door opens on dissing roe v wade

Individually these proposed laws make sense. Collectively they seem to be pushing into an area they shouldn't be heading towards.

More troubling is that this group claims to have the support of more than 60 Senators to get some of these through the Senate.

Troubling indeed.

If Bush is able to stack the USCC we will see the demise of Roe v Wade and possibly the restrictions on separation of church and state.
I don't know how many times I have been reminded that those words do not appear in the constitution of the US.

Well they will lose out on this issue again I predict. To many women in the Senate and House. If they hold up bills over abortion amendments they will only discredit President Bush.

Probably the single most chilling aspect of the Republican monopoly would be the loss of reproductive choice for women.

OTOH, nothing I can think of (not even the 'economystupid') will sweep them out faster two years hence, so perhaps there's a silver lining.

They kow-tow to the Ralph Reed faction at their--and the nation's--peril.

PDiddie:

You're assuming that

1. There are Democrats left that care (which there are--at least in the House)

2. That they'll be heard!

Contrary to PDiddie's assertion there are quite a few Republicans that are pro-choice and aren't going to let things get to far either. If this group has got 60 votes in the Senate as they claim then they have quite a few Democrats on their side.

The pro choice GOP is how the Common Wealth of Virginia, bastion of the Ole South was elected Governor Wilder in 1990 and would you believe it a woman Attorney General. Y'all know that ole Dominion, they also ratified the 20th Amendment 1/14/68 as a Valentine present to the women of Virginia.

L. Douglas Wilder

You don't suppose all the Bible thumping pro-lifers could be lying to gain attention?

I would guess that Senators Olympia Snowe and Sue Collins (both of ME) are less of "bible thumpers" than 90% of the Democratic party members are LW. I don't see them calling Billy Graham up every weekend to attend fundraisers for them.

If someone had attacked me, or any woman I imagine, while pregnant, and it caused the death of our unborn baby--shouldn't that merit punishment?

The reality of partial birth abortion is cruel. If we saw someone do this to a dog, we would be horrified.

Why do these things seem so ominous?
Its as though there is no compassion for an unborn baby.

Golly, that's news -- I keep hearing that liberal Democrats are all atheists and that's the reason they are pro-choice. I know that's not true either. Certainly nobody could be for partial birth abortion unless it was determined that the mother would die. Just how many are performed in a year? And for what reason? Any cites?

There are no medical circumstances in which a partial-birth abortion is the only safe alternative. We take care of pregnant women who are very sick, and babies who are very sick, and we never perform partial-birth abortions. . . . There are plenty of alternatives. . . . This is clearly a procedure no obstetrician needs to do." F. Boehm, Dr. OB, Vanderbilt U. Med. The Washington Times, May 6, 1966, p. A1

But isn't it the safest?

To do this was called a "version & breech delivery." This was abandoned decades ago as it was too dangerous. Instead today the much safer Cesarean Section is used. Dr. Warren Hern, author of the late term abortion medical text said, "I would dispute any statement that this is the safest procedure to use. The procedure can cause amniotic fluid embolism or placental abruption." AMA News, Nov. 20, 1995, p. 3

Dr. Pamela Smith, Director of Medical Education, Dept. of Ob-Gyn at Mt. Sinai Hospital in Chicago, has stated: "There are absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered in this country which would require partial- birth abortion to preserve the life or health of the mother." And she adds two more risks: cervical incompetence in subsequent pregnancies caused by three days of forceful dilation of the cervix, and uterine rupture caused by rotating the fetus in the womb. Joseph DeCook, Fellow, Am. Col., Ob/Gyn, founder of PHACT (Physicians Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth), stated: "There is no literature that testifies to the safety of partial birth abortions. It's a maverick procedure devised by maverick doctors who wish to deliver a dead fetus. Such abortions could lead to infection causing sterility." Also, "Drawing out the baby in breech position is a very dangerous procedure and could tear the uterus. Such a ruptured uterus could cause the mother to bleed to death in ten minutes.".."The puncturing of the child's skull produces bone shards that could puncture the uterus." (Congressman Charles Canady (R-FL), 7/23).

But why kill the infant?

You've said it! Obviously the mother wants to get unpregnant. Even if this is accepted, we must still ask, why kill? Most of these babies are viable. They are only 3 or 4 inches (10 cm) from delivery. One gentle pull and the head will come out. Then the cord could be cut, and the infant given to the nurse to take to the intensive care nursery.

There is absolutely no medical reason to kill the baby except that the mother wants him dead.

LW--
This has been very disturbing reading, looking for the answers you posed.
There is no reason to perform a partial birth abortion for the sake of the mother.

They are performed because the mother wants to abort a long-term baby, and the doctors know the baby, when born after a certain time, are alive. The abortion would be a live birth if they don't kill it.

l.g. i have no argument to offer and never did, i dont agree with what is commonly refered to as late term abortions and that is not the intent of my posting this topic. what i am concerned about is what i perceive as an agenda of the christian right to open a door for the intent of negating all abortion.

A good article that explains how alot of people feel about this subject. Including me.

dys--
Its a great topic. And I enjoy your insights on many subjects.
Do you think that there may be people, who honestly can't bear the thought of partial birth abortions, who don't have Roe v Wade in their sites?

It seems as though any dissent with the rampant, prevailing abortion laws is viewed as political grandstanding, or an assault on a woman's right to choose.

I think the right to choose is a woman's, but not to this degree. Certainly if her life were in danger, and in other instances... But it has gotten out of hand.

Lash Goth -- This is a quote from the article you suggested:

"A mother who wants to use an abortion for purely birth-control purposes should not have that option."

Is this what you're espousing? 'Cause it sure sounds like that is saying women don't have the right to choose whether or not to be pregnant.

l.g. i can't really offer any meaningful solution, other than to say that i think this is not a topic for old white lawers in washington d.c. to be deciding. abortion per se has been with us for many thousands of years and i hate to see us go back to the era of the back-door abortion mills that have been the poor's only option while the rich could have the same thing done (under the guise of D & C or whatever else) in appropriate and safe medical facilites. i can't really believe anyone is Pro Abortion but i do think most of the people in this nation are Pro Choice and like anything else there are people that will abuse those rights.

Piffka--
Yes, you are correct.

We know we are pregnant long before the last tri-mester.
If a woman chooses an abortion, she should have it done before the baby is viable, and has to be murdered by being pulled half-way out of her and have a shiv jammed in its brain.

Why do they pull it half way out? Why not pull it all of the way out, and stab it to death, then?

Hypocracy and murder.

If they refuse to drop the murder, they should drop the hypocracy and call it what it is.