Supreme Court OKs abortion procedure ban

[Amuse Bouche]

Why am I not at all surprised by how the vote went down?

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court's conservative majority handed anti-abortion forces a major victory Wednesday in a decision that bans a controversial abortion procedure and set the stage for further restrictions.

For the first time since the court established a woman's right to an abortion in 1973, the justices upheld a nationwide ban on a specific abortion method, labeled partial-birth abortion by its opponents.

The 5-4 decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070418/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_abortion

[ysolde]

This is so scary! A woman in a coma must now remain in a coma, even if an intact D&E is determined by her doctor to be the best medical course of action for her. Why? Because politicians have said so. Good to know my medical treatment is now in the hands of a bunch of politicians with a religious agenda that diverges from my own.

[MichelleRenee]

The procedure at issue involves partially removing the fetus intact from a woman's uterus, then crushing or cutting its skull to complete the abortion.

I am glad they banned it. That has to be the sickest thing I have ever read. I am sure whoever invented that procedure is or will be rotting in hell.

[kam]

This is so scary! A woman in a coma must now remain in a coma, even if an intact D&E is determined by her doctor to be the best medical course of action for her. Why? Because politicians have said so. Good to know my medical treatment is now in the hands of a bunch of politicians with a religious agenda that diverges from my own.

It bears repeating, I see.

[ignutzz]

So this woman, along with her twins, would be dead:
http://www.barryyeoman.com/articles/gina.html

How nice of them.

[ysolde]

I think this bears noting, because it is the story of so many women who have intact D& Es

I'd had an intact dilation and evacuation (D&E), in which the fetuses were removed whole. It makes so much sense: If you can give a grieving mother a baby to hold afterward, you give her a more healing way to end a wanted pregnancy.


http://www.barryyeoman.com/articles/gina.html

[heather1029]

So this woman, along with her twins, would be dead:
http://www.barryyeoman.com/articles/gina.html

How nice of them.

I don't think she would be dead because the law allows the procedure if a woman's life was in danger.

This is at the very bottom of that [very spun] article that the OP posted:

"While the court upheld the law against a broad attack on its constitutionality, Kennedy said the court could entertain a challenge in which a doctor found it necessary to perform the banned procedure on a patient suffering certain medical complications.

The law allows the procedure to be performed when a woman's life is in jeopardy. "

(bolding mine)

[dionysia]

I am glad they banned it. That has to be the sickest thing I have ever read. I am sure whoever invented that procedure is or will be rotting in hell.

Well, the doctors who perform this procedure (and I'd bet the one who developed it) certainly don't do so because they are sadists.

Di

[HeatherFL]

I am an Atheist completley for separation of Church and State. I do not want religion involved in our government. However, based on my own personal beliefs and on the *fact* that science agrees an embryo is a living thing-whether you refer to it as cells, a baby or an embryo-it is a living entity which will become a human life if allowed to thrive (thus the study of embryology); I am glad to see this passed. I am not for making all abortions illegal despite my personal beliefs, but as far as partial birth abortion, I think this ban should have been done awhile ago. As heather1029 has pointed out-there will be recourse if physicians find it medically necessary to terminate the pregnancy so late-term. If a woman wants an abortion, *to me* it shouldn't be just before she is about to give birth. (disclaimer: I get that others do not agree and I won't get into an abortion debate. Just *my* personal opinoin.)

~H.

[tlew12778]

I don't know... in other countries this procedure is not allowed and they can still manage to terminate 2nd trimester if they have to. Essentially, they inject something into the womb to cause termination, then delivery the babies.

[ysolde]

Just to clarify, no one is having abortions just before they give birth (that doesn't even make sense, really, but I'll elt it go as poetic license). When a viable live birth is an option, it is generally a much safer and easier alternative simply to induce labor or to schedule a c-section, something many, many women choose.

[Amuse Bouche]

It was an AP article. It's not like I got it off of the NAF website. Just sayin.

[ysolde]

I don't think she would be dead because the law allows the procedure if a woman's life was in danger.

This is at the very bottom of that [very spun] article that the OP posted:

"While the court upheld the law against a broad attack on its constitutionality, Kennedy said the court could entertain a challenge in which a doctor found it necessary to perform the banned procedure on a patient suffering certain medical complications.

The law allows the procedure to be performed when a woman's life is in jeopardy. "

(bolding mine)

Yes, but not when a woman's health is in jeopardy.

[heather1029]

It was an AP article. It's not like I got it off of the NAF website. Just sayin.

I'm not pointing a finger at you.

AP spins stuff just as much as anyone else. They just do it more sneakily.;)

[HeatherFL]

no one is having abortions just before they give birth
Then why the need for this act in the first place? I think I get what you mean, though.

I am not being sarcastic. Are you saying women only have this done shortly before giving birth or going into labor because they then find out their lives are in jeopardy? I'd be interested to get some recent numbers on this.

ETA: Have found this:


Conditional Support
Poll: Thirty Years After Roe vs. Wade, American Support Is Conditional

Analysis
By Dalia Sussman

Most Oppose Partial Birth Abortions

With control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, it's expected the Republicans will move to ban "partial-birth" abortions, also known as dilation and extraction abortions. Congress has twice before passed such measures, both vetoed by then-President Clinton. President Bush has said he would sign the bill.

The 69 percent in this poll who say partial-birth abortions shouldn't be legal takes in majorities across demographic groups, including 60 percent of Democrats and 63 percent of liberals.
Full article here. (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/abortion_poll030122.html)




~H.

[heather1029]

The story above about "Gina" would not be a good example of health being in danger. They did not say her life was in danger. They didn't even say definitively that her health was in danger. All the article said was, "My doctor also confirmed that Savanna's illness could trigger a rare syndrome in me: I was mirroring some of her symptoms and retaining fluids. My body was extremely swollen and I could hardly walk. If I continued the pregnancy, I could put my own health at risk too. "

(bolding mine again)

[ysolde]

Intact D & E s are performed during the second and (rarely) third trimester. During the third trimester, they are performed in cases where the woman's life is at risk, or where there is severe risk to the woman's health and the fetus is not viable (see, e.g., the link above). In such cases, the procedure may be used where the parents would like intact remains for emotional reasons.

[ysolde]

The determination of risk to the health of the woman is made by the woman and her doctor(s), not by absolute strangers, however well meaning.

[ignutzz]

Then why the need for this act in the first place? I think I get what you mean, though.

I am not being sarcastic. Are you saying women only have this done shortly before giving birth or going into labor because they then find out their lives are in jeopardy? I'd be interested to get some recent numbers on this.

~H.

A late-term abortion (and what constitutes late-term is not a set standard) usually falls somewhere between 18 and 26 weeks gestation. In a lot of cases it is done because the fetus has medical problems that are incompatible with life. Sometimes it is done simply because the mother wants to terminate, but I don't think this is most common reason.

If the baby was at a point in gestation where it would be considered viable outside the womb (roughly 24 wks - can be earlier - or at least a certain weight, its most likely it would be delivered early via cesrean birth and allowed to die naturally (if that's what the parents wanted). In other words, no one is having an abortion at 40 wks.

[camberne]

As vocal as I am about being a pro-choice Republican, I have to say that the idea of a partial birth abortion has always given me the heebie-jeebies. Having an abortion has it's own emotional stress, I can't imagine having a partial birth abortion. That said, I can't even bear to think about the pain and emotional duress women who go through still-born births.

I guess what I'm saying so uneloquently is that I can understand the need for SOME, but it certainly should be a very limited procedure.

[HeatherFL]

Thank you for answering me. I did know when most of them are performed. I am still not personally okay with the procedure not being more regulated. Obviously I am biased. The actual procedure itself is unacceptable to me. I don't believe it's as cut and dry as some make it out to be-some of these babies/fetuses do continue to have heartbeats for minutes and even hours after this takes place if their skulls are not collapsed first, and/or if other intervention such as injections don't take place. It's just very disturbing to me.

All I can write is this...I am personally against abortion. I do think it is the taking of a life and in any case I do not think it's the fault of an innocent child/fetus for the actions of its parents. HOWEVER, I do not want it to be illegal. I do not want to see us go back to the days of women in alleys-and again I mean no sarcasm there. I think there should be stricter laws and that abortion should be better regulated-from a pro-lifer's standpoint and from a sanitation/safety standpoint (no more "discount" abortion clinics where women become ill or die because of quacks.) This comes from a person whose friend in high school died during an abortion. Anyway, I am sorry to ramble on. My point is, if this is overturned in the future, then I would hope it would be more strictly regulated so that the fetus/baby (hopefully) continues-? to endure as little trauma as possible and when it is removed from the womb it is fully passed on. Obvioulsy, I'm being idealistic here. I get that. It's hard to explain to people who don't share the same viewpoints. I get that this topic is a very sensitive one and I have not been in the position where I've had to make that choice-only known others who have. I just can't live with the argument that it is "my body" as a woman. Excuse me for getting personal for a moment, but I've had a miscarriage and for me it wasn't "my body." So it's hard to understand others' points, but on this topic I am trying to.

So thank you for entertianing my rambling. I am really trying to be more open-minded about this.

~H.

[ignutzz]

As vocal as I am about being a pro-choice Republican, I have to say that the idea of a partial birth abortion has always given me the heebie-jeebies. Having an abortion has it's own emotional stress, I can't imagine having a partial birth abortion. That said, I can't even bear to think about the pain and emotional duress women who go through still-born births.

I guess what I'm saying so uneloquently is that I can understand the need for SOME, but it certainly should be a very limited procedure.

It already is a very limited procedure. Rough estimates from review of available data in 2004 put the incidence at approx. 1.4%.

[dionysia]

It already is a very limited procedure.

Though exact numbers are not known, it is estimated to be around 650 in 1996. (According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute.)

Di

[PinkMartini]

It already is a very limited procedure. Rough estimates from review of available data in 2004 put the incidence at approx. 1.4%.

And out of that 1.4% what % were from women's lives being in danger? Anyone know?

[HeatherFL]

I'd be interested to know too. I think it all depends on what you define as the woman's life being in danger. I remember reading or seeing something on a woman who had a partial birth abortion because she told her doctors she was too mentally unstable to give birth. So they went ahead and did the procedure. To me that is not a life endanger. That is someone taking the easy way out.

[ysolde]

My recollection was that there was only one in all of New York State in 2000or so (the last time it was recorded), and it was performed because the fetus had died late term in utero, and it was the safest way to remove it (basically, as soon as you open up an incision in a person, you increase the risk of infection).

ETA: Also remember that the AMA report stated that intact D & E reduces the risk of damage to a woman's uterus, cervix, and internal organs, and may be preferred by a phsician in cases of fetal hydrocephaly or other severe fetal deformities incompatible with life. Carhart v. Sternberg, 11 F.Supp.2d 1099, 1107

[jennylou]

I never have understood the point of a partial birth abortion (where the hole is drilled into the babe's head). However, I refuse to judge a woman who finds out that a very wanted baby is very sick and will die shortly after birth and decides to induce labor early.

With the new SC ruling, would that not be an option for women?

[ignutzz]

And out of that 1.4% what % were from women's lives being in danger? Anyone know?
To my knowledge, the "why" was not part of the available data.

