Reply
Wed 4 Jun, 2003 05:53 pm
'Partial Birth' Mendacity, Again
[]f the so-called partial-birth abortion ban now careering toward almost certain approval by the full House this week has a decidedly familiar ring, it is not your imagination playing tricks. The trickery here belongs to the measure's sponsors.
Although promoted as narrowly focused on a single late-term abortion procedure, the measure's wording adds up to a sweeping prohibition that would, in effect, overturn Roe v. Wade by criminalizing the most common procedures used after the first trimester, but well before fetal viability. Indeed, the measure replicates the key defects that led the Supreme Court to reject a strikingly similar state law a mere three years ago. In addition to its deceptively broad sweep, the bill unconstitutionally omits an exception to protect the health of the woman.
Plainly, the measure's backers are counting on the public not to read the fine print. Their strategy is to curtail access to abortion further as the inevitable legal challenge wends its way back to the Supreme Court for another showdown. They obviously hope that by that time, there will have been a personnel change that will shift the outcome their way.
House members who vote for this bill will be participating in a cynical exercise that disrespects the rule of law and women's health while threatening the fundamental right of women to make their own childbearing decisions. Representatives who care about such things will not go along.
The foes of abortion continue there march towards the abolition of Roe v Wade.
Do you believe this to be another step towards that end? What is your opinion of this legislation?
Only a strong, impartial, read by the supreme court can rescue a woman's right to an abortion once this one is law.
Au
It concerns me that your opinion on this subject, as I understand it, means we should forget the reality of PBAs because of what might be done with it down the road.
I don't think any reasonable person believes that this country can OR SHOULD overturn R v W. But the heinous practice of PBA must be stopped. It never should have been allowed in the first place, and there would be no need to make any changes in abortion rights. Abortion is largely unregulated, and the horrors of some late term abortions are inhumane.
I think we should address what needs addressing, and stop fearing what may happen.
The slippery slope is indeed slippery. I think viability is around four and a half months gestation. Women and responsible men are going to have to start using contraceptives and the govt needs to make RU486 widely available--and let the public know abortion is no longer available as a last minute decision.
Why do you seemingly contest the description of Partial Birth Abortion? I think it is a good name for what occurs.
Sofia
Quote:Although promoted as narrowly focused on a single late-term abortion procedure, the measure's wording adds up to a sweeping prohibition that would, in effect, overturn Roe v. Wade by criminalizing the most common procedures used after the first trimester, but well before fetal viability. Indeed, the measure replicates the key defects that led the Supreme Court to reject a strikingly similar state law a mere three years ago. In addition to its deceptively broad sweep, the bill unconstitutionally omits an exception to protect the health of the woman.
The bill although it professes to be narrowly structured is all encompassing. It needs restructuring and more specificity IMO.
Late term is a horrible thing. However, if the mother's health or life is at risk, it should be a choice she and her physician make, not congress or even the Supreme Court.
Sofia wrote:Women and responsible men are going to have to start using contraceptives and the govt needs to make RU486 widely available--and let the public know abortion is no longer available as a last minute decision.
I generally don't put an oar in this debate, because i consider it each woman's business and not mine--which means that i support abortion by default, but genuinely believe that men should disqualify themselves from this discussion--without being so naive as to believe that will ever happen.
But you point up something which worries me in all of this. The more extreme of the religious people opposed to abortion are also opposed to contraception and planned parenthood. To them, the name Margaret Sanger is equivalent to Satan, and if they could sweep away Planned Parenthood and all its works in a gesture, they would do so. I think you are speaking sense--sadly, i doubt that that particular commodity forms any part of the machinations of the religious right.
Setanta--
Two things.
1) You are right about the extremists and I guess the organized Catholic lobby (no contraceptives), but they are thankfully way outnumbered. No fool would dare have in their platform an outlaw of contraceptives. This country wouldn't stand for it.
2) Two people make a baby, and this is one of the most confounding issues I've ever encountered. Suppose the woman doesn't want the baby, but the man really does? I don't know where I stand on this. Does it make a difference if they are married? Does a father have no rights to recieve his child into the world, even if he agrees to end all parental responsibilities of the mother, who doesn't want the child? If he financially supported the woman throughout the pregnancy and birth? I'd hate to be a judge in one of these cases! While the woman obviously has a greater stake (her body), it is also the father's child....
Well, those are certainly thorny issues, i'll give you that. I would guess that my take is that, given reliable contraception, only the woman can decide to become pregnant, or fail to prevent it (by which i don't absolve male responsibility--i've had the experience of being told that my partner was using contraception when she wasn't, and i'd have certainly behaved differently, had i known). In view of that, i still consider that men should disqualify themselves from the decision. From a legalistic point of view, which is sadly what needs to be considered here, could a man make the case that a woman had agreed to the pregnancy in advance, and was now backing out? A sort of breach of contract argument? Life was so much simpler in the days when the stork brought the baby, or they were found under cabbage leaves--growing up has definite advantages, but major portions of the exercise really suck.
How the US Supreme Court can overturn a US Supreme
Court ruling on the constitutionality of Roe vs Wade
leaves me utterlly lost. It is a done deal. It was found
to be unconstitutional to deny any woman control over
her reproductive system, her body, her very being.
And these fools who break laws, bomb clinics, kill
innocent people - if THEY really wanted to DO
SOMETHING ABOUT HELPING CHILDREN, THEY WOULD
BE OUT THERE ADOPTING THE TONS OF KIDS WHO
HAVE NO HOME - AND ARE STUCK IN FOSTER HOMES.
What good do we accomplish to make an unwanted kid
come into this world. For what? To have it's head
bashed in? To be left in a dumpster? To have its tiny
bones broken when it's less than 6 months old?
To have brain damage from being shaken so much?
To be left hungry for days in a trailer while mom and
dad do crack? To be born addicted to drugs?
When JUST ONE OF THOSE BIG MOUTHED ANTI
ABORTION IDIOTS ADOPTS ONE SINGLE UNWANTED
CHILD - ONLY THEN WILL I BELIEVE THAT THERE
INTEREST IN THIS ISSUE IS REALLY ABOUT THE
WELFARE OF THE CHILD, RATHER THAN CONTROL
OVER WOMEN!
You know, Babs, there are many people who do open their homes to these unwanted children.
I have known four families who do this. Not a lot, but it is done.
I do agree with one of your points. A quick death is more humane than a life of misery and abuse. PBA should not be an option, IMO. An abortion is more humane earlier in the pregnancy.
Our vet won't do late term abortions.
Sophia
<<Our vet won't do late term abortions.>>>
Your Vet?
Our veteranarian. (spelling) See why I said 'vet'.
Our doggie doctor.
Sofia, can you make your point with a little more explaination? I'm curious to see what you have to say on the subject of late-term abortions as it applies to both humans and dogs.
I guess, if it is considered a 'point', it would be that my vet won't do to puppies what many doctors will do to babies.
I'd follow your vet off a cliff....
<taking this as a statement of admiration (for the vet), rather than a suggestion (for me)...>
I couldn't abort puppies, either.
But how can you equate pups and human infants?
They are both defenseless, precious life.
1996 the last year i could find stats:the D&X procedure amounts to less than 0.05 percent of all abortions in 1996, a total of about 650 of the 1.37 million abortions performed. It is estimated that only 14 facilities nationwide perform the procedure.
and how do the mother dogs and mother humans correlate in your analogy, Sofia?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace