Senate bans 'partial-birth' abortion

[Larissa]

The other war: Abortion...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2848001.stm

[El Jos]

I don't understand how you can be pro-abortion, why is that so? is it not simply systematic extermination of human life?

forgive me because its my first post and already i sound like a blue collar conservative, its just i dont believe its right, and i dont think just because you are left wing that you should be pro-choice

[Umoja]

I personally, am glad they banned partial birth abortion. Isn't that when they suck a baby's brain out, and let the woman deliver it?

[Pete]

You can be pro-abortion because you are a raped woman or teenage girl. You can be pro-abortion because you already have 6 or 7 starving children. You can be pro-choice if you are a male who will never have to deal with being raped and becoming pregnant, or becoming pregnant period. I have no say in whether or not a female has an abortion because of what I have between my legs.

[KRAZYKILLA]

dont you have a vagina? j/k.

[RedCeltic]

Any of you who supports this bill and think that it's about banning "Sucking a babies brain out" needs to be smacked.

As the President of NOW said, "Contrary to what opponents of abortion rights would have you believe, this bill is not about a specific late-term procedure. This bill, like each of its predecessors, is purposely worded so vaguely that it could criminalize even some of the safest and most common abortion procedures after twelve weeks and well before fetal viability."


This bill has absolutly nothing to do with protecting women's health, and in fact it lacks an exception clause which is required by the constitution... when a woman's life is in danger.

This is a case of right wing politicians confusing the public into thinking this bill bans Infantcide, while in fact the procedure it bans is well before the point of viability.

As for the lame brain who said, "I don't understand how you can be pro-abortion"

NOBODY IS PR0-ABORTION!

Instead... I'd rather ask... how can you support women butchering themselves with wire hangers, and by back ally quacks because your high morality demands you to place a prohibition on quality healthcare for women?

http://www.feministcampus.org/images/wirehanger.gif

http://www.feministcampus.org/images/Dv87302s2.jpg

http://www.gridlock.com/reaganera/abortion.JPG

http://www.geocities.com/billrinehart/abortion.JPG

http://www.cwluherstory.com/CWLUGallery/images/AbortionP.gif

[Umoja]

When does abortion become infancide though? The child isn't considered a person when? I'd support abortion early on in a pregnancy, but later on in a pregnancy it should be restricted, only because we have no definition of when a human becomes human.

[RedCeltic]

Infacide is a practice that even pro-choicers are against.. that's late term abortions. What this bill does is to pave the way for a full prohibition on all abortion by carrying hidden legistation on the back of a ban of a medical practice that is rarely practiced.

If this bill isn't striken down on an appeal to the Supreme Court... you can expect to see a full prohibition on abortions in the United States and an end to the 30 year reproductive freedoms Roe vs. Wade gave women in the US.

[RedCeltic]

hmmm... upon further reading I have read from experts that say it will be struck down at the U.S. Court of Appeals level, and the Supreme Court will refuse to grant certiorari.

This process will take about 2-4 years. The bill lacks a mandatory exeption that is required from a previous amendment.

Others say that it purpousfully lacks the expemption as because it was never seriously ment to be a standing law but ment as a vehicle to use for chalanging Roe vs. Wade itself.

We'll see...

[Kapitan Andrey]

I'm against the aborts(this is on Russian)!!!

But I didn't understood:" That hook with blood means abort?"

[RedFW]

RedCeltic is absolutely correct about the vague language of what has now passed. Also, "partial-birth abortion" is not a medical procedure or term that is found in any medical dictionary. It was coined by the anti-choice movement to demonise women who seek abortions and those who provide them.

Here is some information about it:

Partial Truth Abortion: Full Story (http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=6137)


The battle over a woman's right to choose has become not just a matter of law, but also of language, forcing pro-choice activists into a metaphysical netherworld, having to fight, among other things, a ban on something that does not exist—"partial-birth abortion." The term, concocted by anti-choice activists as part of an incendiary public relations campaign to persuade the public that living babies are partially delivered and then killed, is not found in any medical dictionary. We need to erase it from the public discourse.

The vagueness of the phrase means that it can include not only the rare late-term abortion we think they're talking about, but also certain procedures done in the first and second trimesters, which are currently protected by law. It has been a diabolical public relations success. A 2000 CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll showed that 64 percent of the public favored making "partial-birth abortion" illegal (up from 55 percent in 1997), with "partial-birth abortion" being defined as "a specific abortion procedure conducted in the last six months of pregnancy."

