Abortion Opinion Has More Graphic Language
Ever since the Supreme Court's landmark Roe v. Wade abortion ruling in 1973, graphic descriptions of the procedure have been staples of abortion opponents. Abortion rights advocates have preferred more scientific terms. Neither is by accident.
The Supreme Court adopted the more graphic approach Wednesday as a conservative majority of justices upheld a nationwide ban on a controversial abortion procedure.
"The way in which the fetus will be killed ... is of legitimate concern" to the government, the majority said.
In opinions after Roe v. Wade, the decision saying a woman has a constitutional right to abortion, clinical terminology has been the order of the day at the court.
All that changed in 2000, when Justice Anthony Kennedy described abortion procedures in painstaking detail. He did so as a dissenter in Stenberg v. Carhart, the ruling striking down Nebraska's ban on what opponents call partial-birth abortions.
"Repeated references to sources understandable only to a trained physician may obscure matters for persons not trained in medical terminology," Kennedy wrote in 2000. "Thus it seems necessary at the outset to set forth what may happen during an abortion."
Kennedy then explained abortion procedures in explicit terms that had not been seen previously at the court. The break with tradition prompted Justice John Paul Stevens to note in a concurring opinion, "Much ink is spilled today describing the gruesome nature of late-term abortion procedures."
Kennedy returned to form Wednesday when he wrote the decision of the court.
"It is self-evident that a mother who comes to regret her choice to abort must struggle with grief more anguished and sorrow more profound when she learns ... what she once did not know: that she allowed a doctor to pierce the skull and vacuum the fast-developing brain of her unborn child," Kennedy wrote.
In the decision, Kennedy virtually invited states to have women seeking abortions learn more about "the way in which the fetus will be killed," reports CBS News correspondent Wyatt Andrews. Anti-abortion rights groups — which believe more graphic information will discourage abortion — hailed that part of the ruling.
"Telling the states that they have a legitimate interest in making sure these women also know what they're engaging in, what's at stake, is going to have just huge ramifications," says Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, which litigates anti-abortion rights issues.
In a forceful dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggested that Kennedy's word choice goes too far.
"Throughout, the opinion refers to obstetrician-gynecologists and surgeons who perform abortions not by the titles of their medical specialties, but by the pejorative label 'abortion doctor,'" wrote Ginsburg. "A fetus is described as an 'unborn child,' and as a 'baby;' second-trimester, previability abortions are referred to as 'late-term.'"
© 2009 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report. The Supreme Court adopted the more graphic approach Wednesday as a conservative majority of justices upheld a nationwide ban on a controversial abortion procedure.
"The way in which the fetus will be killed ... is of legitimate concern" to the government, the majority said.
In opinions after Roe v. Wade, the decision saying a woman has a constitutional right to abortion, clinical terminology has been the order of the day at the court.
All that changed in 2000, when Justice Anthony Kennedy described abortion procedures in painstaking detail. He did so as a dissenter in Stenberg v. Carhart, the ruling striking down Nebraska's ban on what opponents call partial-birth abortions.
"Repeated references to sources understandable only to a trained physician may obscure matters for persons not trained in medical terminology," Kennedy wrote in 2000. "Thus it seems necessary at the outset to set forth what may happen during an abortion."
Kennedy then explained abortion procedures in explicit terms that had not been seen previously at the court. The break with tradition prompted Justice John Paul Stevens to note in a concurring opinion, "Much ink is spilled today describing the gruesome nature of late-term abortion procedures."
Kennedy returned to form Wednesday when he wrote the decision of the court.
"It is self-evident that a mother who comes to regret her choice to abort must struggle with grief more anguished and sorrow more profound when she learns ... what she once did not know: that she allowed a doctor to pierce the skull and vacuum the fast-developing brain of her unborn child," Kennedy wrote.
In the decision, Kennedy virtually invited states to have women seeking abortions learn more about "the way in which the fetus will be killed," reports CBS News correspondent Wyatt Andrews. Anti-abortion rights groups — which believe more graphic information will discourage abortion — hailed that part of the ruling.
"Telling the states that they have a legitimate interest in making sure these women also know what they're engaging in, what's at stake, is going to have just huge ramifications," says Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, which litigates anti-abortion rights issues.
In a forceful dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggested that Kennedy's word choice goes too far.
"Throughout, the opinion refers to obstetrician-gynecologists and surgeons who perform abortions not by the titles of their medical specialties, but by the pejorative label 'abortion doctor,'" wrote Ginsburg. "A fetus is described as an 'unborn child,' and as a 'baby;' second-trimester, previability abortions are referred to as 'late-term.'"
*Every game has its rules including the Game of Life.
*Every person blogging on this site has known people who want to "win" at any cost, who want to blame someone, or change rules in the middle of a game because they are losing.
*The Supreme Court was simply upholding and restoring balance to the underlieing rules and laws of this land which states that life is SACRED and as human beings we are entitled to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
*Liberty and the pursuit of happiness does not include the right to murder someone else who supposedly gets in our way and messes up our plans
*To sanction extermination as a viable problem solving method solves nothing except reinforcement of the skewed, destructive idea that problems aren't worth addressing or solving
*We create our own environment, and the only one that we seem presently to be creating for ourselves and our children is that the only credible solution to any problem is murder.
And, of course, that is what an addict always wants, every DRAMA IN LIFE to revolve around him.
If it is indeed as you say, about "moral good" what have you accomplished for the good of society over the past 9 months?
Many brave and courageous woman have brought new life into this dark world. They have chosen life. What have you chosen?
Um...you do realize....of course,....that your whole statement does not apply to anything said here...don't you?
I mean it sounds nice....but who are you arguing with?
The wringing of the hands, moaning, name-calling and blaming, is reminiscent of a small child who has suddenly had his "candy" taken away.
Fortunately, in this instance, the "candy" that was necessarily taken away was the "license to kill."
Every society, if they wish to survive, is governed by a set of moral laws and rules, that are boundaries and restrictions, in which the individual citizen agrees to live.
American society grants us freedom FROM tyranny, meaning the unlawful death of The Innocents, or unborn children whose only crime is to be conceived and to possess the courageous desire to be born and to LIVE.
I'm sure the unsuspecting child who, at this very moment, rocks happily in his mothers protecting womb, but has been placed next in line to get his tiny skull crushed and his precious life cut short, (by no fault of his own), will certainly wake-up and rise up one day and bless the name of the very Honorable Justice Anthony Kennedy, who moved courageously to save his life by voting against the barbaric and heinous practice of partial birth abortion.
I'm sure the unsuspecting child who, at this very moment, rocks happily in his mothers protecting womb, but has been placed next in line to get his tiny skull crushed and his precious life cut short, (by no fault of his own), will certainly wake-up and rise up one day and bless the name of the very Honorable Justice Anthony Kennedy, who moved courageously to save his life by voting against the barbaric and heinous practice of partial birth abortion.
What amazes me is that people like you can't see the complete and utter arrogance of statements like this. Being an atheist has nothing to do with being moral or immoral. It has nothing to do with treating other people good or not. It has nothing to do with being selfish or not. Religion does not have the market cornered on doing good with ones life and never did. Being a kind, caring, loving, honest person has nothing to do with believing in some phony god. It's the HUMAN thing to do, not the religious. All religion has done is to twist human feelings into wars, hate, prejudice and bigotry. It's religion that is scre*wing humanity up, not the lack of it.
You notice they never contested the FACT that when an abortion is done, the fetus/baby is KILLED.And you know you can't kill what isn't living.
Americans KILL 1million fetuses/ babies every year, and have ever since Roe vs Wade, 30 years ago. Thats a lot of killing. More than Hitler. You know what else, most of them have been Black fetuses/ babies. Look it up. 11% of the population, and more than 2/3 of the abortions.
This is what my black brothers and sisters seem to want; the right to KILL ourselves. But the color doesn't matter. It's a life, a human life, a living human individual; and calling it a "fetus" doesn't change it.
Considering the recent events at Virginia Tech, one may recall the words of a certain Nobel Peace prize winner when she said that the greatest destroyer of peace is abortion.
One need not believe in God to agree that killing people is wrong. - That is unless that one thinks what Chou did in killing 32 people is ok. Then at least ones disregard for the value and sanctity of human life is consistent.
Abortion is wrong because abortion kills people.