PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court OKs Abortion Procedure Ban



BigBadBrian
04-19-2007, 06:46 AM
Supreme Court OKs Abortion Procedure Ban


Apr 18, 3:48 PM (ET)

By MARK SHERMAN



WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court's conservative majority handed anti-abortion forces a major victory Wednesday in a decision that bans a controversial abortion procedure and set the stage for further restrictions.

For the first time since the court established a woman's right to an abortion in 1973, the justices upheld a nationwide ban on a specific abortion method, labeled partial-birth abortion by its opponents.

The 5-4 decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

The law is constitutional despite not containing an exception that would allow the procedure if needed to preserve a woman's health, Kennedy said. "The law need not give abortion doctors unfettered choice in the course of their medical practice," he wrote in the majority opinion.


Doctors who violate the law face up to two years in federal prison.

Kennedy's opinion, joined by Bush's two appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, was a long-awaited resounding win that abortion opponents expected from the more conservative bench.

The administration defended the law as drawing a bright line between abortion and infanticide.

Reacting to the ruling, Bush said that it affirms the progress his administration has made to defend the "sanctity of life."

"I am pleased that the Supreme Court has upheld a law that prohibits the abhorrent procedure of partial birth abortion," he said. "Today's decision affirms that the Constitution does not stand in the way of the people's representatives enacting laws reflecting the compassion and humanity of America."


Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia also were in the majority.

It was the first time the court banned a specific procedure in a case over how - not whether - to perform an abortion.

Abortion rights groups as well as the leading association of obstetricians and gynecologists have said the procedure sometimes is the safest for a woman. They also said that such a ruling could threaten most abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy, although Kennedy said alternate, more widely used procedures remain legal.

The outcome is likely to spur efforts at the state level to place more restrictions on abortions.

"I applaud the Court for its ruling today, and my hope is that it sets the stage for further progress in the fight to ensure our nation's laws respect the sanctity of unborn human life," said Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, Republican leader in the House of Representatives.

Said Eve Gartner of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America: "This ruling flies in the face of 30 years of Supreme Court precedent and the best interest of women's health and safety. ... This ruling tells women that politicians, not doctors, will make their health care decisions for them." She had argued that point before the justices.

More than 1 million abortions are performed in the United States each year, according to recent statistics. Nearly 90 percent of those occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and are not affected by Wednesday's ruling. The Guttmacher Institute says 2,200 dilation and extraction procedures - the medical term most often used by doctors - were performed in 2000, the latest figures available.

Six federal courts have said the law that was in focus Wednesday is an impermissible restriction on a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

The law bans a method of ending a pregnancy, rather than limiting when an abortion can be performed.

"Today's decision is alarming," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in dissent. She said the ruling "refuses to take ... seriously" previous Supreme Court decisions on abortion.

Ginsburg said the latest decision "tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists."

Ginsburg said that for the first time since the court established a woman's right to an abortion in 1973, "the court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman's health."

She was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.

The procedure at issue involves partially removing the fetus intact from a woman's uterus, then crushing or cutting its skull to complete the abortion.

Abortion opponents say the law will not reduce the number of abortions performed because an alternate method - dismembering the fetus in the uterus - is available and, indeed, much more common.

In 2000, the court with key differences in its membership struck down a state ban on partial-birth abortions. Writing for a 5-4 majority at that time, Justice Breyer said the law imposed an undue burden on a woman's right to make an abortion decision in part because it lacked a health exception.

The Republican-controlled Congress responded in 2003 by passing a federal law that asserted the procedure is gruesome, inhumane and never medically necessary to preserve a woman's health. That statement was designed to overcome the health exception to restrictions that the court has demanded in abortion cases.

But federal judges in California, Nebraska and New York said the law was unconstitutional, and three appellate courts agreed. The Supreme Court accepted appeals from California and Nebraska, setting up Wednesday's ruling.

Kennedy's dissent in 2000 was so strong that few court watchers expected him to take a different view of the current case.

Kennedy acknowledged continuing disagreement about the procedure within the medical community. In the past, courts have cited that uncertainty as a reason to allow the disputed procedure.

"The medical uncertainty over whether the Act's prohibition creates significant health risks provides a sufficient basis to conclude ... that the Act does not impose an undue burden," Kennedy said Wednesday.

