Supreme Court to weigh late-term abortions

[Pirate Smile]

Breaking on CNN - Supreme Court to hear case on late-term abortion.

Supreme Court has agreed to review the Federal Law outlawing late term abortion.

Six years ago a state law outlawing the produre was ruled unconstitutional. SC has agreed to review the Federal Law which lower courts have ruled unconstitutional.

edit to add link:

Supreme Court to weigh late-term abortions
Newly constituted court plunges into contentious issue

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will consider the constitutionality of banning a type of late-term abortion, teeing up a contentious issue for a newly-constituted court already in a state of flux over privacy rights.

The Bush administration has pressed the high court to reinstate the federal law, passed in 2003 but never put in effect because it was struck down by judges in California, Nebraska and New York.

The outcome will likely rest with the two men that President Bush has recently installed on the court. Justices had been split 5-4 in 2000 in striking down a state law, barring what critics call partial birth abortion because it lacked an exception to protect the health of the mother.

But Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who was the tie-breaking vote, retired late last month and was replaced by Samuel Alito. Abortion had been a major focus in the fight over Alito’s nomination because justices serve for life and he will surely help shape the court on abortion and other issues for the next generation.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11475776/

[BR_Parkway]

1. Wow, I'm surprised they waited 2 whole weeks to get it there, figured they

would have had the papers already drawn up from the time they nominated Alito.

[glitch]

33. There are anencephalic babies to be saved!

Don't worry, they can be put on life-support and guardians can be assigned to vote for them.

[MadMaddie]

80. But remember the insurance companies will

fight tooth and nail not to pay benefits....

That happened with a sick infant here in Washington the media had to shame the Insurance company to cover the costs.

[barb162]

71. I predicted it would be way less than a month

and wait till they start on any abortion. Sometime within the next 2- 3 months I suspect

[adigal]

76. I figured since the Supreme Court is getting

so political, we should protest their offices, just like we would protest the White House?? And why not their homes, too?? These men, who want to take away the rights of women, minorities and the disabled, need to see what a little inconvenience feels like if they are gungho on ruining other peoples' lives.

[bkcc]

2. And so it begins....

They didn't waste much time in getting this on the Court's docket, did they?

At least now we'll have something to talk about other than Cheney shooting some guy in the face.

[phantom power]

3. That didn't take long.

[Selatius]

4. They'll probably outlaw abortions in the last trimester or something n/t

[Ezlivin]

5. They'll probably outlaw abortions if the mother is a female

I don't think they'll be happy with anything less.

[Selatius]

8. Most likely, but first they will trim back abortions in the late term

Then they will move and try to trim it back further until there is nothing left. "Creeping normalcy" is the answer. By moving slowly, the population gets used to the slow changes, but if one moves rapidly, one is more likely to startle the population. Little by little things are changed.

[prolesunited]

38. You obviously know how to boil frogs.

And this started long ago. In some states, there is only one clinic in the entire state that performs abortions. And the waiting periods make it even more inaccessible. Yes, poor women and minimum-wage workers will be able to get there or secure the time off. I guess they can sleep in the car to cut the cost of a hotel room.

[Selatius]

41. I believe Mississippi only has one clinic.

I live here.

[StrongbadTehAwesome]

82. My state (MO) is one of them. (nt)

[liberal N proud]

14. That is where they are heading!

A bunch of old men telling women how they must live.

[ktlyon]

79. in this case it is that they can't live

late term is for the health of the mother

[InsultComicDog]

64. If they have the votes they'll dump Roe first chance they get

For now they'll cut it down as far as they can

[HereSince1628]

10. maybe, but maybe not, it could be worse.

The supreme court has already decided that a fetal life isn't a person until it is independent of the body of the mother.

A reversal of that decision would almost certainly be extended to all abortions.

[OKNancy]

6. Please provide a link as soon as possible

Thanks.

[Pirate Smile]

9. Done

[dweller]

7. Supreme Court plunges into abortion debate

GINA HOLLAND

Associated Press

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will consider the constitutionality of banning a type of late-term abortion, teeing up a contentious issue for a newly-constituted
court already in a state of flux over privacy rights.

The Bush administration has pressed the high court to reinstate the federal law, passed in 2003 but never put in effect because it was struck down by judges in California, Nebraska and
New York.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/13924854.htm

also at: http://www.nbc17.com/health/7290071/detail.html
http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/13924854.htm

dp

[sarcasmo]

11. The end of Abortions nears as the Christian Taliban continues to repress.

Kick and Nom #1

[leftchick]

12. here is a link

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-02-21T150816Z_01_WAT004905_RTRUKOC_0_UK-COURT-ABORTION.xml

U.S. court to decide federal ban on some abortions
Tue Feb 21, 2006 3:08 PM GMT
Printer Friendly | Email Article | RSS

By James Vicini

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court said on Tuesday it would decide a Bush administration appeal urging the justices to uphold a federal law that bans certain abortion procedures.

