Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Statements of a Vermont doctor about the so-called "partial birth abortion" ban.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-18-07 05:16 PM
Original message
Statements of a Vermont doctor about the so-called "partial birth abortion" ban.
Howard Dean was very outspoken on this issue. I can imagine his outrage today. Most of these statements are from 2003.

BURLINGTONToday, Democratic presidential candidate Governor Howard Dean, M.D., sharply criticized the latest congressional vote on the so-called 'partial-birth abortion ban':

As a physician, I am outraged that the House of Representatives has decided it is qualified to practice medicine. There is no such thing as 'partial birth abortion' in medical literature. But there are times when a doctor is called upon to perform a late term abortion to save a woman's life or protect her from serious injury. Today the House took a step toward making it a crime for a doctor to perform such medically necessary procedures.

This bill will chill the practice of medicine and endanger the lives of countless women. Despite what politicians tell you, there is not an epidemic of third trimester abortions in this country. This kind of legislation serves the sole purpose of chipping away women's constitutionally protected reproductive rights and overturning Roe v. Wade.

Source: Statement from Dean for America site. Burlington, VT, October 2, 2003

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Individual freedom should apply to abortion decision. I believe that the issue of abortion is a medical rather than a political decision. I don't see how a government regulation that tells doctors how to practice medicine can be supported. Republicans claim that they are the party of individual freedom, but they are the first to tell other people how to live their lives.
Source: Winning Back America, by Howard Dean, p.142-3 Dec 3, 2003

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Q: Where do you stand on the partial birth abortion ban?
A: In the four years between 1996 & 2000 there were no late term abortions performed in my state. Late term abortions are very rare and should never be used except to save the life or health of the mother. I just don't think the government ought to be making personal medical decisions for Americans. No respectable physician would ever do a late term abortion except for the most serious reasons. That is why I did not support the President's bill
Source: Concord Monitor / WashingtonPost.com on-line Q&A Nov 6, 2003

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
As a physician, I do not like the idea that Congress or the President think they should practice medicine. Abortion is a deeply personal decision which ought to be made between the patient, the family and physician. It's none of the government's business.
Source: Campaign web site, DeanForAmerica.com, "On the Issues" Nov 30, 2002

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The notion of "partial birth abortion" is nonsense. This is a rare procedure used only to save the life or health of the mother. We have had no third trimester abortions in Vermont in the past four years.
Source: Campaign web site, DeanForAmerica.com, "On the Issues" Nov 30, 2002

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"This kind of legislation serves the sole purpose of chipping away women's constitutionally protected reproductive rights and overturning Roe. v. Wade."
Source: Statement given after the 2003 ban.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
candice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-18-07 05:20 PM
Response to Original message
1. "Partial birth" is the language that the Repugs are using to disguise...
what they are up to, just like "Healthy Forrests" are ones that leave no tree behind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharonAnn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-18-07 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #1
11. And they're performed by "Abortion Doctors", not Obstetricians or Gynecologists.
Sheesh!

And the Supreme Court Justices who made this decision and used these terms should be called what". They're certainly not Justices.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-18-07 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #11
20. Did you read Ginsburg's dissent"
I found it in mcjoan's post at Kos.

"Today's decision is alarming," Ginsburg wrote for the minority. "It tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists....And, for the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman's health."

She added: "Retreating from prior rulings that abortion restrictions cannot be imposed absent an exception safeguarding a woman's health, the Court upholds an Act that surely would not survive under the close scrutiny that previously attended state-decreed limitations on a woman's reproductive choices."

One wonders how long a line that saves no fetus will hold in the face of the Court's "moral concerns." . . . The Court's hostility to the right Casey and Roe secured is not concealed. Throughout, the opinion refers to obstetrician-gynecologists not by the title of their medical specialties, but by the pejorative label "abortion doctors."

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/18/20138/3017


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-18-07 05:21 PM
Response to Original message
2. KnR for the good Dr. Dean's common sense and compassion.


Hekate

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-19-07 12:22 AM
Response to Reply #2
27. I agree. Common sense and caring.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-18-07 05:21 PM
Response to Original message
3. self delete of my keyboard's double click
Edited on Wed Apr-18-07 05:23 PM by Hekate

when in doubt, blame the hardware
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
valerief Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-18-07 05:32 PM
Response to Original message
4. The Supreme Court is both cruel and retarded. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-18-07 05:40 PM
Response to Original message
5. Dean in NARAL speech says this issue is about extremism...appealing to fears.

Gov. Howard Dean NARAL Pro-Choice America Dinner Washington, DC January 21, 2003>

I'm going to talk to you as a governor and as a doctor tonight, but I was thinking as I was listening to the four speakers how much is at stake. It's not just abortion rights or reproductive freedoms. Title IX is under attack by this administration and I think if one of us doesn't win, next thing girls won't be able to go to school in America, you watch. .

Now Vermont is the promised land for you folks . I'm the governor, I was the governor up 'til last week. I served on the board of Planned Parenthood of Northern New England for five years. . When I became governor I had to resign because all--we contracted all our family planning services through Planned Parenthood in Vermont.

We do not hearken to the term "partial birth abortion" in my state because because partial birth abortion is like the word quota. The President used it six times last night. It's a code word. It's designed to appeal to people's fears, to divisiveness. Partial birth abortion is the same thing. .

The truth is I went and checked and tried to figure out, because I was running against a conservative person the last two times I ran. I checked, because I knew this would come up, how many late, third trimester abortions had been done in the state of Vermont in the last four years. The number was--. Zero.

This is an issue about nothing; it's an issue about extremism; it's an issue about appealing to people's fears. It is the wrong thing to do and people who use the term partial birth abortion are leading an America in a bad place. . They are trying to divide us people of conscience; it is the wrong thing to do. It's no more honorable for the President of the United States using the word quota, because he knows it divides us by race and use of the word partial birth abortion divides us by conscience. .




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rainy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-18-07 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. So if a fetus is viable but not born yet and it is aborted how is that not murder?
Edited on Wed Apr-18-07 06:16 PM by rainy
Can't we just have doctors say that when the fetus becomes viable then all efforts will be made to save the baby even it the woman's life situation demands the fetus be removed right away? Can't they take the baby, if the woman's life demands an abortion, without killing it? If it can survive why not let it? The woman, if she doesn't want the baby can give it up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-18-07 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Doctors now will be afraid to do what they have to do to save the life...
of the mother. If you believe this is ok, that is your right.

I always thought such things were the business of a woman and her doctor.

But if you think lawmakers should step in, then we are on different pages....and I will not go there with you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gaspee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-18-07 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. The point is
That the fetus is not viable. If it were, don't you think the doctor would do a c-section and not abort the fetus? The research I've done all says the same thing, most often the fetus is already dead or would not survive outside the womb for very long.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-18-07 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. I see you edited.
Edited on Wed Apr-18-07 06:23 PM by madfloridian
How many women "demand" abortions late term? That is spin. Why would any honorable doctor "kill" the baby?

If a mother's life is in danger she should not be required to go to court to get her life saved. It does not matter about the rest of what you said. It goes to religious views, such as save the baby over the mother. That is a religious view, and goes above the heads of the family at religious hospitals.

Not going to debate that.

Lawmakers should stay out of medical decisions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rainy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-18-07 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #9
16. She shouldn't have to go to a court, I was just thinking that it should be
standard procedure that if the fetus is viable then it should live. I wonder why none of us really know how this procedure is done and when and why. Shouldn't the media have answered all these questions for us? I thing we keep getting the sound bites from both sides without any real information about the true nature of this procedure. If a woman's health is going to suffer if she carries the baby any longer but it could survive shouldn't it be allowed to survive? I'm not religious at all but I have been told that the baby as young as 25 weeks can survive outside of the womb. I'm just wondering out loud. Not enough info to decide what is right at this point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-18-07 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. Just remember that if it is between the doctor and the woman...
then we won't need to know.

All the legal jargon confuses an issue which should not be put in the hands of the court or the lawmakers.

But now it is, and I fear many women will pay dearly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-18-07 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. Late-term abortions are already illegal.
"Partial-birth abortion" is a bait and switch. It pretends to refer to a rare procedure that's performed in very dire, tragic circumstances, when the fetus would not live after birth in any case.

However, the language of the description of this procedure is designed to apply to many, many other currently-legal abortions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xxqqqzme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-19-07 12:33 AM
Response to Reply #16
28. What is 'right' is what the
doctor and the woman decide- not legislators, not presidents, not supreme court justices....it is NONE of your business.

How many legislators do you check w/ before making a medical decision?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ieoeja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-19-07 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #16
35. Do you know the details of how an appendectomy is done?

To the best of my knowledge there are only two medical procedures the AMA considers ethical that the gov't challenges (both by the conservative half): medical marijuana and abortion. I would suggest these so-called "conservatives" should start supporting our doctors instead of opposing them.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LandOLincoln Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-19-07 01:21 AM
Response to Reply #6
29. The procedure is never performed on a viable, living baby.
Ever.

In fact, there IS NO SUCH THING AS PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION.

It's a bogus issue, and for the life of me I don't know why Howard Dean hasn't been screaming this fact at the top of his lungs.

Once again, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gaspee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-18-07 06:22 PM
Response to Original message
10. I have two solutions
One, women, don't have babies. This is the one I'm opting for. If the child's life is more important than mine, well, I choose not to have children. At my age, it would be too risky without access to all health and life saving options anyway. And I'd been seriously considering it lately, even though up until this point (37) I've always chosen to remain child free.

Second option, an underground railroad for women to go to Canada if the medical treatment to save their lives is not available in the US. Considering how rare late term abortion actually is, the fund could probably be set up with small individual donations.

It is abhorrant to me that women are going to be denied life saving medical treatment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharonAnn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-18-07 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. If eclampsia hits suddenly, it's a medical emergency. No time for travel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gaspee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-18-07 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. I noted
that in the post I made in the women's issues forum. It's a definite stumbling block. And it looks like from the stats that pre-eclampsia is a leading cause of late-term abortions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-18-07 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. My fear is a doctor will be fearful of making decisions that need to be made.
I think that is what Dr. Dean meant by the word "chilling".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sickinohio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-19-07 08:38 AM
Response to Reply #12
31. Exactly
Edited on Thu Apr-19-07 08:39 AM by sickinohio
My daughter had HELLP Syndrome in two pregnancies. Both ended in C-sections at 27 weeks to save her life, with the loss of the babies. I guess I should be thankful ????? that that happened 10 and 5 years ago and not today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HockeyMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-18-07 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. having been in that situation
all I can say is that my life did mean more to me than an embryo. When I went into the hospital with my ectopic pregnancy, the last thing I heard was my 3 year old daughter crying that Mommy was going to die. You tell me. Who means more? You, a 3 year old, or an embryo, or a fetus? Did they ever even consider what the reaction of that 3 year old would be if her/his sibling caused the death of their mother? I raised two kids. I can tell you they would probably resent that sibling for the rest of their lives. "You killed my Mommy". You don't think so? Don't bet the house on it.

All I can say is that if you have never had an embryo/fetus nearly kill you will never know the feeling. I, myself, had absolutely no maternal feelings toward it whatsoever. My life, my 3 year olds life, meant far more to me. It may just as well has been a cancerous tumor that had to be removed. Unfortunately, in my case the "christian" medical staff could not quite see that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-18-07 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. Powerful painful post.
Thanks for sharing.

One of our daughters had that situation, and she nearly died. That was before all the fear doctors must be feeling now. She was ok, and the doctors had no qualms about saving her life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-18-07 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #14
22. HockeyMom...I think
the life should be about the mother. Did the "christian" medical staff do anything to mess you up?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-18-07 08:57 PM
Response to Original message
21. Dean's statement on today's ruling.
http://blog.4president.org/2008/2007/04/dean_on_supreme...

