Life-Protecting Judicial Limitation Act of 2003

[Suburbanite]

I am doing a lot of research on abortion right now. This is a bill currently under review in The House Of Representatives.

The Summary of this bill is that it would make all abortion decisions a matter of either state or federal government. Smaller district courts will not be able to independently judge any case regarding abortions.

The Bill Read as following:

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Life-Protecting Judicial Limitation Act of 2003 (Introduced in House)
HR 1546 IH
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1546
To provide that the inferior courts of the United States do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion -related cases.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 1, 2003
Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL
To provide that the inferior courts of the United States do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion -related cases.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Life-Protecting Judicial Limitation Act of 2003'.
SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF ABORTION -RELATED CASES FROM FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JURISDICTION.
(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
`Sec. 1370. Removal of jurisdiction over abortion -related cases
`(a) IN GENERAL- The district courts of the United States, the District Court of Guam, the District Court of the Virgin Islands, and the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands shall not have jurisdiction to hear or determine any abortion -related case.
`(b) DEFINITION- For purposes of this section, the term `abortion -related case' means any action in which any requirement, prohibition, or other provision relating to abortion that is contained in a State or Federal statute is at issue.'.
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- The table of contents for chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
`1370. Removal of jurisdiction over abortion -related cases.'.
SEC. 3. REMOVAL OF ABORTION -RELATED CASES FROM FEDERAL CLAIMS COURT JURISDICTION.
(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 91 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
`Sec. 1510. Removal of jurisdiction over abortion -related cases
`(a) IN GENERAL- The United States Court of Federal Claims shall not have jurisdiction to hear or determine any abortion -related case.
`(b) DEFINITION- For purposes of this section, the term `abortion -related case' means any action in which any requirement, prohibition, or other provision relating to abortion that is contained in a State or Federal statute is at issue.'.
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- The table of contents for chapter 91 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
`1510. Removal of jurisdiction over abortion -related cases.'.
SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by this Act shall apply to cases filed on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Opinions?

[Mia]

If the country is run by Republicans for 4 more years abortion is going to be made illegal again.

[Impenitent]

liberal democRAT scare tactics... abortion isn't going to be made illegal anytime soon...

[Mia]

Oh, really? The fetal rights act that just passed the senate, the so-called partial birth ban that is already enacted...Republicans are taking advantage of controlling 2 out of three branches to attack it. How many supreme court appointments are needed to overturn Roe v. Wade? One, two at the most?

R's are getting ready for that day...

[Mia]

Oh, I forgot, "the party for lesser government" is giving itself more and more power. Weird.

[Suburbanite]

I am pro-Life. I am also for a smaller federal and state Government. So to me it is a conflict of issues.

[Suburbanite]

Just a side commentary I really thought people here would be more interested in legislation not yet passed so they can act on it. I guess it is just too boring.

[Mia]

Maybe if you illuminated what this actually means to jane doe who needs an abortion.

Does this relate to cases where she is restricted from it, like the so-called partial birth ban?

Minors needed parental consent or a judge? Obviously all of the above and then some, but I think you need to make it more personal to get a reaction.

I know that there are already three cases challenging the patial-birth ban. Women in their 2nd trimesters. The only detail I know is that in one of the cases the judge is setting aside the ban until it is decided.

I imagine this is the reason for the new legislation. They know this law is going to get struck down - it contradicts Roe v. Wade. So they are doing everything possible to keep it alive - most likely hoping to name a new justice before it can reach the supreme court.

How does this piece help, though?

[Mia]

It seems like this would make it reach the supreme court faster - which is not good for them. Unless they know something I don't....


????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

[Suburbanite]

There is no such thing as a need for an abortion Mia, it isn’t oxygen. I can’t make it personal. All this bill does is make it so that abortion laws can only be determined by the state and or the federal government, not by district courts (which is something I think would be better). It will make things reach the Supreme Court faster sure, but it also takes away from smaller community rights. Is that democratic? I think both major sides of politics are for smaller government.

[lostkiwi]

It seems to me that the Religious Right has given up on trying to overturn Roe v Wade in one fowl swoop and has instead turned to the tactic of eliminating it in microscopic increments. Laws on partial birth abortions, and the recent passage of a law giving fetuses rights worry me.

Partial birth abortion is a misnomer in itself, nothing is being born, the fetus has just reached a size where it cannot be absorbed back into the mothers system. This process is incredibly rare and is the most useful in cases where further development of the fetus can cause a risk to the mother.

The recent law passed that makes it a federal crime to harm an "unborn child" while committing a federal crime is disturbing for so many reasons. First, there are already laws to prosecute whoever is committing these acts. The fact that a pregnant woman was hurt is something that should be brought up at sentencing for these criminals, and harsher penalties decided by the judge presiding the case. Second, it sets the dangerous precedent of affirming that an unborn child has any rights. Until a child is born (or is developed enough to be born) it has no rights. It survives entirely on the privilege given by it's mother.

As far as the differences in the two parties controlling government in the United States today? They are two few to be noticed. The Republicans and Democrats have become two sides of the same coin, both trying to use an oversized government to legislate their morality into law.

[Mia]

Sub, if I am carrying a pregnancy that for some reason is going to kill me, I don't need an abortion? You cannot say no one ever does.