While the court upheld the law against a broad attack on its constitutionality, Kennedy said the court could entertain a challenge in which a doctor found it necessary to perform the banned procedure on a patient suffering certain medical complications.

The law allows the procedure to be performed when a woman's life is in jeopardy.

The cases are Gonzales v. Carhart, 05-380, and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood, 05-1382.

Link (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070418/D8OJ7CL00.html)

Ellyllions
04-19-2007, 07:05 AM
I heard this yesterday, and the female reporter who was covering it was acting simply RIDICULOUS!

This ruling does NOT mean that if a woman's life is in danger, that this procedure cannot be done. It simply means that it can no longer be done for "convenience". And I'm all for that! This procedure is CRUEL, and barbaric and for a woman (ANY WOMAN OR MAN) to defend this as a way to end an inconvenient pregnancy is just disgusting.

The reporter was acting like Roe vs. Wade was in jeopardy due to this ruling. And that's just NOT so.

I'm not an abortion supporter. And I'm still wondering why more fathers aren't taking case with this whole abortion thing. Why does it get to be soley the woman's choice? The way I see it, I'm able to not get pregnant if it's not something I want and if I were to become pregnant the father most certainly has a say as to whether the baby is born or not.

And don't give me the "rape" defense....less than 1% of all abortions are performed on rape victims. Rapists don't use the MO of leaving that kind of evidence behind. I'm a woman and I'm here to tell you that most women who get abortions do so because the pregnancy was an unplanned, unprepared for, irresponsible accident. There is enough safe-sex methods readily available for this to not be such a problem. It's the same old selfish "I wanna do whatever the fuck I wanna do" mentality.

In the cases, of health issues? Doctor's "take" the fetus and don't report it as an "abortion" per se. Abortion is known simply as the killing, removing, or ending an unwanted preganacy.

Hit me with your best shot! I don't care. When we begin to take responsibility for our actions then this won't even be an argument.

ODShowtime
04-19-2007, 07:30 AM
Originally posted by Ellyllions
It's the same old selfish "I wanna do whatever the fuck I wanna do" mentality.

When we begin to take responsibility for our actions then this won't even be an argument.

I equate your disdain for people doing "whatever the fuck I wanna do" regarding abortion to my disdain for people who've said in this forum that they'll do whatever the fuck they want to do regarding the environment.

I bet almost all of those people are also against abortion.

The irony is amusing. You can do whatever you want to flush the whole planet down the toilet, but every life is precious! :rolleyes:

I forget if you were one of those "I'll ride my hummer to the gates of hell" types...

Ellyllions
04-19-2007, 08:33 AM
I don't even know what thread you're referring to.

TVGUY
04-19-2007, 09:07 AM
Most reporters or TV producers for that matter are just not that bright. They either don't get the subject matter or they don't want to. They also live for a controversay and if one is not available they will drum one up.. And that's the way it is.... unfortunately.

EAT MY ASSHOLE
04-19-2007, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by Ellyllions
I'm a woman and I'm here to tell you that most women who get abortions do so because the pregnancy was an unplanned, unprepared for, irresponsible accident.

Right! And what a happy child that'll be to a parent who is not ready to take on the responisbilities of taking a single pill on a single night, much less being a parent for a lifetime!

Look, you don't believe in abortion? FINE, YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE ONE. I have major problems with it too (espeically ever since going to see the BODIES exhibit), but it shouldn't be for you or I to decide what the hell ANYONE else decides to do. It's a privacy issue, pure and simple. NO ONE can legislate what ANYONE chooses to do with their body - whether it's in regards to drugs, sex, what religion if any they practice - or otherwise.

And yes, it is a major blow to abortion rights. Is it the end of Roe? No, but it is a significant chip against it.

Ellyllions
04-19-2007, 09:51 AM
So the child is better off dead?

During pregnancy an attachment is made. It's an emotional attachment. Most women who "forego" the abortion and decide to give birth literally have to not see the child when it's born. Know why? Because if they do, their first response is to KEEP IT.

You're right in that it's a privacy issue, but this particular procedure is horrifying, and this ruling does NOT affect abortion rights as a whole.

Ellyllions
04-19-2007, 10:04 AM
I tell ya what, EMA...let's change the rules on abortion a little. Let's say that all abortion is legal except change the method by which it's done.

Once the child is born, the mother is left in the delivery room with a lethal injection to use on the child. But she has to do it herself.

See, my thought process is that if we took away the "medical" nature of it, and made it truly a personal thing it wouldn't be so easy to just decide that you should've worn a condom or been more responsible with your birth control pill.

But when a 15 year old girl can go have an abortion without her parents ever knowing....the whole country should be outraged about that! That's not PERSONAL! A 15 year old girl should'nt be allowed to make that kind of decision without parental guidance!

BigBadBrian
04-19-2007, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by Ellyllions
I don't even know what thread you're referring to.

He doesn't either.

:gulp:

EAT MY ASSHOLE
04-19-2007, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by Ellyllions
But when a 15 year old girl can go have an abortion without her parents ever knowing....the whole country should be outraged about that! That's not PERSONAL! A 15 year old girl should'nt be allowed to make that kind of decision without parental guidance!

So if you had a 15 year old daughter she could approach you that she was determined to get an abortion? Wow...and it's not too crystal clear how well that would go down.

And you've attempted to turn it from a medical issue into an emotional one. Take a hammer and kill it after it's reached full-term? Come on. A foetus is NOT yet a full term human life, it's a zygote. At that rate, condoms are stopping the life from coming to fruition, b/c that sperm is well on its way to becoming a human life.

Hell, just unnapping a girls bra is where life begins, if you really think about it.

Nickdfresh
04-19-2007, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by Ellyllions
I heard this yesterday, and the female reporter who was covering it was acting simply RIDICULOUS!

This ruling does NOT mean that if a woman's life is in danger, that this procedure cannot be done. It simply means that it can no longer be done for "convenience"...

Actually, it does mean that anyone involved could be technically prosecuted, even if the mother's life is in danger...

And this procedure is very rare, mostly for just that, extreme cases where the mother's life is in danger...

ODShowtime
04-19-2007, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
He doesn't either.

:rolleyes:

Ellyllions
04-19-2007, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
So if you had a 15 year old daughter she could approach you that she was determined to get an abortion? Wow...and it's not too crystal clear how well that would go down.

And you've attempted to turn it from a medical issue into an emotional one. Take a hammer and kill it after it's reached full-term? Come on. A foetus is NOT yet a full term human life, it's a zygote. At that rate, condoms are stopping the life from coming to fruition, b/c that sperm is well on its way to becoming a human life.

Hell, just unnapping a girls bra is where life begins, if you really think about it.

Yes my 15 year old daughter could approach me about it. I have a 16 year old son and it's just as much an issue as if I'd had a girl.

There is a responsiblity when you unsnap that bra. Unprotected sex is just fucking DUMB! End of story. Each person who engages in unprotected sex isn't thinking about the consequences of their actions. When those consequences are taken lightly we end up with issues like the debate over abortion.

What we should be doing is being REAL with our children and teaching about responsiblity for their actions BEFORE this happens.

I have friends who have suffered the consequences of abortion. One can't stop purchasing baby cloths for the child she aborted when she was 15. She keeps them hidden but she's had them since 1985 and still buys stuff. She says to this day that is her biggest regret. She says that she "willingly killed a baby".

Another one can't have children. She's had 3 abortions and her body is damaged to the point that it won't incubate a baby. So she's not suffering emotionally but she can't have children of her own now that she wants to.

This is where science meets a crossroads with Psychology. There IS emotion to abortion. Impulse becomes the ruler and the circumstances afterward can be devastating for the rest of their adult lives.

Women have done some real damage with the feminist movement and it's damage to the entire sex without regard to circumstances. Abortion is bad because it gives people too much freedom to act recklessly and ruin their lives.

Health issues, the threat of the loss of life? I'm all over those. That's basic survival skills that have to go into play there.

ODShowtime
04-20-2007, 07:52 AM
Originally posted by Ellyllions
Abortion is bad because it gives people too much freedom to act recklessly and ruin their lives.

I'd say having an unwanted kid is a lot worse than a little baby clothes jones every now and then.

There are a wealth of studies regarding young pregnancies and poverty and the cycle it creates. It makes society worse.

Ellyllions
04-20-2007, 09:13 AM
Originally posted by ODShowtime
I'd say having an unwanted kid is a lot worse than a little baby clothes jones every now and then.

There are a wealth of studies regarding young pregnancies and poverty and the cycle it creates. It makes society worse.

You honestly come across as it's something that cannot be helped.

knuckleboner
04-20-2007, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by ODShowtime
I'd say having an unwanted kid is a lot worse than a little baby clothes jones every now and then.

There are a wealth of studies regarding young pregnancies and poverty and the cycle it creates. It makes society worse.

i totally understand your point here.

problem is, doesn't that logic hold true 1 minute after the birth? what if we redrew the line and said that it wasn't a separate person until after the umbilical cord was cut?

no, i'm not saying you're arguing to "abort" kids after they're born.

personally, though, i just don't know where to draw the line on when there is a 2nd person and when there isn't.

ELVIS
04-20-2007, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by Ellyllions
it gives people too much freedom



Too much freedom ??

You are, without a doubt, whether you know it or not, a real supporter of socialism...

You stand far left of the Clintons with statements like that...

ELVIS
04-20-2007, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by knuckleboner
i just don't know where to draw the line on when there is a 2nd person and when there isn't.


Maybe this will help you decide...

http://www.operationrescue.org/archives/pba.jpg

Ellyllions
04-20-2007, 09:52 AM
Originally posted by ELVIS
Too much freedom ??

You are, without a doubt, whether you know it or not, a real supporter of socialism...

You stand far left of the Clintons with statements like that...

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans" -- Bill Clinton in 1993 from USA Today

Ellyllions
04-20-2007, 09:57 AM
I dunno E....when you crop a sentence off like that you tend to get enough to make something of it...ya know.


the rest of that sentence was, "Too much freedom to act recklessly".

I guess I couldn't persuade you to believe that most laws are created for the protection of self, eh?

ELVIS
04-20-2007, 09:58 AM
Yep...

And FORD will tell us how Clinton is the greatest president of our lifetime...

Ellyllions
04-20-2007, 09:58 AM
This ain't about Clinton or any other President.

ELVIS
04-20-2007, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by Ellyllions
Abortion is bad because it gives people too much freedom to act recklessly and ruin their lives.



Again, too much freedom ??

Maybe we should take a poll on who the dumbass is...

ELVIS
04-20-2007, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by Ellyllions
I guess I couldn't persuade you to believe that most laws are created for the protection of self, eh?

Name some...

Ellyllions
04-20-2007, 10:02 AM
Yeah, sorry about that I got ahead of myself. I really try not to name-call.

Take your poll. I won't be affected.

Ellyllions
04-20-2007, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by ELVIS
Name some...

-speed limits
-drug laws
-most all traffic violations
-gun laws


Shit, all laws are created in an attempt protect someone from something whether it's the user or the possibly affected.

ELVIS
04-20-2007, 10:31 AM
How 'bout a law to protect an unborn child ??

EAT MY ASSHOLE
04-20-2007, 10:40 AM
ELVIS, YOU AND HER ARE ON THE SAME SIDE OF THIS ARGUMENT!!! SHESSSH!!!

Ellyllions
04-20-2007, 10:43 AM
He just doesn't like me and wants to prove it every chance he gets.

Let him.

EAT MY ASSHOLE
04-20-2007, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by Ellyllions
There is a responsiblity when you unsnap that bra. Unprotected sex is just fucking DUMB! End of story.

Well, thanks for making my point for me. If these individuals aren't prepared to take a simple precaution on one reckless night, are they really fit and ready to be parents? NO ONE ENJOYS GETTING ABORTIONS. You make it sound like it's a casual thing someone does on their way to Wal-Mart to pick up charcoal for Saturday night's BBQ.

Since we've invoked Clinton here (the furthest right of any Democrat president EVER, BTW), let's take his words "Abortions should be rare, safe...and legal." It's a final option for some people, others (hopefully) will opt for open adoption.

But you can't say abstinence is the only way, and the REALITY is we ALL do sumb things from time to time. Driving without a seatbealt, watching and caring too much about American Idol and Sanjaya, or maybe - it happens - having sex unprotected. (This is discounting the condom breaking, btw).

Yes, it's rash. Yes, it's irresponsible. Nut what is, is. And each individual is different. What's best for me might not be what's best in the mind of a politiican.

