Republicans know 'partial birth' ban is unconstitutional.

[denverbill]

IMO, everyone is getting worked up for nothing. Yes, the right-wingers got a bill passed to mollify their rabid constituency. But what did they pass? They passed the most restrictive possible ban on late term abortions, which won't even allow a mother the right to an abortion if her life is in danger. What sane judge would say that a woman has to die rather than have an operation which could save her life?

The Repukies have no intention of ever passing a meaningful abortion ban or of overturning Roe V Wade. Why? Because if they ever did, 1/2 their membership would lose their entire reason for voting Republican. Republicans need abortion as an existing 'evil' to rail against, while passing their more meaningful agenda: raiding the Treasury and giving tax breaks to the rich.

As it stands now, Repukies know this bill will be immediately struck down, and they'll throw their hands in the air and whine about the 'activist' courts. And their worshipping base will gnash their teeth about judicial activism and keep voting Republican til all those nasty activist judges are eliminated.

[Cocoa]

1. I partly agree

I don't think this law was intended to advance their agenda directly. I think it was meant to hurt vulnerable dems in the next election.

I disagree that the republicans don't mean to reverse Roe v. Wade, i think they do, but they will do it through judicial nominations.

[outinforce]

2. Really?

"They passed the most restrictive possible ban on late term abortions, which won't even allow a mother the right to an abortion if her life is in danger."

I am hardly what you would call a member of the "rabid constituency" of the right-wing.

But I think I am correct when I say that most Americans (as in over 50%) favor restricting this most gruesome of procedures.

And I also think I am correct when I say that the recently-enacted liegislation does permit doctors to use this procedure when it is necessary to save the life of the mother.

[denverbill]

3. Well, I'm not surprised.

I have yet to see you support anything remotely liberal, so I'm not at all surprised you support this bill.

Do you actually have any liberal opinions at all?

When it comes to the content of this bill, I'll trust what Planned Parenthood says over what Trent Lott says.

[outinforce]

6. I Must Be Really Fascinating

"I have yet to see you support anything remotely liberal, so I'm not at all surprised you support this bill."

Are you another of those people who make it your business to monitor what I write here on DU?

I confess that I do not read a lot of what you write, denverbill, so I really could not say whether you happen to meet my own definiton of someone who is "remotely liberal".

If you had in fact read a number of my posts very closely, you would have noticed that I advocate -- strongly -- an expansion of social welfare systems to provide for the needs of mothers and children.

In addition, I have stated elsewhere on DU that it is my belief that the most liberal positions are those that protect the weak from the strong and that work to include those who have been excluded. In the case of abortion, I happen to think that it completely liberal to say that the weak, npon-voting fetus should have an advocate. In fact, I think that is what Jesse Jackson and others believed for some time.

Why trust anyone? Why don't you look at what the bill actually says?

[denverbill]

10. I have.

" partial -birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman"

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:1:./temp/~c108Zoglei::

If the bill has a finding which declares that partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary, that renders null the following:

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

You can't very well find that partial birth abortion is never medically necessary to preserve the health of a woman, and then state later that you are exempting cases where it is medically necessary to preserve the health of a woman.

[denverbill]

25. Link doesn't work, so here's the entire text from thomas.

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)

--S.3--

S.3


One Hundred Eighth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the seventh day of January, two thousand and three

An Act

To prohibit the procedure commonly known as partial -birth abortion.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Partial -Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds and declares the following:

(1) A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial -birth abortion--an abortion in which a physician deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living, unborn child's body until either the entire baby's head is outside the body of the mother, or any part of the baby's trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother and only the head remains inside the womb, for the purpose of performing an overt act (usually the puncturing of the back of the child's skull and removing the baby's brains) that the person knows will kill the partially delivered infant, performs this act, and then completes delivery of the dead infant--is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited.

(2) Rather than being an abortion procedure that is embraced by the medical community, particularly among physicians who routinely perform other abortion procedures, partial -birth abortion remains a disfavored procedure that is not only unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother, but in fact poses serious risks to the long-term health of women and in some circumstances, their lives. As a result, at least 27 States banned the procedure as did the United States Congress which voted to ban the procedure during the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses.

(3) In Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 932 (2000), the United States Supreme Court opined `that significant medical authority supports the proposition that in some circumstances, would be the safest procedure' for pregnant women who wish to undergo an abortion. Thus, the Court struck down the State of Nebraska's ban on partial -birth abortion procedures, concluding that it placed an `undue burden' on women seeking abortions because it failed to include an exception for partial -birth abortions deemed necessary to preserve the `health' of the mother.

(4) In reaching this conclusion, the Court deferred to the Federal district court's factual findings that the partial -birth abortion procedure was statistically and medically as safe as, and in many circumstances safer than, alternative abortion procedures.

(5) However, substantial evidence presented at the Stenberg trial and overwhelming evidence presented and compiled at extensive congressional hearings, much of which was compiled after the district court hearing in Stenberg, and thus not included in the Stenberg trial record, demonstrates that a partial -birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman, poses significant health risks to a woman upon whom the procedure is performed and is outside the standard of medical care.

(6) Despite the dearth of evidence in the Stenberg trial court record supporting the district court's findings, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and the Supreme Court refused to set aside the district court's factual findings because, under the applicable standard of appellate review, they were not `clearly erroneous'. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous `when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed'. Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, North Carolina, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985). Under this standard, `if the district court's account of the evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety, the court of appeals may not reverse it even though convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently'. Id. at 574.

(7) Thus, in Stenberg, the United States Supreme Court was required to accept the very questionable findings issued by the district court judge--the effect of which was to render null and void the reasoned factual findings and policy determinations of the United States Congress and at least 27 State legislatures.

(8) However, under well-settled Supreme Court jurisprudence, the United States Congress is not bound to accept the same factual findings that the Supreme Court was bound to accept in Stenberg under the `clearly erroneous' standard. Rather, the United States Congress is entitled to reach its own factual findings--findings that the Supreme Court accords great deference--and to enact legislation based upon these findings so long as it seeks to pursue a legitimate interest that is within the scope of the Constitution, and draws reasonable inferences based upon substantial evidence.

(9) In Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 (1966), the Supreme Court articulated its highly deferential review of congressional factual findings when it addressed the constitutionality of section 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Regarding Congress' factual determination that section 4(e) would assist the Puerto Rican community in `gaining nondiscriminatory treatment in public services,' the Court stated that `t was for Congress, as the branch that made this judgment, to assess and weigh the various conflicting considerations * * *. It is not for us to review the congressional resolution of these factors. It is enough that we be able to perceive a basis upon which the Congress might resolve the conflict as it did. There plainly was such a basis to support section 4(e) in the application in question in this case.'. Id. at 653.

(10) Katzenbach's highly deferential review of Congress' factual conclusions was relied upon by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia when it upheld the `bail-out' provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973c), stating that `congressional fact finding, to which we are inclined to pay great deference, strengthens the inference that, in those jurisdictions covered by the Act, state actions discriminatory in effect are discriminatory in purpose'. City of Rome, Georgia v. U.S., 472 F. Supp. 221 (D.D.C. 1979) aff'd City of Rome, Georgia v. U.S., 446 U.S. 156 (1980).

(11) The Court continued its practice of deferring to congressional factual findings in reviewing the constitutionality of the must-carry provisions of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992. See Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 512 U.S. 622 (1994) (Turner I) and Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 520 U.S. 180 (1997) (Turner II). At issue in the Turner cases was Congress' legislative finding that, absent mandatory carriage rules, the continued viability of local broadcast television would be `seriously jeopardized'. The Turner I Court recognized that as an institution, `Congress is far better equipped than the judiciary to `amass and evaluate the vast amounts of data' bearing upon an issue as complex and dynamic as that presented here', 512 U.S. at 665-66. Although the Court recognized that `the deference afforded to legislative findings does `not foreclose our independent judgment of the facts bearing on an issue of constitutional law,' its `obligation to exercise independent judgment when First Amendment rights are implicated is not a license to reweigh the evidence de novo, or to replace Congress' factual predictions with our own. Rather, it is to assure that, in formulating its judgments, Congress has drawn reasonable inferences based on substantial evidence.'. Id. at 666.

