Senate Set to Ban "late term abortions" today

[Q]

Senate Set to Ban Type of Abortion Procedure Today
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: October 21, 2003


Filed at 12:17 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Abortion opponents on Tuesday celebrated what will be their first success in imposing a federal ban on a type of abortion. Next up is a fierce legal fight over whether the ban violates a woman's right to end a pregnancy.

The ban on what opponents call partial birth abortion was likely to pass by a wide margin late Tuesday in the Senate. Three weeks ago, the House passed the bill with a 281-142 vote, and Senate action would send it to President Bush, who strongly supports the ban.

Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., the chief sponsor, expressed confidence that the legislation could withstand any legal challenge. "We believe that this bill is constitutionally sound and obviously very, very necessary in terms of who we are as a society,'' he said.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., led what she acknowledged was a losing fight. The legislation, she said, "for the first time in history bans a medical procedure without making any exception for the health of the woman; this is a radical, radical thing that is about to happen here.'' She said it was "clearly going to be declared unconstitutional.''

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Congress-Abortion.html?hp

[Q]

1. Santorum is a zealot...

...who will not quit until abortion becomes illegal.

- Decades of progress in women's rights being reversed in a matter of a couple years by BushCo and gang.

[Mel]

3. Santorum

We need to go after his seat, he's a wacko! Did you hear him on the Senate floor this morning? For those of you that missed it the Senate is coming back at 2pm and I suggest you listen to him if you haven't already he's a nut and not worthy of representing the people of this country.

[Mz Pip]

2. Wasn't there a

similar law in Nebraska that was shot down by the Supreme Court because it did not give exception for the health of the mother? I think it went 5-4 to strike the law with Sandra Day O'Connor as the swing vote.

To top it off this is a rarely performed procedure which is done when there is serious risk to the mother. These clowns in the government are not interested in health. They are interested in throwing a bone to the RW of the party to win their votes in the upcoming election year.

MzPip
:dem:

[Mel]

5. bing bing bing

you win the prize that's what they are doing trying to keep their seats and the USSS will throw it out. They are also interested in control over others and they the repukes are the ones always whinning about Big Brother?<-----paraphrasing Senator Boxer's comments made earlier on the Senate floor today.

[Hep]

4. PLEASE STOP FOR THE LOVE OF GOD STOP

I'm so pissed about this. Stop using their terms. Don't even acknowledge them. No matter where you read them or who says them, DON'T USE THE PBA label. When you agree to use THEIR language, it's all lost.

I'm begging you. Don't use the phrase "so called", don't use quotes. USE THE REAL TERM: Late Term Abortions.

When words like "Death Tax" and "Partial Birth Abortions" become the norm, we're screwed. Join the fight to take our fucking language back.

[arwalden]

6. You Beat Me To It... Thanks For Saying This!!!

Does this mean that we'll soon start referring to OB/GYN physicians as "abortionists"????? *They* do. Why shouldn't we, eh?

-- Allen

[eileen_d]

7. Hear hear!

The headline could also be "Senate set to block women's access to medical care that is none of their f***ing business!"

[Muddleoftheroad]

9. OK

If we are constantly stating that this is a democracy, why is it that a majority of Americans oppose this treatment? Why is it that a majority of legislators oppose it?

[eileen_d]

10. It's between a woman and her doctor, period.

That's my view. Should I have to check with the legislature every time I get a pap smear? Should I wait for a majority popular vote before I take my birth control pills? I think not.

[Muddleoftheroad]

14. Nevertheless

The pills were FDA approved. Much like the morning after pill, they require government sanction.

[eileen_d]

21. Congress is not the FDA

So what is your point exactly?

[Muddleoftheroad]

38. All of this is ultimately decided by Congress

Why should this be any different?

[eileen_d]

43. What are you talking about

"All of this is ultimately decided by Congress?" All of what, exactly? Is Congress really going to decide whether I get my next pap smear? I sure hope they give me a call soon, because I'm pretty busy for the next couple of weeks.

Anyway, I'm off to my volunteer gig. Good luck with your debate.

[Q]

11. Can you back up your claims?

- Enough of the generalities.

- Like any other thing being pushed by the Bush* government...many people don't understand the full intent of the Bushie Republicans. This issue must be taken in context...and with full knowledge of all the other bills floating around that will make it increasingly difficult to get ANY kind of abortion.

[Hep]

12. because they don't understand it

They allow themselves to be taken by the EMOTIONAL arguments given by the right. GASP The baby is delivered and then before it can get it's body out, they crush the skull!

Few realize how seldom D&X is performed. Few realize the circumstances under which it is performed. Few understand how rare a doctor who will do this is.

Even the AMA is against it as a procedure except when absolutely necessary.

People are actually led to believe that sadistic doctors perform this on women who have decided that the child is an inconvenience. It's just not true.

[Muddleoftheroad]

15. Given that

Can't you understand why people oppose it?

[BurtWorm]

18. Yes. They oppose it on emotional grounds.

They have no good reason to oppose it. Only emotion.

PS: Misguided, misplaced, obfuscating emotion.

[Blue_Chill]

20. So then a late term child

delivered and then killed is not a good reason?

um...ok.

[BurtWorm]

26. I am betting you don't have a clue what circumstances

lead to late-term abortion.

[Hep]

29. It isn't delivered and killed

The woman goes into labor, but the child is never delivered.

It's just this kind of language that I'm talking about.

If you want to get into an emotional argument about who should DIE, the woman or the baby, count me out. But it's posts like yours that paint doctors as mean, sadistic baby killers who are only looking out for their bottom line and will do any eeeeevil procedure to make a buck. It's a cynical approach that I can't take.

[Blue_Chill]

35. You are the only one getting emotional

And the child is never delivered, just almost delivered. Sorry my mistake, never realised value of life came to a few inches.

My point is there has to by a less disgusting way of doing what is needed.

Also who investigates the if the reasons were valid or not? Doctors are dirty too you know, and if no health reason exist then this in my eyes is murder.

[Hep]

40. projection is funny

And the child is never deliver, just almost delivered. Sorry my mistake, never realised value of life came to a few inches.

This is an emotional argument. Actually, no it isn't, it's not an argument at all.

You act like this is black and white. You don't appear to employ any objectivity or sympathy for what women in these situations go through.

My point is there has to by a less disgusting way of doing what is needed. I'm not pro-life.

Oh so you judge the merit of a medical procedure based on how gross or distasteful it is? You may not be pro life, but you are totally coming from their book of arguments. If you come up with a safer, less disgusting way, let us all know, by all means.

[Blue_Chill]

44. OK then

You state I used an emotional arguement, which is bad right? OK then you go on to ask that I show "sympathy" for women in these situations. Sympathy is a emotion is it not?

Then you complain that I use Pro-life arguments. This is the ultimate bullshit argument. It the 'McCarthy are you really a commie because you sound like a commie' tactic. I'm not falling for it.