Guitar Shark
04-20-2007, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
Nut what is, is.

Poetry. Sheer poetry.

Ellyllions
04-20-2007, 10:55 AM
I haven't said abstinence is anything.

Trying to teach abstinence to this generation (in my opinion) is a waste of time. I honestly think that the stress put on abstinence is part of the reason abortion is an option.

People are GONNA screw around. Teenagers are Gonna screw around. It's high-time all parents realized this. I tell my son, even when I don't need to, "If you're gonna do it, be prepared for the consequences." I have provided him with condoms and had the "talk" that even allowed him to be open enough to tell me that he's already had sex.

I can't sit here and type like I'm some model mom because he could come home and tell me that someone is pregnant because of him. But I feel certain that because I've been real about this whole issue, the chances of that happening are slim at best.

And that's where I think the fight against convenience abortions should start....at home...with the kids and the parents being real with each other.

Ellyllions
04-20-2007, 10:57 AM
The only stump that I keep running into is the fact that my grandparents were married at ages before 16 and had 11 children.

I can't possibly imagine my son marrying a woman just so they can have sex. But that's how things were in the early 1900's....

EAT MY ASSHOLE
04-20-2007, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by Guitar Shark
Poetry. Sheer poetry.

Thanks! I'm no Cho Seung-Hui, but I get by.

ODShowtime
04-20-2007, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by Ellyllions
You honestly come across as it's something that cannot be helped.

What? Unwanted pregnancies? We should all try our best, but they can't be stopped. And the younger and dumber you are, the more likely you'll have kids early and not have money to bring them up properly.


I see this as a way for the right to chip away at the stone. Which is ok since the whole thing is a wedge issue anyway. I'd love to see the stats on this late term stuff to see what the flap is about.

ODShowtime
04-20-2007, 08:04 PM
Originally posted by knuckleboner
i totally understand your point here.

problem is, doesn't that logic hold true 1 minute after the birth? what if we redrew the line and said that it wasn't a separate person until after the umbilical cord was cut?

personally, though, i just don't know where to draw the line on when there is a 2nd person and when there isn't.

That's the central question kb.

I'd rather figure it out for myself than let these dumbfucks tell me about it. Who has any credibility anymore?

The whole gw debacle has given me a pretty self-determined outlook.

Nickdfresh
04-21-2007, 01:14 AM
Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
ELVIS, YOU AND HER ARE ON THE SAME SIDE OF THIS ARGUMENT!!! SHESSSH!!!

Elvis' meds ran out, or maybe he's using again...

Clintons are "far left?"

Showing abortion pics?

Nickdfresh
04-21-2007, 01:16 AM
Originally posted by Ellyllions
He just doesn't like me and wants to prove it every chance he gets.

Let him.

Because Elvis, much like fundamentalist Islamists, is afraid of women...

sadaist
04-21-2007, 02:38 AM
Originally posted by Ellyllions


It simply means that it can no longer be done for "convenience". And I'm all for that! This procedure is CRUEL, and barbaric and for a woman (ANY WOMAN OR MAN) to defend this as a way to end an inconvenient pregnancy is just disgusting.


Agree 100%. Partial birth abortions are pretty barbaric.

As for "convenience", you hit the nail on the head. I don't have a problem with women getting abortions. Shit happens. But when people become so numb to the procedure that they use it as another form of birth control, then it becomes sick. I've known of girls who by their early 20's had already had multiple abortions...none for health reasons. Just sluts who weren't careful.

Nickdfresh
04-21-2007, 02:43 AM
Oh, come the fuck on!!

Women don't have "partial birth abortions" for convenience! It's a last resort, rarely performed procedure...

Nickdfresh
04-21-2007, 02:44 AM
Originally posted by sadaist
Agree 100%. Partial birth abortions are pretty barbaric.

As for "convenience", you hit the nail on the head. I don't have a problem with women getting abortions. Shit happens. But when people become so numb to the procedure that they use it as another form of birth control, then it becomes sick. I've known of girls who by their early 20's had already had multiple abortions...none for health reasons. Just sluts who weren't careful.

I agree actually...

The problem or double standard is that men can act irresponsibly, and not have to worry about pregnancy quite as much...

Nickdfresh
04-21-2007, 02:59 AM
An article on this topic...

