[AP] Supreme court upholds ban on partial birth abortion

1. i understand that. the judges reviewed their testimony too, i'm sure. i'm certain the other side had experts.

2. ok..malpractice is an entirely different standard. for instance...Roe v. Wade says you can't do an abortion after the first trimester except in cases of medical necessity. if you do one, it's not malpractice. it's illegal. you're talking about leaving gaping holes in the law. unless you just want to say that everything is kosher.

 

Neither you are me are doctors and we can't predict the future. I agree this technique sounds barbaric but I know for a fact that there are potential complications where the fetus is abnormal and carrying to term might be harmful along with where the fetus might not be viable to begin with. In a case were somethng like that isn't discovered until the 2nd Trimester I would rather have doctors having the techniques to deal with that without having to worry about legal ramifications.

I'm not advocating this technique be used on a regular basis but I am not going to say it should never be used.

If this legislation has an exception for health and safety, no matter how rare it might be, I would retract my criticism.

 

Yes both sides had experts and it was a narrow ruling. Its a ruling I disagree with for reasons expressed.

And I think that that is a good standard but one that has been very sloppily enforced.

 

Do we not treat resident aliens as people?

 

I haven't had a chance to read the legislation but Justice Ginsburg in her dissent specifically cited that there is no health exception.

 

But they weren't born here and anyway the 14th Ammendment also applies to them. The Constitution grants citizenship on birth, the status of personhood also requires being born. If you are going to say personhood is at conception then conception on US soil should also be citizenship. If you are going to call the unborn resident aliens that wouldn't fit with the rest of the standards.

What it sounds like you are doing is trying to have it both ways and claim that in one instance someone is a person at conception and at another instance they aren't. If you are going to grant personhood at conception you should be willing to go all the way.

 

If you would add one thing (and do it at the State level), I would take your compromise. The one thing I would add to your compromise is that abortion clinics should be banned. Abortions should be performed by Ob-gyns who are looking out for the health of the mother first. Some of the least ethical medicine possible happens at abortion clinics.

 

According tho the article, they passed a law saying it was never medically necessary. Doesn't that make it so?

 

The AMA
The 2007 Court decision (5-4)

or

The College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
The 2000 Court decision (5-4)

We each defer to the 'expert' who agrees with our views.

 

and it's judiciary making rulings on the illegality of a medical procedure outside of the context of medical malpractice. that's my point. this happens all the time. i can only assume you have a problem with it this time because they may have gotten it wrong in your view?? is that right?

 

i do not understand this.

i'm suggesting that all they have to do is pull the child out another 6 inches or so...and give it a chance...even if that chance is teensie-tiny...at survival. what is the necessity of killing it when it's 6 inches from birth, other than that the baby is a burden to the mother (the same way my children are a "burden" to my wife). ????

 

True enough. Just as supporters of the ban would not have championed the judgement of the judges had one of the 5 majority judges agreed with the 4 dissenters.

Just as they didn't defer to the learned judgement of the six federal courts that said the law was an impermissible restriction on a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion.

I don't think anybody was looking to the judges to determine whether the procedure was 'right.' They were looking to see if, in their view, the judges made the right decision.

 

That tells me that there isn't agreement on this. As I said I'm not a doctor and would rather trust doctors on making the decision. A ban is some doctors saying that this is never needed yet obviously there is far from unamity on this. What if the ones who say it isn't needed are wrong?

I'm not declaring absolute knowledge where as the ban side is.

 

But again you're not a doctor and neither am I. Although I know as a fact that there are situations where bringing the child to term could be dangerous for the mother such as in cases resulting in severe abnormality of the fetus. At that point the fetus might not live but so might not the mother but under this law if the doctor decides this is the safest route why not leave them that option?

As I said though I'm not the one to make that call so why not leave it up to experts in the situation to make that call than trying to predict the future.

 

Not at all because the keep the procedure argument isn't an argument for saying this procedure should be always used whereas the other side is the procedure never be used.

 

Sorry for the rapid fire posts but I have a question for MadMax but anyone else is free to answer it.

Can you say with absolute certainty that there will never be a medical need for this proceedure?

 

i haven't heard the testimony of the experts that the Court did. i know what the AMA says. somehow i find their testimony to be a bit more objective than the smaller group. and i'm certainly not a doctor.

but i have a hard time imagining a scenario whereby it would be better to pull the child halfway out and kill it as opposed to some other method of abortion. it makes no sense to me why they wouldn't just pull the child out COMPLETELY at that point.

 

who said she had to bring the fetus to term??

i'm not talking about bringing it to term. i'm talking about not killing it once you've pulled it halfway out.

i get the sense we're not talking about the same procedure.

 

Max:

You keep deferring to one position paper of the AMA and the insight of 5 of the 9 justices (this time). Your position on abortion has been consistent, and I respect that. But please don't pretend that the objectivity of the experts you choose to rely on is any better than the ones you ignore.

 

but....it's the AMA...when do you ignore the AMA and not treat their views on medicine as something short of gospel?


my position on abortion is one thing. my position on partial birth abortion is another. with one, i can understand the arguments on the other side. i truly can't understand an argument in support of partial birth abortions. i've read too much congressional testimony in that regard from doctors who actually performed those procedures.