Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Blocked

[Lady Sidhe]

Judge Blocks Ban

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act


I don't agree with abortion, except in very limited instances; however, I also don't feel it should be illegal (I figure if you can live with murdering your child...); but IMO, if you're going to get an abortion, you should do it before it gets to this point.

I have to agree that a partial-birth abortion "is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited," and that it DOES step over the line of abortion and infantcide.

Interesting that if someone causes a woman to involuntarily lose her child, it's a crime, but if she chooses to kill her baby, it's ok. It's either murder or it isn't. The fetus either has rights under the law or it doesn't.


Sidhe

[Lady Sidhe]

Some significant info:


(13) (14) Pursuant to the testimony received during extensive legislative hearings during the 104th, 105th, and 107th Congresses, Congress finds and declares that:

(A) Partial-birth abortion poses serious risks to the health of a woman undergoing the procedure. Those risks include, among other things: an increase in a woman's risk of suffering from cervical incompetence, a result of cervical dilation making it difficult or impossible for a woman to successfully carry a subsequent pregnancy to term; an increased risk of uterine rupture, abruption, amniotic fluid embolus, and trauma to the uterus as a result of converting the child to a footling breech position, a procedure which, according to a leading obstetrics textbook, "there are very few, if any, indications for . . . other than for delivery of a second twin"; and a risk of lacerations and secondary hemorrhaging due to the doctor blindly forcing a sharp instrument into the base of the unborn child's skull while he or she is lodged in the birth canal, an act which could result in severe bleeding, brings with it the threat of shock, and could ultimately result in maternal death.

(B) There is no credible medical evidence that partial-birth abortions are safe or are safer than other abortion procedures. No controlled studies of partial-birth abortions have been conducted nor have any comparative studies been conducted to demonstrate its safety and efficacy compared to other abortion methods. Furthermore, there have been no articles published in peer-reviewed journals that establish that partial-birth abortions are superior in any way to established abortion procedures. Indeed, unlike other more commonly used abortion procedures, there are currently no medical schools that provide instruction on abortions that include the instruction in partial-birth abortions in their curriculum.

(C) A prominent medical association has concluded that partial-birth abortion is "not an accepted medical practice," that it has "never been subject to even a minimal amount of the normal medical practice development," that "the relative advantages and disadvantages of the procedure in specific circumstances remain unknown," and that "there is no consensus among obstetricians about its use". The association has further noted that partial-birth abortion is broadly disfavored by both medical experts and the public, is "ethically wrong," and "is never the only appropriate procedure".

(D) Neither the plaintiff in Stenberg v. Carhart, nor the experts who testified on his behalf, have identified a single circumstance during which a partial-birth abortion was necessary to preserve the health of a woman.

(E) The physician credited with developing the partial-birth abortion procedure has testified that he has never encountered a situation where a partial-birth abortion was medically necessary to achieve the desired outcome and, thus, is never medically necessary to preserve the health of a woman.


I find it interesting that the doctor who developed the procedure doesn't even back it up.

Sidhe

[glatt]

I remember reading a poll somewhere, that an overwhelming majority of Americans thought that partial birth abortions should be illegal. In the very same poll, a similar sized majority thought that a woman's right to choose should always be guaranteed.

Reminds me of ads I saw for some Dudley Moore movie about crazy people. Someone asks a bunch of crazy people if they want to do something and they all agree. Then, to prove a point, Dudley Moore asks "Who wants to be a fire truck?" and everyone raises their hands.

There are only a handful of these types of abortions done each year. I understand it has some relevance as a precedent, but it's really a non-issue.

[Skunks]

Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
Interesting that if someone causes a woman to involuntarily lose her child, it's a crime, but if she chooses to kill her baby, it's ok. It's either murder or it isn't. The fetus either has rights under the law or it doesn't.

Well, in the first case--involuntarily losing a child--is it the fetus that's being violated? I don't know anything about the law in question, but it seems entirely possible to argue against 'causing a woman to involuntarily lose her child' purely on the grounds of violating the woman's rights. It's hard to imagine a situation where the woman involuntarily loses her child due to someone else's actions without her being wronged in some fashion.

[richlevy]

Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
Interesting that if someone causes a woman to involuntarily lose her child, it's a crime, but if she chooses to kill her baby, it's ok. It's either murder or it isn't. The fetus either has rights under the law or it doesn't.

Well, in some societies, as the husband and father, both the baby and its mother belong to me, so I would be the injured party.

In the 20th century in the US, it was illegal to give advice on contraception since by doing so you would deny a child the chance to be born.

In the 21st century in the US, a woman was charge with murder for refusing to volunteer to have her body sliced open to make it safer for her babies to be born.

At some point you have to decide who's calling the shots and whether people have control over their own bodies.

[Lady Sidhe]

Well, for those women who feel the need to stay off birth control while they're having sex, and thus get pregnant when they don't want a child, there is something called Menstrual Extraction. It's basically going in there and sucking out the uterine lining, and any egg that may be there. It can be done if you think you've screwed up, and don't want to get pregnant. It was originally developed by a female gynecologist who didn't want to go through her period every month.

Anyway, one can go to any free clinic to get a year's worth of birth control for free, plus the morning after pill (at least in La.), so there's no excuse for waiting until the child is almost ready to be born, then sucking its brains out.

We treat our criminals better than that.

And as the doctor who developed the procedure said, he has never seen a situation where it was necessary.

There's no sense waiting that long. I completely agree with the following:


(H) Based upon Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (505 U.S. 833 (1992)), a governmental interest in protecting the life of a child during the delivery process arises by virtue of the fact that during a partial-birth abortion, labor is induced and the birth process has begun. This distinction was recognized in Roe when the Court noted, without comment, that the Texas parturition statute, which prohibited one from killing a child "in a state of being born and before actual birth," was not under attack. This interest becomes compelling as the child emerges from the maternal body. A child that is completely born is a full, legal person entitled to constitutional protections afforded a "person" under the United States Constitution. Partial-birth abortions involve the killing of a child that is in the process, in fact mere inches away from, becoming a "person". Thus, the government has a heightened interest in protecting the life of the partially-born child.

(I) This, too, has not gone unnoticed in the medical community, where a prominent medical association has recognized that partial-birth abortions are "ethically different from other destructive abortion techniques because the fetus, normally twenty weeks or longer in gestation, is killed outside of the womb". According to this medical association, the " 'partial birth' gives the fetus an autonomy which separates it from the right of the woman to choose treatments for her own body".

(J) Partial-birth abortion also confuses the medical, legal, and ethical duties of physicians to preserve and promote life, as the physician acts directly against the physical life of a child, whom he or she had just delivered, all but the head, out of the womb, in order to end that life. Partial-birth abortion thus appropriates the terminology and techniques used by obstetricians in the delivery of living children -- obstetricians who preserve and protect the life of the mother and the child and instead uses those techniques to end the life of the partially-born child.

(K) Thus, by aborting a child in the manner that purposefully seeks to kill the child after he or she has begun the process of birth, , partial-birth abortion undermines the public's perception of the appropriate role of a physician during the delivery process, and perverts a process during which life is brought into the world, in order to destroy a partially-born child.

(L) The gruesome and inhumane nature of the partial-birth abortion procedure and its disturbing similarity to the killing of a newborn infant promotes a complete disregard for infant human life that can only be countered by a prohibition of the procedure.

(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.

(N) Implicitly approving such a brutal and inhumane procedure by choosing not to prohibit it will further coarsen society to the humanity of not only newborns, but all vulnerable and innocent human life, making it increasingly difficult to protect such life.

(O) For these reasons, Congress finds that partial-birth abortion is never medically indicated to preserve the health of the mother; is in fact unrecognized as a valid abortion procedure by the mainstream medical community; poses additional health risks to the mother; blurs the line between abortion and infanticide in the killing of a partially-born child just inches from birth; and confuses the role of the physician in childbirth and should, therefore, be banned.


So basically, what partial-birth abortion is, is infantcide, which IS a crime.


edited to add bold...forgive me, I know this is a lot, but I think it's important.

[Lady Sidhe]

(rant) I mean, think about it...there are people who bitch and moan about how "cruel and inhumane" executions are, and we got rid of methods like hanging because they were unduly painful for the person being executed....but a lot of (not ALL, so don't get your panties in a bunch) people who are against the death penalty are FOR abortion (sorry, "a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body")....they're fighting for the right to have partial-birth abortions, which ARE extremely painful to the infant.

Why is it that it's ok to kill a baby, and in an inhumane way, but not a murderer? If a woman has the right to choose what to do with her own body, and if she chooses to destroy the "parasite," then why shouldn't society be able to choose to destroy the parasites that are in its "body?" (/rant)

(notice how I smoothly slid the whole DP/Abortion comparison in... )


Ok...I feel so much better now, after getting that off my chest...

Sidhe

[elSicomoro]

I personally find it interesting how some folks who are for the death penalty are against abortion.

[richlevy]

Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
Anyway, one can go to any free clinic to get a year's worth of birth control for free, plus the morning after pill (at least in La.),
.

Unless your pharmcist has a moral objection to the morning after pill, in which case s/he can refuse to sell it to you.

To me any late term abortion is extreme and I don't like the idea of them. However, looking at the other extreme of the people who would deny all birth control, deny all real sex education, etc., I still feel more comfortable on the pro-choice side.

If real birth control and the morning after pill were encouraged, there would not be a need for any late term abortions. You have to consider that some women who wait do so because they have to get up the nerve to find one of an ever decreasing number of abortion providers and run the gauntlet of screaming pro-lifers, any of whom might have a gun and who might, in some twisted way, consider using it on the mother to 'save' the fetus.

Also consider that states vary on safe havens , allowing a single mother to legally abandon her baby.

I'm all for personal responsibility, but expecting a single teenager who has been abandoned by her baby's father to somehow make it work seems ridiculous. I'm sure that a significant minority, with some help, can make it work.

Until someone can come up with a rational, consistent system for all of this, then abortion is something we will have to deal with. If the pro-lifers could get off their asses, embrace contraception and sex education as a way to prevent abortion, and come up with reasonable alternatives instead of trying to box people into situations they cannot handle, them we will continue to have this debate.