[Hep]

48. round we go

You state I used an emotional arguement, which is bad right? OK then you go on to ask that I show "sympathy" for women in these situations. Sympathy is a emotion is it not?

Do you want to debate the point here? Yeah, I'm arguing on your level, mostly because you don't appear willing to come to mine. Sue me.

Then you complain that I use Pro-life arguments. This is the ultimate bullshit argument. It the 'McCarthy are you really a commie because you sound like a commie' tactic. I'm not falling for it.

You already have.

[Blue_Chill]

53. Insults?

lol. Pathetic!

[Hep]

58. laugh all you want

whenever you're ready to address the point, feel free to do so.

The point: The government controlling the legality of any medical procedure is BAD.

And the question YOU have to answer: You said you don't care about dead babies. So if D&X is the safest way to get rid of a nonliving fetus, should it be performed? Or should a less "disgusting", less safe procedure be employed instead?

[TLM]

62. Blue you can not murder something that isn't going to live...

And anacephalic or hydrocephalic fetuses won't.

[Blue_Chill]

68. Good point

But a late term fetus is too damn close to 'alive' to simply write it off as non living in my book. I just can't support cruelty, period. I just can't say less risk is worth a horrible procedure.

I'm not saying don't abort it, but well I have a conscience that won't let me agree with everyone on this one.

Sorry guys.

[TLM]

77. Let me be very clear about the danger...

A woman giving brith to an anacephalic or hydrocephalic fetus will very likely crush the skull during delivery, causing shards of the fetus' skull bones to rip through her birth canal and tear her insides open as the fetus passes through.

Clear enough?

and the fetus isn't alive in any sense... they have no functioning brain and will die as soon as the cord is cut.

[Blue_Chill]

82. No functioning brain?

Is that as in brain is completely off and thus feels no pain? Or will never have a chance of being normal?

It it feels no pain then go for it, nothing cruel about that.

[TLM]

92. You really do not know what an anacephalic or hydrocephalic fetus is?

anacephalic or hydrocephalic fetuses have no functioning upper brain and most have no ability to breath because their heads are so deformed... the only thing keeping them alive is the cord.

It is a shame most of the people who are so vocally against this procedure know so little about the facts of how and why it is done.



The question isn't should the fetus live or should it die... it WILL die no matter what is done.

The question is, should the mother, in addition to having a deformed non-viable fetus that will die once out of the womb, have to also suffer serious injury in the process of giving birth to this deformed non-viable fetus.

[Selwynn]

121. Question: is late term abortions ONLY performed in the case of....

..an anacephalic or hydrocephalic fetus?

[maha]

132. Here are the facts.

The first fact to be acknowledged is that NOBODY -- not the AMA, not the CDC, not Alan Guttmacher, NOBODY -- keeps a log showing the reasons for all abortions performed. Also, what are we calling "late term"? Can we agree that second trimester is not "late term" but "middle term"?

That being said, the numbers do tell a story.

THIRD TRIMESTER abortions really are very rare. The last time I looked it up, it was estimated that only about a thousand THIRD TRIMESTER abortions, or abortions after 25 weeks gestation, are performed in the U.S. every year.

In the 1950s and 1960s, before the use of ultrasound techniques for monitoring fetal development, the prevalence rates for anencephaly ranged from 1.39 to 1.93 per 1,000 births. So there are a lot more anencephaic infants conceived than are infants aborted in the third trimester. This tells us some anencephalic infants are abortion at MIDDLE TERM, and some women choose to bring the infants to term so their organs can be harvested. To each her own.

Further, anencephaly is just one of many desvastating medical conditions that give no hope of a good outcome. And, surely more than a thousand infants die in utero in the U.S. from all kinds of causes and must be removed to prevent sepsis in the mother. Those, also, count as "abortions."

Most states DO ban elective abortion in the third trimester, believe it or not. This is permitted by Roe v. Wade as long as exceptions are made for life/health of the mother.

The point is, women are NOT trotting into abortion clinics in their eighth month of pregnancy and getting abortions for the hell of it.

[BurtWorm]

79. What about cruelty to a woman whose life is endangered by

the pregnancy? It's okay to keep her life endangered as long as you're not cruel to the ancephalic infant in her womb whose infection may be killing her?

[Blue_Chill]

84. Danger is less cruel then horrible death.

That's my position and you won't get me to change that.

[Hep]

85. Wow!

That's kind of like saying, Two deaths is OK if there was less potential for cruelty.

[Blue_Chill]

90. No.

You are being intentionally dishonest. It reminds me of the 'you support saddam if you oppose the war' argument.

[Hep]

100. Dishonest?

You JUST SAID that you thought it was OK for a more dangerous procedure to be performed if there was less chance for cruelty.

Exactly what do you think danger is in this case? More danger of missing the game?

"Danger is less cruel than horrible death"

The danger you speak of is danger of the mother experiencing a horrible death. Get it?

[BurtWorm]

86. You seem to be softening, now that you've been educated on what

the issue really is. This happens to almost everyone who gets educated in the issue. This is really a battle between medical freedom and the codification of religious principles in secular law.

[qanda]

99. Blue_Chill, You Are Not Alone!

I don't know what we have to gain by keeping this procedure legal. The majority of Americans are against it and while it's on the table, many voters are swayed to stay away from Democratic candidates because of it.

[Hep]

101. proof please

Please show your stats that indicate that most americans are against it. And when doing so, please show me that these people understand what it is.

If you support something just because most UNinformed people support it, well, that's kind of scary.

[BurtWorm]

114. Ones who would be swayed to reject Dems because of this

we don't need.

[Clark Can WIN]

146. That's because the majority of Americans

have no fucking clue what the facts are surrounding the issue. All they know is what they hear from the screaming banshees on the "right".

[maha]

108. What do you mean "late term?"

But a late term fetus is too damn close to 'alive' to simply write it off as non living in my book. I just can't support cruelty, period. I just can't say less risk is worth a horrible procedure.

As I just explained in another message, the anti-choice people misuse the phrase "late term." Most D&X abortions are performed in the SECOND trimester, or at least three months before term, sometimes four and five months before term. Only about a thousand post-viability D&X abortions are performed in the U.S. every year according to the AMA, and for all we know all those infants had died in the womb already.

[maha]

107. According to the American Medical Association

and the Alan Guttmacher Institution, the number of abortions performed in the U.S. "late term" enough for the fetus to be VIABLE is somewhere between 600 and 1,200 a year.

It's very important to be clear what we mean when we say "late term." Anti-choice people often equate all D&X (so-called "partial birth") abortions as "late term," which gives the impression that these abortions are all performed close to term. THIS IS NOT TRUE.

