2
   

Judge Rules Against Ban on Partial-Birth Abortion

 
 
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2004 05:28 am
Quote:
A Federal judge in San Francisco on Tuesday declared unconstitutional a law banning partial birth abortions, saying the measure was too vaguely worded and placed an undue burden on abortion rights.

U.S. District Court Judge Phyllis Hamilton said the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 was also unconstitutional because it lacked an exemption to protect a mother's health.

The decision was hailed by pro-abortion rights groups who saw the law as a first step toward restricting abortions and removing a safe option for some seriously ill women.


Link to Judge's Ruling

I am very glad that there is a federal judge out there with some sense. Whether you believe in abortion or not, I think that the ban is completely out of line with the freedoms granted by the Constitution. IMO this is an issue between a woman and her doctor, period!

What do you all think?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 4,468 • Replies: 75
No top replies

 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2004 06:34 am
I ran a thread with the same story yesterday and nobody commented.
0 Replies
 
MyOwnUsername
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2004 06:41 am
Phoenix - depends what are you asking what we think Smile
I agree completely with the judge.

As of abortion, I mainly agree with you, but I have one addition - I think (except in cases of serious disease or rape) that woman shouldn't be allowed to have abortion if father of child wants that child to be born - of course, once again, in majority of cases where nobody's life is threatened by pregnancy or birth.
0 Replies
 
MyOwnUsername
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2004 06:43 am
of course, there are some other issues - in case where sex was willing on both sides and father wants child while mother doesn't - he should also be legally forced to take care of that children (if she persist that she doesn't want them) and not allowed to say "I want that baby to be born, but let her take care".
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2004 07:34 am
obviously a case of unwarranted judicial activism. Shocked
0 Replies
 
onyxelle
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2004 08:30 am
I'm a prochoice gal (but let me ask you this question)

My understanding of 'partial birth abortion' was that the baby IS in fact in the process of being born (as in being seen) and is killed during that process - is that so? Because if indeed that is what it is....I just can't get with killing a baby that is being born. I mean...it's totally diferrent than that whole "alive at conception" stuff.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2004 08:46 am
"Partial birth" is a misnomer -- one of those crafty political uses of words. (Like "pro-life" and "pro-choice", themselves. Oh, you're anti-choice, eh? Oh, you're anti-life, eh?)

The medical term is "dilation and extraction":

Here's a useful Planned Parenthood fact sheet:

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/library/facts/abotaft1st_010600.html

At any rate, it's NOT about "killing a baby being born", as in it's just naturally being born but the mom doesn't want it. It's about when, for medical reasons usually (and it happens very rarely), the fetus can't be carried to term, so "labor" is induced. (Dilation and extraction).

Good definition here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_dilation_and_extraction
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2004 08:49 am
and, as I understand it, the Judge's ruling was more about the language of the law rather than the law of the event.
0 Replies
 
onyxelle
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2004 08:51 am
the last 'reason' i read Soz - after, of course, listing all the 'if fetus is dead or alive' medical reasons, on that page you gave me, the last link, read that it was performed
Quote:
The fetus is alive, but the woman wishes to end her pregnancy for non-medical/psychological reasons.

Although, logically & minus any emotion, I can't see the difference between this and regular abortions (alive is alive, to me, no matter how long 'alive' is)

Inducing birth to kill a definitely alive fetus seems rather harsh to me.
0 Replies
 
onyxelle
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2004 08:52 am
dyslexia wrote:
and, as I understand it, the Judge's ruling was more about the language of the law rather than the law of the event.


that's the way I understood it also..but I was thinking this thread, at least the way Phoenix's post read, was about how we felt about this particular thing. No?
0 Replies
 
onyxelle
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2004 08:54 am
did i go off on a tangent?? Shoot, I HATE when I do that.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2004 08:56 am
Onyxelle, yeah, it's pretty harsh. I'm certainly not pro, but I'm not pro-abortion in general -- I'd much prefer that it not get to that point. But, in real life, it does, so then what?