(12) Three years later in Turner II, the Court upheld the `must-carry' provisions based upon Congress' findings, stating the Court's `sole obligation is `to assure that, in formulating its judgments, Congress has drawn reasonable inferences based on substantial evidence.' 520 U.S. at 195. Citing its ruling in Turner I, the Court reiterated that `e owe Congress' findings deference in part because the institution `is far better equipped than the judiciary to `amass and evaluate the vast amounts of data' bearing upon' legislative questions,' id. at 195, and added that it `owe Congress' findings an additional measure of deference out of respect for its authority to exercise the legislative power.'. Id. at 196.

(13) There exists substantial record evidence upon which Congress has reached its conclusion that a ban on partial -birth abortion is not required to contain a `health' exception, because the facts indicate that a partial -birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman, poses serious risks to a woman's health, and lies outside the standard of medical care. Congress was informed by extensive hearings held during the 104th, 105th, 107th, and 108th Congresses and passed a ban on partial -birth abortion in the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses. These findings reflect the very informed judgment of the Congress that a partial -birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman, poses serious risks to a woman's health, and lies outside the standard of medical care, and should, therefore, be banned.

(14) Pursuant to the testimony received during extensive legislative hearings during the 104th, 105th, 107th, and 108th 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.

(F) A ban on the partial -birth abortion procedure will therefore advance the health interests of pregnant women seeking to terminate a pregnancy.

(G) In light of this overwhelming evidence, Congress and the States have a compelling interest in prohibiting partial -birth abortions. In addition to promoting maternal health, such a prohibition will draw a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide, that preserves the integrity of the medical profession, and promotes respect for human life.

(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. Thus, Congress has a compelling interest in acting--indeed it must act--to prohibit this inhumane procedure.

(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.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON PARTIAL -BIRTH ABORTIONS.

(a) IN GENERAL- Title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after chapter 73 the following:

`CHAPTER 74--PARTIAL -BIRTH ABORTIONS

`Sec.

`1531. Partial -birth abortions prohibited.

`Sec. 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 itself. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the enactment.

`(b) As used in this section--

`(1) the term `partial -birth abortion' means an abortion in which the person performing the abortion--

`(A) deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and

`(B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus; and

`(2) the term `physician' means a doctor of medicine or osteopathy legally authorized to practice medicine and surgery by the State in which the doctor performs such activity, or any other individual legally authorized by the State to perform abortions: Provided, however, That any individual who is not a physician or not otherwise legally authorized by the State to perform abortions, but who nevertheless directly performs a partial -birth abortion, shall be subject to the provisions of this section.

`(c)(1) The father, if married to the mother at the time she receives a partial -birth abortion procedure, and if the mother has not attained the age of 18 years at the time of the abortion, the maternal grandparents of the fetus, may in a civil action obtain appropriate relief, unless the pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff's criminal conduct or the plaintiff consented to the abortion.

`(2) Such relief shall include--

`(A) money damages for all injuries, psychological and physical, occasioned by the violation of this section; and

`(B) statutory damages equal to three times the cost of the partial -birth abortion.

`(d)(1) A defendant accused of an offense under this section may seek a hearing before the State Medical Board on whether the physician's conduct was necessary to save the life of the mother whose life was endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

`(2) The findings on that issue are admissible on that issue at the trial of the defendant. Upon a motion of the defendant, the court shall delay the beginning of the trial for not more than 30 days to permit such a hearing to take place.

`(e) A woman upon whom a partial -birth abortion is performed may not be prosecuted under this section, for a conspiracy to violate this section, or for an offense under section 2, 3, or 4 of this title based on a violation of this section.'.

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of chapters for part I of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter 73 the following new item:
--1531'.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.

[drdigi420]

28. Good SLAM!

I love watching the moralists try to argue when the facts disagree.

Especially ones that leap to an emotional conclusion without even READING the text.

[outinforce]

40. I am not an attorney

I am no attorney, so I cannot predict, as others here have, what the outcome of a court case on this issue will be.

It does seem to me, however, that it is perfectly possible to state that there is never any medical necessity for a particular procedure, and to ban that procedure, while at the same time allowing any physician who might conclude that the only way to save the life of his/her patient would be to perform that procdure to perform it.

In such a case, it seems to me, any physician charged with violating the law banning the procedure could, if taken to court by a prosecutor, argue in his/her own defense that performing the procedure was the only way the life of his/her patient could be saved.

[oldcoot]

50. How many doctors are willing to go to court for their patients?

Most people do not understand that going to court is not a pleasant experience. Indeed, a court battle can last for years. Any doctor who is willing to do this is truly dedicated. Unfortunately, his patient may be dead by the time it is resolved.

[StopTheMorans]

5. your quote is only true

b/c people are not informed enough to make a good decision on this procedure: "But I think I am correct when I say that most Americans (as in over 50%) favor restricting this most gruesome of procedures." Did you know that a fetus can go to nearly full term without the large part of it's brain ever developing (i.e. it is not a viable fetus)? And did you know that a large percentage of cases of this procedure you are villifying are performed specifically to address this problem? Before you join the right-wing on this, get some information, it helps.

on edit: and the figure that i read for a fetus going to term without it's brain developing (can't remember the medical term for the condition) was 1 in 1000 pregnancies, it's not an uncommon event (can anyone tell me where I read this, I think it was newsweek about two months ago?)

[MojoKrunch]

52. Anencephaly?

Caution: pics are graphic.
Other terminal fetal abnormalities:
http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/PRENATAL/PRENATAL.html#1

http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/PRENATAL/PREN012.html

http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/PRENATAL/PREN015.html

http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/PRENATAL/PREN010.html

Mojo

[atreides1]

8. Do You Have Any Facts....

Do you have anything to back up your statement "that recently enacted legislation does permit doctors to use this procedure when it is necessary to save the life of the mother", besides what you think?

It's too bad that the same 50% don't favor restricting dropping bombs on innocent civilians, which is just as gruesome.

[curlyred]

9. How many are performed?

No one even knows how often this procedure is performed. Scare tactics and propaganda are standard Republican tactics and they were used effectively here.

I seriously doubt there are many women who wait until late in pregnancy and decide to end the pregnancy on a whim. This is the first step in the plan to make all abortion illegal.

There is language in this bill that can be construed as making abortion illegal as early as 12 weeks.

[outinforce]

18. What difference does THAT Make?

If only one clitoral circumcision were performed each year in the USA, would you support legislation to ban such a procedure?

Wnat difference does the number of these proceudres have to do with anything?

[Catherine Vincent]

38. The different is that the right wingers are misleading

everyone into thinking this procedures is done at a high percentage and apparently it is not.

[outinforce]

42. Really??

"The different is that the right wingers are misleading everyone into thinking this procedures is done at a high percentage and apparently it is not.

I refer you to the folwoing news story:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/10/22/MNG7L2GHCD1.DTL

From that article:

"Anti-abortion activists estimate that the ban will apply to fewer than 5, 000 procedures a year. But opponents of the ban say it could have a broader impact, potentially outlawing 140,000 abortions performed after the first trimester."

It would appear to me that th ose in favor of the procedure are the ones saying that it is "done at a high percentage".

[Woodstock]

45. Here are some numbers

The furor frustrated abortion-rights activists because partial-birth abortion was a phony issue. Only 1 percent of the more than one million abortions performed each year in the United States take place in the late-second or third trimester, when this procedure can be used. And virtually every abortion done at the latest stages of a pregnancy takes place because the fetus suffers from a fatal birth defect. Even the divided Supreme Court came to see a proposed ban on partial-birth abortions as a constitutional infringement upon the medical rights of American women...

That same year, only 1 percent of all abortions took place after the 21st week. Abortion-rights officials say that there are only three doctors in the entire country--in Kansas, Colorado, and California--who perform third-trimester abortions, and that virtually all of the women who undergo them have serious health issues, such as a badly deformed fetus. The third-trimester abortions are so specialized that physicians refer their patients to those three doctors. Women who cannot get a referral carry the damaged fetus to term.

http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/17/black-c.html

[outinforce]

47. Man, I am REALLY Confused Now

"And virtually every abortion done at the latest stages of a pregnancy takes place because the fetus suffers from a fatal birth defect."

Another posted on this very thread posted that these sorts of procedures are only used to save the life of the mother.

Others have said that sometimes they must be used in order to protect the health of the mother -- including her ability to have more children.

So which is it?

And why should I believe what TAP has to say about th is? Do you think it at all possible that they might have just a teeny little bias when it comes to this discussion?

One more thing -- do fatal fetal birth defects include such things as Downs Syndrome and Spina bifida?

[Woodstock]

51. answers

one, this is obviously one source of information, there are many - I'm not going to split hairs over their definitions, to me the important thing most sources agree upon is that the incidence is EXTREMELY RARE

the quote says "virtually" every - and I don't think this case excludes the other cases you mention - reproductive health issues are often intertwined

the health of the mother is an extremely important factor and must be determined by a doctor, not a legislator

and "fatal" means "fatal" - I don't see why it need be clarified further

[Lurking Dem]

11. ALL this bill is doing

is making it illegal for a medical procedure, which is ONLY done in dire circumstances, that would protect the ability of the woman to have children in the future instead of potentially doing a procedure which could inflict great medical harm on her and/or her ability to have children.

So that would make how many unborn children sacrificed on tha altar of politics?

[LeahMira]

15. Cruel and unusual punishment...

And I also think I am correct when I say that the recently-enacted liegislation does permit doctors to use this procedure when it is necessary to save the life of the mother.

That's basically the only time it was ever used... to save the life and health of the mother. Problem is that with the more restrictive language now that excludes the health of the mother I suppose we can expect to see a few more women living in some permanent vegetative state after the birth of a child. Rather cruel and unusual punishment for the "sin" of having sex, enit?

I'd imagine there will be an increase in early abortions as these stories of women permanently disabled by childbirth come to public attention. I can hardly blame any woman for that sort of choice. Who wants to be the next Terry Schiavo?

[Lindacooks]

26. Most medical procedures are gruesome

That doesn't mean we have the right to deny women's access to one of them. And it doesn't matter if it's 'gruesome' or not; it's none of your damn business if a woman and her doctor decide it's necessary to save her life OR her health. That's the point.

[drdigi420]

27. INFORMED Americans do NOT favor restricting this

UNINFORMED ppl call it gruesome.

[aquart]

30. Really? Show me the language.

This operation is only used to save the life of the mother.

Where does it say that it can be done in such a circumstance?

[outinforce]

44. Really? Show Me YOUR Proof

"This operation is only used to save the life of the mother."

Really?

How do you know that?

If what you say is true and completely accurate, then there should be no problem with the fact that the recently-enacted law grants no exception to the ban in order to protect the mother's health.

Right?

[Woodstock]

41. you are one of if not the most vocal anti-choicer on this board

[outinforce]

46. I resent that!

"Anti-Choicer" indeed!

Define "anti-choicer" for me, if you will.

Does someone who says that it should be illegal to perform an abortion in the eighth month of pregnancy on a perfedtly health woman carrying a perfectly healthy fetus which poses no threat to the woman's health or life qualify, in your world, as an "anti-choicer" or not?

How dare you toss around terms like that without defining them!

And here is something for you to consider -- some friendly advice, if you will -- instead of simply calling another poster here a namee, why don't you marshall your own arguments and write them down?

[Woodstock]

48. Please allow me to elaborate

I thought it was important to clarify your position before the debate proceeded. When I said you are anti-choice, I meant that you seek to restrict a woman's reproductive rights beyond Roe v. Wade. My understanding is that you are strongly opposed to abortion in nearly all if not all cases. Please correct me if that is not or is no longer your position.

And I didn't call you a name, I characterized what I believed to be your political viewpoint using very widely known and accepted terms for the debate. Similarly, one can charactaerize someone's views as pro-civil liberties, anti-gun control, pro-women's rights, anti-environment, etc. as they apply to the individual's positions. If you prefer the term "pro-life" that is certainly your prerogative, and I believe most people would recognize that term and what it entails as well. Again, please correct me if I have mischaracterized your position.

To answer your request for my arguments - I've been writing steadily on this issue on this forum for approximately 24 hours. My views are everywhere.