I did a long rant on this stuff last spring, which is posted on this page (scroll down to "Neocons: Reality is for wimps.") The data is there, with links and documentation. I'm not goint to spend time re-keyboarding links and repeating documentation in this message.

The enormous majority of D&X procedures are performed BEFORE VIABILITY, in the second trimester.

Now, before you start going on about the POST-VIABILITY abortions, please note that NOBODY keeps tabs on exactly why these abortions are performed. Anyone who says otherwise is lying. However, given the fact that no abortion clinic will do them, and in most states post-viability abortions are restricted by law except for medical necessity, one suspects they were performed for medical necessity.

For example, the AMA, which is a conservative organization, recommends D&X in circumstances in which the infant is already dead or so severely compromised it will not survive birth, anyway. D&X, in which an intact infant is extracted from the uterus, is less dangerous to the woman than the alternatives, which are to do a C-section or to chop the fetus up in utero and scrape it out in pieces.

Regarding second-trimester, or PRE-VIABILITY D&X procedures: As I said, nobody keeps a log on why all abortions are performed. All evidence one way or another is anecdotal and cannot be corroborated.

There are all kinds of legitimate medical reasons for terminating pregnancies in the second trimester. These include medical conditions that threaten the life of the mother, such as toxemia, heart disease, or maternal diabetes; and medical conditions discovered in the fetus, such as anencephaly or tay-sachs.

Many infants with birth defects will not just be handicapped; they will either die shortly after birth or they will live just long enough to suffer terribly. Sometimes there is no hope of a good outcome.

We DO NOT KNOW for sure what percentage of second trimester abortions are performed electively versus medically.

I would personally be very happy if we could arrange for all elective abortions to take place in the first trimester, and nearly 90 percent of them ARE performed in the first trimester. However, according to Alan Guttmacher, women who postpone elective abortions into the second trimester are often very young teens or rape/incest victims.

Any questions?

[Hep]

25. No I can't

I can't understand how anyone who comprehends what it is and why it is done can be against it.

My opinion is that it is for US ont oppose, NOT for the government to oppose it on our behalf. There's no law that can be passed which would serve any purpose here. It's for a doctor to decide, not the government.

Make no mistake. I believe that it is a ghastly procedure. But I can think of no valid argument for it to be banned. It's symbolic legislation.

[Blue_Chill]

19. If the Doctors are so rare and it's almost never done

the why not be rid of this disgusting procedure?

If what you are saying is very very few women have access to doctors that will actually do it anyway right?

[BurtWorm]

22. Do you know what those very instances are?

When are late-term abortions performed, BlueChill? What would make a doctor decide to perform this extremely rare procedure?

[Blue_Chill]

27. I don't know let's ask the AMA.

AMA what say you?

AMA says - "According to the scientific literature, there does not appear to be any identified situation in which intact D&X is the only appropriate procedure to induce abortion"

[Hep]

36. yeah?

No one says D&X is the only way. D&X is a significantly safer way than other forms of LTA.

[Blue_Chill]

37. Yeah.

Show me proof, I found no mention of that from the AMA.

[Hep]

42. Gladly

First explain to me this: If there are better ways, safer ways, less "disgusting" ways, why does ANY doctor perform this procedure?


Since apparently you've never been objective enough to actually seek this information for yourself:

The physician and the woman facing this decision must be the ones to weigh the risks and alternatives to D&X based on her individual health background. They are the only ones qualified to do so. Blood loss to the woman having a D&X procedure is four times less than blood loss with a normal vaginal delivery and 16 times less than with a Cesarean section (which is major abdominal surgery). The maternal death rates associated with D&X are nine times less than the maternal death rates of Cesarean sections. This is why D&X must remain an option.

http://www.aradia.org/DandX.html

[Blue_Chill]

50. Misleading stats.

The maternal death rates associated with D&X are nine times less than the maternal death rates of Cesarean sections. This is why D&X must remain an option.

It's almost never done, it's not surprising the death rate would be low. This is a intentionally misleading stat.

[Hep]

60. misleading how?

You have a real scientific way of discrediting things. Why not just admit that you feel a certain way about it and that nothing whatsoever can change your mind? Then we can move on.

[Blue_Chill]

71. OK

Read #68

And the stats are misleading.

[Hep]

87. misleading how?

You have yet to explain it. Do you think we should have a time period when LTA is performed more frequently so that you can ave better numbers?

If not, then take what you get.

[maha]

120. Here you go.

Statement on So-Called "Partial Birth Abortion" Laws By The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists


The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) continues to oppose state or federal legislation known as so-called "partial birth abortion" bans. "Partial birth abortion" is a non-medical term apparently referring to a particular abortion procedure known as intact dilatation and extraction (intact D&X, or D&X), a rare variant of a more common midterm abortion procedure know as dilatation and evacuation (D&E).

In June 2000, the US Supreme Court struck down a Nebraska "partial birth abortion" law in the case of Stenberg v. Carhart, ruling that the law violated the US Constitution by (1) failing to provide any exception "for the preservation of the health of the mother," and (2) being so broadly written that it could prohibit other types of abortion procedures such as D&E, thereby "unduly burdening a women's ability to choose abortion itself."

As stated in a 1997 Statement of Policy issued by ACOG's Executive Board, and in ACOG's amicus curiae brief filed in the Stenberg case, ACOG continues to find it disturbing that legislators would take any action that would supersede the medical judgment of a trained physician, in consultation with a patient, as to what is the safest and most appropriate medical procedure for that particular patient.

ACOG's 1997 Statement of Policy affirmed that position and explained why ACOG believes such legislation to be "inappropriate, ill advised, and dangerous." The policy statement noted that although a select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which intact D&X would be the only option to protect the life or health of a woman, intact D&X "may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances, can make this decision."

The Statement of Policy further reads that such legislation has the potential to outlaw other abortion techniques that are critical to the lives and health of American women. This was the second basis upon which the Supreme Court struck down the Nebraska law in the Stenberg case. Such "partial birth" laws are invariably overly broad or imprecisely drawn, frequently using terms — such as "partial birth abortion" — that are not recognized by the very constituency (physicians) whose conduct the law would criminalize. They purport to address a single procedure, yet describe elements of other procedures used in obstetrics and gynecology. Thus, even when legislators add an exception to a so-called "partial birth abortion" ban that includes protecting a woman's health, the ban may fail to have the necessary specificity to avoid encroaching on other safe and constitutionally protected medical procedures. For this reason, the ban would fail the two-part test outlined by the Supreme Court in the Stenberg decision.

The misinformation currently circulating in political discussions of abortion procedures only reinforces ACOG's position: in the individual circumstances of each particular medical case, the patient and physician — not legislators — are the appropriate parties to determine the best method of treatment.



http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/press_releases/nr02-13-02.cfm

[TLM]

57. Blue, do you even know why this late term abortion is done?

It is not done on a viable fetus.

