Partial Birth Abortion Ban Upheld By Supreme Court

LawnOven

robot
LawnOven
Joined
Sep 5, 2001
Messages
1,308
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070418/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_abortion;_ylt=Al_bKadpGeCCG_MgXUIIbFPMWM0F?

The Supreme Court upheld the nationwide ban on a controversial abortion procedure Wednesday, handing abortion opponents the long-awaited victory they expected from a more conservative bench.
The 5-4 ruling 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.
Click to expand...

Whatever your opinion, it is clear elections have consequences.

edit: Haha, my very own abortion thread.
 
I knew the Roe vs Wade ruling confirmed a constitutional right to privacy and included abortion under it, I was surprised that they would take it further and declare a specific right to abortions.
 
I think it is by proxy. Right to privacy is the key issue in making abortion legal; on a federal level.

Or in other words, a woman has a constitutional right to privacy, therefore she has a consitutional right to abortions.
 
That's funny! A Constitutional right to abortion??!! Please cite it then by all means!

I find it hysterical that the same folks who so easily see a right to abortion can never seem to apprehend the second amendment! Oh well, there are nuts on both ends of these issues!

Personally I support a woman's right to choose, but within sane boundaries. Abortion should be safe and legal so long as it is not late term. Even then I support the woman's right to abortion if her health is at risk....but the partial birth procedure is grotesque and could arguably even be construed a homicide.

Upholding the ban on this barbarism is hardly a sign of the Evil Conservative SCOTUS we've been taught to fear since Bush was elected...twice....

-z
 
It's so cool that my legal education better qualifies me to determine the practice of obstretics & gynecology than actual obstetricians and gynecologists. :)
 
rikzilla said:
That's funny! A Constitutional right to abortion??!! Please cite it then by all means!

I find it hysterical that the same folks who so easily see a right to abortion can never seem to apprehend the second amendment! Oh well, there are nuts on both ends of these issues!

Personally I support a woman's right to choose, but within sane boundaries. Abortion should be safe and legal so long as it is not late term. Even then I support the woman's right to abortion if her health is at risk....but the partial birth procedure is grotesque and could arguably even be construed a homicide.
Click to expand...

The vast majority of late term abortions are for medical reasons. What this does is force the doctors to use more risky procedures in these cases.
 
rikzilla said:
That's funny! A Constitutional right to abortion??!! Please cite it then by all means!

I find it hysterical that the same folks who so easily see a right to abortion can never seem to apprehend the second amendment! Oh well, there are nuts on both ends of these issues!

Personally I support a woman's right to choose, but within sane boundaries. Abortion should be safe and legal so long as it is not late term. Even then I support the woman's right to abortion if her health is at risk....but the partial birth procedure is grotesque and could arguably even be construed a homicide.

Upholding the ban on this barbarism is hardly a sign of the Evil Conservative SCOTUS we've been taught to fear since Bush was elected...twice....

-z
Click to expand...


Who the hell are you talking to?
 
ponderingturtle said:
Is that the one that bans medicialy preferable abortions with unviable fetus's?

Good to see none of them will be forced into higher risk procedures I guess.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure it's that big of a deal in regards to actual abortions going on now. But it's sort of a 'foot in the door' thing, I think most people are worried about. I think only .17% of abortions are 'partial birth'.
 
LawnOven said:
I'm not sure it's that big of a deal in regards to actual abortions going on now. But it's sort of a 'foot in the door' thing, I think most people are worried about. I think only .17% of abortions are 'partial birth'.
Click to expand...

And the law does not except medical nessecity. And most late term abortions are for medical reasons not birth control reasons.

It will be interesting to see an estimate what the death toll of this law is.
 
Dave1001 said:
It's so cool that my legal education better qualifies me to determine the practice of obstretics & gynecology than actual obstetricians and gynecologists. :)
Click to expand...

The Legislature passes the laws. SCOTUS just said that the law is Constitutional.

Your comment should be aimed at Congress and Bush not the Supreme Court.
 
LawnOven said:
I'm not sure it's that big of a deal in regards to actual abortions going on now. But it's sort of a 'foot in the door' thing, I think most people are worried about. I think only .17% of abortions are 'partial birth'.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ponderingturtle said:
The vast majority of late term abortions are for medical reasons. What this does is force the doctors to use more risky procedures in these cases.
Click to expand...

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
 
rikzilla said:
Is this not a public forum? I was of course addressing the public. You have some kind of problem with that?

-z
Click to expand...

No of course not. However yor post implied that your comments were directed at someone specifically.
 
ponderingturtle said:
And the law does not except medical nessecity. And most late term abortions are for medical reasons not birth control reasons.

It will be interesting to see an estimate what the death toll of this law is.
Click to expand...


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?
 
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?
 
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
 
rikzilla said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
rikzilla said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Katana said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Katana said:
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?
Click to expand...

A NPR report on the case with OB/GYN's talking about being forced to use more risky procedures in such cases.
 
BPSCG said:
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.
Click to expand...
And this law does not exclude medical nessecity.
 
ponderingturtle said:
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.
Click to expand...

PCU3435.jpg


These 3 Ukrainian women only loaned you their straw man....they want him back babuschka! :D
 
rikzilla said:
[qimg]http://images.worldofstock.com/slides/PCU3435.jpg[/qimg]

These 3 Ukrainian women only loaned you their straw man....they want him back babuschka! :D
Click to expand...

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.
 
ChristineR said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Last edited:
rikzilla said:
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
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
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.
 
Katana said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Last edited:
BPSCG said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
ponderingturtle said:
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
Click to expand...

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. ;)
 
Last edited:
ChristineR said:
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.
Click to expand...


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
 
Dave1001 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Katana said:
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. ;)
Click to expand...

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.
 
Miss Anthrope said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom