[AP] Supreme court upholds ban on partial birth abortion

Those kind of abortions sound gruesome and inhumane but I am worried about judges making medical decisions. I don't know enough about medicine to know whether the alternative of dismembering a fetus can always be used but that doesn't sound any less gruesome and shouldn't the doctor be the one that decides which procedure is safer?

 

I'm pro-life, but I don't like this law at all. It tramples all over the 10th Amendment and the Interstate Commerce Clause. This should be a States' Rights issue.

 

^ Agree that this should be states right but more so I'm not sure the government whether state or federal should be making these kind of blanket medical decisions.

 

Judges make all sorts of decisions in all sorts of fields they are not experts in. I remember a law school professor saying the law was interesting because it touched on nearly every subject we as humans encounter.

Cases involving medicine and doctors and the second-guessing of these have been with us for a very long time. The judges aren't making these decisions in a bubble. They're made with tons of experts on both sides arguing their positions.

What you're suggesting leads us to a place where doctors can't be second-guessed by the legislature or judiciary.

 

I don't deny where there is a role for law in medicine but I think this kind of blanket ban is questionable as it isn't the judge ruling on a particular case but laying a ban on future uses. Even with expert testimony I don't know if I would count on a judge to be able to predict every circumstance that might lead to a medical decision.

 

Exactly a judge with no medical knowledge except what his intern researched for him should not be making medical decisions. From what I understand the Partial birth technique is used just to make it easier to remove the fetus.

It just "feels" bad (which it is) but alot of medical procedures freak me out. Its not like doctors and females enjoy this.

 

blanket ban? it's one procedure (a rare one at that) that even the AMA says has no legit medical purpose.

and again..what you're saying leads us to a place where doctors can't be questioned by the courts or the legislature. who gets to decide when they can be and can't be questioned?

 

That's not quite true Max --

The nation’s leading group of professionals providing health care for women, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, opposed this law because the banned procedure is often the best option for women:

The intact variant of D&E offers significant safety advantages over the non-intact method, including a reduced risk of catastrophic hemorrhage and life-threatening infection. These safety advantages are widely recognized by experts in the field of women’s health, authoritative medical texts, peer-reviewed studies, and the nation’s leading medical schools.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/24/bush-women-health/

 

I will admit to not being a doctor or understanding everything about the procedure which is why I would rather trust a doctor making the decision about what is medically necessary than a judge.

As long as we have malpractice doctors can be questioned and held accountable but this is a blanket ban, as it is banning in total a procedure, I don't know the AMA's recommendations but obviously this procedure has been used before even with other alternatives so there is/was a reason to use it. Rather than having judges and legislators say that in all cases this should not be used I would rather have that option available and a doctor.

 

the AMA says differently. they've said in the past it is never medically necessary.

look...this is done in the second or third trimester. they're pulling babies halfway out of the woman and then killing it. whatever risk there is to the woman from childbirth is a moot issue at that point.

 

I agree it feels awful but we shouldn't make law on what we as laymen feel. And I understand you're not disagreeing with me but just reiterating the point.

 

but we already have bans. written by legislature...interpreted by the judiciary. that's what Roe v. Wade is. a ban on abortions past the 2nd trimester with an exception for health of the mother. this bill had a clause about the health of the mother, as well, despite the fact the AMA said they were never medically necessary.

i don't know how you get to a point where you say, "the judiciary can't comment on this."

 

I wasn't arguing your point. Believe me; I'm torn about this issue just like everyone else. Just pointing out that there is differing point of view.

 

i understand there is. and the judges have to weigh the experts out. i didn't get to hear the testimony, so i don't know for sure. but i've read a ton on this subject...from doctors and others. the congressional testimony from doctors who had performed partial birth abortions for the "medical necessity" of preventing the effects of worry and anxiety of an expectant mother were beyond sickening.

 

Just reading the procedure makes me queasy.

I can/will never understand why it'd take a woman so long to decide to abort when it isn't an issue of health. Also mind wracking is how a woman would choose invasive surgery after keeping the fetus for 4-5 months. What's another 4 months...

 

neither can the majority that wrote Roe v. Wade. 2nd trimester abortions are illegal unless there's a necessary medical reason.

the problem is they've so watered down what qualifies as a necessary medical reason to abort as to make it inconsequential.

 

I remember during the Shiavo [sp?]
case there were those saying that should be a DRs decision
and not the families etc
[I think they were the minority but i know some were saying]

DRs like Judges . .. can be wrong

and Everyone needs some oversight

Rocket River

 

Why is this any more gruesome then any other abortion?

Do you know how other abortions are performed?

 

The arguemtn is that it boils down to basically pulling the baby out and then killing it. Thats not really true though because the head is usually crushed to ease removing the fetus. Thats the whole point