That's the right wing lie, that if nothing was done 5 minutes later this would be a fully formed and viable little newborn baby ready to live life.

Do you even know what an anacephalic or hydrocephalic fetus is?

These are the main subjects for this kind of procedure, and they are not viable fetuses, most live for maybe an hour or so out of the womb, if they’re not stillborn. However they are often grossly deformed and have very large malformed heads and skull bones. As such their normal birth poses a significant risk to the mother. That's why they stop and empty the contents of the skull, and colapse the skull, before removing the fetus.

However the anti-abortion crowd wants to use this as wedge issue to start pecking away at abortion rights… bit by bit here and there to set precedents that they can later use to argue against the right to any abortion.

This entire argument rests on the ignorance of the population to the nature of this procedure.

[BurtWorm]

61. Apparently not. I haven't been able to get an answer from him on that.

[Blue_Chill]

73. The AMA answered you.

Via my post. So stop lying.

[TLM]

81. What the AMA said was that this is not the ONLY way...

it is however the safest and least damaging way for the mother.


Should a mother have to be forced to have a c section to remove an anacephalic or hydrocephalic fetus when this procedure can remove the fetus safely without cutting her open?

[Blue_Chill]

89. I see your point

hmm. I'll have to research it.

[BurtWorm]

83. The AMA says nothing about when the procedure is performed.

And unless Congress outlaws it and it stands in the USSC, the procedure is still legal today. So when is it performed? Other people have answered it for you. I hope you read what they have to say and learn something about the issue besides the right-to-life propaganda.

[Blue_Chill]

88. What the fuck is your problem?

I'm not supporting the bill, I'm not pro-life, all I'm doing is stating my position and I keep getting this 'you sound like a Right to lifer' McCarthy style attack thrown at me.

If you don't like what I got to say the ignore me, but stop with the attacks already!

[Hep]

97. That you sound like a right to lifer

is an observation. That's it. Believe it or don't. I'm not lying when I say it.

[BurtWorm]

96. Sorry if I misread your position

I was thrown off by your repetition of the AMA position on late-term abortion which I thought you were wielding talismanically, the way right-to-lifers frequently wield such facts.

[maha]

111. WRONG

Several years ago the AMA came out with an anti-D&X statement. The members nearly rioted, so the AMA modified their position:

According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, the advantage of D&X over D&E in later abortions is that it may "minimize uterine or cervical perforation from instruments or from laceration by fetal parts. ... Intact D&X may minimize trauma to the woman's uterus, cervix, and other vital organs."

A physician might also remove the fetus by inducing labor, but the same JAMA article states "For second-trimester abortions, some physicians prefer D&E over labor-induction methods because D&E has a lower mortality rate, takes less time, is less expensive, can be done on an outpatient basis, and takes less of a psychological toll on some women because it does not imitate labor."

Unfortunately my link to the article isn't working. I'll try to find dig up the article later today.





For what the AMA REALLY says, click here:

[Q]

23. Counterpoint: why give the STATE the right to decide?

- And why take the zealot's position over that of the individual woman's right to decide her own future?

[Blue_Chill]

30. What are you babbling about?

I'm asking why this type of abortion (there are others) isn't simpley done away with. It's cruel, period. You can chant your "IT's MY BODY" slogan allyou want but the bottom line is this.

The AMA can not name a single situation in which D&X is the only appropriate procedure to use to induce abortion and it's cruel. So what is the big deal?

[Hep]

34. Because it SAVES LIVES

Say you have a baby that's dead in the womb. A ban on LTA would mean that the woman would have to either go into labor and deliver a dead baby or have a C section. D&X as a procedure would result in the woan losing 1/4 as much blood as she would in labor and 1/16 as much blood as a C section.

ANd you propose that she be forced to deliver this stillborn child at a greater risk to herself.

Remember, this is a ban on a procedure. The fetus doesn't have to be alive for it to be illegal.

If what you are saying is very very few women have access to doctors that will actually do it anyway right?

*sigh* right. And the reason ANY doctor is willing to do it is because it saves lives. It's just that simple.

[Blue_Chill]

41. Dead babies?

Who is talking about dead babies here? Grind them into burgers for all I care.

The AMA states there is no known instance where D&X is the only way.

[Hep]

45. unbelievable

SLemme see if I can get your angle correct. You say that because there are less gross alternatives, the safety of the woman should be compromised. Options should be taken away.

Nowhere does the AMA support a ban on LTA. Nowhere do they say it MUST NOT be performed. Why?

[MissB]

46. Grind them into burgers?

You are clearly trying to be inflammatory.

Hep clearly gave an example where it was a better procedure. Not the only procedure, but the better procedure.

[Blue_Chill]

55. OK

If they are dead do the 'better' procedure. If they are alive lessesing the cruelity is worth added risk in my eyes. And yes I know that it's "not my choice to make" but I stand against cruelty in animals and I woul dbe a hypocrite if I didn't oppose it here.

[Hep]

64. so you agree that LTA should remain legal

We've reached a milestone. You just answered your own question of why D&X shouldn't be "done away with".

[MissB]

65. But the ban would make it illegal

Whether the baby was dead or alive, regardless of the risk to the mother's health/life.

That is a problem.

[Blue_Chill]

76. I don't support this bill if that's what you mean

I've read it, it's chalk full of crap. I'm just asking why this procedure is held onto so tightly.

[TLM]

74. What's cruel about it?

These are fetuses that for all practical purposes are already dead.

In the case of anacephalic, there is only a remedial brain stem and in the case of hydrocephalic there is only fluid where the brain should have developed.

So exactly how cruel is it to remove the contents from the skull of a fetus that is not capable of feeling pain or suffering, when the only thing keeping it alive is the umbilical cord which will be cut shortly anyway?

[Blue_Chill]

78. I disagree

I won't write off a dying fetus as "for all practical purposes are already dead."

Say you got hit by a train and were lying there dying. You had no chance of making it. Does that make it ok for me to cause you more pain? I mean "for all practical purposes you would be already dead."

[BurtWorm]

91. If you had no choice but to suffer pain in order to live and resume health

would you suffer the pain? What if not suffering the pain immediately meant a long, slow, increasingly painful death?

[maha]

123. The AMA lies.

The AMA has switched its opinion on D&X abortions several times over the years. They come about against 'em, and the member physicians throw fits because sometimes they ARE necessary, and then the AMA alters its opinion and says, well, maybe sometimes they're OK. Then in a few years they come out against 'em again. One suspects money is changing hands.

The American Coillege of Obstetrics and Gynecology says this:

Statement on So-Called "Partial Birth Abortion" Laws By The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists


The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) continues to oppose state or federal legislation known as so-called "partial birth abortion" bans. "Partial birth abortion" is a non-medical term apparently referring to a particular abortion procedure known as intact dilatation and extraction (intact D&X, or D&X), a rare variant of a more common midterm abortion procedure know as dilatation and evacuation (D&E).

In June 2000, the US Supreme Court struck down a Nebraska "partial birth abortion" law in the case of Stenberg v. Carhart, ruling that the law violated the US Constitution by (1) failing to provide any exception "for the preservation of the health of the mother," and (2) being so broadly written that it could prohibit other types of abortion procedures such as D&E, thereby "unduly burdening a women's ability to choose abortion itself."

As stated in a 1997 Statement of Policy issued by ACOG's Executive Board, and in ACOG's amicus curiae brief filed in the Stenberg case, ACOG continues to find it disturbing that legislators would take any action that would supersede the medical judgment of a trained physician, in consultation with a patient, as to what is the safest and most appropriate medical procedure for that particular patient.

ACOG's 1997 Statement of Policy affirmed that position and explained why ACOG believes such legislation to be "inappropriate, ill advised, and dangerous." The policy statement noted that although a select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which intact D&X would be the only option to protect the life or health of a woman, intact D&X "may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances, can make this decision."

The Statement of Policy further reads that such legislation has the potential to outlaw other abortion techniques that are critical to the lives and health of American women. This was the second basis upon which the Supreme Court struck down the Nebraska law in the Stenberg case. Such "partial birth" laws are invariably overly broad or imprecisely drawn, frequently using terms — such as "partial birth abortion" — that are not recognized by the very constituency (physicians) whose conduct the law would criminalize. They purport to address a single procedure, yet describe elements of other procedures used in obstetrics and gynecology. Thus, even when legislators add an exception to a so-called "partial birth abortion" ban that includes protecting a woman's health, the ban may fail to have the necessary specificity to avoid encroaching on other safe and constitutionally protected medical procedures. For this reason, the ban would fail the two-part test outlined by the Supreme Court in the Stenberg decision.

The misinformation currently circulating in political discussions of abortion procedures only reinforces ACOG's position: in the individual circumstances of each particular medical case, the patient and physician — not legislators — are the appropriate parties to determine the best method of treatment.

http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/press_releases/nr02-13-02.cfm

[Clark Can WIN]

149. It was just EXPLAINED TO YOU why it is done

did you not read or is reason beyond you?

"A woman giving brith to an anacephalic or hydrocephalic fetus will very likely crush the skull during delivery, causing shards of the fetus' skull bones to rip through her birth canal and tear her insides open as the fetus passes through.

Clear enough?

and the fetus isn't alive in any sense... they have no functioning brain and will die as soon as the cord is cut. "



Sound like something you would want to try going through? Something you would wish on your daughter? mother? sister?

Your sister is dying of septic shock because the infections raging through her grossly deformed fetuses system are killing her. The doctor can't do anything because some goody-goodys that want to force their religious views on everyone have decided her life is expendable as long as we can end "gross" or "horrifying" medical procedures that upset their sensibilities.

Fair trade?

[w4rma]

24. Notice that big media doesn't try to explain the reality, either.

People will die because of this ignorance.

[Yupster]

51. The "rarely done" argument is ridiculous

That's the srgument Jeffrey Dahlmer used.

Prosecutor: Then he murdered, beheaded, cooked and ate his victims.

Dahlmer: Well, not like every day.

[Hep]

67. In order for your argument to be legitimate

You would have to somehow link LTA with killing and eating people.

If you are capable of making such a connection, I highly recommend the Right to Life message board a few doors down.

[BurtWorm]

70. That's not an argument: don't ban late term abortions because they're rare

No one is arguing that but your strawman.

[maha]

113. You'd say different

If YOU were about to lose YOUR life to toxemia and some stupid law refused to permit a procedure that might save your life.

[BurtWorm]

16. A majority opposes it because they don't get it

The right successfully turned an emergency late trimester procedure restricted to instances when the mother's life is endangered and the fetus is extremely malformed into the murder of an innocent baby for no good reason. The medical reason, which may or may not be good, was never permitted even to be discussed. Abortion opponents grandstanded on it, and the media allowed them to frame the debate. People who oppose late-term abortions believe they're opposing a bad lifestyle choice. They're opposing a doctor's freedom to do no harm to his or her patient, and a woman's right to choose to save her life when a pregnancy goes horribly wrong.

[BattyDem]

49. To answer your question ...

"Why is it that a majority of Americans oppose this treatment?"

Because they have no idea what it is or why it's done. They've been brainwashed by the propaganda. They think "partial birth abortion" is a actual medical procedure, which it is not. It is nothing more than a propaganda term - it doesn't appear in any medical text book.

As we all know, the fact is that it's a rare medical procedure done only in extreme cases - it is not an "elective" procedure. A woman doesn't walk into a doctor's office when she's 8 months pregnant and demand an abortion because she's changed her mind. :eyes:

They'll ban the procedure with no exception for the health of the woman which is absolutley ridiculous because if the woman dies, so does the fetus - and if the fetus was healthy to begin with, the woman's life would not be in danger, so there would be no need for the procedure. Besides, if the fetus is so badly deformed that it endangers the life of the woman carrying it, it won't survive anyway - so what the hell's the point of risking the woman's life? :mad:

My head's spinning from that statement! :crazy:

We know what's going to happen ... a woman's going to die because she couldn't have the procedure done and all hell is going to break loose! All this bill does is make a fetus more important than an actual living, breathing human being. It makes a fetus so "sacred" that it's life is worth more than the woman carrying it. In other words, it makes a woman worthless. :grr:

[BurtWorm]

59. You're wrong about people opposing D&X

I made a neat little table that probably won't reproduce. You can see the data I copped following the link below. Effectively, it shows that while people clearly oppose "partial-birth abortions" across the boards, they don't want to outlaw the procedure in cases when a woman's health is endangered. A majority of only one of the control groups studied--white protestant evangelicals--thought it should be outlawed in both cases, but even with them, support for banning the procedure dropped radically (from 76 to 53 percent), and support for keeping it legal rose even more dramatically (from 12 to 43 percent). This means that banning this procedure is ultimately anti-democratic: the views of white evangelical protestants are given far greater weight than those of other groups.


http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/GoodMorningAmerica/poll030724_abortion.html





Views on Partial-Birth Abortion:


In General: To Protect Woman's Health:
Legal-Illegal Legal-Illegal
All 20-62 61-33
Women 18-68 58-37
Men 23-56 64-28
Democrats 27-50 73-20
Republicans 15-76 55-42
Independents 21-60 58-34
Protestant 20-64 60-35
White Evangelican Protestant 12-76 43-53
White Not Evangelical 28-51 76-20
Catholic 11-73 58-39
Other Religion 23-59 63-33
No Religion 31-47 64-23

[maha]

94. We're not a majoritarian democracy.

"Majority rule" is not absolute in the U.S. For example, the majority may not deprive a minority of civil rights. Some things just ain't the majority's bleeping business.

[BurtWorm]

98. But the irony here is that a majority clearly opposes outlawing

the procedure if it can be used to save a woman's life--which is the only time it is ever used! In this case, the majority seems to have some sense. They've been manipulated into supporting a ban that they don't have all the facts on.

[maha]

125. You are right.

And it's hard to get facts out because the VRWC has coopted language. In the world of the VRWC, "late term" abortions are any that occur after the first trimester, if not sooner, and of course in reality there's no such thing as a "partial birth abortion."

[Q]

8. I used the phrase used in the article...

and please note the "quotation" marks.

- This is the term being used in the Senate. Granted...it's a matter of semantics...but I agree that it's as credible as using 'death tax' to describe the ESTATE tax.

[Hep]

13. Didn't mean to single you out.

I don't expect you to go and edit the article or anything. I guess I should have mentioned writing letters to editors and such.

[Q]

17. No...your point was well-taken...

...and that's why I changed the title to 'late term'. I'm not about to frame the debate FOR the RWingers.

- It's very disturbing that even some Democrats have seemingly forgotten the past. WE fought for decades to 'give' women the 'right' to decide for themselves instead of 'giving' that 'right' to the state.

- And that's really what this is all about: either the state or the woman decides.

[Hep]

31. Exactly

And the state doesn't decide for each woman based on her situation. The state decides for EVERYONE regardless of circumstance.

[Q]

32. This is the same type of screwed up reasoning...

...the 'government' uses in their fight against allowing doctors to prescribe medical marijuana. Should the government be allowed to make these kinds of decisions FOR the physician and his patient?

- I guess they DO have that 'right' in Bush's* America.

[zoe1]

28. I'm new here. I have a question.

Are conservatives welcome here? :)

Or is this just a 'preaching to the choir' kind of site?

[Blue_Chill]

Democrats only

But there is very little 'preaching to the choir' done here. Stay around and you'll see what I mean.

[zoe1]

52. I just read the rules

I'm not a Democrat or leftist, so I guess I'm not welcome.

I'm not a disruptor though, so it's too bad that exchanging of ideas and debating isn't allowed much around here.

I'm also not a Bush supporter or a Republican. But I guess people who aren't democrats and leftists are evil?

Ok!

Peace!

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Q]

66. Just go ahead and post your opinion...

...and see what happens. You'll be okay.

[zoe1]

93. Ok

I used to be on the other side of this issue. That was before I really did much looking into abortion, it wasn't something that I ever gave a lot of thought to.

Since then I have looked looked into it, and learned more about it. I also became a Christian 3 years ago, so that changed my outlook on a lot of things. I think abortion is legalized murder.

A baby at 7 or 8 weeks has arms, legs, fingers, toes, and by 8 weeks the process of organogenesis (the creation of new organs) is finished, and by 9 weeks the preborn can suck his/her thumb, touch his/her face... and MOST abortions take place at around 7-9 weeks. That means the "its just a clump of tissue" line is simply untrue.

And I'm not even talking about late term abortions! To me, how anyone can advocate killing a baby who is 8 months along or more completely blows my mind.

I understand that abortion supporters believe the mother's rights supercede the baby's. I don't think either the mother or baby's rights should be violated. But I don't think there is ever a right to kill an innocent human life. That's where I stand.

thanks for letting me state my thoughts!

[elfwitch]

102. that is fine as long as...

You, as are all people, are entitled to your feelingas and beliefs. If you feel that abortion is murder, then you should never have one. I'd even go so far as to say that you would be correct in encouraging your friends or loved ones to never have one either.

I think that the problem that most of us here have is that your feelings on the subject shouldn't be legislated to effect mine. This issue is very personal. It is between the woman, her doctor, her family, and her creator (if she believes in one). Something that personal has no business being legislated.

These kind of laws exists to impose your moral or religious code on another person who may not share that belief. They are as wrong as legislating the actions of consenting adults doing things (sex, pot, watching porn) behind their own closed doors.

If you don't like it don't do it. If you don't like it and make sure I don't do it then you are wrong. That is just being a busybody.


edit: typo

[zoe1]

110. .

I understand what you're saying, but the thing is - if the preborn baby is a human being, with the right to live (the most fundamental human right), then the preborn SHOULD be protected under the law.

It would be hypocritical for me to say "I believe the preborn is a human being with the right to live... but you can choose to kill"

That would be the same thing as me saying "I am against murder, but I think people should have the legal choice to murder." Or you can say the same thing about rape. "I'm personally against it, but rape should be legal".... would anyone say that?

You can use the same argument for slavery. Imagine if people had said "I think slavery is wrong. But it should be legal." If something is denying a human being their most basic rights... then how can I support it?

[MissB]

118. Preborn baby?

That is an interesting term. Kinda reminds me of "partial birth abortion".

When does life begin? Not everyone agrees on this point. I view the "baby" as an zygote/embryo/fetus, depending on the stage of development. My definition of when life begins is probably vastly different than yours. Why should your view trump my view?

Just because you believe that a fetus should be protected under the law, doesn't mean that everyone believes that. Again, why should your belief become law?

[elfwitch]

137. exactly

Legislating this belief would be the same as legislating a religion. Unless there is ABSOLUTE scientific evidence to support the claim, it should be left up to the individual.

The old, "then why can't I just choose to go out and murder someone" argument is flawed. A staggeringly large majority of HUMAN BEINGS would agree that the murder of a born human being is almost always unjustified.

As long as the unborn are inside their mother's womb, they are part of the mother and subject to her rights as a person.

[Hep]

104. fingers and toes are really cute!

But viability is the issue. And it isn't viable on average until about 28 weeks. Why you would allow a creature who can't survive on its own rights over a creature that can is beyond me.

[eileen_d]

80. Exchanging of ideas and debating happens here every day

However, DU is a community of Democrats, progressives, leftists, etc. Nothing wrong with that IMO, since we're explicit about it.

You're not evil, but you may not feel welcome here. There are plenty of other forums where folks of all political types debate.

[Q]

33. I suggest you read the board rules...

...and then decide for yourself.

[Q]

39. Is this really what we are 'as a society"?

- Do we want a society where the government makes health/choice/quality of life decisions FOR the people?

- This doesn't sound like America. It does however sound like China or Russia.

[Q]

47. Will An AMA Endorsement Sway Any Votes?

Will An AMA Endorsement Sway Any Votes?

A vote on late-term abortion ban is set for this afternoon

WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, May 20) -- With a boost from the American Medical Association (AMA), supporters of legislation to ban a type of late-term abortions believe they are within a few votes of a veto-proof majority.

On the eve of this afternoon's vote in the Senate, the AMA endorsed a ban on so-called "partial birth" abortions. The endorsement came after lawmakers agreed to rewrite the legislation to protect doctors from prosecution if they begin to deliver a baby, but then resort to the "intact dilation and extraction" procedure to save the mother's life.

In a letter to Sen. Rick Santorum, the bill's chief sponsor in the Senate, AMA executive vice president P. John Seward said while the AMA's general policy is to oppose criminalizing medical procedures, the group has supported such legislation "where the procedure was narrowly defined and not medically indicated." The rewritten bill, Seward said, "meets both those tests."

Abortion rights supporters criticized the AMA's move, with Kate Michelman of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League saying it could lead to political intrusions "into doctors' professional decision-making."

Whether the AMA's endorsement will affect the outcome remains unknown. Santorum said he has 62 votes for the ban, five short of the 67 needed to override a promised presidential veto if all senators are present. "We believe there are more than enough members still undecided on this issue to make the difference," Santorum said.

Among the undecided are Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle, Democrats Tom Harkin of Iowa, Dale Bumpers of Arkansas and Robert Byrd of West Virginia, and Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/05/20/abortion.ama/

[Hep]

54. Not really

I mean, it carries some weight, but with this administration I've become a little leery of things like this. Suddenly, a group like the AMA supports the government legislating a medical procedure? It raises red flags.

But it does inspire me to look into their decision more closely.

Edit: And why is there a promised veto?

[WhosNext]

63. Good. I'm against partial birth abortion.

If you're going to abort, do it during the first trimester.

[Hep]

69. yeah dammit!

Because women who go in for LTA's are just lazy or indecisive.

[MissB]

72. Thank goodness you're not God.

You seem to be assuming that the reason a woman would choose an abortion is for convenience.

There can be medical reasons as well. Unfortunately, these can pop up after the first trimester.

[WhosNext]

75. I'm not against it in those types of cases.

[Hep]

103. are you lying?

Your use of the term "PBA" suggests that you're lying. I don't trust anyone who uses made up terms and definitions. There's no such thing as a partial birth abortion.

[Skittles]

95. pretty soon "late term"

will be defined as beginning at conception

[arwalden]

106. Thank You! You Have Described The Phenomenon Of...

... creeping-infringement.

They see the big picture and are willing to infringe in small, palatable, increments. Increments that are so small that they manage to convince lawmakers that the opposition is being SILLY for opposing them in the first place.

You see how this works, Skittles. I see how this works.

Even those in opposition to us see how it works, although they won't admit it publicly.

-- Allen

[mrgorth]

105. Anal sex to be outlawed next week.(nt)

.

[Selwynn]

109. SERIOUS QUESTION: Why is baning late term abortions bad?

Oh I know, just by asking the qusetion at all I ma going to make people mad. But let's just assume I know nothing and am willing to be taught.

I could see how abortion should be regulated to an extent, right? I mean if a baby is born the its life is immediately stopped, we call that a crime. So we already set limits to when abortion can be done right?

So can someone give me some explaination of what's at stake and the argument for why this would be a bad thing?

Please avoid the slippery slope argument that it is the first step towards other worse attacks on abortion rights. If that's the only argument, its logically fallacious and weak.

I want to know why there shouldn't be restrictions to when an abortion can occur?

[Hep]

115. read the thread

I think you'll at least find the arguments up there somewhere.

[Selwynn]

117. Ok, doing it now

[maha]

116. Personally

I'd happily ban all abortions about about 20 week's gestation with exceptions for life and health of the mother or fetus.

My understanding is that most nations in Europe ban abortions sometime in the second trimester, allowing for medical exceptions, and most Europeans seem pretty happy with that.

In the U.S. about 88 percent of abortions occur in the first trimester, anyway, and with public education and easier access that percentage could easily go above 90 percent.

I do feel strongly that in the case of medical problems with either the mother or the fetus, the decision to terminate the pregnancy should remain with the parents in consultation with the physician. This is none of the Gubmint's business.

[Hep]

122. I'm with you

But can we say that any abortions happen after 20 weeks for any other reason?

[maha]

134. What you should know:

Nobody is keeping records of why every abortion in the U.S. is performed.

Also, most states have laws on the book now that ban post-viability abortions (after 24 weeks), which Roe v. Wade allows as long as exceptions are made for medical reasons. Some of those laws are being challenged, mostly because the anti-choice people keep trying to sneak in language that would ban medically necessary abortions and earlier abortions.

But there is no reason we cannot have a law on the books RIGHT NOW in every state that would ban abortions in the third trimester except for life and health of the mother or extreme fetal anomaly, except that the ANTI-choice people won't have it.

Alan Guttmacher keeps the best data on abortions; even the AMA and CDC rely on Guttmacher. According to Guttmacher, 1 percent of abortions performed in the U.S. are performed at 21 weeks' gestation or later.

http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

[Hell Hath No Fury]

126. Roe v. Wade....

ALREADY allows States to tighly control abortions at the second trimester, and VERY tightly control them at the third. If I can find it, there is a site that shows abortion regulations by State -- virtually all States limit 3rd trimester abortions to the health of the mother and/or unviable fetus.

Roe v. Wade clearly states that they cannot have a FULL ban on LTAs (the health of the mother MUST be allowed for), so I suspect this bill will be thrown out by the USSC.

[Guaranteed]

139. Selwynn-

You're a philosopher. You know Judith Thomson.

http://brindedcow.umd.edu/140/thomson.html

She came damned close but didn't quite make it.

By the way I'm not even getting involved in this thread. The topic is way too hot. And no one's gonna change their mind.
The best thing this country can do is just ban the LTA's, but put very strong protections on the earlier term abortions. Call it a compromise.

[maha]

112. AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTRETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY

http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/press_releases/nr02-13-02.cfm

Statement on So-Called "Partial Birth Abortion" Laws By The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists


The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) continues to oppose state or federal legislation known as so-called "partial birth abortion" bans. "Partial birth abortion" is a non-medical term apparently referring to a particular abortion procedure known as intact dilatation and extraction (intact D&X, or D&X), a rare variant of a more common midterm abortion procedure know as dilatation and evacuation (D&E).

In June 2000, the US Supreme Court struck down a Nebraska "partial birth abortion" law in the case of Stenberg v. Carhart, ruling that the law violated the US Constitution by (1) failing to provide any exception "for the preservation of the health of the mother," and (2) being so broadly written that it could prohibit other types of abortion procedures such as D&E, thereby "unduly burdening a women's ability to choose abortion itself."

As stated in a 1997 Statement of Policy issued by ACOG's Executive Board, and in ACOG's amicus curiae brief filed in the Stenberg case, ACOG continues to find it disturbing that legislators would take any action that would supersede the medical judgment of a trained physician, in consultation with a patient, as to what is the safest and most appropriate medical procedure for that particular patient.

ACOG's 1997 Statement of Policy affirmed that position and explained why ACOG believes such legislation to be "inappropriate, ill advised, and dangerous." The policy statement noted that although a select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which intact D&X would be the only option to protect the life or health of a woman, intact D&X "may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances, can make this decision."

The Statement of Policy further reads that such legislation has the potential to outlaw other abortion techniques that are critical to the lives and health of American women. This was the second basis upon which the Supreme Court struck down the Nebraska law in the Stenberg case. Such "partial birth" laws are invariably overly broad or imprecisely drawn, frequently using terms — such as "partial birth abortion" — that are not recognized by the very constituency (physicians) whose conduct the law would criminalize. They purport to address a single procedure, yet describe elements of other procedures used in obstetrics and gynecology. Thus, even when legislators add an exception to a so-called "partial birth abortion" ban that includes protecting a woman's health, the ban may fail to have the necessary specificity to avoid encroaching on other safe and constitutionally protected medical procedures. For this reason, the ban would fail the two-part test outlined by the Supreme Court in the Stenberg decision.

The misinformation currently circulating in political discussions of abortion procedures only reinforces ACOG's position: in the individual circumstances of each particular medical case, the patient and physician — not legislators — are the appropriate parties to determine the best method of treatment.

[Lars39]

119. It's still all about control.

When's the last time these control freaks had to put their feet in the stirrups? Ever had your vagina scraped by a speculum? Let's take a layer of skin off their penis; then we'll talk.

[RummyTheDummy]

124. I'm pro choice with a huge asterisk.....

I'm that way because of my libretarian streak not my support for the practice.
I draw the line with the late term issue. It's utterly barbaric.

[Loyal]

127. THIS IS JUST DISGUSTING!

I was listening to Boxer speak about an hour ago, about this, and I'm just disgusted.

If the fucking Republicans would simply ALLOW a health exception in this bill, then Barbara Boxer has said she would vote for a ban on ALL late-term abortions(third-trimester ones). I would definitely support a ban on third-trimester abortions too, because there is no doubt that the fetus can feel pain at that point and is mostly developed.

BUT, the Republicans don't want this. They want to keep abortion as an issue on the table to appeal to Southern voters in 2004. They know that the Supreme Court will overturn this like they did the Nebraska case, which is quite similar. They will say something like, "Look, your hero, Chimpy, er, I mean, President Bush, pressured the Congress to pass this PBA ban, and the darned librul Supreme Court justices overturned them. Vote for Bush again so he can appoint "strict constructionist" judges to the High Court, instead of "liberal activist" judges. That's what this is about

INSTEAD, we have Orrin Hatch on TV now talking about how liberals support killing children. If Orrin Hatch really gave two shits about children he wouldn't have voted to slash education and health care funding to children. A lot of the Republican base is stupid, so the somewhat smarter Republicans in the Senate cater to their stupidity.

Any fair minded person would realize that we should ban late-term abortions, BUT THAT WE NEED EXCEPTIONS! We need a life and health exception for the mother, so that if a baby would possibly paralyze her if delivered, or cause a stroke, that she would be able to abort it. This is just common sense. Or if she could become infertile because of the baby - these are why we need the health exception, folks.

I CANNOT and WILL NOT support this bill without a health exception. Without a health exception, this bill is deadly. Say that a girl is raped, and she cannot afford to have an abortion until the last trimester when she can raise the money. The baby could kill her if it is delivered. The Republicans(and a lot of stupid Democrats, too) are going to sentence her to death for being raped. This is just disgusting.

If this bill had a health exception, I would gladly support this bill, as would all 100 Senators, and probably all of the Congresspeople, too.

Thanks for reading this. :mad:

[mrgorth]

128. Great post!

Too bad it was even necessary.

[Loyal]

130. yep

nt

[Loyal]

129. By the way,

If you DON'T like abortions, then DON'T FUCKING GET ONE. Simple as that. I can't stand fetus worshippers, because most of them are Republicans who at the same time talk about how they love children, are cutting social services to them and trying to gut head start. It makes me so mad. :puke: at fetus worshippers. Now you know why I won't support these people, and why I won't vote for someone who wavered on abortion and then espouses a holier than thou attitude about politics(Kucinich).

[Loyal]

131. Just thought of another good one

If men could have abortions, there'd be a clinic on every street corner.

[Loyal]

133. As a male,

I am not going to condemn any abortion decision a woman makes.

I've never walked a mile in her uterus.

[elfwitch]

136. good for you !!

My uterus has walked the 9 month mile and salutes your enlightened attitude.

[OneTwentyoNine]

138. Yeah,and yet men are always the ones yacking on TV,paper...

Orin Hatch and his bunch always claiming to know whats best for a woman that could be 3,000 miles from where he is--Bullshit Orin!!

If you don't believe that a woman should have an abortion then don't frickin have one!!

Also don't believe for a nano second that dribble that the religious right serves up on how they'd most likely keep abortions legal in the case of incest or rape. Bullshit,they were in Wichita a few years back marching,protesting,because a girl that was about 13 or 14 was here for an abortion.

For God's sake,she was raped by her brother and was pregnant and these religious zealots were out on the sidewalk begging,pleading,screaming that she carry this baby by incest to full term. These people are beyond sick,their GD psycho's

David

[otohara]

135. Sanitorium - It's Not OK to Kill Babies

he doesn't like that Feinstein has said he should stop using terms like "killing" "baby vs fetus", etc....but when it comes to dropping bombs on thousands of grown up citizens in say...Iraq - it's OK to call them "collateral damage"

[Q]

140. I haven't heard anything from Santorum or Hatch...

...about the thousands of 'brown' children and babies blown apart by their 'war on terrorism' bombs. I'd like them to explain why it's okay to KILL children but not a fetus?

- And I don't want to hear the 'collateral damage' bullshit....especially when Bush* ordered the bombing of residential neighborhoods.

[otohara]

143. He Only Cares About The Arms & Legs

of severly deformed fetuses, vs the arms & legs we blew off the healthy bodies of Iraqi children.

[salin]

141. Am I reading this correctly.. this bill has NO exceptions for mother's

health? Wouldn't that mean that in these rare cases, the mother must always be willing to sacrifice her life? Oh my goodness I do not want to see the first case where this law would be enforced. Like reverting back to the days of very poor healthcare where pregnancy was a possible death sentence.

[Loyal]

142. SC will overturn it

I'm pretty sure. This is just more political fodder for the right-wing, fetus worshipping, homophobic Southern Christians.

[salin]

144. I am correct, then? NO exceptions?

wow.

[elfwitch]

145. interesting...

They only seem to care about the well-being of children in the womb. Once they are out, it is not their problem.

[salin]

147. apparently they don't care much for the womb either?

Not sure that many voting for this - would so willingly, if heavens forbid the situation came about, sacrifice their own daughter.

[kaitykaity]

148. Locking.

This thread is getting large and unwieldy. Please
continue discussion here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=568098

Thanks,


kaitykaity
DU Moderator