I guess i'll be the first one to post here. LOL

SAN FRANCISCO. A U.S. District Court judge declared yesterday that a federal ban on a controversial abortion procedure is unconstitutional, forbidding the enforcement of the law in hundreds of clinics and doctors' offices across the United States.

U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton said the ban is flawed in much the same way as a similar ban passed by Nebraska but overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court four years ago. She granted a permanent injunction prohibiting enforcement of the ban against the plaintiffs: Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its affiliates and clinics nationwide, as well as physicians to whom they refer patients.

The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, signed into law by President Bush last year, was the first federal law to outlaw an abortion procedure since a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy was established by Roe vs. Wade more than three decades ago. At issue is a procedure that doctors call "intact dilation and extraction," which involves partially removing a fetus from the uterus and puncturing or crushing its skull.

Federal judges in New York and Nebraska have heard similar challenges to the law, and their rulings are expected soon. Altogether, the plaintiffs in the combined cases represent most abortion providers nationwide.

Government attorneys defending the ban in the three trials argued that the procedure causes fetal pain, blurs the line between abortion and infanticide, and is never medically necessary.

Abortion-rights supporters and major medical associations dispute those charges and say the ban on the procedure is so vague as to limit most medically necessary second-trimester abortions.

In a 117-page decision, Hamilton said the ban imposes an undue burden on a woman's right to choose, is unconstitutionally vague in its description of the barred medical procedure and fails to include an exception to protect a woman's health.

Bush condemned the ruling. Other proponents of the ban said they had expected to lose in front of Hamilton, an appointee of former President Clinton whom they view as liberal, but they remain optimistic that the Supreme Court will ultimately decide in their favor.

Opponents praised Hamilton's ruling.

"It's a major decision," said Dian Harrison, president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood Golden Gate, which filed suit in the San Francisco case against Attorney General John Ashcroft to block enforcement of the law. "It says to our current administration and our Congress that they can't make medical decisions for women in this country."

Justice Department officials vowed to appeal.




All three challenges to the law focused on the testimony of dueling medical experts, who offered diverging views on whether and when the procedure is necessary, how common and safe it is, and whether fetal pain exists.

Ninety percent of the 1.3 million abortions performed in America each year take place in the first trimester, which the federal law does not affect. Second-trimester abortions are performed for a variety of reasons, including fetal anomalies and concerns about the woman's health if the pregnancy continues.

Supporters and opponents of the law differ widely on how many second-trimester abortions it would ban. Supporters say it would affect only 2,200 to 5,000 abortions, but opponents say virtually any second-trimester abortion could be affected.

Government witnesses in San Francisco testified that partially delivering the intact fetus before collapsing the skull and removing it from the uterus is unsafe and unnecessary. But physicians testifying for the plaintiffs said the method can be safer than the more common form of "dilation and extraction," where the fetus is dismembered with forceps in multiple passes into the uterus.

"Dilation and extraction" is used in most second-trimester abortions. Although it was not explicitly banned by the act, the physicians who testified said they often do not know when they begin a procedure whether they will use forceps or partially remove the intact fetus. Those decisions depend on a range of issues that emerge during the procedure, they testified.

Plaintiffs argued that the vaguely worded ban would effectively prohibit all forms of "dilation and extraction," and Hamilton appeared to agree.

u know, i really try to stay away from politics, but u know, this is just wrong.....

in my oppinion, if a women's health is in danger and she wants to have the abortion it should be allowed, BUT ONLY IN A LIFE OR HEALTH THREATENING SITUATION!!!!!!!!

now, if some teenage girl gets knocked up of her own foolish mistakes, she should have the child!!! it's not the baby's fault what her mother and father did, and i think it diserves a chance at life, abortion, no matter what stage the fetus is in...is murder.....