Partial Truths in the Partial-Birth-Abortion Debate
Every abortion is gross, but the technique is not the issue.
By Atul Gawande
Posted Friday, Jan. 30, 1998, at 3:30 AM ET

Slate.com (http://www.slate.com/id/2671/)

Banning an obscure technique like partial-birth abortion would seem to be a rather modest goal for anti-abortion forces faced with the most sympathetic Congress they have had since Roe vs. Wade. But the issue could change their fortunes. That's because, as a medical technique, nothing makes partial-birth abortion fundamentally different from other forms of late-term abortion. Certainly it is no more grisly. If pro-choice politicians help pass the ban, their case for allowing other late-term procedures will be fatally weakened. But good policy on abortion would not focus on techniques at all--or even on when the fetus can survive outside the womb. It would hinge on the question of when the fetus first becomes a perceiving being.

Pro-life advocates offer a seductive argument: Whatever you think about abortion in general, partial-birth abortion is just too ghastly to permit. As Republican National Committeeman Tim Lambert argues: "It is really not about abortion. It's about infanticide, it's about a procedure so gruesome the American Medical Association is opposed to it." Now even strongly pro-choice politicians see this as a no-brainer and may provide enough votes to override President Clinton's veto of the ban.

In general, obstetricians told me, their choice of abortion method depends mainly on the fetus' size. During the first eight weeks of pregnancy, when the fetus is very small, medications like methotrexate and RU-486 can safely make the uterus slough the placenta and gestational sac. In the United States, however, obstetricians usually use "vacuum aspiration," which can be performed through the 15th week, while the fetus's head is less than an inch in size. They insert a suction tube through the cervix and suck out the sac and the fetus along with it.

People are generally comfortable with this. They don't like it, they wish it had never come to this, but they don't identify with, in antiseptic doctor argot, the "products of conception." According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, one-fourth of U.S. pregnancies are aborted--around 1.4 million a year. The institute estimates that a whopping 43 percent of women will have at least one abortion by age 45. Almost all abortions--94 percent--are done by the 15th week of pregnancy, predominantly by vacuum aspiration.

But 6 percent--more than 80,000 abortions--are done after 15 weeks, and several hundred of these are done after 24 weeks, commonly taken to be the point of viability. The fetus is now too big to fit into the suction tubing. A 20-week fetus is commonly 6 inches long or more.

Why do women wait so long before seeking an abortion? Sometimes, they have no choice. Women who abort because of a fetal abnormality don't find out about the problem until quite late: Amniocentesis to collect fetal chromosomes for analysis generally is done at 18 weeks. A few late abortions are done for the mother's health, to save her, for example, from possible disaster caused by an infected uterus or a newly diagnosed heart condition. Most of the time, however, they are elective. Often, the mother didn't know she was pregnant. "The power of human denial is unbelievable," one obstetrician told me. It's not at all uncommon, he said, to see women go through an entire pregnancy without realizing it, come to the ER with a stomachache, and turn out to be in labor.

The usual options for late-term abortion are 1) induced labor and delivery or 2) dilatation and evacuation. For induction--used in less than 15 percent of cases--labor is stimulated with drugs. Delivery usually takes from 36 to 48 hours in the hospital, but it can take even longer. Sometimes, before delivery, the obstetrician injects the fetus with a drug that stops its heart. If not, the heart sometimes beats even after the fetus has been delivered. Even without oxygen from its barely formed lungs, I'm told, the fetus's heart can continue beating for minutes and even hours.

About 80 percent of late-term abortions are done by D and E. A couple of days ahead, small, absorbent rods are put in the pregnant woman's cervical opening to expand it gradually. Then, for the actual procedure, she--and the fetus--are given heavy sedation or general anesthesia. The doctor breaks her bag of water and drains out the fluid. The opening won't let the fetus out whole. So the doctor inserts metal tongs, physically crushes the head, and dismembers the fetus. The pieces are pulled out and counted to confirm that nothing was missed.

Partial-birth abortion is, if anything, less grotesque. The fetus is delivered feet first. To get the large head out, the doctor cuts open a hole at the base of the fetus's skull and inserts tubing to suck out the brain, which collapses the skull. Often, but not always, the fetus is injected lethally beforehand. The procedure is used for a very small percentage of late abortions, and nothing makes it especially necessary over D and E. In fact, none of the obstetricians I talked to had even heard of the technique until it became a hot political topic. It seems hardly anyone uses partial-birth abortion, and if it's banned, almost no one will miss it.

