What's wrong with this picture?

First, as Justice O'Connor pointed out, Nebraska's prohibition on partial birth abortions did not provide a "health of the mother" exception -- that is, an exception allowing the banned procedure if it is the best method for ensuring the health of the mother.In Justice O'Connor's view, and that of a majority of the Court, such an exception constitutionally must exist even for a relatively late-term abortion. But the federal law includes no such exception.Second, as Justice O'Connor also pointed out, Nebraska's law did not provide a sufficiently precise definition of what procedure, exactly, it was banning. The state legislature claimed to be targeting an uncommon and especially gruesome procedure known as "D & X" -- dilation and extraction. But in fact, according to Justice O'Connor (who was picking up on the complaints of physicians) that statute appeared to affect not only D&X's, but also a broad range of other abortion procedures.Justice O'Connor and the majority made clear that this vagueness placed abortion providers in an impossible position. As a result, it also places an unconstitutional burden on a woman's right to choose.Like the Nebraska law the Court struck down in Stenberg, the federal law also appears to sweep broadly in the procedures it bans. It displays the very same vagueness problem. And thus, it is unconstitutional for the very same reason.

Opponents argue it will subject doctors to jail time and fines for utilizing a range of procedures that might be the safest and most appropriate for a particular woman in a particular situation.

buz writes:as I understand the bill abortion pba can be performed if mother's life is at risk but not necessarily if her health is at risk

bush writes:the right to life "cannot be granted or denied by government because it does not come from government. It comes from the creator of life."

Man Asgara you have a lot of peeves when it comes to this issue...