The justices agreed to review a U.S. appeals court ruling that declared the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 unconstitutional because it lacks an exception to protect the health of a pregnant woman.

Abortion has been one of the most contentious issues for the high court since its landmark Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973 that women have a constitutional right to abortion.

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously last month that a New Hampshire abortion law should not have been struck down entirely when the problem involved only the part of the law that lacked an exception for a pregnant minor's health emergency.

[onehandle]

13. If they don't re-instate this law, fundies will stay home in November. nt

[bspence]

15. Let's "DU" the poll on the MSNBC web site

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11476054/

[katinmn]

19. done

[Nothing Without Hope]

20. Here are the current numbers. At least they actually say that the

NO answer is because the law lacks a provision to protect the health of the mother:

Should the Supreme Court reinstate the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act? * 6571 responses
Yes; the procedure should never be permitted
39%
No; it lacks an exception to protect the health of the mother
56%
I'm not sure
5%

[booksenkatz]

25. It's disturbing to think that such a large percentage 39%

doesn't even care about the health of the mother!
:scared:

[iverglas]

32. so what is someone who just wants to say "NO" supposed to do?

"No; it lacks an exception to protect the health of the mother"

I want a write-in option. (Well, I would if I were in the US and my opinion mattered. ;) )

NO. It is an intolerable interference in women's exercise of fundamental rights.

Of course, I would cross out "mother" and write "woman" in any event ...

[Inland]

16. Expect the Alito strategy of incrementaling cutting back.

Alito's strategy memo in the DOJ shows us where it's going.

Nobody's got the balls to outlaw abortion, but they'll come up with different judgments of "burden" on the rights. Expect the poor and isolated few to get it in the chops and daughters of wealth republicans to keep their access to abortions.

[rodeodance]

17. "it lacked an exception to protect the health of the mother"

....The outcome will likely rest with the two men that President Bush has recently installed on the court. Justices had been split 5-4 in 2000 in striking down a state law, barring what critics call partial birth abortion because it lacked an exception to protect the health of the mother.

[Nothing Without Hope]

18. The stage is set with a packed court - it was inevitable that this would

come quickly. K & R

[Dolomite]

21. creeping normalcy = landscape amnesia = slippery slope =

= unintended consequences

Hey look, a proposed “reasonable restriction” on something else besides guns.


You want to win this fight? You had better take notes off of the "from my cold dead hands" crowd.

You want to assume the role of the morally superior martyr? Do nothing.

[zann725]

22. Chip...chip...slowly they chip away . Was THIS that 40 lb. hunk of marble

that fell from Supreme Court facade some weeks ago? Or just the forboding?

[Binka]

23. I Hope All Of The Dino Fucks Who Voted for Alito

Have a sister, wife, niece, cousin, friend, corner bag lady (who is their dealer), have an experience with an unplanned unwanted unwhatthefuckever pregnancy. Then let them reap what they've sown.

[noonwitch]

24. Alito would have been confirmed regardless of how dems voted

I hope that either he or Roberts pulls a Souter and shows himself to be something other than what Bush and the right thought him to be.

Otherwise, the fight will have to be waged in the courts until a dem president gets to replace a conservative justice. Maybe Scalia will go hunting with Cheney again?

[Binka]

26. It Would Have Been Powerful Symbolism They Capitulated

They voted in their own self interests. Screw them!

[mzmolly]

37. I hope the same for those who did not consider this issue important

enough to support Kerry/Gore and a Democratic majority.

The FOUR Democrats who voted to confirm Alitio are as follows:

The four Democrats who broke party ranks and voted for Alito are Sens. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Kent Conrad of North Dakota. All four of the states represented by the senators were carried by Bush in both 2000 and 2004.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/31/alito/

[Charlie Brown]

43. There were only four

Byrd, Johnson, Nelson, and Conrad, and in spite of it all, I'd never wish anything bad on Byrd.

[OnionPatch]

45. I used to love that guy

But last time I got an email from him, I unsubscribed. That vote did it for me. The trust I had in him is gone. Kaput.

[William769]

27. Supreme Court to hear late-term abortion case

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court wasted little time jumping back into the contentious abortion issue, agreeing Tuesday to review the constitutionality of a federal law banning a controversial late-term procedure critics call "partial birth" abortion.

The case could provide a judicial sea change with new Justice Samuel Alito, who joined the high court January 31, replacing Sandra Day O'Connor.

O'Connor, the first woman on the high court, was a key swing vote for a quarter century, upholding the basic right to abortion.

The views of Alito, a more conservative jurist, could prove crucial in the new debate.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/02/21/scotus.latetermabortion/index.html

[Selteri]

28. oh what a surprise, prepare to be forcibly registered moms.

After all, you will be giving birth to the forth reich, wether you like it or not with this administration.

[Greeby]

29. We all knew this was coming

Hope you 19 traitors who wouldn't filibuster are feeling very proud of yourselves :eyes:

[AlGore-08.com]

30. Will they rule that the right to privacy doesn't exist?

And what will that do to "help" the Smirk Admin's warrantless wiretapping et al.

And what if the Extremes rule in a way the Far Right doesn't approve of? What will happen to Smirk & Co.?

Unfortunately, this could get real interesting real quick.

[iverglas]

31. don't fall for the shell game

The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will consider the constitutionality of banning a type of late-term abortion, ...

This is the shell game that proponents of these laws have played at every turn, and too many people fall for it.

The procedure that is supposedly banned by the legislation is actually most commonly used in NON-late-term abortions, i.e. abortions performed in the 2nd trimester.

Under existing US Supreme Court decisions, states may regulate 2nd-trimester procedures only in the health interests of women. Banning a particular procedure from use in 2nd-trimester abortions is plainly contrary to those decisions.

In most US states, 3rd-trimester (or post-hypothetical viability) abortions are available only to preserve the life or health (edit: those laws that don't grant health exemptions are routinely struck down) of the woman, or where the fetus suffers from defects incompatible with life. The US Supreme Court decided to permit such restrictions -- although in Roe v. Wade it completely failed to state what the constitutional justification for permitting this interference in women's exercise of rights actually is, or is supposed to be.

Fettering the discretion of doctors to choose the procedure that is in the women's best interests at a point when those interests are legally paramount, i.e. pre-hypothetical viability, is contrary to what the US Supreme Court has permitted.

Fettering the discretion of doctors to choose the procedure that is in the woman's best interests, when the entire reason for the termination is that the pregnancy jeopardizes her life or health, defeats the purpose of the exemption, which specifically prohibits states from interfering in women's healthcare -- without justification of the sort that is properly required in the case of laws that compel people to place their life or health in jeopardy.

What justification is there? Fetuses do not have interests, so there is no weighing of women's interests vs. fetuses' interests to be done. The procedure is icky? Yeah, that's justification for requiring that women assume risks to their lives or health they don't choose to assume. It's not "necessary"? In whose opinion, and when was any other surgery ever banned because it wasn't necessary? For that matter, how often is any particular surgical technique "necessary" in the sense that there isn't some other technique or treatment available, even though it might not fail to prevent the harm that a different technique might have prevented?

Of course, there's still the problem that the procedure itself is so ill-defined in the legislation that even if some constitutional justification could be found for the law, it endangers women by its vagueness.

This site provides quite a good analysis of the issues and the present legal situation:

http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/pbal.htm
http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/

and links to a lot of resources.

[ehrnst]

34. It's not just a "late term" ban...

The procedure is so vaguely worded, that it could apply to procedures used as early as 12 weeks.

The PLs won the fricking vocabulary wars. They have people thinking that

A. PBA is a single medical procedure, when it a vaguely worded, non-medically santioned description of parts of different procedures.

B. That it only applies to late term procedures (on viable fetuses).

C. That healthy women with healthy pregnancies, with healthy viable (late term) fetuses are turning up at clinics demanding an intact D&X.

d. That physicians are actually giving such a women these abortions, when medical ethics prohibit it!

What burns me up is when MSM gets it wrong in the fricking headline!

[Baconfoot]

51. Yeah, the CNN article really ticked me off on the terminology score.

If you go to the CNN article (front page of cnn.com) you'll see that what they say is that pro-choice activists object to the use of the phrase partial birth abortion because they say THE procedure is used in as 12 weeks or so.

Then in the next breath (read sentence, but it could be two sentences) they say that doctors call THE procedure dilation and extraction or D&E.

But what they do not do is draw your attention to the fact that PBA is a term BOTH pro-choice activists AND DOCTORS never use to refer to a medical procedure as it does NOT refer to one. Nor do they adequately articulate the ambiguity problem in some other way.