That partial-birth abortion is rare and inessential makes it easier, no doubt, for the AMA and pro-choice politicians like Republican Sen. Arlen Specter and Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle to back the ban. But they insist that they stand by the right to any other second-term abortion. If partial-birth abortion is too gruesome to allow, however, it is hard to see how other late abortions, especially D and Es, are any different. And that's the inevitable next target for pro-life advocates.

Grossness is not a good objection. Lots of operations are gross--leg amputations, burn surgery, removal of facial tumors, etc. But that does not make them wrong.

What makes a late abortion disturbing is that the fetus is big now--like a fully formed child. Two of my obstetrician friends, both strongly pro-choice, told me that, even when it is a mother's life at stake and abortion is absolutely necessary, doing the D and E feels "horrible." We imagine, as we look in the fetus's eyes, that there is someone in there. And if there were, any elective late abortion--even by induction--would be wrong, though D and E and partial-birth abortion would seem especially cruel.

Is there "someone in there"? The legal debate after Roe vs. Wade has led us to focus on whether the fetus is viable--whether it can survive outside the womb. But knowing whether we have the technology to keep it alive doesn't answer our question.

I face the same question when I have a patient on life support. His heart may be beating and his lungs may be breathing, but that doesn't tell me whether he is a living person anymore. What I want to know is whether his brain has ceased functioning. Likewise, in the case of a fetus, it seems that what we want to know is whether it has a brain with the spark of consciousness. For example, we don't view anencephalics, babies tragically born with only a brain stem and not the rest of the brain, as living humans. Even for viable anencephalics, there's no purpose to providing treatment. We let them die.

Whether the fetus is in the womb or out, big or small, does not matter, either. But the size and appearance of the late-term fetus make us imagine that it has become a sensate, aware creature--and makes many supporters of first-trimester abortion uncomfortable with later-term ones.

It's not clear when the fetus can perceive, but it is doubtful that it can before 22 weeks. That's the earliest time anatomic studies give for the first sensory fibers reaching the early brain. By 25 weeks, however, neonates show complex facial reactions to stimuli that reflect higher brain--possibly conscious--activity. Somewhere between 22 and 25 weeks, the fetus does become a distinctly different being. We need more in-depth study to identify this critical juncture. That's because most people would feel that it is wrong to do elective abortions--abortions when the health of the mother is not at risk and the fetus is not seriously deformed--beyond that point. The current debate glosses over these issues. There's no good reason to single out partial-birth abortion--or any technique. From the pro-lifers' standpoint, banning it will not actually save a single fetus. And for abortion-rights supporters, it is only an invitation to inconsistency.
Atul Gawande, M.D., writes a regular column on science and policy for Slate.

Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2671/

Copyright 2007 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC

sadaist
04-21-2007, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I agree actually...

The problem or double standard is that men can act irresponsibly, and not have to worry about pregnancy quite as much...

True. Not nearly as much. But who wants to knock up a one night stand you meet at a club? Or catch whatever? To me, there was never a piece of ass worth dying over. But I suppose when alcohol or drugs are factored in, common sense goes out the window.

smithcreww
04-21-2007, 08:49 PM
it is still a free country like it or not. freedom of choice is our legal right, not for someone else to decide.

Seshmeister
04-21-2007, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by Ellyllions
One can't stop purchasing baby cloths for the child she aborted when she was 15. She keeps them hidden but she's had them since 1985 and still buys stuff. She says to this day that is her biggest regret. She says that she "willingly killed a baby".

Another one can't have children. She's had 3 abortions and her body is damaged to the point that it won't incubate a baby. So she's not suffering emotionally but she can't have children of her own now that she wants to.


Good. Those are the kids that would be currently trying to steal Elvis's guitars. It's a gene pool we don't need. It's not like there is a shortage of humans on the planet.

Ask a fucking statistician. Roe v Wade reduced crime in NYC not Gulianni.

Cheers!

:gulp:

Seshmeister
04-21-2007, 11:43 PM
Also I dunno why the US seems to contantly tie itself in knots about abortion.

