"The US supreme court upheld a federal law banning so called partial-birth abortion in a 5-4 decision, which a big win for abortion opponents: the law need not allow the procedure even when necessary to protect a woman's health. but the decision could have been worse for the supporters of abortion rights. the court said a woman could still challenge the law by showing that she would get sick without the procedure. and while justive Clarence Thomas, with Antonin Scalia, wrote separatel that the right to abortion shouldn't exsist, the court's two new Bush-appointed members-- John Roberts and Samuel Alito-- didn't join them. That may bode well for the future of Roe v. Wade."

--Time, April 30th 2007, Pg 25

What is your stance on Roe v Wade?
» Dilated on 2007-04-26 12:25:39

So like women can get it to protect their health only?
» kkama67 on 2007-04-26 01:23:09

Sorry, you do not have permission to comment.

If you are a member, try logging in again or accessing this page here.