Abortion back on the top of the agenda

[TheMercenary]

Clarke D. Forsythe, president of Americans United for Life, said the decision would restore power to the states and make it easier to enact “common-sense regulations” on abortion. The “partial-birth” ban, aimed at a type of abortion known medically as intact dilation and extraction, was the product of years of effort by abortion opponents in states and on Capitol Hill. The legislation was twice vetoed by President Bill Clinton and, in a previous version, ruled unconstitutional by a different makeup of the Supreme Court.

Abortion rights advocates said they were shaken by the 5-to-4 ruling upholding the ban and asserted that the ruling cut to the heart of the protections of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision recognizing a constitutional right to abortion. They said it also underscored the stakes of the 2008 presidential election, arguing that the next president will almost certainly appoint a justice who could shift the balance of the court on Roe itself.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/19/us...l?ref=politics

[Bullitt]

"This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself."

Just throwin that out there

[Shawnee123]

Where did you find that quote, Bullitt? I might have missed it, but I can't find it in the article, and it is my understanding that this ban does not allow it even in the case of danger to the life of the mother. I'm looking for clarification.

Thanks!

[Bullitt]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1----000-.html

[Shawnee123]

Oh, thanks, it is in the actual letter of the law. I had been hearing news reports saying otherwise (imagine that!)

[Bullitt]

Wait, news reports not telling the whole story just so they can drum up air time and raise a stir?? Say it ain't so!!

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

it is my understanding that this ban does not allow it even in the case of danger to the life of the mother.

The ban has a provision where if the "life" of the mother is threatened, then the ban does not apply. The District court and the Appeals court have said the law is unconstitutional because there is no provision for the "health" of the mother. And the Supreme Court overruled them, saying the "health" issue doesn't matter. So it's a difference between the "life" of the mother and the "health" of the mother.

There is no provision for the "health" of the mother, and the conservative old men of the Supreme Court don't care.

Wikipedia has a confusing article on the topic with lots of links to the original documents.

[Happy Monkey]

Why is this procedure considered worse than any other?

[glatt]

Because they look like people.

[Bullitt]

A partial birth abortion is an inherently dangerous procedure in terms of physical health to begin with. With all abortion, the later in pregnancy an abortion is performed, the more complicated the procedure and the greater the risk of injury to the woman. In addition to associated emotion reactions, D&X carries the risk of injury to the woman, including heavy bleeding, blood clots, damage to the cervix or uterus, pelvic infection, and anesthesia-related complications. There is also a risk of incomplete abortion, meaning that the fetus is not dead when removed from the woman's body. Possible long-term risks include difficulty becoming pregnant or carrying a future pregnancy to term.
Also:
http://www.pregnancycenters.org/abortion.html

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Why is this procedure considered worse than any other?

In one you get to suck out the bits a little at a time. In the other you get to scrape out the little blob and suck it all out at once.

[Bullitt]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Why is this procedure considered worse than any other?

From the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 of the 108th Congress 1st Session:
(M) The vast majority of babies killed during partial-birth abortions are alive until the end of the procedure. It is a medical fact, however, that unborn infants at this stage can feel pain when subjected to painful stimuli and that their perception of this pain is even more intense than that of newborn infants and older children when subjected to the same stimuli. Thus, during a partial-birth abortion procedure, the child will fully experience the pain associated with piercing his or her skull and sucking out his or her brain.

[glatt]

See! They look like people.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Bullitt

It is a medical fact, however, that unborn infants at this stage can feel pain when subjected to painful stimuli and that their perception of this pain is even more intense than that of newborn infants and older children when subjected to the same stimuli.

That doesn't sound like a medical fact at all.

Thus, during a partial-birth abortion procedure, the child will fully experience the pain associated with piercing his or her skull and sucking out his or her brain.

That's true of all abortions, dependant upon the stage of pregnancy.

A partial birth abortion is an inherently dangerous procedure in terms of physical health to begin with. With all abortion, the later in pregnancy an abortion is performed, the more complicated the procedure and the greater the risk of injury to the woman.

OK. With all abortion.

In addition to associated emotion reactions, D&X carries the risk of injury to the woman, including heavy bleeding, blood clots, damage to the cervix or uterus, pelvic infection, and anesthesia-related complications.

Probably still true for all abortion, and a huge number of other medical procedures.

There is also a risk of incomplete abortion, meaning that the fetus is not dead when removed from the woman's body.

This one is probably more likely for IDX.

Possible long-term risks include difficulty becoming pregnant or carrying a future pregnancy to term.

And back to "true for all abortion".

The list of "differences" seems to be primarily about late-term vs early abortions. I think just about everybody agrees that if one is going to get an abortion, one should do it as early as possible (except for those who want to introduce roadblocks and delaying tactics until it's too late). But if one is going to have a late-term abortion, I don't see what's worse about this particular procedure. In fact, I heard a caller to C-SPAN who (along with his wife) chose IDX so they could say goodbye to the baby she couldn't carry.

Just find a few Drs. and nurses that know what is right for young women, surround it with well armed men and women and kill anyone that tries to come in or near who is not invited. Everyone is connects via cell phone and radio.
It will be placed in a ranch, well inside the property, through several gates. The fence-line will be motion sensitive and patrolled. Each open field will have a full grown bull that will not tolerate anything in it's area.
Simple.

If they try to drive in, you take out their car. If they get out of the car... you load their corpses and the car onto a front-end loader and bury all of it somewhere on the property and continue helping young women.
"What car?... who?"

Going back to back-alley abortions and dead girls is NOT an option. Those that want to make it happen will be collateral damage.