D & X was an extremely rare procedure almost always used only in critical situations. It was up to the woman and her doctor, not the legsilature, to make medical decisions, as it should be. Roe v. Wade adequately addressed abortion restrictions in late term. Most people in America were fine with Roe v. Wade. This "partial birth abortion" bill was a political maneuver largely to secure religious right support that is crucial to Republican electorial victories. Women's rights are way down the list of their priorities - power and wealth is at the top of the list. This legislation will be used to make abortions in both the second and third trimester illegal. And further legislation will build on this to make abortion illegal in the first trimester. Many women will suffer and die. The men who love them and their families will suffer. Most Americans will NOT be happy about this. So the anti-choice laws will be rolled back after much trauma (and effort that could have been more wisely spent advancing our civilization on earth) and in years to come Democrats who stood firm to the platform will gain significantly from standing up for the reproductive rights that most Americans want.

And now, let me ask you this question. Do you agree with Roe v. Wade?

Roe v. Wade:

* gives American women an absolute right to an abortion in the first three months of pregnancy;

* allows some government regulation in the second trimester of pregnancy;

* declares that states may restrict or ban abortions in the last trimester as the foetus nears the point where it could live outside the womb. In this trimester a woman can obtain an abortion despite any legal ban only if doctors certify it is necessary to save her life or health.

[outinforce]

54. Assumptions and Other Stuff.

"My understanding is that you are strongly opposed to abortion in nearly all if not all cases."

Please do poiont out where I have ever said that abortion "in nearly al if not all cases" should be banned. Or where I have ever said that I am strongly opposed to abortion in all if not all cases.

"Please correct me if that is not or is no longer your position."

To reply to your request -- I've been writing steadily on this issue on this forum for several hours. I have also written many posts (as you must know, since your first post to me said that I was the most, or one of the most vocal anti-choicers on this board). My views are everywhere.

"And I didn't call you a name, I characterized what I believed to be your political viewpoint using very widely known and accepted terms for the debate."

No. You used a term that, while it may be "widely accepted" within the circles in which you travel, is offensive. It offends because it suggests that those of us who have serious problems with abortion-on-demand would deny women choices. It strikes me as little more than a "hot button" which, rather than faciliating intelligent discussion between and among adults of good will, serves only to inflame.

Nevertheless, it does seem to me that your use of the term was not intended to offend, seeing as how you sincerely state that you did not call me a name, but used a widely-used term. I would suggest to you that to the extent you wish to engage in serious discussion (as opposed to nasty flame-throwing) with people whose opinions about abortion in general and PBA or D&X more specifically, that you refrain from calling them "anti-choicers". I do not refer to people whose opinion about abortion differ from mine as "pro-abortionist" precisely becasue I understand that that term is offensive and overly broad when it comes to people's views on abortion.

[Hep]

4. I'm worked up because

you are using the language offered up by the right.

[outinforce]

14. And Which

"I'm worked up because you are using the language offered up by the right."

And which language is that?

[Skinner]

7. I disagree, sort of.

I think this is a calculated effort with the specific goal of undermining Roe v. Wade. They insisted that there be no exceptions for the health or life of the mother precisely because it is unconstitutional. Their intent is to get an abortion case to the supreme court which does not have an exception for the life or health of the mother. Their hope is that the justices will decide that this procedure is so "barbaric" that the mother's life or health is not relevant.

If the Court upholds the law, then they have a legal precident that the life-or-health exception is not absolute. They can then use that precident to attack other abortion laws which have exceptions for the life or health of the mother.

This is part of a long legal strategy. The goal is to eventually undermine and eliminate one of the central pillars of Roe v. Wade.

If they passed a "partial birth" abortion law which they knew was constitutional, then there would be no point. Their goal is the destruction of Roe v. Wade.

[denverbill]

12. Well, I can't believe the Supreme Court could possibly uphold that.

"Their hope is that the justices will decide that this procedure is so "barbaric" that the mother's life or health is not relevant."

If the mother dies, in most cases, the fetus will as well. Instead of saving one constitutionally protected life, you are forcing a woman to risk her own life for the sake of a fetus which may or may not survive.

[Skinner]

33. I think overturning the exception for the life of the mother is unlikely.

But I think it is entirely possible that the could would significantly restrict or even eliminate the exception for the health of the mother.

[Skinner]

35. Clarification about the Bill the Senate just passed.

I just read in the paper that it does not allow an exception for the health of the mother. But it does allow an exception for the life of the mother.

[denverbill]

43. I must say that seems a bit vague to me.

It allows exceptions to protect the mother's life, but not her health. I just can't see any circumstances where someone's health could suffer, but which posed no risk to their life.

Pregnancy in itself constitutes a risk to a woman's life. Virtually any complication to a pregnancy dramatically increases the risk to her life. Even if the risk of death is only 1 in 1,000,000, it's still an additional risk.

[MojoKrunch]

53. They have no problem with women suffering.

And that oughta tell ya something, right there.

Mojo

[outinforce]

17. You May Be Correct, But

You may be correct here skinner. In fact, there are no doubt some legal beagles working to have Roe v. Wade overturned in its entirity.

But I doubt that they have really thought their position through very well. And that is because overturning Roe V. Wade will mean that states will be free to enact laws allowing abortion. Much like what was going on in the early 1970's. Abortions were legal in certain (but not all) states.

There are a growing number of folks who realize that abortions will come down when people understand what is destoyed in an abortion. In the case of this procedure, something that looks very much like a baby is destroyed. THAT is the point. FOr some, it is an effort to reduce abortions be reminding people that abortion does not destroy some lifeless matter that is not human.

[zoidberg]

21. But this bill doesn't undermine Roe v. Wade

Roe v. Wade specifically allows the prohibition of abortions after the third trimester. I don't see how this differs from Roe v. Wade at all.

[Skinner]

32. I don't think that's exactly right.

My understanding is that, as you say, Roe v. Wade does allow the prohibition of abortions after the third trimester. However, it requires an exception for the life and health of the mother.

This bill would allow an exception for the life of the mother, but not for the health.

(If any DU constitutional scholars know differently, please let us know. Last time I was in Con Law class was junior year of college.)

[MojoKrunch]

59. Not a Constitutional Scholar but I play one online.

And you are correct.

The SCOTUS struck down a Nevada law a few years back, IIRC, that banned "PBA's" because it didn't include the "life and health" exemption and they will undoubtedly strike this one down.

"Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) the Court (5-4) upheld a 24-hour waiting period, an informed consent requirement, a parental consent provision for minors and a recordkeeping requirement, while striking down the spousal notice requirement of a Pennsylvania statute. Invoking stare decisis, the political need for judicial credibility and a consistent Constitutional vision, the Court's middle wing (O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter), while retaining the "central holding" of Roe v. Wade, overturned its trimester framework and its "strict scrutiny" standard of review, in favor of a new "undue burden" standard, proposed by Justice O'Connor, and a floating viability line where the state's interest in fetal life becomes "compelling." Blackmun and Stevens both dissented in part, favoring upholding more of Roe. Chief Justice Rehnquist, with Justices White, Scalia and Thomas, dissented, arguing that Roe had no Constitutional basis and ought to be overturned and that the "rational basis" standard should be applied to uphold the statute. The dissenter's reasoned that if Roe was wrongly decided, there is no way to justify upholding it. Scalia also authored a dissenting opinion in which Rehnquist, White, and Thomas joined. Crucial to the survival of Roe in this case was O'Connor and Kennedy's decision to retreat from their prior holdings that the state's interest in protecting non-viable fetal life was "compelling." O'Connor's "undue burden" standard is a pragmatic compromise, allowing limited (and politically popular) state regulation of abortion, yet effectively preserving the general access to abortion that was the goal of Roe."
http://hometown.aol.com/abtrbng/roeins.htm

Mojo

[Arkady]

36. Planned Parenthood v. Casey

Roe v. Wade specifically allows the prohibition of abortions after the third trimester

I think you're talking about Planned Parenthood v. Casey, but I could be wrong.

On Edit: Whoops, Casey is the case that actually got rid of the trimester standard. My bad. See my post below.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

13. This is one step toward overturning Roe v. Wade

They have politicized a medical procedure-which is only performed if the mother's life is endangered-and relabeled it 'partial-birth abortion'. My sister-in-law would have died from severe complications had this procedure not been available, and left five little orphans under 7 years old.

