BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion

Subject: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 08:14 PM

Today, the Supreme court issued what both sides are calling "the most significant ruling on abortion since Roe v. Wade"

It upholds a ban on 'partial-birth abortions' without making any exception for the health of the mother.

The decision was 5-4, with the expected jurists on each side.

...and so it begins....

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: pdq
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 08:29 PM

"without making any exception for the health of the mother"

As far as I can tell, the standard was raised to "threat to the life of the woman"

BTW, your use of the word mother seems a bit premature, does it not?

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Peace
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 08:30 PM

"The decision enforces the law that prohibits the procedure of partially extracting a fetus 20 weeks or older intact from a woman's uterus and then crushing or cutting its skull before it is fully delivered."

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Sorcha
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 08:40 PM

Seems reasonable to me. Surely the mother's life won't be too at stake after 20 weeks?

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Rapparee
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 09:08 PM

As I remember, the original decision in Roe v. Wade only applied to the first trimester. Nothing was said about anything after that.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 10:36 PM

True true

but new words have been added... they are "unfettered choice"

A physician may not have unfettered choice!

"Unfettered choice" removes a certain degree of authourity by a physician. Now the courts will be able to fill the void and choose a proper medical determination of their own. A doctors decision is now legally diminished.

In other words the court has set itself up to fetter away and second guess doctors.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 11:13 PM

" A doctors decision is now legally diminished."

That is precisely the case....which is cause for rejoicing by one side and alarm by the other side. It is hard to predict exactly what will happen next, but the 'rejoicing' side is pushing for even MORE constraints.

Their goal seems to be to remove the doctor's decision from 'most' decisions and substitute their 'moral' view......and now they think they have the votes to do it.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 11:33 PM

An excellent essay from the perspective of a woman who had a second trimester abortion: "Why I Chose Abortion".

I am left wondering now what the exact text of the Act is, now that the term "partial birth abortion" has been invented -- what does it actually cover? How broadly will that ruling be interpreted?

~ Becky in Tucson
seriously bummed out about it, is my response, in case that's not clear

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 11:34 PM

Well, that was hard -- here's the text of Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 11:38 PM

Although an introductory paragraph is fairly graphic and specific, the following text is the formal definition, which seems like it could be more broadly interpreted. See the essay that I linked above.

CHAPTER 74 -- PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS
"Sec.
"1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited

§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 date of enactment of this chapter.

       (b) As used in this section --

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

                   (A) the person performing the abortion 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 theperson 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

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Sorcha
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 11:53 PM

OK, I stand very corrected after reading Desert Dancer/Becky's link. See? It IS possible to change someone's mind.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Bert
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 11:56 PM

Oh dear!

An abortion is a tragedy which ever way you look at it. What a terrible decision for a mother to have to make.

There are three women that I love dearly who have had abortions for different reasons. Each one of them went through agonies trying to finalise the decison. Each one of them is a beautiful caring woman.

I can't believe that any of them made the wrong decision.

I CAN believe that the decision was their's and their's alone.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 03:24 AM

Not just in the East you find mad mullahs.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: catspaw49
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 05:45 AM

It goes beyond abortion.   I think the key here and what we willl have to do in the future, as it now seems, is to issue firearms to make sure every baby can fend off attacks of the others.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Bee
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 07:14 AM

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-scotus19apr19,1,3100072.story?track=crosspromo&coll=la-headlines-frontpage&

Ginsburg, the court's only woman, called Wednesday's decision "alarming."

It "cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this court," she said.

She said this dispute was about how, not whether, abortions would be performed during the second trimester. Despite Kennedy's talk of "promoting fetal life," the ban on the procedure "targets only a method of abortion," she said. "The woman may abort the fetus, so long as her doctor uses another method, one her doctor judges less safe for her."

She also called the decision demeaning to women. It "pretends" to protect them "by denying them any choice in the matter," she said.

Bad decision, bad for women, bad for doctors. The fact that the health of the mother (only her life) is no longer a defensible reason for choosing a medical procedure is chilling. A doctor who decides her life is in danger may use the procedure, but now faces after-the-fact legal difficulties in defending the decision.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 09:02 AM

And it some dizzy idiot like Fred Thompson gets elected in 2008, what will happen?

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: katlaughing
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 10:42 AM

Becky, thanks for the links. I found the following esp. interesting from the article (my emphasis):

Once the president signed the act -- the first federal ban on any abortion procedure in the 30 years since Roe v. Wade, and the first ban on a surgical technique in the history of this country --

But the language of the law was less clear. Essentially, legislators invented a previously nonexistent medical term -- "partial-birth abortion" -- and then banned it. By giving it a purposely vague definition, the term could feasibly apply to all abortions after the first trimester, including my own.

Legislators also made no mention of fetal viability (the point at which a fetus can live independently of its mother for an extended period of time) or gestational age. There were no exceptions for a fetus with severe birth defects incompatible with life (many of which cannot be detected until well into the second trimester). Nor for a mother who would be forced to have, for example, a kidney transplant or hysterectomy if she continued with the pregnancy.

I've said it before and I still feel this way, no man has a right to decide what a woman will do with her body and that includes the men in our government.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: pdq
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 01:14 PM

I you want the facts,

                  please read this

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 01:29 PM

those are 'some' facts...not ALL the facts.....nicely arranged and presented by an avowed opponent of all abortion.

I would not have expected anything else from a site entitled "priestsforlife"
...obviously, opinions can differ about relevance and interpretation, and that's the point.

There 'could' be a simple rule...If YOU don't believe in abortions, don't have one, but don't presume to decide for all others in all situations.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Bee
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 01:29 PM

pdq, I can assure you that a woman dying of septicemia, or haemmoraging to death, is every bit as gruesome as those pictures, and may very well be one result of this new ban. Go read some of the testimonies of women whose lives were in the balance except for this procedure.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: pdq
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 01:38 PM

"Go read some of the testimonies of women whose lives were in the balance except for this procedure.

That is precisely why there is an exemption provided for "lives in the balance".

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Amos
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 01:48 PM

To play the devil's advocate, the introductory sections of the bill make it clear that the bill constrains only a particular kind of procedure because it so close, technically to th ekilling of a born child. The routine induces vaginal birth and interrupts it with insertion of a sharp object into the brain case of the foetus just before it is delivered. I can understand that the difference between such a foetus and a delivered baby seems so marginal as to be a quibble.

The document also actually reaffirms the right to abortion defined by Roe v. Wade.

The moral whirlwind surrounding these issues has what I think is an interesting boundary condition: no-one who defends abortion would defend the right to terminate the life of a born child. Technically, doing so is an act of murder. The instant of parturition grants the child the Consittutional rights of personhood. (Parents sometimes take a while to catch up with this recognition, but that's understandable!) :)

I am not a medical expert, but if you have a viable if premature foetus on the border of being born, is there medical risk to the mother in putting it in an incubator rather than terminating it? AFAIK the threat to individual health is the continuation of the pregnancy, not the survival of the foetus into babyhood.

All this said, I am concerned about the right of the Federal government to pre-empt the choices of both mother and medical professional under any circumstances. I think it's a thorny and convoluted issue, though.

A

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 03:11 PM

Its a downhill slope.      watch Jesus Camp



Just like when you remove only a little part of habeous corpus,
things like rendition, torture and secret tribunals start slipping downhill like glassy ice sliding down a teflon mountain covered with WD-40

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Bee
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 09:36 PM

Amos, often, where this extreme procedure is used in the third trimester, it is not dealing with a viable baby, but one which might possibly live minutes or days. Often it was a desired pregnancy where something has gone terribly wrong. Now that this procedure is banned, doctors will use the other procedure, a version of dilation and currettage, which is not banned, as far as I can tell, essentially reaching into the uterus multiple times with instruments to remove the fetus piecemeal, thus putting the mother more at risk because of the invasiveness and danger of cutting the mother's tissue.

"Pro-lifers" often seem oblivious to the physical realities of pregnancy. They read 'fetus', they think 'adorable baby', but not every pregnancy is successful, terrible things can happen, non-survivable deformities, a ten pound fetus dead in the womb, killer infections. Doctors in these cases must make choices based on their education and experience. Now, one choice is gone, and they must be feeling very cautious about other procedures that closely resemble it.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Amos
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 09:42 PM

So the burden has been placed on the doctor to remove the foetus entire and try to resuscitate it even where doing so is technically futile?   I don't see where the removal part is forbidden -- just the near-removal and kill version. Or am I missing something about this bill?

A

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Ref
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 10:11 PM

Let's see. Picture President Gore nominating Roberts, Alito, or anyone remotely like them to the Supreme Court? Thanks AGAIN, Ralph!

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: kendall
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 08:10 AM

Clearly it's the camel's nose under the tent.

Ringslinger, why do you call Thompson a "dizzy idiot"?

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 10:55 AM

"Ringslinger, why do you call Thompson a "dizzy idiot"?"

          Sorry. I guess he just reminds me of Ronald Reagan.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: kendall
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 11:32 AM

Same political philosophy, but, Reagan struck me as vacuous, shallow, lying two bit second rate actor. If it comes down to Hillary or Thompson, no contest. I'd rather have a republican in the White House than a foul mouth witch.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 11:53 AM

trade the word life for health and the word woman for mother and everythings OK.

The life of the woman is now more of a court decision than a doctor's decision. Perhaps depending on what value the court places on the life of the "mother" they will rule for the child's lfe to come first.

After all the child might be a BOY!

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 12:38 PM

"If it comes down to Hillary or Thompson,"

       It doesn't seem like we get much of a choice anymore.

          Where did the politicians and the court get a license to practice medicine in the first place?

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 12:44 PM

I don't care what a partial birth abortion is or what it entails. Meaningless chatter really. The question is, if the mother's life is in danger by delivering a baby such that the baby can be delivered but the mother will die or the mother can be saved but the baby will die, who gets to make that choice?

I say the parents first off. It should be something they've already discussed so the decision should be settled already. If neither is capable of making the choice for some reason, it should be up to the doctor and he should base his decision on which has a better chance to survive--mother or infant.

It should not be up to a court at all. It should never reach a court. It should never have to go that far. It's a personal matter between the couple and their doctor. The baby doesn't get a vote--sorry--and neither should anyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Bee
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 02:03 PM

282RA, I hope it would be a rare case where the fetus life took precedence over the mother's. The couple's decision? I've known men who think so little of their wives that they would want a male heir saved instead of the wife, and an exhausted, likely drugged and confused woman is in no shape to make any such decision regarding her own life. The woman's life must always take precedence above all else. The only circumstance I can think of where a living mother might be put at risk to save her infant would be the case of a permanently braindead woman who has no chance of recovery anyway. I believe there was a case like this in the past five years.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 07:01 PM

Wouldn't it actually be less dangerous to the mother in these cases to go through with the birth without messing with procecure, and then to kill the baby?

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: pdq
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 07:20 PM

Great question. Answer is yes, but then you would have to call it infanticide. Abortion fans are just playing word games.

Seems that people can claim that the child was not really born since a portion of it's body is still in the birth canal when it is killed.

The term 'partial birth abortion' allows a healthy baby of 8 1/2 months to be killed without calling the act 'infanticide', but that's what it is.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: frogprince
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 07:34 PM

I am willing to make one prediction. Within a few months, at most, some physician will make an honest, competent decision that this procedure is essential for the safety of a woman's life, and will then be dragged into court to defend his action because someone with less medical competence disagrees.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Amos
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 07:35 PM

I think that is an extreme -- even exagerrated -- description.


A

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: kendall
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 07:36 AM

How often is this "partial birth abortion" performed? Seems to me that the very phrase is inflammatory.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 10:41 AM

The phrase is inflammatory. That's not really what it's called. The right-wing crazies call it that to get just the reaction you describe. And as I understand it, it's very rare.

                It has a clinical name that I can't remember, which is probably why so many people call it PBA.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Peace
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 07:06 PM

It is sometimes called late-term abortion. (BUT, what late-term means is up in the air. For some it's 13-16 weeks and it goes as far as the third trimester at 27 weeks

"A total of 103,768 abortions were performed in 2003 [in Canada]"

The number of late-term abortions was 9.5% or 9,859. That figure is not insignificant. If the general 10-1 ratio holds true (as so often it does with the US and Canada), then there were approximately 98,590 late-term abortions in the US. Folks, that is one helluva lotta lives.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: katlaughing
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 08:14 PM

Here are some research numbers from an article at NPR:

According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, an abortion-rights research group that conducts surveys of the nation's abortion doctors, about 15,000 abortions were performed in the year 2000 on women 20 weeks or more along in their pregnancies; the vast majority were between the 20th and 24th week. Of those, only about 2,200 D&X abortions were performed, or about 0.2 percent of the 1.3 million abortions believed to be performed that year.

And contrary to the claims of some abortion opponents, most such abortions do not take place in the third trimester of pregnancy, or after fetal "viability." Indeed, when some members of Congress tried to amend the bill to ban only those procedures that take place after viability, abortion opponents complained that would leave most of the procedures legal.

Some interesting comments from an article by the executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women:

ccording to Kennedy, failing to reverse the unanimous rulings of three lower federal courts, all finding the abortion ban unconstitutional, would risk repudiating "that the government has a legitimate and substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life."

The decision thus has grave implications for all pregnant women, not only those seeking to end pregnancies. If the government can choose to advance fetal interests over the pregnant woman's health in the context of abortion, why can't so-called "fetal rights" prevail in the context of birth?

In fact, this argument is already being used to justify court-ordered Cesarean sections in cases where physicians believe that a c-section will prove more beneficial to the fetus (this despite the fact that c-sections constitute major surgery and pose increased health risks to the pregnant woman and in some cases the fetus as well). True, most courts so far rule that such interventions unconstitutionally strip women of their civil and human rights, including bodily integrity, informed medical decision-making, liberty, and, in one case, life itself. In that case, later reversed by an appellate court, both the woman and her baby died after a forced c-section ordered to protect fetal life.

But at least one federal court has said that sending police to a woman's home, taking her into custody while in active labor and near delivery, strapping her legs together and her body down to transport her against her will to a hospital, and then forcing her, without access to counsel or court review to undergo major surgery constituted no violation of her civil rights at all. The rationale? If the state can limit women's access to abortions after viability, it can subject her to the lesser state intrusion of insisting on one method of delivery over another.

AND:


Yesterday President Bush said, "The Supreme Court's decision is an affirmation of the progress we have made over the past six years in protecting human dignity and upholding the sanctity of life. We will continue to work for the day when every child is welcomed in life and protected in law."

And yet the Bush administration is actively supporting policies to limit poor children's access to state child health insurance programs. In short, the Court's decision in Gonzales v. Carhart -- and Bush's professed support for it -- reinforces the sense, once again, that only the unborn deserve protection in this country. Not by ensuring universal health care, paid maternity leave, or an end to workplace pregnancy discrimination -- only by restricting pregnant women's access to health care.

Anyway, as I said before, men have no business legislating women's bodies AND a body of mostly men, i.e. Congress, has fuckall right to take ANY medical decisions out of the hands of doctors and their patients.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Peace
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 09:21 PM

Stats on abortion world-wide and in the USA from 1997.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: robomatic
Date: 22 Apr 07 - 12:09 AM

My Late Term Abortion

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: katlaughing
Date: 22 Apr 07 - 12:35 AM

Those 1997 numbers were before the shrub signed the anti-D&X law in 2003. Way out of date.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Peace
Date: 22 Apr 07 - 12:37 AM

Yeah. And . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: katlaughing
Date: 22 Apr 07 - 01:01 AM

More up-to-date stats are HERE.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 22 Apr 07 - 06:56 AM

I don't always agree with you Kat, but may I on this one?

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Apr 07 - 07:25 PM

Is choice actually the right word to use when it's conditioned by economic pressures? As reflected in those stats kat linked to there.

It has struck me for a long time that it would be much more sensible if sincere people on both sides in this argument could focus their attention on ways of removing the pressures that push many women into having abortion when they would sooner give birth.

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Apr 07 - 08:20 PM

I believe that the current Supreme Court is very apt to cast enough out-of-step decisions over the next 2 years to insure that the Republicans will be swept from office for a very long time...

Not that I like the alternative much but....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: New Supreme court decision on abortion
From: Peace
Date: 22 Apr 07 - 10:56 PM

"It has struck me for a long time that it would be much more sensible if sincere people on both sides in this argument could focus their attention on ways of removing the pressures that push many women into having abortion when they would sooner give birth."

It struck me for a long time that it would be more sensible yet if couples would use birth control effectively and not have an unwanted pregnancy to begin with.