"Dean On Supreme Court Ruling On Federal Abortion Ban
Dean on Supreme Court Ruling on Federal Abortion Ban

Washington, DC Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean issued the following statement on the Supreme Courts 5-4 ruling upholding the federal abortion ban:

Today's decision by the Supreme Court takes away a right that has previously been affirmed by the Court. A woman's decision about her own reproductive health is a very personal and difficult one that should remain hers to be made with her doctor. This latest decision by the Court stands in stark contradiction to previous rulings recognizing the complexity of women's medical conditions and replaces the judgment of doctors, women and their families for the judgment of five Supreme Court Justices. Regardless of political affiliation, we can all agree that reducing the number of abortions is a priority. Democrats are committed to finding common ground on this issue and focusing on legislative measures to increase education, prevention and support systems to help reduce the number of abortions each year in the United States.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-18-07 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. I don't like abortions ..glad I
never had to have one but I think it's up to the woman and her doctor.

Will this latest ruling having any affect on the voting trends of the women in the USA?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-18-07 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. I think it might.
My relative who was a Bush supporter, and finally saw the light....is Catholic (converted on marriage) and wife (cradle catholic). He and his wife do not care at all about the wedge issues. And they are strong Republicans. When they were here they mentioned how all the restrictions on womens' rights were hurting women who could not afford more children...they do volunteer work with social agencies.

Yes, I think it will matter. My uncles and our sons are all Republicans, and the issue annoys them the way it is being pushed. They intensely dislike government encroaching on rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-18-07 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. Good to hear. And I think
that when these bans are dealt with on a daily personal basis that word will get out that is doesn't freakin' work..scalitos.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-19-07 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #25
26. I don't think this provides for "health" of the mother. That is scary.
Who gets to decide? Do they have to go through a process? Is this out of the woman's hands and the doctor's hands? That is what I fear.

The right wing wants to prevent use of Plan B, deprive women of contraceptive pills and control abortion rights.

This is scaring me.

Maybe if we gain more seats and get more congress control, they will get rid of the so-called "partial birth abortion" bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-19-07 07:22 AM
Response to Original message
30. Somehow I think if Jenna or Barbara's life was on the line,
they'd get the procedure anyway. They can take away all abortion rights and it will be just like the old days: wealthy woman will be able to travel to a place where it's legal, poor women will die by the coat hanger. I don't understand why a segment of this society feels it has the right to rule our bodies and make our medical decisions. It's like the time machine is running backward.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PVnRT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-19-07 01:13 PM
Response to Original message
32. Five unqualified men are now making our medical decisions
Maybe I should write to them and get a second opinion on my diabetes. Clearly, they know best.

Of course, it would be absolutely silly of me to suggest that this decision came down right when the GOP needed it to, so that they could latch onto the abortion issue again...Rove and his buddies would never do such a thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-19-07 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. I agree with you on that.
It is a scary thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-19-07 03:06 PM
Response to Original message
34. It seems that to most Congressional Republicans, everything is about politics
They couldn't care less about the damage this will do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-19-07 11:13 PM
Response to Original message
36. And Stogie spreading the word in Tampa Bay.
Edited on Thu Apr-19-07 11:28 PM by madfloridian
http://yborcitystogie.blogspot.com/2007/04/dr.html

:hi:

Oh, and Stogie I see the pic of Jan Platt and others I adore at your site. Knew Jan in college.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-21-07 01:11 PM
Response to Original message
37. The bill calls for two years in jail for doctors....or a fine.
"S. 3 As Amended; Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Vote to pass a bill banning a medical procedure, which is commonly known as "partial-birth" abortion. Those who performed this procedure would then face fines and up to two years in prison, the women to whom this procedure is performed on are not held criminally liable. This bill would make the exception for cases in which a women's life is in danger, not for cases where a women's health is in danger."

It could have a definite chilling effect on the practice of medicine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-23-07 09:09 PM
Response to Original message
38. Kick because someone here lied today.
They looked at a chart from KS. It said 233 aborted late term, and it gave the reason..."to prevent substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function."

So I am kicking this because people refuse to realize that Congress was snookered and the courts went along. They took away basic rights of women and will jail doctors for doing it.

I feel totally sick inside.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Feb 26th 2020, 11:58 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC