As I said in my (above) post:
1.) NARAL didn't oppose this bill (now law) b/c . . . it didn't and doesn't impede a woman's right to an abortion.
2.) A fetus is not "person" unless fully born alive. If a person then state(s) and federal constitutions grants all the rights and privileges as any other "natural person."
Thus, this new law doesn't change existing law other than subject potential extra burdens on M.D.s and hospitals re record keeping and investigations which, in turn, may kick-in potential CYA actions on the part on M.D.s and hospitals._______________________________________________All of the above is correct, in law. However, I shall try to break it down further:
National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) didn't object to this bill as it was going through congress because
it does not interfere with a woman's right to an abortion. Therefore, a woman may
still obtain an abortion as if this law does not exist.
So what impact does this law have? This law attempts to
force hospitals, clinics, and M.D.s (who do obstetrics and gynecological services including abortions) to perform certain acts if there is a "being" (call it what you will) which is "born alive" during their performance of service of obstetrics, gynecology including abortion services.
The new law then goes on to define what is "born alive:"
"the term `born alive'. . . means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion" (italicized and red colored emphasis by TaleWgnDg)
(1 U.S.C. 1, § 8 in pertinent part)
(http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:5:./temp/~c107qihdTR:: Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate, H.R. 2175) and http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/1/chapters/1/sections/section_8.html (1 U.S.C. 1, § 8)
This is the only part of the law that is new. The "born alive" part of this law then states it attaches to all other federal laws where the word "person" "individual" "child" or "human being" is used.
What does that mean? It means that
if during an abortion or other obstetrical "delivery" services a "born alive" (as defined above) occurs then healthcare providers, hospitals, clinics, or M.D.s must use all medical means necessary to sustain the "alive" status of that "born alive" being.
What effect will it have? Nothing to the mother, other than she may have to sustain the burden of having a vegetative state "born alive" being as will the healthcare providers, hospitals, clinics and M.D.s who perform obstetrical, gynecological and abortion services.
In other words, it's like Warpy said above in her post: it will cost more money. And as I said in my above post: this new law doesn't change existing law other than subject potential extra burdens on M.D.s and hospitals re record keeping and investigations which, in turn, may kick-in potential CYA (cover your ass) actions on the part on M.D.s and hospitals.
After all, as you indicated the rightwingnutcases will try ANYthing in order to stop all abortions. BTW, this "vegetative state" sound similar to Terri Schiavo? It should, because it is.