Is this thread about whether abortion is agreeable or the legislation on what courts hear cases involving it?

The point of what I was saying is you are wondering why people are not interested in this piece of legislation, but you haven't told them why they should be.

[Suburbanite]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (lostkiwi,)
It seems to me that the Religious Right has given up on trying to overturn Roe v Wade in one fowl swoop and has instead turned to the tactic of eliminating it in microscopic increments. Laws on partial birth abortions, and the recent passage of a law giving fetuses rights worry me.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Well, this piece of legislation is designed for the shotgun attack on Abortion. It does make abortion a more singular target to now attack. The most resent laws are extremely important. I can understand legislation not doing anything to prevent abortions, because it doesn’t, but the newest abortion bill will give pregnant women who are victimized, killed, or their unborn child is killed an ability to strongly fight back against her attacker. I support it wholeheartedly, and I can’t comprehend why anyone else wouldn’t.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (lostkiwi,)

Partial birth abortion is a misnomer in itself, nothing is being born, the fetus has just reached a size where it cannot be absorbed back into the mothers system. This process is incredibly rare and is the most useful in cases where further development of the fetus can cause a risk to the mother.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

A quote from the actual passed legislation:
“(13) There exists substantial record evidence upon which Congress has reached its conclusion that a ban on partial-birth abortion is not required to contain a `health' exception, because the facts indicate that a partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman, poses serious risks to a woman's health, and lies outside the standard of medical care. Congress was informed by extensive hearings held during the 104th, 105th, and 107th Congresses and passed a ban on partial-birth abortion in the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses. These findings reflect the very informed judgment of the Congress that a partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman, poses serious risks to a woman's health, and lies outside the standard of medical care, and should, therefore, be banned.”

There is a lot more information available for you to make a more informed opinion on the bill. The Bill

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,)

Is this thread about whether abortion is agreeable or the legislation on what courts hear cases involving it?

The point of what I was saying is you are wondering why people are not interested in this piece of legislation, but you haven't told them why they should be.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Well, I would just assume they would take the time to read such a crucial piece of legislation especially if they want to remain informed. Despite that I did summarize the bill. And I even replied with a reason why people should be interested, explaining the contradiction between federal power and abortion issues. This thread is about the legislation, which I am to assume you read?

[Mia]

Yes, I did. I wasn't criticising you, I was trying to give you my impression of why you were not getting more responses.

[Mia]

People who are against the fetal rights act know that it's not just for the occasions you mentioned - alternatate legislation to add penalties in the case of pregnant women were offered and rejected. The backers of this bill were set on it creating rights for a fetus equal to an adult person. The only possible reason for this is to later use it to make laws against abortion - it only stands to reason that if a fetus has rights equal to it's mother, she cannot choose to end it's life.

[Mia]

On partial-birth...I don't know about you, but I call my doctor when I have a medical question, not a member of Congress:

"The American Medical Association does not encourage use of D&X, but says it should not be banned. The College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says alternatives to D&X usually exist, but that in some circumstances, it may be the best procedure".

Opponents of the ban - who say the term "partial-birth" is an emotive, politically-motivated description - argue that the procedure is rarely performed and that the ban could be extended to cover other forms of abortion.

Many women who opt for "partial-birth" abortions do so because their fetuses have severe or fatal anomalies or because the pregnancy endangers their lives or health.

[Mia]

Here's a case for you: A young woman is pregnant for the first time. In month 6 a severe problem occurs. The baby's head is as big as a basketball but has less than a 5% chance of having any brain matter in it. Having the baby carries a risk of infertility as well.

Weighing the fact the baby has little hope of even living, much less growing productively against the possibility of never getting to have another child, Mom and doctor agree to do a "partial birth abortion".

Congress says no.

Do you want them deciding that for you or your wife or daughter?

[Suburbanite]

For someone who is always supporting the underdog why are you pro-abortion?
As for Partial Birth Abortions, Congress heard several hearings (with Doctors and a million other people) and determined partial birth abortions to have no applicable use. It is a disgusting practise.

[Mia]

I love pro-lifer's re-wording of pro-choice into pro-abortion. Give it a rest.

The AMA has access to a lot more data than Congress assembled and are better fit to decide what is and is not a viable procedure. Of course it's vile. All abortion is vile. If it were possible, I'd force every pregnant woman who didn't want it to have the baby and give it up to people who do. But that's not possible.

The vile nature of the D&X is why it's rarely preformed, and you failed to take into account scenarios like the one I illustrated above just like Congress did.

I'm surprised a person of your intelligence is willing to take what Congress reported to pass this bill at face-value.

I was told, probably in first grade, that ALWAYS and NEVER are rarely true. The fact they would stand up and say this procedure NEVER is done to save a woman's life or health is blatent BS. A rudimentary amount of research will tell you differently.

They gathered information that supported what they wanted to hear. Period.

They are attacking abortion in any way they can. Period.

They said that women lie. That women & their doctors cannot be trusted to decide if it is a matter of life or health and that is why no provision would be made.

These people have no business in my decision should I ever have the misfortune to have to make it.

[Mia]

Why is it that so many "pro-lifer's" are for the death penalty?

Why is it that so many "pro-lifer's" are against the social programs that would help the women who they force to keep babies they don't want/can't afford?

Doesn't make any sense to me.

I hate abortion but I hate pro-lifer's more.