I think you give a lot of these judges too much credit. Judging from some of the posts on other threads about the ban, the child's life is worth more than the mother's. And if a case comes before a judge with this belief system, then the woman is doomed. Bear in mind that a lot of judges these days have been appointed by Repukes.

[denverbill]

16. This exact same Supreme Court banned a very similary law in 2000.

AFAIK, it hasn't gotten any more conservative.

They would be absolutely out of their minds to attempt to enforce a law which, in one sentence, declares PB abortion to be 'never medically necessary' but later exempts medically necessary cases.

Personally, I have absolutely no doubt this law is DOA at any court in the country, give or take the nutcase in Georgia with the 10 commandments.

[outinforce]

19. It's Alabama

Not Georgia.

Are you as careful with your facts concerning this bill as you are with "nutcases" in the South?

[denverbill]

22. Whoop-de-f*ng do.

Instead of worrying about the completely irrelevant, why don't you stick to replying to my reply to you above regarding the ACTUAL text of the bill.

Does it really make any damned difference if the judge is in Alabama vs Georgia?

If the pukies have found pb abortion to NEVER be medically necessary, which they mentioned no less than 3 times in the text of the bill, what the hell good does it do to exempt medically necessary cases, huh? Speak up.

[drdigi420]

31. It's Georgia too

please try to keep up

[LeahMira]

20. Exactly!

Judging from some of the posts on other threads about the ban, the child's life is worth more than the mother's.

And apparently the potential life of a fetus is of more worth than the life of a woman. When did we get to the point where the life of a woman is of so little value?

[Kathy in Cambridge]

24. LeahMira, check out this thread in GD

It's where the idea that the fetus' life is worth more than the mother's was put forth by a poster.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=569302#569316

[northzax]

55. well, is it a male child, or a female child

because the Husband (who owns both the Child and the Vessel) can then make an informed decision about which piece of his property he is willing to risk. Obviously a male child, especially a first born son, is going to be worth more than any woman. After all, you can always find another wife, but first born children are hard to come by. And if it's the third girl? well then the woman isn't much use for child-birthing anyway, so you might as well try your luck with the child.

[northzax]

56. if you needed a sarcasm tag

then you take things way to literally.

[spooky3]

23. Similar bans have lost in the courts 21 of 21 times.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20031022/pl_usatoday/11915835

[lapislzi]

29. Meanwhile, they keep the issue fresh

...keep the meme "partial-birth abortion" (a fallacy) on the front pages, control the debate, and divert everyone's attention from the boondoggle in the middle east, traitorgate, unemployment (shall I go on?)

Sure, the Supremes will overturn it (I hope)...and Scalia will have yet another opportunity for one of his blistering diatribes.

It's not about the procedure. It's just politics as usual.

[Snellius]

34. Too bad you're not Barbara Boxer, denverbill

She and Harkin did a pretty lame job of defending the right to choose. They just went through the motions of what they obviously knew was a losing cause.

[Arkady]

37. Planned Parenthood v. Casey

One thing people don't realize is that Roe is not the most recent case on abortion and that the trimester system is no longer relevant. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, SCOTUS reaffirmed the validity of a woman's right to choose abortion under Roe v. Wade, but revoked its definition of that abortion right as "fundamental." The court constructed a new standard of review that allows restrictions on abortion prior to fetal viability so long as they do not constitute an "undue burden" to the woman.

[Woodstock]

39. I wish I were as optimistic as you

I just donated some more money to NARAL and Planned Parenthood. This will be a big fight.

From http://www.counterpunch.org:

The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade makes abortions in the first and second trimesters legal. Third trimester abortions are banned except to protect the health or save the life of the mother. The new law, expected to be signed by Bush immediately, in effect makes third trimester abortions illegal altogether, and may do the same for some second trimester abortions.

[Mairead]

49. Ann Telnaes on the subject

[UnapologeticLiberal]

57. They are hoping that by the time it reaches SCOTUS

O'Connor will have retired and been replaced with a right wing extremist.

[denverbill]

58. Well, ya know, that decision will then last about 2 years.

And during that two years, some woman, someone's wife and daughter and maybe mother, is going to be faced with a decision of living with a pba or dying without one.

And when the American public finds out that somebody died because they could not get this procedure, they will be up in arms.