[AP] Supreme court upholds ban on partial birth abortion

Is there a reason why you find their testimony to be more objective? Would it be possible that Gynecologists and OB/GYN's as specialists in pregnancy would have more specific knowledge than a broad based group of generalists and specialists in other areas?

Two possibilities are that the procedure is taking place before the fetus is viable outside of the womb and if they wait until the fetus is viable that might lead to danger, such as in pregnancy where the baby is misaligned in the uterus, the mother is diabetic and unable to physically sustain the pregnancy or the fetus is malformed in some way that is a threat to the mother. The other possibility is that due to the position of the fetus or malformation it cannot be completely birthed.

Again I am speculating based on extremely limited knowledge but this is a procedure that has been used and some doctors still feel is necessary so there must be conditions where in this procedure is chosen. That is why I would rather leave that to doctors to determine when they are faced with that sort of situation.

 

My view is similar to my views on guns. The rights of the mother outweigh the rights of the fetus. In the same way the rights of a person to self defense.

Even if the baby is a person, that "person's" right to life does not outweigh the womans right to her body.

I also view any restriction or regulation as an attempt to get rid of them completely. Banning abortion or guns would be almost impossible these days but slowly getting people to accept more and more restrictions is where the new battlefield is.

 

1. i don't know...it's the AMA. ?? it seems less "interested" but equally expert. abortion is big business, sishir, as gross as that sounds;

2. are you sure you understand how this procedure works? this isn't because the baby can't be fully birthed. IN THIS PROCEDURE THE BABY IS FULLY BIRTHED!!! it's not just that they pull it out and it's not viable...and thus, it dies. they pull it halfway out of the woman...while halfway out, they stab an instrument (usually scissors) into the back of its skull to kill it....then they pull it out. i'm asking...wtf with the stabbing instrument to the back of the skull????? here's a link to an instructional manual on partial birth abortion: http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/Haskellinstructional.pdf starting at the bottom of page 29. these abortions are typically carried out between week 20-26 of the pregnancy. some are done in the third trimester as well (i'll have to locate congressional testimony for you on that).

I'll be honest with you. This is beyond grotesque to me. And given the propensity of abortions for convenience in this country in the 2nd trimester...I have a hard time not getting fairly angry when thinking about this subject. The doctor who wrote the article I linked you to, above, indicates in that very document that he's performed over 700 of these, himself...as the primary method by which he did 2nd trimester abortions. HOw the hell any of this has to do with the health of the mother completely escapes me. The entire baby is removed...it's just removed dead instead of alive. Because it's been stabbed in the back of the head by the "doctor."

so you'll understand what was banned, here's the definition of partial birth abortion according to the law the Supremes dealt with the other day:

partial-birth abortion--an abortion in which a physician deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living, unborn child's body until either the entire baby's head is outside the body of the mother, or any part of the baby's trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother and only the head remains inside the womb, for the purpose of performing an overt act (usually the puncturing of the back of the child's skull and removing the baby's brains) that the person knows will kill the partially delivered infant, performs this act, and then completes delivery of the dead infant

 

wow...

 

I was thinking about this point the other day from a slightly different point of view.

As a general rule it is against the law to deliberately kill someone but there is a key exception to that in regards to self-defense. If someone is trying to kill you you are legally allowed to respond with lethal force so killing someone in self-defense, even if you know that your action will kill them, isn't illegal.

As a rule society and our laws don't advocated killing someone and try to limit the necessity of killing in self-defense by trying to prevent that sort of situation from arising but that exception to killing is still recognized.

My own view of partial birth abortion is that it is grotesque and shouldn't be advocated and should be limited. The problem that I see though is I can't predict every situation where it might arise that this procedure might be deemed medically necessary, especially since there are many doctors who think it is. A ban on the use of this in terms of convenience sounds fine with me as long as an exception in extreme cases is recognized.

 

Not to discount the AMA but they are broad based, and further they also have political interest too as an advocacy group for the doctors and may have an interest in curing favor with anti-abortion legislators. If you are arguing bias there is the potential of bias by the OB/GYN's true there is but that doesn't mean there isn't within the AMA. Again consider that one organization overall is generalist while one is specialists.

2. are you sure you understand how this procedure works? [/QUOTE]

I understand it is a terribly grotesque procedure but many medical procedures are grotesque. There are procedures where half of a brain is removed, the heart is deliberately stopped, comas are induced, bones deliberately broken, and etc.. Again that doesn't mean though that there might not be a need for such procedure.

I don't deny you've studied the procedure but again I don't think you or even the AMA is in the position to absolutely rule out that there will never be a situation where it is needed since there are specialists who feel it is.

 

Killing a "person" is usually called "murder".

 

If you can think of any way that the partially-born baby can threaten the life of the mother, I will support her right to kill it to save her own life.

 

That is not for you, I, or Sishir to think of. That is what we have doctors for.

 

my point is...the concerns you were mentioning are not relevant to what this procedure actually is. to how it is actually carried out. i don't think pulling a baby halfway out of a mother...stabbing it...and then pulling it out is something that can be substantiated as good medicine. again, i'm not a doctor, but someone would really need to some explaining on that one.

 

right.

BUT....it turns out the doctors don't entirely agree. as with the global warming thing, there is no way to have consensus.

BUT...we do have this really large group called the American Medical Association that came out and said, "there's no medical purpose for this procedure." and a common sense look at it certainly supports that. and the legislature and the court both thought they were right.

what i'm hearing from those who don't like this are NOT reasons why this is an OK procedure, but rather that this ruling leads to a slippery slope.

 

At least for me, that is the case. I don't have any problem banning this procedure as long as there is a clause that allows for protection of the physical health of the mother.

 

which is entirely incidental when you consider the procedure STILL births the baby alive...until 2 seconds before it's entirely pulled out when scissors are jammed in the back of its head.

the reluctance to include what would be a worthless health of the mother clause for this procedure probably comes from how the court butchered the health of the mother clause after the Roe decision to justify virutally any abortion at any point during the pregnancy.

 

Language in the bill...

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abortion/2003s3.html

(C) A prominent medical association hasconcluded that partial-birth abortion is "not an accepted medical practice," that it has "never been subject to even a minimal amount of the normal medical practice development," that "the relative advantages and disadvantages of the procedure in specific circumstances remain unknown," and that "there is no consensusamong obstetricians about its use". The association has further noted that partial-birth abortion is broadly disfavored by both medical experts and the public, is "ethically wrong," and "is never the only appropriate procedure".

(D) Neither the plaintiff in Stenberg v.Carhart, nor the experts who testified on his behalf, have identified a single circumstance during which a partial-birth abortion was necessary to preserve the health of a woman.

(E) The physician credited with developingthe partial-birth abortion procedure has testified that he has never encountered a situation where a partial-birth abortion was medically necessary to achieve the desired outcome and, thus, is never medically necessary to preserve the health of a woman.

 

More language in the bill...alluding to the fact that the Roe opinion specifically pointed out that it did not affect these sorts of procedures:

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abortion/2003s3.html

H) Based upon Roe v. Wade (410 U.S.113 (1973)) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (505 U.S. 833 (1992)), a governmental interest in protecting the life of a child during the delivery process arises by virtue of the fact that during a partial-birth abortion, labor is induced and the birth process has begun. This distinction was recognized in Roe when the Court noted, without comment, that the Texas parturition statute, which prohibited one from killing a child "in a state of being born and before actual birth," was not under attack. This interest becomes compelling as the child emerges from the maternal body. A child that is completely born is a full, legal person entitled to constitutional protections afforded a "person" under the United States Constitution. Partial-birth abortions involve the killing of a child that is in the process, in fact mere inches away from, becoming a "person". Thus, the government has a heightened interest in protecting the life of the partially-born child.

(I) This, too, has not gone unnoticed inthe medical community, where a prominent medical association has recognized that partial-birth abortions are "ethically different from other destructive abortion techniques because the fetus, normally twenty weeks or longer in gestation, is killed outside of the womb". According to this medical association, the " 'partial birth' gives the fetus an autonomy which separates it from the right of the woman to choose treatments for her own body".

 

and finally...if the life of the mother is at risk:

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abortion/2003s3.html


A defendant accused of an offense under this section may seek a hearing before the State Medical Board on whether the physician's conduct was necessary to save the life of the mother whose life was endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

 

Hey my kidney and liver function is going downhill really fast. Can I get hooked up to you for 9 months? If you don;t let me then I'm gonna die. There are only 1 in 300 million people that can match my type and you are it.

 

Are we agreeing on something???!!!??

 

so abortion at any time under any circumstances, huh? using your logic, we'll throw out Roe and allow abortions for any reason in the third trimester, even. great.

and tell ya what...those little kids are a real pain in the ass even after they're born, what with all the late nights and bottle feedings and dirty diapers. man. seriously, i have a right to not deal with that that trumps the right of the child to live, right?

 

The courtsdecision was influenced, largely, by the fact that other procedures were available to achieve the same result. So if the 'stabbing the fetus once out' is what repulses you, how to you feel about 'stabbing it and cutting it up before removing it.' Sorry to be so blunt. But if we're trying to out-gross eachother, may as well be open about it.

From what I've read, this ban should have minimal, if any, impact on the number of abortions performed. Yet both sides (why do we always have to have sides???) rightly point out that it's tremedously important. Why?

Slippery slope? Or wedge? Both, isn't it.

Have any other medical procedures been banned, where the intent and effect of the procedure remains legal??

Are there other instances of potentially criminalizing a doctor by second guessing his judgement (on an incredibly high standard) on the process he or she used, when the end effect of the procedure was legal and successful (define that as you will).