Senate Approves Bill to Prohibit Type of Abortion

Right now I am so angry about this I can't put my feelings into words. I'll have to let things sift for a day or two before I can put voice to it.

Re: Senate Approves Bill to Prohibit Type of Abortion


Passing it without a provision for medical necessity was a stupid move.



Congress probably should get out of the medical profession. The state has no business licensing medical professionals, regulating health insurance or drugs, providing health insurance or any medical care for that matter. (Tongue planted firmly in cheek here!)



The USSC will kill this and everyone that voted for it knows they will. All the Congressional reps will play it to their advanatge too. Some will say they didn't vote for it because it didn't contain the rpovision, others will claim they voted for it knowing that it would get tossed out for not having the provision. Bidness in Washington as usual...

I am concerned because amniocentesis is generally performed between the 15th and 18th week of pregnancy and this measure has the potential of making it impossible to obtain an abortion after the 12th week.

One of the problems is the name partial birth abortion which is political and not medical and the lurid descriptions foisted on the public by the anti-abortion troops.

Hey, for those of us who became adolescents and fertile during the late '50's, the Little List of Where To Go was easily obtainable and indispensable (and I don't mean hack docs). Though I doubt this immoral folly on the part of Republicans will have legs, you can bet there will continue to be resources for those who need them readily available -- even more available than they once were, given the internet and PDA's. Further, I doubt decent doctors will stop finding ways to circumvent the fascisti.

Tartarin
I wouldn't be so secure in that thought. The penalties to Drs. will be rather severe. You may find very few Drs. who are willing to chance it.
This legislation is part of the ongoing fight by the religious right and the Catholic church to have all types of abortion outlawed. It is what can only be termed religious tyranny.

Re: Senate Approves Bill to Prohibit Type of Abortion

As I see it from outside the USA, the core of the problem is that the American constitution is ambiguous about the legal restrictions legislators can put on abortions. Ambiguous enough, anyway, to cause major strife both in public debate and in legal opinion. (A significant fraction of legal scholars believe that Roe vs. Wade represents a gross overinterpretation of the constitution and should be overturned.) If this view is correct, the obvious solution would be that Congress pass a constitutional amendment clarifying the ambiguity. For example, the amendment could state that abortion is allowed during the first n months of pregnancy, illegal afterwards unless the mother's life is in danger. Personally, I think n=3 would be a reasonable value, but I'm willing to negotiate.

By contrast, the current law is an ugly hack to work around the constitutional ambiguity about abortion rather than clarify it. I don't like it.


I believe that Congress has no business legislating what good medical practice is, and which procedures are 'unnecessary' in which circumstances. First of all, congresspeople, however well intentioned, can never be as competent as professionals in assessing the merit of medical procedures. Second of all, even if the law correctly reflects the current state of the art in medicine, it would have to change whenever the state of the art changes. Realistically, it won't do that, which is another reason I think it's a bad idea.


Indeed I do.


Since the Supreme Court won't decide on it anytime soon, this will depend on the success of President Bush's efforts to promote conservative judges. Whatever the outcome, it seems safe to bet it will be a 5-4 decision.

Au -- I'm assuming you're a guy and never had to go through that, but there were (and surely are now) plenty of resources. Yes, there were doctors in the US who'd do it, but there were also beyond-the-borders solutions. This is awful for those who can't afford it, but it is nonetheless a resource. And you'd be surprised at the numbers of unusual early miscarriages which took place in Massachusetts in the '50's -- quick, safe, overseen by good doctors, and little talked about.

For the record, it never happened to me but because I once thought I was pregnant, I lined up all the resources -- which is why I know about this. And of course one had friends who went through it.

On the other hand, there is considerable doubt that this law will stand.

Voices of Choice: Physicians Involved with Providing Abortion Prior to Roe v. Wade

When this bill is signed into law, they get a double whammy. It also limits the quantity of donor embryos available for research.

"Perhaps the most important potential application of human stem cells is the generation of cells and tissues that could be used for cell-based therapies. Today, donated organs and tissues are often used to replace ailing or destroyed tissue, but the need for transplantable tissues and organs far outweighs the available supply. Stem cells, directed to differentiate into specific cell types, offer the possibility of a renewable source of replacement cells and tissues to treat diseases including Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases, spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis. "


National Institutes of Health: Stem Cell Information

fishin' do you still maintain that the slippery slope argument by liberals claiming that there is a move to undermine the right to choose is fallacious?

In the grand scheme of things.. yeah.

In that ultimately pro-lifers won't get their way? In that I'd agree but I do think they are trying. And I do think this admin is very friendly to their attempts.

For anyone wishing to read the full text of the bill that is before the president, you'll find it here.

`Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003'

Penalties for physicians as stated in the text is as follows:

Sec. 1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited

`(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the enactment.

`(b) As used in this section--

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

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

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

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

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

`(2) Such relief shall include--

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

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

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

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

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

Craven- You didn't ask me, but I think that is exactly what is happening. Little by little, the government is taking over the woman's right to choose.
Since it may be impossible to overturn Roe Vs. Wade, they are chipping away at related issues, to make choice much more difficult.

What Jeb Bush did in the Terri Schiavo case is yet another way that government is sticking it's noses in citizen's personal affairs. In many ways the two cases are conceptually extremely related!

For anyone wishing to read medical statistics on the various types of abortion procedures and the risks involved, this is a very comprehensive study done in the UK. I have yet to find publication on the web such a study done in the US as the Bill stipulates. If anyone locates one, please post the link here.

Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists: The Care of Women Requesting Induced Abortion

If my layperson's interpretation of the data in this report is correct, the percentages presented in the Bill are either very misleading and blown out of proportion or there is a drastic variance in the skilled quality of health care providers between the UK and the US.

Would love to have someone more familiar with reading this type of data and language give their interpretation.

Well, I disagree but for very narrow reasons. First, the USSC said a woman has a right to an abortion. They never said she has a right to choose the medical procedure for how an abortion can/will be done. The government has been in the business of allowing/disallowing specific medical procedures for decades.

But way beyond that, in the Congressional testimony on this bill no one was able to find a medical professional that would come forward and say that there was a case where the procedure in question was the only method available. No one testified that they could concieve of a situation where there wouldn't be other methods to the same end available to them. Based on all of the previous discussions on the "partical birth" issue I've seen I found that a little amazing.

But I also seriously doubt that this bill will survive a Supreme Court challenge.

So, based on those last two comments I don't see it as being on the slippery slope. If someone from the AMA had gotten up in front of the Congress and said that they had a case where this had been the only procedure available to them I'd feel differently.

fishin'- Remember the old expression, "Throw it against the wall, and see what sticks". Whether or not this bill survives a Supreme Court challenge, is besides the point.

I fear that there are going to be more and more of these sorts of bills that will be promulgated. And some of them MAY stick!

Again, the politicians aren't much different than the Madison Avenue advertising execs, Phoenix's expression is just one of hundreds like, "Raise the flag up the pole and see if it waves." Our legislators are a bunch of meddling lawyers who shouldn't be given the responsibility of making laws. Period.

I'm less worried about a "woman's right to choose," frankly, than all our rights to choose, including a president. Talk about erosion of rights. So that even if women vote against the perpetrators of this retrograde madness, somehow the votes, uh, disappear...

Take a look at Dworkin's article in the latest NYRB. I'll see if I can dig up a link.