'Partial-birth' abortion ban upheld

[INDY500]

yes, there is an exemption which would allow the procedures at issue to be performed if the life of the mother was in danger. HOWEVER, there is no exemption for the "health" of the mother- and every other Supreme Court decision regarding abortion has explicitly stated that both the life AND the health of the mother must be protected. in this regard, yesterday's decision completely contradicts Supreme Court precedent.

it's a scary to me that our government has decided that the health of a pregnant woman is no longer something that needs to be valued....

Define "health."

How effective would public smoking bans be if exemptions for the smokers "health" existed and "health" was so broadly defined as to include "nervousness", "lack of energy", or "physical symptoms of nicotine withdraw."
Answer is they would be less effective and they certainly wouldn't be enforceable.

I'm being honest, except in very rare instances I want this procedure stopped. That's the point of the legislation and Americans overwhelmingly agree with my position. I don't include you, but "woman's rights advocates" are not really being honest when they insist on a "health" exemption. They seek only to render the legislation unenforceable.

But I'm for finding common ground...
So define "health."

 

[BVS]

I'm being honest, except in very rare instances I want this procedure stopped. That's the point of the legislation

You're contradicting yourself here. This is the rarest of instances. This is a step backwards.

and Americans overwhelmingly agree with my position.

You keep saying this, but where are you getting this from?

 

[martha]

when it comes to the child, however, i speak from experience. there's always hope.

We're talking about babies who are born with no brain. They DO NOT survive.

 

[martha]

But I'm for finding common ground...
So define "health."

There is no common ground until men can become pregnant, or at least have a similar experience and have someone else define the limits of their choices.

 

[Irvine511]

Define "health."

let's say a woman has survived ovarian cancer, or some other kind of cancer, and the walls to her uterus are damaged and incredibly thin.

sure, she might be able to have the baby.

but then again, she might shred her uterus in the process and bleed internally.

 

[martha]

let's say a woman has survived ovarian cancer, or some other kind of cancer, and the walls to her uterus are damaged and incredibly thin.

sure, she might be able to have the baby.

but then again, she might shred her uterus in the process and bleed internally.

But at least the baby would live.

 

[Irvine511]

But at least the baby would live.

parents have to make sacrafices for their children.

 

[INDY500]

Originally posted by INDY500
"Americans overwhelmingly agree with my position."


You keep saying this, but where are you getting this from?

ABCNews poll 2003. The year the partial-birth abortion bill was passed.

American Views on Abortion
Situation: Should Be Legal -- Should Be Illegal
All or Most Cases ---------57% -------42%
To Save Woman's Life ---88% ----------10%
To Save Woman's Health 82% ---------14%
In Cases of Rape/Incest 81% ----------17%
Physically Impaired Baby 54% ---------40%
To End Unwanted Pregnancy 42% ----57%
D&X/Partial-Birth Abortions 23% ---69%
Pregnancy is 6 Months+ 11% ----------86%

The 69 percent in this poll who say partial-birth abortions shouldn't be legal takes in majorities across demographic groups, including 60 percent of Democrats and 63 percent of liberals.

This is the last poll I can find. We will see if a new one is taken in light of the recent decision. I wouldn't expect much change however.

In addition, I might add that the bill passed 281–142 in the House of Representatives and 64–34 in the Senate.

So yes, Americans agree overwhelmingly with my position.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Maybe people overwhelmingly agree because they are under the impression that PBA is some sort of elective procedure that women are choosing because they just decide that they don't want the baby anymore. From what I know about it that is just not the case, and what woman would do that? I think perhaps some of those people are reacting to a misperception/misleading information that borders on a scare tactic. If people were using this PBA in such a manner, I would be 100 % in favor of this ban. These are women facing a horrible, emotionally wrenching crisis and decision- it's hardly something they are doing because they are cruel and thoughtless and whatever other terms people might come up with.

 

[anitram]

Yes, the majority of Americans apparently also agree on a few other things:

In the new poll, conducted jointly by the Washington Post, ABC News and Stanford University, most of those surveyed said that climate change is real and that they want the federal government to do more about it. But the survey also shows there is little public agreement about the policies the United States should adopt to address it.

According to the poll, seven in 10 Americans want more federal action on global warming, and about half of those surveyed think the government should do "much more" than it is doing now.

And:

Latest Gallup Poll:

57% of Americans believe invading Iraq was a mistake.

Latest CNN Poll:
60% of Americans favour timetable pullout from Iraq.

So isn't it a bit disgenuous to bring up what the majority wants only when it suits your own goal? I mean, I don't see you arguing here for a withdrawal from Iraq or for immediate government action to combat global warming. Despite the, you know, overwhelming views of the majority.

