Ramblings' Journal

Judge rules against partial-birth abortion due to "undue burden"

U.S. District Court Judge Phyllis Hamilton in San Francisco, has struck down the partial-birth abortion law on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. How, you might ask? Because it is vague and creates an "undue burden" on abortion rights.

Hamilton sided with Planned Parenthood in its suit against the federal government, in relation to the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. The act was signed into law by President Bush late last year, and bans the controversial method of late-term abortion.

Pro-choice defenders claim that the measure is an overall assault on abortion rights in this nation.

The National Abortion Federation, the Center for Reproductive Rights, and the American Civil Liberties Union praised Hamilton's ruling, saying they were "pleased that the court in San Francisco recognized that this ban is a broad attack on abortion beginning as early as 13 weeks in pregnancy."

Dr. LeRoy Carhart, the lead plaintiff in the Nebraska challenge to the federal law, said, "The court in San Francisco recognized this federal ban for what it is: a threat to women's health. The court understood that the government has no business trying to come between doctors and their patients and telling doctors that they can't put their patients' health and safety first."

I usually stay away from the abortion issue in and of itself; my personal feeling is that those who neglect to understand the social and religious ramifications of the procedure will come to know the gravity of their decisions when they have to answer to the Almighty for what they have done, rightly or wrongly. It's not my place to judge.

On the other hand, Judge Hamilton, in her reasoning, makes me question her judgement. The US District Court in San Francisco seems to come up with plenty of decisions that cite "feelings" and "emotions" as opposed to logic and reasoning.

Is this how judges are supposed to work?

Posted by mhking at June 2, 2004 11:55 AM