I'd be interested to know too. I think it all depends on what you define as the woman's life being in danger. I remember reading or seeing something on a woman who had a partial birth abortion because she told her doctors she was too mentally unstable to give birth. So they went ahead and did the procedure. To me that is not a life endanger. That is someone taking the easy way out.
Unless there is more to that story that you didn't elaborate on, I don't think you, or anyone else here, is in anyway qualified to make that determination.

[dionysia]

Agreed, ignutzz.

If the woman was suicidal, perhaps that was the consideration?

Di

[HeatherFL]

I get where you are coming from and I apologize for not having the source. It was awhile ago I saw this. My point is, I think there is a fine line as to the decision of when a woman's life is endanger or not. When was she mentally unstable? Was it just panic? Was it going on the entire time and then she just decided to come forward with it? Did it just happen? Would one doctor say it was a reason to do a partial birth abortion while five others would say no? Or vice-versa? WHO is qualified? A doctor because he has an MD? A psychologist because he has a certificate that says so? I just think that the "reasons" aren't always as legitimate as we are lead to believe. If I am wrong, I am wrong. I still think it is a bit unusual for a woman to-right before giving birth-decide she is too mentally unstable to do so and therefore asks for her pregnancy to be terminated instead of seeking help. Again, I'm not a doctor/psychologist, but it seems there could be other recourse here. TO ME. Just my opinion. That's all.

eta: If the woman was suicidal, I believe the physician(s) could have intervened. I just don't think the decisions are that cut and dry.

[wendalah]

No comment on this issue, but wanted to note:

AP spins stuff just as much as anyone else.

Good f-cking Lord, is that the truth.

[batgirl]

However, based on my own personal beliefs and on the *fact* that science agrees an embryo is a living thing-whether you refer to it as cells, a baby or an embryo-it is a living entity which will become a human life if allowed to thrive (thus the study of embryology);
~H.

Actually, this is not necessarily true. It is not a scientific "fact" that an embryo is a living thing based on the definition of life in scientific terms. The definition of "life" and when life begins has been debated among scientists for years. Many definitions say an organism must be able to sustain itself on its own to be considered alive. Campbell's biology text gives the definition of "birth to death". Also, think of a virus. Is it alive? It does lots of things living things do, but many scientists do not consider it alive. Or prions, for that matter.

I know this is a whole other can of worms, but the definition of life is not so easy and is certainly not a scientific fact.

[PinkMartini]

Many definitions say an organism must be able to sustain itself on its own to be considered alive.

And at 24 weeks (or there about) aren't babies usually able to live outside the womb? :confused:

[ignutzz]

I never have understood the point of a partial birth abortion (where the hole is drilled into the babe's head). However, I refuse to judge a woman who finds out that a very wanted baby is very sick and will die shortly after birth and decides to induce labor early.

With the new SC ruling, would that not be an option for women?

Yes, it would still be an option. As would a cesarean birth or medical rather than surgical abortion.

I feel the concern here is the impact a ruling like this has on the overall state of reproductive choice legislation. Additionally, it limits the choices a dr and patient have to determine the best course of action for a patient's health.

[dionysia]

Heather,
I don't have the answers to those questions, yet I believe the criteria for performing an intact D&E would be pretty stringent. I doubt it would be a case of "Doctor, I am thinking about suicide. I don't think I can go through with this pregnancy." "Ok, hop on the table."

Flippant, but you know what I mean.

Di

[Dan's*Girl]

Im glad this passed and agree with(some)of the previous posters that the people who do this are sick, both the mother and the dr who performs the procedure. (unless medically necessary to save the mothers life)

[dionysia]

I don't understand this assertion that the doctors and women who have intact D&Es are somehow sadistic and cruel by making the decision to undergo this procedure.

Di

[batgirl]

Then why the need for this act in the first place?

~H.

Honestly, I think this was done mostly for political reasons. Explain to people why this procedure is done, and that it is very rare, no one really cares. But give a few details about it, give it a name like "partial birth abortion" and hint that it can be done up to 40 wks and people are outraged. Certainly a way to polarize a base into voting.

[ignutzz]

I get where you are coming from and I apologize for not having the source. It was awhile ago I saw this. My point is, I think there is a fine line as to the decision of when a woman's life is endanger or not. When was she mentally unstable? Was it just panic? Was it going on the entire time and then she just decided to come forwrd with it? Did it just happen? Would one doctor say it was a reason to do a partial birth abortion while five others would say no? Or vice-versa? WHO is qualified? A doctor because he has an MD? A psychologist because he has a certificate that says so? I just think that the "reasons" aren't always as legitimate as we are lead to believe. If I am wrong, I am wrong. I still think it is a bit unusual for a woman to-right before giving birth-decide she is too mentally unstable to do so and therefore asks for her pregnancy to be terminated instead of seeking help. Again, I'm not a doctor/psychologist, but it seems there could be other recourse here. TO ME. Just my opinion. That's all.

eta: If the woman was suicidal, I believe the physician(s) could have intervened. I just don't think the decisions are that cut and dry.

Your questions would lead ME to recommend putting evaluation procedures in place in order to determine the validity of a request for a late-term abortion (part of that would be determining "late-term") instead of the ban we have now.


And I second Dionysia's take on it.

[phoenics]

Thank you for answering me. I did know when most of them are performed. I am still not personally okay with the procedure not being more regulated. Obviously I am biased. The actual procedure itself is unacceptable to me. I don't believe it's as cut and dry as some make it out to be-some of these babies/fetuses do continue to have heartbeats for minutes and even hours after this takes place if their skulls are not collapsed first, and/or if other intervention such as injections don't take place. It's just very disturbing to me.

