Americans support a ban on "partial birth abortions" UNLESS

[BurtWorm]

they're indicated to save the life or protect the health of the mother, which is the only time late-term abortions are ever indicated. Even white evangelical protestants waver in their strong support for a ban when the "mother's health" issue is raised.

This is from a post of mine on another thread on this subject that was locked:

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


Note: I'm posting this yet again because I think it's surprising information and it has gotten lost in two other giant, unwieldy threads about late term abortion, because it's on a slightly different topic, which is the question of the sense of the democracy about this issue. Common knowledge is that this ban is popular. The ABC News poll strongly suggests otherwise.

[sandnsea]

1. It's a D&X

STOP calling this a late-term abortion. There's no such thing. Older women would have immediately recognized this as a new method to perform a medically necessary procedure if it had been argued that way. And when you have that group, that's most of the battle. We get so caught up in ideals, we forget to be practical.

[BurtWorm]

2. Fine, but don't miss the point of the post

which is that the majority of Americans don't want this procedure banned. And it's going to be banned anyway!

[Woodstock]

4. and that's a good point

I think what we are trying to say is, even the numbers you have are skewed because of Republican propaganda.

That's what disappoints me most about Democrats - they let the Republicans define the game, then play defense.

[BurtWorm]

5. That is exactly what I'm trying to say.

Frank Luntz's carefully tested phrase is skewing the results. When given a choice between "right to life" and "health of the mother," Americans strongly CHOOSE health of the mother.

[Woodstock]

6. You did good! :-)

I think this will backlash considerably when the truth gets out.

I guess it's up to us to get the truth out.

[sandnsea]

11. I didn't

But perhaps if we hadn't allowed it to be called a 'partial-birth abortion', people would never have thought this was an abortion of choice in the first place. Then there would have been no confusion no matter how people were questioned about it. In fact, I kind of think we better start reminding women abortions can be medically necessary at ANY stage of pregnancy. It's not only backroom abortions that can kill women, it's also not being able to get one even when you're dieing. And doctors don't have to learn how to do them anymore either, it's optional. I really think it's time for a whole new abortion campaign. Because, like you say, when people are presented with the concepts in a normal way, they overwhelmingly understand basic medical care.

[Woodstock]

3. the whole "partial birth abortion" question fixes the answer

the polls are skewed by the questions

put the facts without Republican rhetoric before the people and

true sentiment is even MORE in favor of choice

***don't let the thugs define the rules of the game***

[Lydia Leftcoast]

7. And it's not even a new procedure

A teaching colleague of my mother's had a what's the term? D and X? -- in the 1940s because her kidneys were on the verge of failure.

In any case, it's never performed just because the woman changes her mind seven or eight months along. That's hysterical anti-choice rhetoric.

[Woodstock]

19. Roe v. Wade was sufficient

The American Medical Association defines "late term" abortions as taking place in the third trimester. According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, there are between 320 and 600 late-term abortions annually in the United States, in other words they are statistically very small.

From Roe v. Wade:

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life <410 U.S. 113, 165> may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

[Old and In the Way]

8. What's really changed?

Late term abortions will still be legal for the mother whose health is in danger, right?

Most women, if they decide to terminate a pregnancy, do it way before the end of the 2nd term. Those that need to have it terminated because it's life threatening will still have it, correct?

Isn't this more feel good legislation for the Right that really won't change reality? I'm asking, I assume this is the case.

[charlie]

9. I could be wrong

but I don't think this new law will allow exceptions. In fact, I've heard it includes medical citations to buttress the argument that the procedure is never necessary for reasons of health.

[calm_blue_ocean]

10. which is why the courts . . .

are going to find the law unconstitutional as soon as it is passed (at least according to legal commentators).

And this is exactly the way big business interests that control the Republican party want things to go. Don't for a minute think that big health insurance companies want more live births or low income voters than we already have in the US.

[BurtWorm]

13. You're right. This is the same law the court rejected from Nebraska

because it failed to address exceptions. This law says NO EXCEPTIONS. The supernaturalists who wrote it claim they're counting on one Justice to change his or her vote, which would make all the difference. But I think the RNC will be satisfied even if the courts reject it, because the base will have a nice piece of bloody red meat to gnaw on.

[paulsbc]

14. a bit confused

as people keep saying there is no 'health of the mother' passage, but the bill contains this:

§ 1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited
(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or
foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth
abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or
both. 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

[BurtWorm]

15. Wow! Then this really is a superfluous bill!

This is nothing but a publicity stunt. That's even more disgusting than an honest attempt to roll back Roe v. Wade.

[Lars39]

18. No. It states "life-threatening"; says nothing about health, so to speak,

or quality of health. In other words, it's OK to mangle a woman's uterus, etc., so that she can't have any more children, since it's not necessarily life-threatening. :shrug:

[paulsbc]

20. can you expand on this?

I don't see aborting a fetus as 'right' late into the pregnancy if the fetus can survive on its own outside the mother should the mother be able to acheive that and not lose her life. If the mother's life is not threatened, I don't see the issue with banning the taking of the child's life, so perhaps you can explain the situations where it is not life threatening where killing the child is appropriate...

For the disclosure record, I'm pro-abortion until brain activity in the fetus begins (generally considered in the 2nd trimester) because, IMO, brain activity determines whether someone is "human". So I'm "partial-pro-life/partial-pro-choice" if you will...

[Hamlette]

22. Abortion is NOT legal in the third trimester unless the mother's health

is in danger. That's what Roe v Wade said. It was determined, by the state of medicine at the time, that a fetus is not "viable" (capable of living outside the womb) until the 3rd trimester. Once the fetus is viable the mother's right to choose is gone.

This bill does nothing if it allows for a health of the mother exception. It is pure emotional rhetoric from the right.

[Woodstock]

17. not true - this is far more than feel good legislation

they have laid the legislative groundwork for rendering Roe v. Wade null and void

[REP]

12. Kick

[SavageWombat]

16. Let's not forget...

... that the public doesn't support abortion unless they're the ones who need one. There was a SALON article a while back collecting stories of the vicious anti-choice crowd, and how many of them showed up at the clinic without a trace of apology when they were the ones who "just had to do it".

[LoneStarLiberal]

21. The First Sub-Thread on This Is A Very Good One

The first sub-thread on this topic is a very good one because it hits EXACTLY what we as a party fail at consistently: Rhetoric.

Allowing Republican strategists and their precious wee focus groups to define the terms we use to discuss issues like D&X in most cases assures them of victory before we have a chance to fight the good fight!

Across the board Democratic Presidential candidates, Representatives, Senators, and pundits need to REFUSE to use terminology engineered by Republicans to discuss key issues. i.e. don't talk about 'partial birth abortions,' talk about making D&X criminal or don't talk about the 'death tax,' talk about the estate tax and the wealthy. Certainly there will be some confusion at first, but once Joe and Jane Sixpack figure out that both sides are talking about the same issue with different terminology they will be more inclined to look into it instead of just going with the flow.

[Woodstock]

23. Exactly - does the Democratic party even have strategists?

You sure could have fooled me. They seem hell bent on LOSING.

[LoneStarLiberal]

24. If They Do...

If the party does have strategists, we can safely proclaim that they need new jobs because they are failing at their current ones!

Opposing this stuff isn't rocket science. All it requires is some spine and a plan.