Abortion is very simple. Up until the point the child is unviable outside the mother which is around 22 weeks at the moment then it's a no brainer mothers choice. Late abortions like Elvis's lovely pics at least here are a tiny tiny minority of cases and in Europe at least much harder to get.

The huge irony is that of course it's completely ok to kill kids as long as they were unlucky enough to be born in Iraq.

Fuckin heathens...

Cheers!

:gulp:

Seshmeister
04-21-2007, 11:49 PM
Just read Nick's article which backs up my chat.

Nickdfresh
04-21-2007, 11:58 PM
Originally posted by Seshmeister
...
The huge irony is that of course it's completely ok to kill kids as long as they were unlucky enough to be born in Iraq.

Fuckin heathens...

Cheers!

:gulp:

Or too suffer substandard (if any) healthcare, malnutrition, crime, and a complete lack of educational opportunities if they were born on the wrong side of the tracks in the US....

Every life is precious, until it falls out of the vagina, huh hypocrites?

And you moralistic fuckwits like "let the ******s drowned" Elvis, fuck off!

sadaist
04-22-2007, 03:43 AM
Originally posted by smithcreww
it is still a free country like it or not. freedom of choice is our legal right, not for someone else to decide.

Yeah, and Seung-Hui Cho was expressing his freedom of choice?

sadaist
04-22-2007, 03:47 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh

Every life is precious, until it falls out of the vagina...



Did you "fall out"? Your mom must be like a candle making class...everyone's dipped their wick.

Nickdfresh
04-22-2007, 07:45 AM
Originally posted by sadaist
Did you "fall out"? Your mom must be like a candle making class...everyone's dipped their wick.

Well, you haven't obviously...

Par for the course...

sadaist
04-22-2007, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Well, you haven't obviously...

Par for the course...

I would have, but she refused to shave her back.

Nickdfresh
04-22-2007, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by sadaist
I would have, but she refused to shave her back.

Then it was probably my gay uncle.

I doubt you cared much as you're obviously not discerning...

sadaist
04-22-2007, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh

I doubt you cared much as you're obviously not discerning...

LOL. I took a few pointers from Binnie...

1) Any port in a storm...
2) A 2 at 10 and a 10 at 2...
3) Two 5's make a 10, but five 2's definitely do not...

lazlor
04-23-2007, 11:21 PM
I'm a bit angered, and saddened that the obvious alternative to this hasn't been mentioned.

Adoption.

I'm adopted, from a 17 and 19 yr old couple who wasnt ready to have a kid in late '68.

I have friends now that have to jump through every sort of hoop to adopt today, and thankfully, they got through it. And are now proud parents.

It solves the problem for the babies who cant be taken care of by irresposible kids, and gives them to people who are actively looking for a family.

You cant look for a better situation honestly.

The only downside is that the woman/teen would have to carry the child to term. Not a terrible lesson to pay up on when ya screw up.

Angel
04-28-2007, 06:06 PM
I can't speak for the US, but in Canada a big part of the reason why there are less babies available for adoption is because more often than not, teenagers are now keeping their babies.

Adoption can have a lot of problems as well. My ex-husband was adopted, and had severe abandonment issues.

In a perfect world, the young parents would have the support needed in the community to keep and care for their children.

hideyoursheep
05-06-2007, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Because Elvis, much like fundamentalist Islamists, is afraid of women...

That's fuckin' great....;)

hideyoursheep
05-06-2007, 10:53 AM
"The pill" doesn't always work....

Condoms break....

Yes.. they do.....

Sometimes,they fall off...

So I've heard...

I doubt anyone actually "wants" an abortion.

Maybe if there were "HillaryCare", no one would worry about the financial burden of healthcare that follows with the addition of a child that the people in question were unprepared for.
Think about it, dummycons.
You can't have it both ways.

Nickdfresh
05-06-2007, 12:13 PM
And sometimes kids are kept purposefully ignorant by being denied any form of rudimentary sex education in the vain, discredited belief that "abstinence" will work...

hideyoursheep
05-06-2007, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
And sometimes kids are kept purposefully ignorant by being denied any form of rudimentary sex education in the vain, discredited belief that "abstinence" will work...


Yeah...It works wonders for the Catholic priests, doesn't it?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

"Purposefully ignorant...."


="Rythem method"?:eek:


Misspelled it.