All I can write is this...I am personally against abortion. I do think it is the taking of a life and in any case I do not think it's the fault of an innocent child/fetus for the actions of its parents. HOWEVER, I do not want it to be illegal. I do not want to see us go back to the days of women in alleys-and again I mean no sarcasm there. I think there should be stricter laws and that abortion should be better regulated-from a pro-lifer's standpoint and from a sanitation/safety standpoint (no more "discount" abortion clinics where women become ill or die because of quacks.) This comes from a person whose friend in high school died during an abortion. Anyway, I am sorry to ramble on. My point is, if this is overturned in the future, then I would hope it would be more strictly regulated so that the fetus/baby (hopefully) continues-? to endure as little trauma as possible and when it is removed from the womb it is fully passed on. Obvioulsy, I'm being idealistic here. I get that. It's hard to explain to people who don't share the same viewpoints. I get that this topic is a very sensitive one and I have not been in the position where I've had to make that choice-only known others who have. I just can't live with the argument that it is "my body" as a woman. Excuse me for getting personal for a moment, but I've had a miscarriage and for me it wasn't "my body." So it's hard to understand others' points, but on this topic I am trying to.

So thank you for entertianing my rambling. I am really trying to be more open-minded about this.

~H.

Heather, I agree with every word you've said.

The whole thing makes me really uncomfortable.

[ysolde]

In NYS, in order to have a third-trimester abortion, a woman has to show that her life is in danger, and have, not only medocal consent, but the consent of the ethics panel of the hospital, or, in the alternative, have a pregnancy with fetuses that are incompatible with life and have health problems herself, have her doctor confirm this, have a neonatal pediatrician confirm that her fetal condition is, indeed incompatible with life, AND obtain the consent of the hospital ethics panel. Not exactly "I'm supposed to give birth in a couple of hours, but it conflicts with my standing appointment at Fekkai; I want an abortion," situation, now, is it?

[ejs]

And at 24 weeks (or there about) aren't babies usually able to live outside the womb? :confused:

Some can be viable at 24 weeks, but they usually have very severe problems, including serious brain damage.

I don't think anyone is a fan of late-term abortion. I think the concern is that the government is involved in a decision that many of us believe should only be made by a woman and her dr.

[HeatherFL]

batgirl as someone with two degrees in physical and biological sciences and not far away from a PhD in Cancer Biology, I am going to agree to disagree with you. ;) For *me* life begins from living things. So I guess I'm on the other side of the argument...

Good ol' Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryology) ...the scope of embryology is customarily broadened to encompass the entire life history of an organism.

My bolding

~H.

[dionysia]

I think the concern is that the government is involved in a decision that many of us believe should only be made by a woman and her dr.

And one, that by all accounts, is done very rarely and only in life-threatening or severely [mental or physical] health-threatening cases.

Di

[ignutzz]

And at 24 weeks (or there about) aren't babies usually able to live outside the womb? :confused:

As was previously mentioned, some of these abortions happen because of medical conditions in the fetus that are incompatible with life. But yes, at 24 wks some babies are viable and I would think in those cases, provided it's the safest option, that labor induction or cesarean birth would be offered to the family.

ETA:
In NYS, in order to have a third-trimester abortion,...
See, that's why "late-term" needs to be defined. Some places define late-term as anything past the 2nd trimester (13ks+), others anything after 20wks, and still others after 27wks.

[batgirl]

And at 24 weeks (or there about) aren't babies usually able to live outside the womb? :confused:

That's a good point. All I meant is that it is not a "scientific fact". There is definitely a huge grey area.

[HeatherFL]

Your questions would lead ME to recommend putting evaluation procedures in place in order to determine the validity of a request for a late-term abortion (part of that would be determining "late-term") instead of the ban we have now.

And I second Dionysia's take on it.
I could actually *possibly* see myself agreeing to something like this.

Heather,
I don't have the answers to those questions, yet I believe the criteria for performing an intact D&E would be pretty stringent. I doubt it would be a case of "Doctor, I am thinking about suicide. I don't think I can go through with this pregnancy." "Ok, hop on the table."

Flippant, but you know what I mean.

Di
Yes, I do know what you mean. You and ignutzz both bring up good points.

Heather, I agree with every word you've said.

The whole thing makes me really uncomfortable.
I guess that's the point for me too. The procedure itself is horrible. I would think that with all of our technology we could arrive at something a bit less invasive.

[batgirl]

batgirl as someone with two degrees in physical and biological sciences and not far away from a PhD in Cancer Biology, I am going to agree to disagree with you. ;) For *me* life begins from living things. So I guess I'm on the other side of the argument...

Good ol' Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryology) ...the scope of embryology is customarily broadened to encompass the entire life history of an organism.

My bolding

~H.

Well, then I'm sure you've got a copy of Campbell's biology! Most universities use it, including the one that I taught undergraduate biology at. But not to get in a pissing contest... the definition of life is highly debated in the scientific community and it is not a scientific fact.

BTW... I have three degrees and am working on my PhD in ecology right now, so I win! ;)

And wikipedia is great, but it is not true scientific resource.

[ysolde]

And, of course, legally, the issue is not about life at all, but about personhood. My lungs are alive and they are human, but they are not persons.

[HeatherFL]

I have four degrees-too much time on my hands, I suppose... (Theology and Communications are the others...but I don't think the Communications one did me much good LOL, come to think of it I don't seem to be using the Physics one much these days either!) ;) Two happen to be in science. eta: I never taught undergrad Biology, though. But I taught 2nd grade, does that count? :D

In all seriousness, though...you are right-and again I just agree to disagree and be on my biased side of the argument.