But the term has backfired in the courts. In most states with "partial-birth abortion" bans, the laws have been enjoined because of vague language that renders them unconstitutional. In Michigan, for example, the court concluded "the language of the definition of 'partial-birth abortion'...is hopelessly ambiguous and not susceptible to a reasonable understanding of its meaning." In other states the bans have been enjoined because they interfere with a woman's ability to obtain an abortion early in pregnancy and because they don't provide exceptions that would protect her health.

According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive rights and health research organization, almost half the women having abortions beyond 15 weeks say they were delayed because of problems in affording or getting access to abortion services. Still, more than 99 percent of all abortions in the U.S. are performed in the first 20 weeks of pregnancy. And 43 percent of abortion facilities provide services only through the twelfth week. The tiny percentage of abortions performed after 20 weeks are often due to serious health risks to the woman or severe fetal abnormalities. As a Minneapolis Star Tribune editorial put it, "There's no proof that women are ringing up their doctors in late pregnancy for whimsical elective abortions."

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) clearly states, "The potential exists that legislation prohibiting specific medical practices...may outlaw techniques that are critical to the lives and health of American women." ACOG fellow Dr. Paul Blumenthal points out, "When performing surgery there is no time for a call to the legislature, the Supreme Court, or anyone else in order to ascertain a statutory position or to request a waiver."

Because there is no exception to this ban, women whose lives are in danger cannot be given the safest form of abortion available to them. This was put forward as an amendment to the bill but was rejected.

ACLU on "partial birth abortions" (http://www.aclu.org/ReproductiveRights/ReproductiveRights.cfm?ID=4998&c=148)

[Pete]

It is idiotic for anymale to be anti - choice.

[Tasha]

The hook is a clotheshanger and is commonly used on the streets to perform an abortion, alot of the time the woman dies.

[truthaddict11]

the "partial birth" ban does make it open season on all abortion procedures. I am sure this will end up in the courts. isnt abortion not covered by Medicaid?

[mentalbunny]

If you don't like abortions, then don't fucking have one but don't funcking dare to stop other people!

I personally see them as necessary in certain circumstances and I would have one if I could not otherwise support the child but it would haunt me for the rest of my life. I can see why people would want to ban this kind of abortion because you could always get a different type earlier and it does seem to be particularly brutal and traumatic, but I don't think that it should always be illegal and in some circumstances giving birth to the baby when it's due to be born would be too dangerous and this "partial birth" is the only option, after all it's unlikely that anyone would choose this method over others that are less painful and emtionally traumatic.

[RedFW]

I am sure this will end up in the courts. isnt abortion not covered by Medicaid?

The idea is that once this reaches the courts, there will be enough anti-choice judges to throw it out and overturn Roe v Wade. That is why all of the people Bush has nominated will either not reveal their stance on the matter of abortion or are adamantly anti-choice. IIRC abortion is not provided to women on medicaid or many types of private healthcare. In fact, many health insurers do not cover contraception.


I can see why people would want to ban this kind of abortion because you could always get a different type earlier and it does seem to be particularly brutal and traumatic, but I don't think that it should always be illegal and in some circumstances giving birth to the baby when it's due to be born would be too dangerous and this "partial birth" is the only option, after all it's unlikely that anyone would choose this method over others that are less painful and emtionally traumatic.

Could you explain what you mean about "this type of abortion"? The ban doesn't specify the type or abortion or the trimester the ban applies to. What it refers to is "dilation", which most procedures whether early or late in a pregnancy rely upon to extract the fetus. IIRC it also refers to "delivery" which is vague and misleading because any fetus that is extracted must come out through the birth canal. Some people who support the ban, believe it is stopping late term abortions, but Planned Parenthood and Naral, as well as Pro-Choice America have all said there is no evidence to suggest that women have, on a whim, changed their minds seven months into the pregnancy and said "I think I will have an abortion today". Women who have late term abortions do so because either their health is at risk or the fetus's health is at risk. So why the ban? I think it is particularly sadistic to have a late term ban without the exception for women whose lives may be in danger, but of course, this isn't a late term ban, it is an outright assualt on the right of all women to choose and control their fertility, whether their lives be in danger or not.

[Umoja]

I'm just saying, abortion is convienent in most cases. No for cases of rape, or life threatening, and having a child aborted well into the pregnancy seems pretty foolhardy, if the previous circumstances hadn't happend. As usual, I don't think banning abortion proves much, but if what someone told me about partial birth abortion is correct, then I'm hard pressed to say it should exist when much more humane ways of aborting exist, but since this bill doesn't really present it out like that, I understand where people are coming from.