[Lady Sidhe]

Babies are innocent. They've done nothing to deserve death. They're being killed because they're "inconvenient;" convicted murderers did something to get where they are, which is destroy life. They deserve to die for what they've done.

That's why many of the pro-dp people are anti-abortion. At least that's why I am.

Sidhe


PS, I'm not COMPLETELY against abortion. If there is something so wrong with the child that it would be born dead, die soon after birth, or be a vegetable (or anything else which would make it impossible for the child to have a "life," ie, awareness of and ability to enjoy existence), then I don't see why one would have the child. If the woman's life is in danger, I would say it's up to the parents to decide. But when it comes to someone who accidentally gets pregnant, they should have to live with the consequences of their irresponsibility--or rather, I think they should give the child up at birth, because if they're willing to kill it for their convenience, what kind of parents would they make? There are thousands of people out there who want children who aren't able to have them, after all.


Sidhe

[Lady Sidhe]

Originally posted by richlevy


Unless your pharmcist has a moral objection to the morning after pill, in which case s/he can refuse to sell it to you.

In Louisiana, one can go to a free clinic, get a free exam, and then get a year's worth of pills AND the morning-after pill for free. You don't have to go to a pharmacy. They give you the bag o' contraception right in the clinic.

To me any late term abortion is extreme and I don't like the idea of them. However, looking at the other extreme of the people who would deny all birth control, deny all real sex education, etc.,

I think there SHOULD be sex ed, and I have no idea why anyone would want to deny any form of birth control. I'm sure some of the religious nuts out there think that way, but they can't keep you out of the health clinics.

If real birth control and the morning after pill were encouraged, there would not be a need for any late term abortions. You have to consider that some women who wait do so because they have to get up the nerve to find one of an ever decreasing number of abortion providers and run the gauntlet of screaming pro-lifers, any of whom might have a gun and who might, in some twisted way, consider using it on the mother to 'save' the fetus.

As far as the rabid right-to-lifers...please don't lump me with them (I know you're not, I'm just making it clear to everyone else). While I don't agree with abortion for convenience, I don't think it should be illegal. Those right-to-lifers tend to be the aforementioned religious nuts, and the way I see it, if they're not willing to pay for the woman to have the child, and then take that child into their own home, they need to STFU.

Also consider that states vary on safe havens , allowing a single mother to legally abandon her baby.

I've heard of those. Usually they're at hospitals, right?

I'm all for personal responsibility, but expecting a single teenager who has been abandoned by her baby's father to somehow make it work seems ridiculous.

The parents should either put their teenager on birth control, or keep her off the streets. If she gets pregnant, it's the family's responsibility to help her, IMO. Besides, that teenager can slap a child-support deal on the guy. He'll have to pay for the paternity test, and if it's his, they'll garnish his check. At least in La. I have firsthand knowledge of this.

Until someone can come up with a rational, consistent system for all of this, then abortion is something we will have to deal with....and come up with reasonable alternatives instead of trying to box people into situations they cannot handle, them we will continue to have this debate.

Menstrual Extraction, Birth Control, teaching your kids common sense--those sound like rational, consistent systems to me. I'm sorry, but I find it hard to believe that people don't know what causes babies. You'd have to live under a rock. With the free health clinics around the country, there's no excuse not to be on birth control. If they can't handle a kid, they should take responsibility to minimize the chance of getting into that situation. It's not rocket science. Abortion shouldn't be something that one can get because a baby is inconvenient. They should've thought about that before they spread their legs.

Perhaps if they made it so that one couldn't get an abortion unless they agreed to have NORPLANT....that way, if they don't want kids, we'll make sure they don't HAVE them. (And before people start jumping me about enforced birth control, we're talking about people who don't want these children---people who are willing to kill them because they're inconvenient).


Sidhe

I hate to say it Lady Sid, but aren't you getting into a bit of a circular argument here? You are in favor of the government sterilizing people who are severely mentally retarded because its not convenient for society to take care of the child. OK, I know sterilization is not the same as abortion, but they are equally loaded questions in the examples you've been citing lately. So what's your stance on a severely mentally handicapped individual having an abortion, just out of curiosity?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Besides, that teenager can slap a child-support deal on the guy. He'll have to pay for the paternity test, and if it's his, they'll garnish his check. At least in La. I have firsthand knowledge of this.

If the test proves it's not his kid, does he still have to pay for the test?

[elSicomoro]

The problem with garnishments is that some employees will quit as soon as one is levied against them. And it can take the states forever to finally figure out that a person has quit. Meanwhile, the custodial parent isn't getting jack shit.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally posted by sycamore
I personally find it interesting how some folks who are for the death penalty are against abortion.

The difference is that in the case of the DP, the person is guilty of a crime so heinous that the society has deemed it necessary to kill him. In abortion, the person killed is completely innocent of any wrong doing.

Don't you see the huge difference there?



BTW, I believe abortions up to 12 weeks should be legal. Morally, I don't agree with it, but I'm not going to force people to live by my morals. Anything after 12 weeks, and the female should be stuck with delivery and adoption.