 

[Irvine511]

appeals against "partial-birth abortion" are very emotional, and when you take a cursory glance at the procedure itself, it does seem barbaric.

and i would venture that no one in here would advocate an abortion past the 22nd week, or so, without a major medical issue with the fetus and without a major concern for the life and, the, yes, HEALTH of the mother.

this is one thing we haven't gotten into in this thread, the wording of the SCOTUS decision. it was one of the most paternalistic things i've read in a while -- essentially, we have to prevent women from having access to this medical procedure because they might one day regret it and feel badly about it.

an analysis (by a pro-choice writer) in Slate:

[q]With a stirring haiku about how "respect for human life finds an ultimate expression in the bond of love the mother has for her child," the justice interpolates himself between every one of those mothers and every child she might ever bear. Without regard for the women who feel they made the right decision in terminating a pregnancy, he frets for those who changed their minds. ("It seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained.") (The "infant," not the "fetus.") As both the dissenters and my colleague Emily Bazelon have pointed out, this portrayal of a rampant epidemic of regretful women may or may not be scientifically accurate. (The American Psychological Association doesn't think so.) But even if the numbers of women who would truly choose differently if they could choose again are larger than most of the medical literature indicates, one might question whether such women should be the pole star of national abortion policy.
Nobody disputes that whether or not they decide to go through with an abortion, women face a heart-wrenching choice. But for Kennedy only those women who regret the decision to abort illuminate some deeper truth. And Kennedy's solution for these flip-flopping women is elegant. Protect them from the truth. "Any number of patients facing imminent surgical procedures would prefer not to hear all details," he concedes. "It is, however, precisely this lack of information concerning the way the fetus will be killed that is of legitimate concern to the state." In Kennedy's view, if pregnant women only knew how abhorrent the procedure was, they'd always opt to avoid it. But as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg points out in dissent, Kennedy doesn't propose giving women more information about partial-birth abortion procedures. He says it's up to the Congress and the courts to substitute their judgment and ban the procedures altogether. ("I'm sorry Bianca, there is a procedure out there that may be safer for you, but some day, you will thank me for sparing you from it.")[/q]

 

[INDY500]

There is no common ground until men can become pregnant, or at least have a similar experience and have someone else define the limits of their choices.

From the same 2003 ABCNews poll

No Battle of the Sexes

Age, education and religion each plays a strong role in informing people's views on the issue. But despite conventional wisdom, sex does not. Indeed, as usual, men and women support legal abortion in roughly equal numbers: 54 percent of men, and 58 percent of women, say it should be legal in all or most cases. In the various conditions tested, moreover, men and women express virtually identical views:

Favoring Abortion: Men Versus Women
Situation Men Women
All or Most Cases 54% 58%
To Save Woman's Life 88% 88%
To Save Woman's Health 82% 83%
In Cases of Rape/Incest 80% 81%
Physically Impaired Baby 53%55%
To End Unwanted Pregnancy 43% 40%
D&X/Partial-Birth Abortions 28% 19%
Pregnancy is 6 Months+ 15% 8%

Only 19 percent of woman believe that partial-birth abortion should be legal compared to 28 percent of men!

In addition, I am willing to bet that over 90% of abortions performed in this country are performed by male doctors.

 

[BVS]

The 69 percent in this poll who say partial-birth abortions shouldn't be legal takes in majorities across demographic groups, including 60 percent of Democrats and 63 percent of liberals.

I'm interested in how they define this. How they make the line between liberal and Democrat. You would think from listening to conservatives that they are one in the same...

 

[martha]

Only 19 percent of woman believe that partial-birth abortion should be legal compared to 28 percent of men!

In addition, I am willing to bet that over 90% of abortions performed in this country are performed by male doctors.

I stand by my post, which was not about polls or percentages.

 

[INDY500]

Maybe people overwhelmingly agree because they are under the impression that PBA is some sort of elective procedure that women are choosing because they just decide that they don't want the baby anymore. From what I know about it that is just not the case, and what woman would do that? I think perhaps some of those people are reacting to a misperception/misleading information that borders on a scare tactic. If people were using this PBA in such a manner, I would be 100 % in favor of this ban. These are women facing a horrible, emotionally wrenching crisis and decision- it's hardly something they are doing because they are cruel and thoughtless and whatever other terms people might come up with.

the Record of Bergen County, New Jersey on September 15 published an investigative report by "women's issues" staff writer (and Columbia journalism professor) Ruth Padawer, who found that at a single abortion clinic in Englewood, New Jersey doctors acknowledged that they perform over 1,500 partial-birth abortions a year. Moreover, the story quotes doctors at the clinic as stating that "only a 'minuscule amount' are for medical reasons." The Record reported:

"We have an occasional amnio abnormality, but it's a minuscule amount," said one of the doctors at Metropolitan Medical, an assessment confirmed by another doctor there. "Most are Medicaid patients, black and white, and most are for elective, not medical, reasons: people who didn't realize, or didn't care, how far along they were. Most are teenagers."

The September 17 edition of the Washington Post contained the results of an investigation conducted by staff writers Barbara Vobejda and David M. Brown, M.D., who interviewed several abortionists (not those in New Jersey), and concluded:

It is possible-- and maybe even likely-- that the majority of these [partial-birth] abortions are performed on normal fetuses, not on fetuses suffering genetic or other developmental abnormalities. Furthermore, in most cases where the procedure is used, the physical health of the woman whose pregnancy is being terminated is not in jeopardy.... Instead, the "typical" patients tend to be young, low-income women, often poorly educated or naive, whose reasons for waiting so long to end their pregnancies are rarely medical.

Dr. Martin Haskell of Dayton, Ohio, has performed over 1,000 partial-birth abortions. In a tape-recorded interview, Dr. Haskell told American Medical News, "I'll be quite frank: most of my abortions are elective in that 20-24 week range. . . . In my particular case, probably 20% are for genetic reasons. And the other 80% are purely elective."

Dr. Haskell also wrote a paper in which he said he uses the method "routinely" in his walk-in abortion clinic, adding, "Among its advantages are that it is a quick, surgical outpatient method that can be performed on a scheduled basis under local anesthesia."

The late Dr. James McMahon of Los Angeles developed the partial-birth technique, and used it thousands of times. In a written submission to the House Judiciary Committee in 1995, he admitted using the method even during the final three months of pregnancy on babies with no "flaw," for such reasons as mere youth of the mother, or "psychiatric" difficulties.

Now, this is from a Right to Life page, I'll admit. But it's still damning. There are certainly more recent examples like the doctor in Wichita, Kansas openly violating that state's late-term abortion laws.

Now, I've stated (and the bill includes) the necessity of a maternal "life" exemption. And let's amend the bill, if needed, to exclude cases of severe fetal anomalies.

But please don't kid yourself. Just as there are unscrupulous doctors that will enable drug addicts or falsify insurance claims, so too are there doctors (abortionists) that take advantage of young, disadvantaged or scared pregnant women for their own personal financial gain.

Often, tragically, ending an otherwise viable human life only moments from birth.

 

[Irvine511]

Now, I've stated (and the bill includes) the necessity of a maternal "life" exemption. And let's amend the bill, if needed, to exclude cases of severe fetal anomalies.

there is quite a bit of conflation here. an abortion at 20 weeks is quite different from an abortion at 28 weeks or 32 weeks, both in the development of the fetus as well as the techniques used. the most graphic "scissor" technique usually happens after 7 months, not at 5 months.

and the fact remains that late-term abortions comprise 0.17% of all abortions.

but let's talk about the "life" of the mother. everyone agrees on this. but what about the "health" of the mother? are you willing to compromise on this as well?

But please don't kid yourself. Just as there are unscrupulous doctors that will enable drug addicts or falsify insurance claims, so too are there doctors (abortionists) that take advantage of young, disadvantaged or scared pregnant women for their own personal financial gain.

Often, tragically, ending an otherwise viable human life only moments from birth.

i'm sympathetic up until right now. please, doctors do not perform abortions because they want to make money. garbage. further, it is NOT doctors taking advantage of these young women. it's a society that offers little to young, disadvantaged women. where is the universal health care? where is the non-abstience based sex education? where are the free contraceptives? where is the federally funded child care? where are the programs available for women to get some kind of training and education so that they don't have to go on welfare after the birth of a child.

the day we have free contraception available to all women, everywhere, and genuinely comprehensive sex education in our schools, THEN i'll start to be more sympathetic to concerns about the fetus. for now, i'm more concerned about women, and the goal should always be to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

again, INDY, you're falling into the "pro-birth" camp. you're not genuinely pro-life until you address life itself, the life of the mother and the life of a child *after* a baby has been born.

are you going to feed that baby with your tax dollars? are you going to clothe that baby with your tax dollars? are you going to educate the baby and the mother with your tax dollars?

if so, i'm sure you'll be voting socialist in the next election.

 

[BVS]

But please don't kid yourself. Just as there are unscrupulous doctors that will enable drug addicts or falsify insurance claims, so too are there doctors (abortionists) that take advantage of young, disadvantaged or scared pregnant women for their own personal financial gain.

This has to be one of the worse post I've seen in FYM history.

 

[INDY500]

but let's talk about the "life" of the mother. everyone agrees on this. but what about the "health" of the mother? are you willing to compromise on this as well?

Probably not. See next answer.

please, doctors do not perform abortions because they want to make money. garbage.

Do obstetricians "deliver" babies because they want to make money?

There are abortion doctors. They work at abortion clinics. That is their practice. It is legal and that is their choice but that is often the scope of their practice. They have a financial stake in a woman's choice.

again, INDY, you're falling into the "pro-birth" camp.

you're not genuinely pro-life until you address life itself, the life of the mother and the life of a child *after* a baby has been born.

are you going to feed that baby with your tax dollars? are you going to clothe that baby with your tax dollars? are you going to educate the baby and the mother with your tax dollars?

if so, i'm sure you'll be voting socialist in the next election.

If given a vote, I'd vote for letting the sperm donor pay. We used to call them fathers.

 

[BVS]

Do obstetricians "deliver" babies because they want to make money?

Yes, but they don't knock up the girls in order to create clients.huh:

There are abortion doctors. They work at abortion clinics. That is their practice. It is legal and that is their choice but that is often the scope of their practice. They have a financial stake in a woman's choice.

Actually you are wrong in thinking that's the scope of their practice, it may be the scope of that clinic, but it's not the scope of their practice.

 

[Irvine511]

Probably not. See next answer.

i don't see what the next answer has to do with the fact that you would endanger a woman's health for the sake of a fetus. can you explain further?




[q]Do obstetricians "deliver" babies because they want to make money?

There are abortion doctors. They work at abortion clinics. That is their practice. It is legal and that is their choice but that is often the scope of their practice. They have a financial stake in a woman's choice.[/q]

performing abortions isn't like going to the optomitrist or the dermatologist where they try and squeeze in as many patients as possible into a workday.

If given a vote, I'd vote for letting the sperm donor pay. We used to call them fathers.

oh please. now that's a load of nostalgic hoo-ha. and just what if the father can't be found? is dead? is in jail? is as poor as the mother? is abusive? is a drunk? is a drug dealer?

you're absolving yourself of any responsibility you'd incurr if abortion were made illegal.

so the little slut got what was coming to her?

 

[Irvine511]

so, again, i ask all the pro-lifers: where's the demand for universal health care that would subsidize federally funded birth control, comprehensive sex education, neo-natal care, day care, and education programs for poor mothers who are unable to complete high school due to pregnancy?

 

[INDY500]

This has to be one of the worse post I've seen in FYM history.

I think you meant to say "worst."

Being omniscient doesn't excuse poor grammar BVS.

 

[martha]

oh please. now that's a load of nostalgic hoo-ha. and just what if the father can't be found? is dead? is in jail? is as poor as the mother? is abusive? is a drunk? is a drug dealer?

Is her father?
Is denying paternity?
Is out of the country?
Is found not guity of her rape?

 

[INDY500]

oh please. now that's a load of nostalgic hoo-ha. and just what if the father can't be found? is dead? is in jail? is as poor as the mother? is abusive? is a drunk? is a drug dealer?

you're absolving yourself of any responsibility you'd incurr if abortion were made illegal.

And after that rogues gallery...I'm the irresponsible one. Classic.

Adoption, quaint and old-fashioned as well?

 

[BVS]

I think you meant to say "worst."

Yes, thank you. I'm so glad you can correct my spelling.

Being omniscient doesn't excuse poor grammar BVS.

It doesn't take someone being omniscient to recognise quality. I can judge the best and worse sandwich I've ever had, without having to have every sandwich.

But nice try.

 

[Irvine511]

And after that rogues gallery...I'm the irresponsible one. Classic.

i don't understand this. could you explain?

Adoption, quaint and old-fashioned as well?

so you support, of course, gay adoption?

adoption is a lovely thought, i just wish reality squared with the promise. there just aren't so many people lining up to adopt babies born addicted to crack, african-american babies, underweight babies, babies with severe birth defects, children over the age of 2.

 

[Irvine511]

And after that rogues gallery...I'm the irresponsible one. Classic.

Adoption, quaint and old-fashioned as well?

[q]so, again, i ask all the pro-lifers: where's the demand for universal health care that would subsidize federally funded birth control, comprehensive sex education, neo-natal care, day care, and education programs for poor mothers who are unable to complete high school due to pregnancy?[/q]

and the movement to remove the ban on gay adoption in Flordia. i forgot to add that one.

 

[INDY500]

It doesn't take someone being omniscient to recognise quality. I can judge the best and worse sandwich I've ever had, without having to have every sandwich.

But nice try.

From worse to wurst.

 

[martha]

Adoption, quaint and old-fashioned as well?

Forcing women to have children: quaint and old-fashioned?

 

[BVS]

From worse to wurst.

I thought you'd like that.