Partial Birth Abortion Ban Upheld By Supreme Court

[rikzilla]

As for Roe -v- Wade, well it's an awfully thin thread to hang a "Constitutional Right" upon. Personally I think it should be overturned so that Congress would be forced by overwhelming public pressure to write specific abortion rights into the Constitution in an atmosphere of open public debate.

But then I'm a dreamer....

-z

 

[ChristineR]

Then they'd better develop better less risky procedures that exclude partially delivering a baby and crushing it's head. Gee, don't you think science is up to this task? Personally I have more faith in science than that. A line must be drawn somewhere. Abortion without limit is not a medical necessity.

-z

The alternative procedures are forcing the woman to go through labor and deliver a stillborn fetus, a caesarian section, or chopping up the fetus while it is still in the womb. This procedure was developed because it leaves the fetus intact enough for the family to see the fetus and even hold a funeral. There may be ways to make this all safer but I'm not seeing any obvious ways to make these abortions less disgusting.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Then they'd better develop better less risky procedures that exclude partially delivering a baby and crushing it's head. Gee, don't you think science is up to this task? Personally I have more faith in science than that. A line must be drawn somewhere. Abortion without limit is not a medical necessity.

-z

Good, why don't you work on that. I guess the OB/GYN's should all be thought of as idiots as they just never thought of that.

Guess that is what they get from not being permited to practice their love with thier patients.

 

[LawnOven]

I have read estimates that they represent somewhere between your figure, LawnOven, and 1% of all abortions in this country.

What is disturbing about the ruling is more in what it will lead to.

Ah, yeah I don't really know... I got that figure from wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_dilation_and_extraction

Although it looks like the term "partial-birth" may overlap several proceedures. New legal terms for already existing medical terms. Why must it be so difficult?

Personally I am concerned with any law that doesn't take the health of the mother into primary consideration.

 

[ponderingturtle]

While I agree with the importance of making exceptions for medical necessity, I'm curious to know why you think that the type mentioned in the ruling is the less risky of abortion procedures.

Where are you getting your information on this?

A NPR report on the case with OB/GYN's talking about being forced to use more risky procedures in such cases.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Without getting into the Constitutional technicalities of the issue (at least not just yet), I suspect this ruling probably reflects the general will of most people. Most of us - myself included - have very little trouble with abortion in the earliest stages of pregnancy. But I think most people also regard killing a healthy, nine-month term fetus as morally indistinguishable from murder, acceptable only when it's the baby's life or the mother's.

And this law does not exclude medical nessecity.

 

[rikzilla]

Good, why don't you work on that. I guess the OB/GYN's should all be thought of as idiots as they just never thought of that.

Guess that is what they get from not being permited to practice their love with thier patients.

These 3 Ukrainian women only loaned you their straw man....they want him back babuschka!

 

[ponderingturtle]

[qimg]http://images.worldofstock.com/slides/PCU3435.jpg[/qimg]

These 3 Ukrainian women only loaned you their straw man....they want him back babuschka!

Hey I was only quoteing bush. As by your standard OB/GYN's must be total idiots for not doing that, well that is a reason to concider them to be idiots. As bush said they are being prevented from practicing thier love with the women.

 

[rikzilla]

The alternative procedures are forcing the woman to go through labor and deliver a stillborn fetus, a caesarian section, or chopping up the fetus while it is still in the womb. This procedure was developed because it leaves the fetus intact enough for the family to see the fetus and even hold a funeral. There may be ways to make this all safer but I'm not seeing any obvious ways to make these abortions less disgusting.

There will never be a "no questions asked" on-demand abortion right. Lines must be drawn in order to protect a limited right to choose for the majority. This is a pretty basic and objective bit of real estate upon which to draw it. But I never said it was perfect.

-z

 

[ChristineR]

There will never be a "no questions asked" on-demand abortion right. Lines must be drawn in order to protect a limited right to choose for the majority. This is a pretty basic and objective bit of real estate upon which to draw it.

-z

All right, lets say we only allow late term abortions in cases of severe fetal deformity, or to save the life, or protect the health of the mother. We can even set up a judge to make sure that the health problem is serious and the mother hasn't just convinced a doctor to sign a form.

Which of the procedures are you in favor of? Crushing only the skull and extracting the fetus mostly intact? Burning the fetus in the womb and forcing the mother to go through hours of labor? Dismembering the fetus and pulling the pieces out?

Perhaps you'd like to consider letting the mother, her family, and her doctor decide.

 

[Katana]

A NPR report on the case with OB/GYN's talking about being forced to use more risky procedures in such cases.

Puzzling.

The other thing that I would add is that "partial birth abortion" is not a medical term. It was made up by an anti-abortion activist.

 

[Miss Anthrope]

Has anyone seen the actual numbers where this is deemed medically necessary? I saw one reference to the fact that some deformities which are so severe that the fetus would never survive can't be detected until 20 weeks, I'd feel much better informed on this issue if I knew what the actual numbers were rather than listening to emotions.

I'm very pro-choice, but, I'm a little concerned about later term abortions. The news article I saw stated that 10%, or 100,000 abortions are after 12 weeks.

In the case of medical necessity for later abortions, I would feel better if the doctor and patient had every safe option available, minimzing pain, trauma and risk to everyone.

 

[LawnOven]

Taking a cue from the bible; I think one should be able to perform an abortion up to 10 months after conception.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/lev/27.html#3

Based on the fact that babies under one month old have no monetary worth.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Puzzling.

The other thing that I would add is that "partial birth abortion" is not a medical term. It was made up by an anti-abortion activist.

Well yes, but they where discussing this case, and had lodged a complaint becuase it was not preventing abortions, just restricting the type to more risky.

an article on it

 

[Dave1001]

Without getting into the Constitutional technicalities of the issue (at least not just yet), I suspect this ruling probably reflects the general will of most people. Most of us - myself included - have very little trouble with abortion in the earliest stages of pregnancy. But I think most people also regard killing a healthy, nine-month term fetus as morally indistinguishable from murder, acceptable only when it's the baby's life or the mother's.

Of course, all the news coverage will have extensive sound bites from everyone at the extreme ends of the spectrum on the issue: the religious zealot pro-lifers opposed to abortion at any time, for any reason, and the pro-choicers untroubled by the killing of a baby in the womb while premature babies at earlier stages of development are being saved in the same hospital.

Because screaming and shouting idealogues make for the best TV, don't you know?

Too bad. I want your medical procedures to be determined by the judgment of lawyers, not by majority vote. As long as it's not done by the medical experts.

 

[Katana]

Well yes, but they where discussing this case, and had lodged a complaint becuase it was not preventing abortions, just restricting the type to more risky.

an article on it

Thanks for the link, ponderingturtle.

ETA: I have some thoughts, but I'm debating whether to get drawn into another heated thread. Debating gun control AND abortion at the same time? Yikes.

 

[rikzilla]

All right, lets say we only allow late term abortions in cases of severe fetal deformity, or to save the life, or protect the health of the mother. We can even set up a judge to make sure that the health problem is serious and the mother hasn't just convinced a doctor to sign a form.

Which of the procedures are you in favor of? Crushing only the skull and extracting the fetus mostly intact? Burning the fetus in the womb and forcing the mother to go through hours of labor? Dismembering the fetus and pulling the pieces out?

Perhaps you'd like to consider letting the mother, her family, and her doctor decide.

This is a political issue far more than a medical issue. If you champion abortion sans restriction you will lose. The anti-abortion nuts out there will use your arguments as protest posters. If you are serious about gaining a reason based Constitutional Right to abortion written into law instead of this hanging-by-a-legal-thread Roe-v-Wade decision then abortion will have to be narrowly defined in a manner that we may all morally live with.

Compromise.

Some will be hurt by such compromise, that can't be helped, but the majority could have a real Constitution Right to something that is indeed very useful and important. If we can't find a sensible common ground that the majority can get behind our children and children's children will forever be fighting this battle.....and maybe even losing someday.

-z

 

[Miss Anthrope]

Too bad. I want your medical procedures to be determined by the judgment of lawyers, not by majority vote. As long as it's not done by the medical experts.

Here's where the AMA stands on it. Doctors, not lawyers. Can any of our wonderful SkepDocs tell us how they feel about the AMA's general role in their own context?

The AMA report goes on to say, "The physician must, however, retain the discretion" to decide what procedure is used. The AMA says in some rare cases, intact dilation and extraction is the safest method of late-term abortion.

What I find confusing is that you may still use this method when it is medically necessary, then why bother with the ban at all? Again, where are the numbers indicating that doctors are doing this when it is not medically necessary?

 

[Miss Anthrope]

Thanks for the link, ponderingturtle.

ETA: I have some thoughts, but I'm debating whether to get drawn into another heated thread. Debating gun control AND abortion at the same time? Yikes.

Ah, I can't do the gun thing either. Even though I'm at a somewhat different place than you on guns, I know where you are coming from and you make great arguments. I can't do those debates at all anymore!

Anyway, I for one hope you'll enlighten us here with what you have to say.

I'm quite sincerely confused and curious about some of the details surrounding the ban, and I know you are a reasonable poster who will not be posting hyperbole.

 

[Katana]

Ah, I can't do the gun thing either. Even though I'm at a somewhat different place than you on guns, I know where you are coming from and you make great arguments. I can't do those debates at all anymore!

Anyway, I for one hope you'll enlighten us here with what you have to say.

I'm quite sincerely confused and curious about some of the details surrounding the ban, and I know you are a reasonable poster who will not be posting hyperbole.

Awww. Thanks, Miss Anthrope!

The feeling is mutual.

Now flattery IS something that might suck me into this.

ETA: The other issue is that I accidentally deleted my connection to my hospital's library which would allow me to back up my assertions with more reliable statistics than what I'm finding on Google.