Presidential Politics: 16 Democratic Senators including Senator Tom Daschle voted for the ban. Senators Kerry and Edwards were absent and did not vote. The New York Times reports that both Senators had voted against the ban previous to their announcing as candidates for President in 2004. President Clinton had vetoed a similar bill which passed by a similar margin in 1999. In the presidential debates of 2000, Vice-President Gore sided with now President Bush in stating that he would sign a ban on “partial birth abortion”.

Roe v Wade(1973): Before voting to approve the ban on the procedure, the Senate voted a non-binding resolution in support of Roe v Wade (entire decision) by a vote of 52 to 46. (Nine Republicans :Campbell, Colo.; Chafee, R.I.; Collins, Maine; Hutchison, Tex.; Murkowski, Alaska; Snowe, Maine; Specter, Pa.; Stevens, Alaska, and Warner, Va. joined 42 Democrats and one independent in voting for the resolution, which was sponsored by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). The point of the resolution was apparently to demonstrate that the procedure in question is too extreme for even those who support Roe v Wade. It is important to note that Roe v. Wade by no means grants an absolute right of choice to a woman.. Justice Blackmun's majority opinion as he summarized it:

To summarize and to repeat:

1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life [p165] may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

2. The State may define the term "physician," as it has been employed in the preceding paragraphs of this Part XI of this opinion, to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined.

In Doe v. Bolton, post, p. 179, procedural requirements contained in one of the modern abortion statutes are considered. That opinion and this one, of course, are to be read together. [n67]

This holding, we feel, is consistent with the relative weights of the respective interests involved, with the lessons and examples of medical and legal history, with the lenity of the common law, and with the demands of the profound problems of the present day. The decision leaves the State free to place increasing restrictions on abortion as the period of pregnancy lengthens, so long as those restrictions are tailored to the recognized state interests. The decision vindicates the right of the physician to administer medical treatment according to his professional judgment up to the points where important [p166] state interests provide compelling justifications for intervention. Up to those points, the abortion decision in all its aspects is inherently, and primarily, a medical decision, and basic responsibility for it must rest with the physician. If an individual practitioner abuses the privilege of exercising proper medical judgment, the usual remedies, judicial and intra-professional, are available.

Constitutionality: Is the bill Constitutional in light of Sternberg v Carhart decided June 28, 2000 ? The United States Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision ruled that Nebraska ’s ban on “partial birth abortion” was unconstitutional. The consensus of legal analysts seems to be that it was the Nebraska law’s failure to protect the health of the mother as required by Roe v Wade which was its fatal flaw. The sponsors of the bill passed by the Senate March 13 claim that they have dealt with this issue by their Congressional findings. The Supreme Court’s decisions are based on judicial findings of a case in controversy so this will be interesting to watch.

Appointments to the Supreme Court: Anti-abortionists are hoping that by the time the restriction on this procedure reaches the Supreme Court, President Bush will have made enough new appointments so that 5 of the justices would not declare it unconstitutional. Interestingly enough, Justice O’Connor is the only Justice who would need to be replaced for that to happen.

The vote in Sternberg v Carhart was:

Justices O’Connor, Souter, Stephens, Breyer, and Ginsburg were in the majority.

Justices Rehnquist, Thomas, Kennedy and Scalia were in the minority.

December 11, 2001
Three Months after the attacks of September 11, a grand jury issued an indictment against Zacarias Moussaoui. It is the first indictment based on the attacks. The defendant is described in the indictment as being "...born in France of Moroccan descent on May 30,1968. Before 2001 he was a resident of the United Kingdom. Moussaoui held a masters degree from Southbank University in the Untied Kingdom and traveled widely." To visit the Justice Department web site for the indictment and transcript of the statement of the Attorney General John Ashcroft, click here: INDICTMENT

December 2, 2001
Is America at "War" ?
As America faces the anniversary of Pearl Harbor, the issue of whether we are legally and morally at "War" against terrorism is paramount. The suicidal terrorist bombings in Israel on December 1 and 2 highlight this fact. Not only is it critical to the issue of political assassination (see below), but to the very real implications of "War" within the boundaries of the United States. The Patriot Act of 2001 is aimed at intercepting and interrupting terrorism while protecting America's fundamental civil liberties. The attacks of September 11 and the likelihood of suicidal terrorist acts in the United States similar to those occurring in Israel requires us as a nation to decide if we must declare a state of war in order to protect the fundamental civil liberty, life. It is ..."life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" after all. Either we as a nation are justified in defending ourselves against terrorism at home and abroad or we are not. When an individual uses force to protect life, it is called self-defense. When a nation uses force to protect itself, it is called war. Now is the time to have the national debate.

November 26,2001
The Marines have landed in Afghanistan.
Their stated mission is to "put pressure" on the Taliban and al-Qaeda. However, with a $25,000,000 bounty on the head of bin Laden and top associates, the issue of political assassination is front and center. For a discussion of political assassination which has been illegal since 1976 except in times of war, read Trialbrief on:
Political Assassination (11/2/01) The events of September 11 almost instantly gave rise to debate about what distinguishes a criminal act to be dealt with in the courtroom from an act of war on the battlefield.

OJ Simpson has been arrested again. September 16. Simpson was acquitted of murder charges in the 1994 killings of his former wife and Ron Goldman, but a jury later held him liable for the killings in a wrongful death civil suit. He was ordered to pay $33.5 million to the victims' families. This arrest was in Las Vegas. Simpson claims he was trying to get back his memorabilia. The charges seem to be centered on Simpson's compatriots using weapons in a hotel room in Vegas. Thus there are charges of armed robbery which carry up to 30 years in Nevada. On first blush, the nature of the victims in this case and Simpson's belief that the memorabilia is rightfully his would seem to indicate a far less significant conviction if any.
The timing was interesting in that the Goldman family has recently published a book which Simpson had written under the title, "If I Did It". Simpson wrote the book from the perspective of how he would have committed the murders of his ex-wife and Goldman. Simpson's book was pulled from the market. A federal bankruptcy judge granted the rights to Simpson's book to the Goldman family presumably to contribute to his payment of $33.5 million in restitution. The Goldman family retitled the book: "If I Did It: The Confessions of the Killer." During the weekend of September 16-17, the book was the best seller in the country, No. 1 on Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble.com.

Michael Vick entered guilty plea and will be sentenced in December. He is reportedly cooperating with the prosecution.
August 20, 2007: It is reported that Michael Vick will enter a guilty plea on August 27, 2007.
As Trialbriefs predicted Mr. Vick is in serious trouble.
July 18, 2007: Michael Vick is indicted for being "involved in an ongoing animal fighting venture based out of a property located in Smithfield, Virginia, from early 2001 through on or about April 25, 2007." So says US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Read entire press release. Smoking Gun has the indictment in its entirety.
On April 28, 2007 at the NFL draft, ESPN reported that Michael Vick spoke with the commissioner of the NFL regarding his need to be vigilant about who he allowed to live in houses he owned. Vick was interviewed on ESPN regarding his intentions in this regard. If the US Attorney has sufficient evidence to support the following allegation on April 25, 2007, Mr. Vick is in serious trouble:

If this count in particular and the indictment in general is not properly proven, the US Attorney for this district is in serious trouble.