I'm certainly wobblier on allowing d&x for people who want to end the pregnancy for non-medical/ psychological reasons than, like, the morning-after pill. But the site lists:

Quote:
Adolescents Often Delay Abortion Until after the First Trimester

Adolescents are more likely than older women to obtain abortions later in pregnancy. Adolescents obtain 35 percent of all abortions performed after the first trimester (CDC, 2003).


Among women under age 15, nearly one in four abortions is performed at 13 or more weeks' gestation (CDC, 2003).


The very youngest women, those under age 15, are more likely than others to obtain abortions at 21 or more weeks gestation (CDC, 2003).


Common reasons why adolescents delay abortion until after the first trimester include fear of parents' reaction, denial of pregnancy, and prolonged fantasies that having a baby will result in a stable relationship with their partner (Paul et al., 1999). In addition, adolescents may have irregular periods (Friedman et al., 1998), making it difficult for them to detect pregnancy. Also, as previously noted, state laws requiring parental consent or court-authorized bypass for minors often cause delays.


That all makes sense to me.
0 Replies
 
L R R Hood
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2004 09:01 am
I think all forms of abortion should be legal, but I don't think the taxpayers should be paying for it.

I thought partial birth abortion was when the baby was almost out, and was killed before it was completely born. If this is it, I think its pretty heartless.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2004 09:41 am
L.R.R. Hood, links above explain.

Quote:
Intact dilation and extraction is a late-term abortion technique in which the patient's uterus is dilated and fetus extracted in substantially one piece.


Emphasis mine -- it means that the fetus is not being born per se, but that the cervix is dialated specifically for the purposes of abortion. Grim stuff, I know, but abortion is just plain grim. Some reasons it's necessary:

Quote:
Intact D&X procedures are extremely rare, carried out in roughly 0.2% (two-tenths of one percent) of all abortions. They may be performed during the third trimester of pregnancy if:

The fetus is dead.
The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth.
The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger.
The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her.
The fetus is alive, but the woman wishes to end her pregnancy for non-medical/psychological reasons.

Some of the fetuses which fall into this category have developed hydrocephalus. Approximately 1 in 2,000 fetuses develop hydrocephalus while in the womb; this is about 5,000 a year in the United States. The defect is not usually discovered until late in the second trimester of pregnancy.

If a fetus develops hydrocephalus, the head may expand to a size of up to 250% of the radius of a newborn skull, making it impossible for it to pass through the birth canal. In such a case, the physician may elect to perform an intact D&X procedure by draining off the fluid from the brain area, collapsing the fetal skull and withdrawing the dead fetus. However, a caesarian section delivery would allow the safe delivery of a hydrocephalic fetus without significant danger to the mother.
0 Replies
 
L R R Hood
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2004 12:19 pm
Hmmm, I'm going to have to say that this is between a woman and her doctor... no one else... and the government shouldn't pay for it.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2004 12:25 pm
Sozobe- I think that you have clarified the issue for many people. Although I am pro choice, I would never approve of partial birth abortion as a means of terminating an unwanted pregnancy. To me, the time for a woman to make THAT decision is at a point in the pregnancy where the fetus is at a very early stage of development.

I think though, that in a case where the mother's life would be in danger, or the fetus is so deformed that it would be incompatible with life, that a partial birth abortion is a grim necessity.

I probably was a little vague in wording of the thread, because there are so many issues involved. What I was referring to, was the concept that the government should not be involved in a situation where the only people that should be involved are the woman and her doctor.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2004 11:40 pm
Phoenix wrote:
I probably was a little vague in wording of the thread, because there are so many issues involved. What I was referring to, was the concept that the government should not be involved in a situation where the only people that should be involved are the woman and her doctor.[/color][/b]


Of course the government should not be involved in a situation where the only people that should be involved are the woman and her doctor.

The government should also not be involved in a situation where the only people that should be involved are a man and his platypus.

I hope you can see the major flaw in your statement.

Once you have established the premise that the only people who should be involved in a situation are a woman and her doctor, it follows that no one else, including the government, should be involved.

The real question is should the woman and her doctor be the only ones involved in the situation.

The husband/father has no legitimate interest in the decision?

Clearly, the government has an interest in and responsibility for preserving human life. This is demonstrated in a myriad of different ways. So now the question reduces to what is the definition of a human life?

An absolute answer is impossible. Scientists are never going to provide us with an answer that will satisfy all of the interest groups involved in this matter.

So how then do we decide what a human life is and thus to what extent the government can act on it's behalf?

Since scientists can't provide us with the definitive answer, I don't know why we should expect that judges can.

It seems to me that the only proper solution to this dilemma is to put the question to a vote. It's not a perfect solution, but the most valid.

A national referendum is unprecedented, and unlikely. however I would be all for using the device on this issue.

Our form of government is a representative democracy which we rely on every day to define the will of the people and their official definition of any number of terms --why can't we rely upon it in this instance?

The problem is that both sides of the issue are so certain that they are right and that the consequences of their "losing" in any vote so dire that they are unwilling to abide by a political decision that isn't in keeping with their desires. Since both sides of the issue can muster considerable political clout, it's highly unlikely that this issue will be "resolved" in the foreseeable future.

Personally, I don't believe abortion should be allowed in any circumstance other than preserving the life of the mother, but I would support a compromise resolution which held that abortions in the first trimester are absolutely legal. Abortions beyond that time require a doctors sworn affidavit that the procedure is necessary to preserve the life of the mother, or prevent the birth of a child so deformed as to seriously call into question its viability, and that in all such instances a review board of peers must affirm the doctor's decision. If the review board does not affirm the doctor's decision, either a suspension or revocation of license will result.

Note that I have excluded "the well being" of the mother from the decision making process. It is far too easy to broaden this term to include consideration of whether or not the women might feel depressed or suffer a loss of self-esteem by giving birth.

Obviously this sort of solution will not satisfy the intense Pro-choicers or Pro-lifers, but it's clear that all that will satisfy them is 100% of their demands, however numerous polls have shown that this is pretty much in keeping with the majority opinion of our populace.

A dispassionate view of the matter reveals that there are two main arguments at odds in this debate:

The sanctity of life.

The ability of a woman to exercise control over her own body.

When human life begins is a side issue introduced by the Pro-Choice to divert focus on the scope of its prime argument.

In fact, there is a generally, accepted legal definition of life as that which can be sustained outside of the womb, and yet still Pro-Choicers fight on for partial-birth abortions. It is disingenuous to claim that the movement's concern about the partial-birth abortion centers on its concern for a tiny fraction of women who might need the procedure to remain alive. It's clear that the motivation is to fight any and all attempts to introduce government control of a woman's decision to have an abortion - at any stage in the pregnancy.

A woman's right to exercise control over her body is a valid enough issue to advance without obfuscation about when life begins.

However, any reasonable person should, when balancing the scales between the two main arguments, place a greater weight on the sanctity of human life than the unfettered rights of women.

Thus the proposed compromise probably tips the scales a bit towards the Pro-Life position, but I assure you that the die hard Pro-Lifers will not approve of the compromise any more than the die hard Pro-Choicers.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2004 08:49 am
Whatever bad rap GWB has gotten from the liberal left, he has NEVER suggested that Roe v Wade be overturned or that abortion should be made illegal.

Partial birth abortion literally means that a full term or near full term baby is allowed to emerge from the birth canal feet first until only the baby's crown is left in the mother--the base of the skull is exposed and is stabbled by the doctor and the brains sucked out so that the skull collapses before the baby is fully withdrawn.

GWB, most Republicans and many Democrats strongly oppose this procedure. This is the procedure that judge specifically ruled should continue.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2004 07:54 pm
Here's another take on it along with a couple of other issues that usually aren't discussed:

Jewish World Review June 4, 2004 /15 Sivan, 5764
Thomas Sowell
'Partial truth' abortion
JWR contributor Thomas Sowell, a fellow at the Hoover Institution, is author of several books, including his latest, "Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell1.asp
0 Replies
 
SCoates
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2004 08:28 pm
I think I'm wading into dangerous waters saying this, but I think abortion should only be allowed in extreme cases (i.e. rape, health concerns of mother...).
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Judge Rules Against Ban on Partial-Birth Abortion
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/15/2025 at 06:42:54