And I know Wikipedia is not a "true" scientific resource. But if I decide to defend my thesis, I won't tell anyone...(whole other story...) Kidding! ;)

<sorry for the tangent>

ETA:
My lungs are alive and they are human, but they are not persons.

I get what you mean...But without them, you wouldn't be human or alive.

~H.

[heather1029]

And, of course, legally, the issue is not about life at all, but about personhood. My lungs are alive and they are human, but they are not persons.

The issue is about living embryos, which when fully grown are self-sustaining persons. And I suppose the even bigger issue is: when does an embryo become a baby....

[ysolde]

The issue is about living embryos, which when fully grown are self-sustaining persons. And I suppose the even bigger issue is: when does an embryo become a baby....

Because of the srange designs of Mother Nature, less than half the time.

[BlackMagicRose]

[QUOTE=batgirl;1307877]BTW... I have three degrees and am working on my PhD in ecology right now so I win! ;) [QUOTE]

I really hope this was a sarcastic funny comment.

Any way..I will step in to say that partial birth abortion should be banned unless the mother's life is in danger. I know someone very close to me who had an abortion. She got one very early and I respect her right to choose, but a woman who is that far along should not have a choice any more. It is at this time that we need to speak up for the unborn child. Give the baby up for adoption if you do not want it but don't kill the fetus because it took you too much time to decide.

[batgirl]

I have four degrees (Theology and Communications are the others...but I don't think the Communications one did me much good LOL). ;) Two happen to be in science.

In all seriousness, though...you are right-and again I just agree to be on my biased side of the argument.

And I know Wikipedia is not a "true" scientific resource. But when I defend my PhD, I won't tell anyone. Kidding!

<sorry for the tangent>

~H.

Oops, my bad! Wow, you have quite a background.

Anyways, I think ignutzz and di said it best...

I think the concern is that the government is involved in a decision that many of us believe should only be made by a woman and her dr.

And one, that by all accounts, is done very rarely and only in life-threatening or severely [mental or physical] health-threatening cases.

This, to me, is the heart of the issue.

gotta run feed the babe. have a good night ladies!

[ysolde]

Once again, it is not legal to have a third-trimester abortion "just because". You have to show that the woman's life is in danger or a combination of serious health issues in the woman and severe physical defects in the fetus that are incompatible with life.

No one has a third-trimester abortion "because they took too long to decide."

[heather1029]

Once again, it is not legal to have a third-trimester abortion "just because". You have to show that the woman's life is in danger or a combination of serious health issues in the woman and severe physical defects in the fetus that are incompatible with life.

But, a woman can still have an abortion in the third trimester. I think lawmakers were moreover just disgusted by this particular procedure. (I am disgusted by it too.)

[batgirl]

oops, one more (I can't resist and am a glutton for punishment!)

[QUOTE=batgirl;1307877]BTW... I have three degrees and am working on my PhD in ecology right now so I win! ;) [QUOTE]

I really hope this was a sarcastic funny comment.
Sad but true! But why do you hope this was meant to be sarcastic?

Any way..I will step in to say that partial birth abortion should be banned unless the mother's life is in danger. I know someone very close to me who had an abortion. She got one very early and I respect her right to choose, but a woman who is that far along should not have a choice any more. It is at this time that we need to speak up for the unborn child. Give the baby up for adoption if you do not want it but don't kill the fetus because it took you too much time to decide.

Are you serious? :eek:
Even if the mother's life is at risk?

[BlackMagicRose]

Once again, it is not legal to have a third-trimester abortion "just because". You have to show that the woman's life is in danger or a combination of serious health issues in the woman and severe physical defects in the fetus that are incompatible with life.

No one has a third-trimester abortion "because they took too long to decide."

Yes, I know but the third trimester is not until week 27. You can have this procedure at 21 weeks.

[HeatherFL]

Good night, batgirl. Thank you!

And not to be all mushy, but thanks to everyone else. It's past midnight here and I have GOT TO GET TO BED and catch a flight back to the States tomorrow morning! So again, thank you for the back and forth. It was really nice to see that for the most part it stayed civil (hope it stays that way!) and to, for a change, try to understand the other side of this topic.

~H.

[wendalah]

Why do we even have the :eek: smiley here? Is anyone really surprised by anyone's dissenting opinion on topics such as these?

[ysolde]

But, a woman can still have an abortion in the third trimester. I think lawmakers were moreover just disgusted by this particular procedure. (I am disgusted by it too.)


Sure. Only now, she will have to use procedures that may put her life and health at further risk. Just because politicians were "disgusted" by a medical procedure. Let's hope politicians never see a boil lanced. That's disgusting, too. And open heart surgery? Pretty darned gross. Oh, and if there is ever a Jehovah's Witness majority in the Congress and in the Supreme Court, look out everybody! No more blood transfusions for ANYBODY! after all, they go against the will of G-d (and blood is pretty gross, too).

[ysolde]

Yes, I know but the third trimester is not until week 27. You can have this procedure at 21 weeks.

Actually, you can no longer have this procedure at all.

[BlackMagicRose]

Are you serious? :eek:
Even if the mother's life is at risk?

I did say in the above sentence Any way..I will step in to say that partial birth abortion should be banned unless the mother's life is in danger Sorry if I did not make it clear enough. Let me change it to include what I did say in both sentences...No one should have a right to terminate a pregnancy that far along UNLESS their is a GOOD reason (mother's life is in jeopardy, they discover abnormalities in the fetus).

Sorry Batgirl about my comment. I respect someone with an education. I too have a degree in Human Development and Family Studies. I just do not think my opinion is any more valid because of my education. It would be a logical falacy for me to think so. I do wish I could get more degrees, but I am self educated in many subjects.

[pocket]

It's always been my understanding that this is a procedure that is not normally used for a voluntary abortion but is rather used under different circumstances. It's also my understanding that this has been supported by the anti-abortion movement because it opens the door to a ban on all abortions. I don't think that this procedure should be banned. I know that they use it when the fetus has that condition where the brain grows outside of the skull, and for hydroencephaly (sp?) where the brain and head get very enlarged. Both are fatal conditions for the fetus with great risk to the woman during birth.

[ysolde]

OK, I think maybe you're (BMR) confused. This is a procedure that is seldom used. In the rare instances in which it is used, it is used in women who have wanted pregnancies and who find out, late in the pregnancy, that there is a serious, serious problem. These parents are heartbroken. They are suddenly faced with the decision of when and how to watch their beloved children die. For some, Intact D & E is the best option, either for medical or psychological reasons (sometimes for both). Sometimes, these parents want the opprtunity to hold their infants as they say good-bye.

Today, we have taken that opprtunity away from them. It is heartbreaking.

[BlackMagicRose]

Sorry if I misunderstood. I want people to explain this to me more then. I know the basics about the procedure. I know what happens and why. I do not understand why this ban is a problem. If people are only doing this procedure for cases of danger to mother or fetal abnormalities, then why is banning except for these cases a problem. I am sure there are women who get the procedure done for the wrong reasons, otherwise this would not even be an issue. What am I missing her. Can someone please tell me in a friendly manner what I am not understanding??

I agree that if the courts are doing this as a road to ban abortion altogether than it is very wrong. I do not want to see that happen, but there is a time we need to do something to help life survive when it can not defend itself.

[ysolde]

It is a problem because it is no longer available in cases of fetal abnormalities or maternal health issues. Only in cases where the woman's life is in danger.

It is also a problem because it bans the procedure in any trimester, which violates the basic principles of Roe v. Wade, opening the door for its overturning in the very near future.

[heather1029]

Sure. Only now, she will have to use procedures that may put her life and health at further risk. Just because politicians were "disgusted" by a medical procedure. Let's hope politicians never see a boil lanced. That's disgusting, too. And open heart surgery? Pretty darned gross. Oh, and if there is ever a Jehovah's Witness majority in the Congress and in the Supreme Court, look out everybody! No more blood transfusions for ANYBODY! after all, they go against the will of G-d (and blood is pretty gross, too).

Ok, not just disgusted. The procedure would definitely go under the category of cruel and unusual. Horrible. Crushing a skull of a living organism.

Open heart surgery cruel? No. Blood transfusions cruel? No. Also, those are done to consenting persons, not an innocent baby with no say at all in the matter (even if the baby is brain damaged).

Simply, there are/ must be better, less cruel ways.

[batgirl]

.No one should have a right to terminate a pregnancy that far along UNLESS their is a GOOD reason (mother's life is in jeopardy, they discover abnormalities in the fetus).

I agree with this. But there is definitely a grey area as to what "that far along" is, and I would hope that medical professionals make that decision and not politicians.

Sorry Batgirl about my comment.
Hey, no problem. And I didn't mean to show I am "more educated thus know more" God no! The more education I have gotten the less I know! I just got into a sparring match with Heather (and lost!)

Good night!

[BlackMagicRose]

OK, I think maybe you're (BMR) confused. This is a procedure that is seldom used. In the rare instances in which it is used, it is used in women who have wanted pregnancies and who find out, late in the pregnancy, that there is a serious, serious problem. These parents are heartbroken. They are suddenly faced with the decision of when and how to watch their beloved children die. For some, Intact D & E is the best option, either for medical or psychological reasons (sometimes for both). Sometimes, these parents want the opprtunity to hold their infants as they say good-bye.

Today, we have taken that opprtunity away from them. It is heartbreaking.

So, they will not be able to use this procedure at all for any other reason unless the mother's life is in danger?? This procedure was not used by any other mother's before? I know it was rare but I thought some women used the procedure in late term and were allowed becasue it was nto banned.

[BlackMagicRose]

I agree with this. But there is definitely a grey area as to what "that far along" is, and I would hope that medical professionals make that decision and not politicians.


Hey, no problem. And I didn't mean to show I am "more educated thus know more" God no! The more education I have gotten the less I know! I just got into a sparring match with Heather (and lost!)

Good night!

Yeah, the "grey area" is always causing problems. I am sorry if I took your comment to heart. I respect all of your education and I know you worked hard at it. I just think it is so hard to be sarcastic over the internet. I have tried to do it before! Good night!!!

[ysolde]

It can also be used in the second trimester. Of course, that is neither as gory nor as "disgusting," but the numbers always got added into the stats. Since the procedure has been banned, its practice in the second trimester is now also banned.

[BlackMagicRose]

It is a problem because it is no longer available in cases of fetal abnormalities or maternal health issues. Only in cases where the woman's life is in danger.

It is also a problem because it bans the procedure in any trimester, which violates the basic principles of Roe v. Wade, opening the door for its overturning in the very near future.

Why would this procedure need to be done before 21 weeks?? I thought it was only done becasue a woman was far along in pregnancy.

It is completely stupid that a woman cannot have this procedure if there are abnormalities with the fetus.

I think there should be another way to terminate a pregnancy as well. Are there other methods? I am going to do some research.

[ejs]

Ok, not just disgusted. The procedure would definitely go under the category of cruel and unusual. Horrible. Crushing a skull of a living organism.

Open heart surgery cruel? No. Blood transfusions cruel? No. Also, those are done to consenting persons, not an innocent baby with no say at all in the matter (even if the baby is brain damaged).

Simply, there are/ must be better, less cruel ways.

So are you saying you would be fine with late-term abortion if it was done in a different way?

[ysolde]

There are other ways, but they involve surgery, which, of course, increases the chance of infection, bleeding, damage to internal organs, and all sorts of fun stuff.

[BlackMagicRose]

There are other ways, but they involve surgery, which, of course, increases the chance of infection, bleeding, damage to internal organs, and all sorts of fun stuff.

But people have surgery every day, so there is always a risk. Pregnancy is in itself risky.

I do not think this procedure is necessary for any other reason than the mother is in danger and that there is something wrong with the fetus.

I agree that the courts went too far in this ruling. I just read that 90% of abortions are done in the first 12 weeks. The rest must be for extreme reasons.

[ysolde]

I just read that 90% of abortions are done in the first 12 weeks. The rest must be for extreme reasons.

I think that's right. I don't need to divulge exactly how old I am :o but suffice it to say that abortion has been legal most of my life, and I have lived my entire adult life in quite liberal US cities (Boston, the San Francisco Bay Area, NYC). Yes, I have known women who have had abortions. All of them had their abortions in the first trimester. Not that my anecdotes make for statistical evidence, but the whole, "There are women out there having late-term abortions because they want to," has never been borne out, either by the statistics, by the laws themselves, or by our own experiences (we are women, we talk to one another, we know).

[BlackMagicRose]

I think that's right. I don't need to divulge exactly how old I am :o but suffice it to say that abortion has been legal most of my life, and I have lived my entire adult life in quite liberal US cities (Boston, the San Francisco Bay Area, NYC). Yes, I have known women who have had abortions. All of them had their abortions in the first trimester. Not that my anecdotes make for statistical evidence, but the whole, "There are women out there having late-term abortions because they want to," has never been borne out, either by the statistics, by the laws themselves, or by our own experiences (we are women, we talk to one another, we know).

I learn something new every day. I am glad I did some research about this. It is always a difficult decision. I do not envy any woman put in this situation.

[SingleWhiteFemale]

No one should have a right to terminate a pregnancy that far along UNLESS their is a GOOD reason (mother's life is in jeopardy, they discover abnormalities in the fetus).Then you're getting into the murky water of what abnormalities should be allowed termination, and which ones shouldn't. I've lived quite well with my disability. But I am aware of people who have aborted their fetus when they found out it had the same defect. It can be a complete crapshoot how bad off the future kid will be, and it is not fair to take the decision out of the hands of those who will be the caretakers/parents to only put them in that of a lawmaker.

[ignutzz]

Why would this procedure need to be done before 21 weeks?? I thought it was only done becasue a woman was far along in pregnancy.
The bones of the fetus begin to calcify at 17wks so a vacuum aspiration of fetal tissue is no long an option. The reason an intact IDX, when the option is chosen, is safer than a standard D&E is that there is less risk to the mother of injury from bone fragments.

It is completely stupid that a woman cannot have this procedure if there are abnormalities with the fetus.
That's what most of the third-trimester causes are. However, as I've said a fe times, "late-term" is not a medically defined period of time, so until this ban, a woman could choose an elective D&E abortion during the 2nd trimester.

I think there should be another way to terminate a pregnancy as well. Are there other methods? I am going to do some research.
There are other methods. Here's a quick reference to the procedures and in which trimesters they're applicable (http://www.americanpregnancy.org/unplannedpregnancy/abortionprocedures.html).

[lml41981]

Ya know...we aren't even having an u/s until 20 weeks...so by the time we would know if something were wrong, it sounds like it would be too late for me to have a D&E. It seems like my only options would be induction of labor (which I can only imagine would be even more emotionally traumatic because labor usually means you get to take a baby home with you, so a mom would go through this whole process and leave with nothing...I don't want to imagine that pain) or to have a major abdominal surgery. Seems to my non-MD self that the procedure that would be the least invasive and the least likely to cause infection or problems would be the D&E. Plus, if I needed to abort, I would want to hold my child intact...I agree that it could be important for the parent's emotional well-being and it should remain an option if they want it.

I'm incredibly sad that this ban is in place. :(

[Niobe]

I'm incredibly sad that this ban is in place. :(

Me too. I'm also incredibly pissed off that once again, political machinations appear to be more important than a woman's health and safety. :mad:

This is a stupid bill banning a rare procedure that in almost every instance is done because trained medical professionals have decided it is the best course of action. Who are the Supreme Court Justices to decide that they know more about health and medicine than the doctors? The ONLY reason this bill even exists is to make the politicians backing the bill look good to their anti-choice voters and to pave the way for banning abortion flat out.

I'm too pissed off to write anymore without getting in trouble. :mad: :mad: :mad:

ETA: I really want to see what the reduction in the performance of this procedure actually is. It can still be done to save the mother's life, which was one of the top reasons for doing it in the first place.

[msnicolea]

NOW email:

April 19, 2007

In the wake of yesterday's Supreme Court Gonzales decision, women's rights supporters in Congress took immediate action, and I'm pleased to stand with them today to welcome the timely reintroduction of the Freedom of Choice Act of 2007.

Let this decision -- which reversed a clear precedent requiring that a woman's health be protected -- be a lesson to those Senators who thought it unseemly to filibuster Sam Alito's nomination. It is clear that this precedent, set in Roe and reaffirmed in Casey, was abandoned for no reason other than the replacement of Sandra Day O'Connor with Sam Alito.

Let this be a lesson to those Senators who said that O'Connor's seat was not "the important one," and who therefore did not put their considerable influence behind filling that seat with, if not a woman, at least a women's rights supporter.

Let this be a lesson to the newspaper editors who denounced the Alito filibuster and urged his confirmation -- but who now rail against this inevitable outcome.

They are lessons the women of this country will not soon forget.

[kam]

No one should have a right to terminate a pregnancy that far along UNLESS their is a GOOD reason

But in the days before a safe and legal abortion throughout the U.S., this was something women had to go through. Women would have to summon a committee to get her safe and legal abortion approved (depending on the state). It was not up to a legal standard but rather the personal feelings of the committee members, which then goes right down to the morality of individuals. And if it was denied, then you're leaving it up to the woman to accept the ruling or take matters into her own hands.

[Niobe]

No one should have a right to terminate a pregnancy that far along UNLESS their is a GOOD reason

You know what, on some level I agree with this statement. However, I feel it is for a woman and her doctor to decide what constitutes a good reason, not a bunch of politicians.

Planned Parenthood released a press statement that I found here (http://www.ppgg.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=esJMKZPKJtH&b=1187077&ct=3792671).

from the link

"This ruling flies in the face of 30 years of Supreme Court precedent and the best interest of women's health and safety," said PPFA Deputy Director of Litigation and Law Eve Gartner, who argued Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood. "Today the court took away an important option for doctors who seek to provide the best and safest care to their patients. This ruling tells women that politicians, not doctors, will make their health care decisions for them."

"Today's decision is a shocking setback for women's health," added Gartner. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in her dissent, '…the Court deprives women of the right to make an autonomous choice, even at the expense of their safety.'


This (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6569007.stm) article gives more of Bader Ginsburg's dissent.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who called the decision alarming, took the rare step of reading parts of her dissent.

"In candour, the Partial Birth Abortion Act and the court's defence of it cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this court - and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives," she said.


The article concludes:
However, government lawyers and others who favour the ban, have said there are alternative and more widely used procedures that are still legal - which involves dismembering the foetus in the uterus.


Oh yes, that's a definite improvement. Dismembering the foetus in the womb is far more humane. What was the purpose of this ban again? :rolleyes:

[ignutzz]

The dismembering version, called a D&E (which is NON-intact version of the banned IDX procedure) puts the woman at greater risk of uterine and vaginal injury because of the exposed fetal bone. So again, how is this ban better for anyone??????

[SingleWhiteFemale]

I think the author in this NY Times op-ed piece says it well. The bolded part is what really angers me most.

Denying The Right to Choose (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/19/opinion/19thu1.html?em&ex=1177128000&en=ce04df11979eb7a0&ei=5087%0A)As far as we know, Mr. Kennedy and his four colleagues responsible for this atrocious result are not doctors. Yet these five male justices felt free to override the weight of medical evidence presented during the several trials that preceded the Supreme Court showdown. Instead, they ratified the politically based and dangerously dubious Congressional claim that criminalizing the intact dilation and extraction method of abortion in the second trimester of pregnancy — the so-called partial-birth method — would never pose a significant health risk to a woman. In fact, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has found the procedure to be medically necessary in certain cases.

Justice Kennedy actually reasoned that banning the procedure was good for women in that it would protect them from a procedure they might not fully understand in advance and would probably come to regret. This way of thinking, that women are flighty creatures who must be protected by men, reflects notions of a woman’s place in the family and under the Constitution that have long been discredited, said a powerful dissenting opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Stephen Breyer.

Far from being compelled by the court’s precedents, Justice Ginsburg aptly objected, the new ruling is so at odds with its jurisprudence — including a concurring opinion by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (who has now been succeeded by Justice Alito) when a remarkably similar state abortion ban was struck down just seven years ago — that it should not have staying power.

entire piece at link

[Niobe]

Am I the only person who's just a little bit angry with former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor for stepping down when she did? This bill would NEVER have passed had she not stepped down and been replaced with Justice Alito. It's not really fair, but I'm a bit angry that she couldn't wait out Bush's term before stepping down. She knew what kind of person he'd nominate to replace her.

Like I said, not really fair, but it's how I'm feeling right now. I KNEW this kind of thing would happen. :( :mad: :(

[msnicolea]

Niobe--I was actualy saying this yesterday. I mean, I know it's irrational and she had every right to tend to her family issues, but I KNEW this would happen. So many people painted those of us concerned about Roberts as "jumping the gun" and over-reacting--but I never doubted for a second what his appointment meant.

I find it beyond disturbing that he SC is ignoring the opinions of the vast majority of the medical communtiy and imposing their own will/judgment --talk about "activist" judges.

[ginadc]

I had really hoped that Kennedy was moderating on this and other issues and that he would go the right way on this case. :( Obviously a naive hope on my part.

[ysolde]

I was talking about this with some friends yesterday, and literally found myself fighting back tears of rage and frustration -- the knowledge that the Supreme Court had broken with precedent in order to put the health of women at risk was almost too much to bear.

[MLA]

So, what can be done? Is there anyway to get this ban lifted? Would we need to go through another congressional vote to repeal the ban? And would that work since the SC has ruled on it already?

Sorry about my woeful lack of education in governmental procedures shining through. It's so frustrating, but if there's some hope of fixing this wrong, that's something, right?

[Amuse Bouche]

Congress can repeal the act, or pass another act allowing the procedure or reserving the right to the states. The Supreme Court decision wouldn't affect this until someone appealed the new act as unconstitutional, which is much much harder to prove and show, and the Supreme Court ruled that allowing this type of procedure is unconstitutional. (The current decision basically says that banning it is NOT unconstitutional - see the difference?)

[MLA]

Thanks, amuse bouche. That's what I thought, but I wasn't 100% sure.

[JamBray]

I find it beyond disturbing that he SC is ignoring the opinions of the vast majority of the medical communtiy and imposing their own will/judgment --talk about "activist" judges.
I agree with this. It's just so scary to think they don't want to listen to/believe medical facts just because it goes against their morals/ideals, and because of this women have to suffer. :( :mad: