all down at once, bring it down part by part. Ending the women's health exception for PBA is just a step for them.

It's not much to ask for to just protect the health and life of the women. Other than that, it's totally fine. Although I don't agree at all in eliminating abortion altogether but that's another topic.

It's amazing how little things get done in Washington because of the extreme politicians, on both the right and left....it's really ridiculous. I know if everybody was a moderate, politics would be boring, but extremists screw everything up, especially in politics.

 

It's not much to ask for to just protect the health and life of the women. Other than that, it's totally fine. Although I don't agree at all in eliminating abortion altogether but that's another topic.

 

 

I really don't think any sensible person would want abortion eliminated all together. Regardless of whether or not you agree with abortion (I dont agree with it AT ALL for example) women do have the right to choose, and my personal beliefs shouldn't change that.

Extreme right-wingers want abortion eliminated, except that making it illegal won't get rid of it completely. People will still try to get abortions illegally. Roe vs. Wade just made it safe for people to have abortions performed if they want to.

I don't agree with any decision to have an abortion, but I don't agree with any law that tries to take the right to have an abortion taken away. That being said, partial birth abortion isn't necessary for a women to have the right to choose.

I don't agree with any decision to have an abortion, but I don't agree with any law that tries to take the right to have an abortion taken away. That being said, partial birth abortion isn't necessary for a women to have the right to choose.

I don't agree with any decision to have an abortion, but I don't agree with any law that tries to take the right to have an abortion taken away. That being said, partial birth abortion isn't necessary for a women to have the right to choose.

 

 

 

Well said.

 

 

Again, the Republican numbskulls in Congress need to put together a bill that is reasonable so we can end the use of the hideous practice of partial birth abortion.