News flash for CNN: It IS fair and balanced reporting if you report a FACT (e.g. that PBA has never been a medical term or e.g. that PBA is at best an ambiguous term covering widely varying types of medical procedures) and the fact that this FACT is really important to the case at hand. Reporting facts is always fair. Now sometimes, as in this case, the facts seem to speak for themselves. The facts seem to compel some kind of conclusion (e.g. that PBA laws not translating themselves into actual medical jargon and alleviating the ambiguities should be struck down). Well we don't call it "unfair" or "unbalanced" reporting to report such facts. It's called, instead, reporting on something that seems fairly clearcut. But, if you were paranoid, you could hold back from asserting the conclusion which the facts seem to compel and simply assert the facts highly relevant to the case. And here the fact is that it isn't "abortion activists" who are objecting to the use of the term (you know, like "they" wanted to spell women with a 'y' a while back) but the entire medical community and, yeah, the PRO CHOICE activists (and pacifists for that matter).

[mom cat]

35. Never Forget the Alito Traitors. ... Never!

[mzmolly]

36. Never forget Nader said the SCOTUS would not overturn R v W.

... NEVER! Never forget a filibuster only DELAYS a nomination ... NEVER!

The Alito traitors are those who did not consider a womens right to choose in the voting booth, yet bitch about the fact that Democrats are in the minority as a result. Indeed, NEVER FORGET the Alito Traitors!

[mom cat]

46. And never forget how the elections were stolen. The people in the

Voting booths did their job. The election was clearly stolen.
Actually, a filibuster would have stopped the nomination. The filibuster essentially tables that discussion until there are enough votes for cloture. Ostensibly, it could always be brought up at a later date, but that would be unlikely. What was clear, was that there were enough votes against Alito, that if those negative votes had also supported a filibuster, Alito would not now be on the Supreme Court.

[mzmolly]

48. I disagree that a filibuster would have stopped the nomination.

We didn't have the Republican support needed for your scenario to play out.

As to the stolen election, Nader assisted in the theft. And, he did so again in 2004.

So I guess, you have your list of traitors and I have mine.

Regardless, we are seeing the results of a Republican majority, let's not let it happen again.

[mom cat]

53. The nomination could have been stopped. Furthermore, I have never heard

anyone even hint that Nader was part of the theft of the election. Please cite your sources.
PS. I worked my self weary to the bone for Kerry and gave till it hurt over and over again, so please do not dismiss my rage at the Alito traitors because you have a bone to pick with Nader. Nader did not have a chance to vote on Alito's nomination, but the ones who did finally vote against him did not have the courage to stand up to the bullies when it really counted ... the cloture vote. Had they stood up when it counted, we would not have this imperialist, racist, mysonogist, elitist on the Supreme Court right now. I am tired of Dems who are "keeping their powder dry" and blaming Nader for their own failings.

[mzmolly]

54. Again we disagree on what a filibuster in today's climate would have

accomplished.

Regarding Nader being a useful tool in the theft of various elections, I would ask if it's easier in a progressive district to slide votes into the Nader or Bush category? It doesn't take a rocket scientist as they say. I'm glad you voted for Kerry, what about Gore?

"Nader did not have a chance to vote on Alito's nomination..."

Indirectly he did. He had a chance to quell legitimate concerns over potential Bush nominees and he did so by claiming R v. W would remain in tact and that Gore would choose essentially the same type of nominees. If we are going to hold "Democrats" responsible, let's hold "independents" responsible for their actions as well, deal? As for me, I'll keep 3 of the 4 dems who voted in Alito on my shit list and add them to Naders name.

As for what I'm "tired" of ... I tire of people waiting to pounce on every opportunity to dismiss the ENTIRE Democratic party when a handful don't do exactly everything some claim they should. I tire of the same people bitching about Democrats having their hands tied when THEY do nothing to ensure progressives are the majority by voting "smart."

[mom cat]

57. Yes, I voted for Gore, and every single Democrat I was eligible to vote

for since I have been able to vote ... and that has been a long time. I even shook hands with Lyndon.
I am not, nor would I ever dismiss the whole Democratic Party. I do have some serious issues with some elected officials who care far more for the well-being of their corporate sponsors them they do for the people in their districts.
I fully agree with you that we progressives have got to vote Smart and work real hard to get candidates who will work for us and make the others really nervous about betraying us.
I think that some Democrats take their base for granted and assume that we will just vote for them on a knee-jerk basis. I I would love to make them uncomfortable with that assumption.

[mzmolly]

60. Agree with every word!

Moveon sounds like they are taking up the "accountability" banner and that is encouraging.

:hi:

[mom cat]

77. I agree with the MoveOn process too! I think they are moving ahead

with both conviction and a systemic analysis that can bring positive change.:smoke:

[Charlie Brown]

39. If conservatives are for STATES RIGHTS

then how can they uphold a FEDERAL LAW that dictates the issue?

[2DleftofU]

40. Um, because ...

Roe made it a federal issue. I'm just sayin' ...

[Charlie Brown]

42. Actually Roe made it an issue for individuals

which is probably about as "conservative" as you can get.

[Demeter]

44. A Monumental Distraction, For Sure

Takes our minds off: Cheney Shooting, Port Protections, New Orleans, Election Fraud, Illegal Wiretapping, Plame Outing, failing economy, Iran and Iraq and Afghanistan, croyism, PNAC, etc....

[Solly Mack]

47. Refresher Course

Being the best wife, mother and woman you can be...


1. Have dinner ready: Plan ahead, even the night before, to have a delicious meal - on time. This is a way of letting him know that you have been thinking about him, and are concerned about his needs. Most men are hungry when they come home and the prospects of a good meal are part of the warm welcome needed.

2. Prepare yourself: Take 15 minutes to rest so you will be refreshed when he arrives. Touch up your makeup, put a ribbon in your hair and be fresh looking. He has just been with a lot of work-weary people. Be a little gay and a little more interesting. His boring day may need a lift.

3. Clear away the clutter. Make one last trip through the main part of the house just before your husband arrives, gathering up school books, toys, paper, etc. Then run a dust cloth over the tables. Your husband will feel he has reached a haven of rest and order, and it will give you a lift, too.

4. Prepare the children: Take a few minutes to wash the children's hands and faces if they are small, comb their hair, and if necessary, change their clothes. They are little treasures and he would like to see them playing the part.

5. Minimize the noise: At the time of his arrival, eliminate all noise of washer, dryer, dishwasher or vacuum. Try to encourage the children to be quiet. Be happy to see him. Greet him with a warm smile and be glad to see him.

6. Some Don'ts: Don't greet him with problems or complaints. Don't complain if he's late for dinner. Count this as minor compared with what he might have gone through that day.

7. Make him comfortable: Have him lean back in a comfortable chair or suggest he lie down in the bedroom. Have a cool or warm drink ready for him. Arrange his pillow and offer to take off his shoes. Speak in a low, soft, soothing and pleasant voice. Allow him to relax and unwind.

8. Listen to him: You may have a dozen things to tell him, but the moment of his arrival is not the time. Let him talk first.

9. Make the evening his: Never complain if he does not take you out to dinner or to other places of entertainment; instead, try to understand his world of strain and pressure, his need to be home and relax.

10. The goal: Try to make your home a place of peace and order where your husband can relax.

11. Patriotic American women grin and bear sex. They understand it's their marriage duty. Sex outside of marriage is the work of Satan, Communists and Terrorists thinking.

12. Patriotic American women would never use birth control and they inform on those who do.

13. Patriotic American women have as many kids as she can to insure a future tax base and work force.

14. Patriotic American women know that while a daughter might be "Daddy's little girl", America needs sons to keep her strong. Take pride in producing a son and show the proper remorse for producing a daughter.

15. Patriotic American women inform on friends who are considering the great evil abortion.



Do's

Accept him at face value.

Admire the manly things about him.

Recognize his superior strength and ability.

Be a Domestic Goddess.

Work for inner happiness and seek to understand its rules.

Revere your husband and honor his right to rule you and your children.

Don'ts

Don't try to change him.

Don't let the outside world crowd you for time to do your homemaking tasks well.

Don't have a lot of preconceived ideas of what you want out of life.

Don't stand in the way of his decisions, or his law.

Don't try to excel him in anything which requires masculine ability.

Don't show indifference, contempt, or ridicule toward his masculine abilities, achievements or ideas.

[ronnykmarshall]

50. Poor Laura failed ..

Not only did she not produce a son, she birth'd TWO daughters!

[Megahurtz]

56. Ugh! And don't forget:

13. Patriotic American women have as many kids as she can to insure a future tax base and work force and military force.:puke:

[BurningDog]

49. In what situation would the health of the mother be effected?

It seems the law only covers a very specific procedure "prohibits a certain type of abortion, generally carried out in the second or third trimester, in which a fetus is partially removed from the womb, and the skull is punctured or crushed."

Honest question, how would the mother's heath be any worse if the baby was fully delivered live?

[Lars39]

52. One way would be a hydrocephalus baby.

The circumference of the head can be enormous.

[Bridget Burke]

55. Why should a woman have to live through the last months of pregnancy....

Knowing that the baby will only live a while, in pain?

The "partial birth abortion" was made up by anti-abortion folks.

[Mandate My Ass]

58. Late term abortions are not performed for frivolous reasons

like the woman decided she was getting too many stretch marks and was calling it off. :eyes:

http://www.now.org/issues/abortion/procedure_talking.html

Myth: Late-term abortions have gotten out-of-control.

Fact: Only four one-hundredths of one percent of legal abortions are performed during the third trimester.

Over 95 percent of all abortions are performed during the first 15 weeks of pregnancy.


Myth: Banning so-called "partial-birth" bans doesn't violate a woman's constitutional right to choose abortion.

Fact: Abortion procedure bans are clearly unconstitutional.

The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that abortion is a protected right prior to viability and that women's health must be protected after viability. Abortion procedure bans would outlaw abortion at any stage of pregnancy and lack exceptions even if continued pregnancy threatens serious adverse consequences to a woman's physical health.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3693/is_200311/ai_n9325010

The late-term abortion ban does not provide any exception for cases in which the health or life of the mother is at risk. Most frequently, when a woman chooses to have a second- or third-term abortion, it is because of the development of a serious health threat to herself or to the fetus. For example, a pregnant woman diagnosed with cancer would be unable to undergo live-saving chemotherapy treatment if she was unable to terminate a second- or third-term pregnancy. Additionally, about one third of late-term abortions are performed on adolescents, who frequently hide their pregnancies for the duration of the first term due to fear, embarrassment, and lack of education. Other reasons for late-term abortions include discovery of serious fetal anomalies, the need for time to raise funds to pay for an abortion, psychological denial as a result of rape or incest, and geographic location.

[BurningDog]

61. Of the reasons listed on that site,

only not being able to undergo cancer treatments has any effect on the woman's health.

All of these do not:
-one third of late-term abortions are performed on adolescents
-discovery of serious fetal anomalies
-the need for time to raise funds to pay for an abortion
-psychological denial as a result of rape or incest
-geographic location.

I haven't read the exact text of the bill, but the only procedure the article refers to is Intact dilation and extraction. The (neutral) description of D&X abortion at wikipedia is : "The doctor subsequently births the rest of the baby, usually without the aid of forceps, leaving only the head still inside the birth canal. With sufficient force, the doctor inserts scissors into the base of the back of the skull. The doctor spreads the scissors to widen the opening, and then inserts a suction catheter. The brain tissue is removed, killing the fetus, and allowing the rest of the fetus to pass easily."

Beyond the normal wear and tear of birthing (which is expected if a pregnancy has gone on that long), I don't see how not sucking its brains out has any effect on a woman's health.

My question is, why is D&X a better choice than an early delivery for fetuses past the point of viability? I'm asking honestly because I'd like to know. I have friends that have had babies delivered early, and are now happy, healthy, normal children. Is this debate actually about preservation of life or is it just about abortion for convenience up until birth?

[Runcible Spoon]

66. ummm EXCUSE ME

how is being forced to bear the result of getting BRUTALLY RAPED IN AN ALLEY OR MOLESTED BY HER FATHER NOT GOING TO HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON A WOMAN'S HEALTH?????????!!!!!!!!!! Enjoy your short stay :sarcasm: . :grr: :banghead: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[BurningDog]

68. Has a court ever ruled that mental health is a valid concern?

I tried searching for the answer, but the entire first page on google is sites that say abortion actually harms a woman's mental health. However, in cases such as you mentioned, that may not be true. For argument's sake, lets assume that it isn't.

Roe v. Wade states: "For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother."

The question is, at this point, which is more important to the state, potentiality of human life or the mother's mental health?

Thanks for the civilized response and warm welcome.

[Runcible Spoon]

69. if you have to even ask questions like that, you're far too gone to argue

just because the Courts haven't satisfactorily addressed the whole spectrum of health concerns doesn't mean the question is invalid, it merely means the Court has its collective head up its ass with neocon ideology. I could give a rat's ass personally about the interest of the state. I care about women's lives. Roe V Wade is a problematic decision for both sides of the debate, but I'm not about the chuck the whole thing. If we are going to debate state interest, it seems that preserving the well-being of already existent humans outweighs the concern with not realized human beings (fetuses). Even if I were to force the most insensitive and functionalist analogies to prove my point, it still remains. For example, farmers would not kill a good sow, broodmare, or cow to save the piglets, calves, and foals. From the most vulgar materialistic perspective, the net energy loss would be greatly offset by saving the organisms which are already at adulthood and can hypothetically produce more offspring in the future. Of course I realize how these analogies are offensive, but when putting "interests of the state" questions in front of me, I can scarcely problematize women in any other terms than as baby-makers/producers/consumers of/for the state, which is of course disgusting, but this seems to be teh ideology that drives these court rulings whether those making the decisions realize it or not. So even by that mentality, the health (mental and physical-a mentally ill woman is just as much of a drain as a physically handicapped one in terms of vulgar resource allocation) of the mother trumps the potential of the fetus.

[BurningDog]

72. I wasn't asking to invalidate the question,

I wanted to know if there was any prior caselaw concerning it.

I can't find the exact case, but it seems, from what other source say, that courts have held that barring a suicidally depressed pregnant woman from having an abortion doesn't comply with the "the preservation of the life or health of the mother." So mental health does quality in the rare cases that it could affect her life and health.

It would seem like the best solution would to be to leave the mother's health intact without explictly ending the potential of the fetus. So back to my orginal question, why is a D&X abortion better than forced birth of a live baby?

[Runcible Spoon]

78. umm because forcing a birth is damaging to a woman

psychologically and potentially physically. DUH. I don't want to hear a bunch of cherry-picked studies about women freaking out over abortion guilt. THe reason WHY women feel guilty about abortion is because a very loud militant extremist faction is very good at making itself heard by getting plenty of media attention and exploiting people's religious beliefs. I would argue that very few women would feel guilty if there weren't insensitive anti-choice wingbuts making them feel so by framing their choice as "sinful". I know this as a doctoral candidate in anthropology, which brings me to surveys of many cultures where abortion is an accepted part of natural/ideological processes. Not somethign to be celebrated, certainly, but something that is done for any number of reasons. THE REASON WHY we don't have a bunch of studies showing how forced births harm women psychologically and physically is BECAUSE WE HAVE LEGALIZED ABORTION! THIS is WHY I don't want to see your fundamentalist Christian funded studies about weepy women crying about their shameful choices. Those of us who have had abortions don't all regret it or even consider it a damaging even in our histories. So I guess MY question to YOU would be, WHY do YOU care about the arbitrary value assigned to a non-viable fetus over the health and well-being of a woman? I'm telling you, all we need is a few forced births, a few suicides of those women, a few hemorrages, a few deaths, resulting from the barring of late-term abortions will open a floodgate of shit onto the patriarchical anti-choice movements. I highly suggest you adopt a more sensitive position that actually cares about women instead of giving me this cold, institutional discussion about women as receptacles for the unborn.

[AlienGirl]

70. Serious fetal anomalies and fetal death can impact a mother's health

It simply isn't healthy to carry an already-dead fetus to term, and in cases of severe hydrocephalus and anencephaly, the mother's health could be endangered by trying to pass the fetus through the vagina, which would mean the women in those situations, to give birth to the fetus while it is still "alive," would have to have C-sections (significantly increasing risks of complications over vaginal delivery).

Tucker

[BurningDog]

73. What about in cases other than severe hydrocephalus and anencephaly?

I was not aware of those conditions when I posted the question (which was why I posted it in the first place, and have to give Lars39 credit for answering it first) and I can agree with an abortion may be necessary in those instances. However, the conversation went on a tangent about other reasons why it may be done. It is some of those other reasons that I might disagree that the mother's health outweighs the potential for human life. Especially those cases where a live birth can take place with no more physical trama than an abortion.

With that said, I think I'm going to realize that I'm out of my league, I think I'm going to bow out and revert to my former position of thinking that the government should be out of the abortion business altogether. I'll rejoin the discussion whenever I have a uterus.

[AlienGirl]

74. Then you're talking about a vanishingly tiny percentage of cases

Late-term abortions for reasons other than dead fetus/defect-incompatible-with-life or mother needing to go through cancer treatments are *extremely* rare, and have sound medical reasons behind them. The two cases I know about are a woman whose fetus died at 25 weeks and who elected to have a D&E rather than carry to a spontaneous stillbirth, and a woman who aborted at 15 weeks (so still 2nd trimester) because the baby's heart defect was so severe he had only a 30% chance of living--and that was *if* he had immediate heart surgery.*

Tucker

*In this case, I offered to adopt the baby immediately after birth because I had good insurance at the time, but the mother wasn't willing.

[iverglas]

75. here's the real question

My question is, why is D&X a better choice than an early delivery for fetuses past the point of viability?

And that question is: what business is this of yours?

Do you make a habit of poking your nose into other people's choices, and other people's doctors' decisions, about what medical procedures are better for them than others?

The burden, you see, is on s/he who wishes to poke his/her nose into these things, to show what justification s/he has for doing so.

If you're not wanting to poke your nose into this, and just asking out of curiosity, dandy. You might want to keep in mind that by so doing you're offering aid and comfort to those who do want to poke their noses in.

Is this debate actually about preservation of life or is it just about abortion for convenience up until birth?

Gee, I wonder whether you're just curious, eh?

You're perpetuating the shell game.

The time at which abortions may be obtained is a COMPLETELY SEPARATE ISSUE from the procedures that may be used to perform abortions.

If an abortion IS NOT legally available in a US state without a reason such as the US Supreme Court approved in Roe, then NO procedure may be used to perform it.

If an abortion IS legally available in a US state post-hypothetical viability, then anyone who wants to prohibit any procedure for performing it has the burden of justifying that prohibition.

The "debate" about this particular pseudo-procedure has NOTHING to do with the reasons why women seek abortions or why governments place restrictions on access to abortion.

It has to do with whether women who ARE ENTITLED to obtain abortions

- in the 2nd trimester, when the state MAY NOT interfere in the choice to have an abortion for any reasons not related to the women's health interests -- unless it comes up with some other reason not already considered by the US Supreme Court

- in the 3rd trimester, when the state MAY interfere in the choice to have an abortion for any reason it has or pretends to have, as long as it allows exceptions for abortions that are necessary to preserve a woman's life or health

will be able to have a particular procedure used to perform the abortion.

Again: the "debate" has NOTHING TO DO with abortion "for convenience" or for ANY OTHER REASON.

It may have to do with the reason for using a particular PROCEDURE for an abortion that is LEGAL, meaning that the reasons for the abortion are no one's business, either because the state may not inquire into them or because the state has inquired into them (through the doctors who make the decisions) and determined them to be satisfactory.

But that "debate" can only legitimately arise if someone who proposes to prohibit the procedure has JUSTIFICATION for doing so.

If any of this isn't clear, I'm sure many people can assist you in figuring it out.


By the way, a description that includes the phrase "The doctor subsequently births the rest of the baby" is not what I'd call "neutral". A fetus is not a baby, and an abortion is not a birth. (And "birth" is not a bloody verb.)

[BurningDog]

81. Thanks for your thoughts.

As I said previously, my original question has been answered sufficiently.

anyone who wants to prohibit any procedure for performing it has the burden of justifying that prohibition

The justfications in the bill are that is barbaric and unnecessary, I was asking the question to find out if that was the case or not. Granted, the tone of the replies made me take a more defensive stance and went out on unrelated tangents, but thats all I wanted to know.

However, if you're inclined to give more explanations, I'm still waiting to hear how racist restraunt owners voting against desegregation are like handgun owners voting against confiscation. "Liberal democracy" escapes me. :hi:

[iverglas]

83. fascinating

The justfications in the bill are that is barbaric and unnecessary, I was asking the question to find out if that was the case or not.

Still the wrong question, isn't it though?

How's about if the legislature decides that duck hunting is barbaric and unnecessary? The rkba-head gang gonna roll over and die? (rkba = "right to keep and bear arms", code for many things, for those who don't know)

Is a legislature's opinion (which is all that is) that something is barbaric and unnecessary an adequate justification for violating someone's rights?

Not where I come from.

Now, the fact that capital punishment is barbaric and unnecessary, that's certainly good grounds for a legislature deciding not to use it. But that's a duck of a different feather. Legislatures that do that are not telling someone else what s/he may or may not do, on pain of punishment.

There really have been gallons of judicial ink used to establish what is, and what is not, justification for violating someone's rights. Whether something is "necessary" only comes into it when the legislature has already justified prohibiting it.

And no one's opinion that someone else's acts are "barbaric" overrides his/her right to do them.

"Liberal democracy" escapes me.

Hey, you said it. Not too in tune with it at all, are you?

[Megahurtz]

59. Yeah, hey! Who cares

if the woman or girl dies in childbirth? Gotta have them babies!:sarcasm:

:puke:

[Orsino]

62. 1972 called.

It wants your right to an abortion back.

[fshrink]

63. As it weighed the 2000 election recount. nt

[Kailassa]

65. The thread title certainly calls strange images to mind.

The Supreme Court weighs very late-term abortions.

[ncteechur]

67. Since Ruth Bader Ginsberg is the only one with a uterus, the

other eight should shut their fucking pie holes! Period!

[CTLawGuy]

84. did you know that

the Roe v. Wade decision was written by Justice Harry Blackmun, a MAN?

This is not a gender thing. This is a fundie vs. sane person thing.