What is The pResident's and the AAPI's Unconstitutional bill S3?

[Eileen]

(for those unfamiliar with this acronym Anti Abortion Propaganda Industry (AAPI)

---

Bill S3 which pResident GW Bush signed this week, despite its obvious unconstitutionality, has had a great deal of false and misleading iformation included in newspapers and internet sources which discuss it. This is an effort to provide a clearer picture of this bill and why it presents a grave danger to women and the physicians who treat them - a danger which federal judges in Nebraska, New York, and California have clearly recognized in instituting their stay on the adoption of the provisions of the bill essentially throughout all states.

What this bill, S3, is NOT.

It is NOT a ban on a late term abortion procedure despite the number of headlines that make that claim. The only reference in the bill to a gestation age is "usually after 20 weeks" but this does not mean abortions before 20 weeks are not also included. Since 99.9% of all abortions currently are performed before the third trimester - which means before the Late Term - and those performed after that point are for severe fetal anomaly or to protect the woman's physical health and hopefully could still be justified - this is therefore NOT a ban on Late Term Abortions but on Mid Term Abortions (and possibly some early term abortions also).

It is NOT a ban on D&X abortions performed late term. The D&X procedure as described by Dr Haskell is not the preferred procedure after the mid term because it is too difficult a procedure and therefore virtually unused late term (except where very special circumstances exist, for example with a very small fetus it might be possible).

It is NOT a ban on D&X, which does not involve labor induction, and labor induction is what the bill uses as its justification for claiming that it relates to 'partial birth' since labor - and therefore birth - has started.

It is NOT a ban on any known abortion procedure since there is no known abortion procedure that fits the description in the bill although elements of several abortion procedures meet elements of the bill's description.

What it COULD ban.

If - during a first trimester, a 9 week abortion for example, - the suction curette removes a single leg and a part of the hip and trunk, there would now be justification in saying "part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother" as the act states, and therefore continuing the abortion procecure would be considered a "partial birth abortion" (and of course not continuing the abortion would endanger the woman's life - catch 22).

A classic D&E abortion procedure - which is the most common procedure used after 14 weeks - could commonly and quite easily also meet the requirement that "part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother" and therefore could be prohibited by this act.

D&X involving a fetus that is longer than the vagina would meet this definition also.

In a head first removal using the classic D&E procedure the visible head may be crushed using surgical compressors and then removed and this act would meet the interpretation that - "in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother" - while the heart continues beating by reflex action so the balance of the fetus might be considered 'live' by an activist DA willing to prosecute the physician.

Every one of these descriptions refer to methods used before viability - or before the fetus could possible live independent of the woman - so any type of removal of such a fetus would result in death. In fact the reference in the legislation to 20 weeks indicates that there is no attempt to confine this ban to sentient and aware fetuses only. If fetal death was caused by natural circumstances rather than induced abortion we would refer to this as a miscarriage, or perhaps spontaneous abortion, (or in some states stillbirth if the fetus was large enough). This means that physicians who assist women during such a natural unfortunate end to her pregnancy may find themselves under scrutiny and perhaps in legal jeopardy as a result of this bill.

Since there is no provision for an abortion preserving the health of the woman from danger this means, to put it bluntly, that the bill endangers the lives of women unnecessarily and shows reckless disregard for the well being of women.

The bill does not deal with the degree of fetal anomaly for which the abortion may be performed and therefore forces as an alternative, possibly, labor induction and delivery - also possibly after full term pregnancy - on a woman with an anencephalic (no brain) fetus which will never even see the light of day or feel the world outside of the uterus and the woman must endure possibly the last 22 weeks of pregnancy knowing this is the future.

Let us hope what is covered by S3 is now a little clearer. This bill is not dangerous to women and physicians because of what it does not ban but because of what interpretations of the bill COULD be used to ban. In fact the bill is an attack on every abortion performed after the fetal stage or in other words after 60 days gestation.

Justice O'Connor - in the Steinberg v Carhart, Nebraska, decision that S3 was modelled on - said:

Nebraska’s statute is unconstitutional on the alternative and independent ground that it imposes an undue burden on a woman’s right to choose to terminate her pregnancy before viability. Nebraska’s ban covers not just the dilation and extraction (D&X) procedure, but also the dilation and evacuation (D&E) procedure, “the most commonly used method for performing pre viability second trimester abortions.” ... By proscribing the most commonly used method for pre viability second trimester abortions, the statute creates a “substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion,” and therefore imposes an undue burden on a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy prior to viability."

This describes S3 also. S3 clearly goes far beyond the banning of "a certain late term abortion procedure" as claimed by the bills supporters and this sham must not be allowed to stand and so endanger the lives of women.

A list of further deficiencies and unclear terms is also to be found in the complaint presentation by CRLP in the Nebraska court, which led to the first stay just an hour after the pResident signed the bill. You'll find a PDF copy of that presentation - here. -

- Eileen`s always in process page -

Eileen