Judge Blocks Partial-Birth Abortion Plan 
Moms View Message Board: The Kitchen Table (Debating Board): Judge Blocks Partial-Birth Abortion Plan
Here's the link:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,121435,00.html
(Sorry, I don't know how to make them clickable)
I'm saddened. For those of you both pro choice or not what do you think? I am horrified and it makes my heart just ache. To go all that way in a pregnancy and just end it all like that. For those who defend abortion due to rape, young age, $$$ issues, how does a person explain a late term abortion? Did they just need "time to think"? At that point if they don't want the baby, I think abortion should be illegal and adoption the only choice.
I have a very hard deciding if I am pro- or against because I know that it is wrong for me but I am not sure if I have the right to forbid it for anyone else. I do feel that late-term abortions are wrong. If we have a law that says that if a pregnant woman is killed, her killer can be charged with 2 counts of murder (Laci & Connor Peterson's Law) why is it OK for the mother to choose to kill her child? I also agree with you, Melissa, that she has had time to consider her options and make the choice long before this should come into play. One of the arguments for abortion in the case of rape is that the mother/victim shouldn't have to carry a baby that she doesn't want. Uuummm...isn't that part almost over with? I also don't agree that this law is Unconstitutional. Based on the argument that we should have choices in all things, how do we outlaw murder or theft? Do we just say that since I am better at getting your valuables than you are at protecting them, I have the right to take them from you?
The whole thing is just very, very sad. We live in a culture that does not value life, or personal responsibility. There are so many ways to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, that this wouldn't even be an issue if more women took responsibilty for their reproductive lives.
Even in the case of rape, pregnancy can be prevented or ended very early so that partial-birth is not necessary.
The only way I find it defensible is if the life of the mother is in jeopardy due to some problem which developed late in the pregnancy. Other than some extremely urgent circumstance, I think the process should be banned.
Yet, we live in a country where people have the right to choose for themselves how they wish to live their lives. It is not up to me to tell them what choices they can and cannot make, so long as their choices do not infringe on my rights. Therein lies the difference, murder and theft infringe on the rights of others. Abortion does not because legally (up until very recently & I'm not sure how that works) the fetus has no legal status.
Ame, not being argumentative, but puzzled. How can pregnancy be prevented in the case of rape?
The abortion pill, a D&C, a heavy dose of birth control - and I'm sure some other medical ways. All of this can be done very early, so as not to run into a partial-birth issue later on.
And intelligent argument is a good thing .
Ame
I know what they can do AFTER the rape, I guess I was just reading that you were saying somehow the girl could prevent getting pregnant BEFORE she was, and I couldn't quite figure out how she would know she was going to get raped.
No, I said, "Even in the case of rape, pregnancy can be prevented or ended very early so that partial-birth is not necessary."
If a woman is raped and has medical care immediately, chances are implantation can be prevented, since it takes two weeks from fertilization to implantation.
No, I certainly was not in any way suggesting a woman could know before hand that something so horrible might happen.
Ame
I realize that now, I misread it..did make me wonder though! ;)
According to the law that Pres. Bush recently signed, apparently the fetus counts as a person if someone other than the dr. that the mother goes to kills her child. I have such a huge issue with that. Now why is it Ok for her to make that choice but not any one else? And how do we make the cutoff for when a fetus really counts? If it is OK for her to have an abortion, why can't she commit murder after 2 months when she realizes that this "mom thing" isn't all she expected? Is birth when a person becomes a person? So what did I love before I gave birth to my children? It seems like such a simple conclusion to me.
I remember when I had given birth to my son, they legally treated him as an extension of me. My husband couldn't sign for anything and I had to sign him out.
I wonder if this is how it applies before the baby is born? That the baby is part of the mother until it is viable. Until such time, the mother has control over her body, even though it's host to a baby.
If that life is taken without her consent, then it's like part of her has been taken, her rights to her child have been violated, so she's entitled to justice for that. I think that's what this new law is saying. Not that the fetus is a person under the law, but that the mother is entitled to justice for her loss.
As far as when a baby becomes a baby, yes birth is when a person has protection under the law, once the infant is out in the world, it is a person, and mom goes to jail for interfering with it's rights.
None of this makes sense to me, either, Tink. I'm 24 weeks pregnant and have been feeling this little girl squirming and swishing since the first trimester. No one can tell me that she's not a baby, or not to love her. But becasue of the freedoms we have in this country, I can't tell someone else that she has to keep or love or even acknowledge her unborn child as a person.
Ame
This is my only comment on this debate. I think that if was pregnant, and the dr told me - or several drs told me - that something serious was wrong, and that I would probably not survive giving birth and my choice was ending the current pregnancy and being able to continue to be a mother to my existing children or continuing the pregnancy with a very good chance that I would not make it, that I would choose the abortion. I would not be happy about it, I don't think anyone is every happy about ending a pregnancy but if that was my situation I would want to be able to make that choice or not make the choice, I would not want President Bush or anyone else to make it for me. I would choose to continue to be a mother to my existing children rather than leave 3 children who love me and a newborn motherless.
The law is not banning all late term abortions, especially those with urgent medical reasons. The law is simply banning one, very cruel procedure. The article mentions other, and according to some doctors, safer ways to end a late term pregnancy when the mother's health is in jeopardy.
I would want to be able to make the choice, too, and I'd make the same choice as Colette. I just wouldn't want the baby to suffer, or have such a cruel end.
Ame
And according to other doctors, the "alternative" methods often pose greater risk to the woman. One of which is dismembering the fetus in the womb and removing the pieces (and if any piece is missed that poses a danger to the woman).
If the fetus has physical senses and can feel pain, any method used must surely cause pain and to select this method as unacceptable and others as acceptable, without consideration for what a woman's doctors and the woman might think best for her health, is to my mind unconscionable. I agree with those who say that if they had to choose between an unborn child (and yes, it is an unborn child, I agree) and being alive to mother their existing children it would be a difficult choice but one they would make. My father was told he had to make a choice between my mother's life and mine at my birth and had no problem choosing my mother - and to this day I believe he made the right choice (and yes, we are all glad it didn't turn out that way).
The term "partial birth abortion" is not a medical term. It is a term devised by people who are opposed to abortion. I have no problem with people being opposed to abortion - it is their right, and their right to express their beliefs and to attempt to persuade others, including legislators and politicians, to agree with them. What I do have a problem with is trying to sneak through the back door - for example, use non-medical terms, deliberately use false and/or misleading information (i.e., having an abortion increases the risk of breast cancer is a claim often made, and has been disproved by a number of studies), making the fetus a "person" for the purpose of penalties for federal crimes (which is what President Bush did - he and Congress cannot legislate for state criminal codes), and so on. I am offended by the dishonesty exhibited, and the belief that the end is a just end so any means is allowable.
I very much resent the idea that from the moment a woman becomes pregnant until the child is born, all decisions must be made in favor of the unborn child and against the woman's wishes - which is the stated goal of most anti-abortion groups, not limited to the Roman Catholic Church. It turns women into incubators, for mercy's sake!
I'm not one to make decisions about another persons abortion decision but for myself, i'm against it. MAYBE in the instance that my life was being threatened but if it were my first child and I had no other children I would consider myself selfish to choose my life over his/hers. But i'm not in that situation and i'm very happy. I have a few friends who have had an abortion, my mother had one and not one of them can live with themselves. They cant even bare to think about it. My high school best friend almost cries everytime she sees Kaitlyn knowing thats what she killed. But, to each their own, right?
This is the quote that could make my stomach turn:
----In the banned procedure — known as intact dilation and extraction to doctors, but called partial-birth abortion by opponents — the living fetus is partially removed from the womb, and its skull is punctured or crushed. ----
Uggghhhhh.... makes me quiver.
So, with the women that have NO medical reason for this late term abortion, is it okay that a baby suffer for pure selfishness? I dont think so.
I guess what I don't understand, is why not just deliver the baby and let it die of natural causes? If they can deliver the head, can't they deliver the rest?
If they are going to deliver the baby 1/2 way....why not deliver the entire baby alive and then give it for adoption?
I think that partial birth abortion is plain and simple murder. Where do we draw the line here? If we have a baby that's 6 months old and we decide that we don't want it anymore, is it ok to have his/her "skull punctured or crushed" so that we can get rid of it?
If someone did this to a horse/dog/etc. during birth, they'd be arrested for animal abuse!
At what point do you decide, after feeling the baby move in you, that you no longer want to be a mother. I had to have a D&C at 4 months & it was the worst thing I had ever had go through. Then we had a Right to Life rally come through towm & I got to see exactly what happened to my baby. I had to pull over to puke.
I know that abortion is not right for me & I don't believe in using it as birth control. I do not understand how it can take a person several months to decide that they can not handle being a parent. Then I think if these "moms" were made to have the babies what kind of life would they have?
I just want to state that in cases where it is done for medical reasons, I can understand. My dh had a cousin that had to make this decision & believe me there was not a baby ever wanted more than that baby was.
I just did some research, using the term abortion procedures in quotes. What I came up with was pretty gruesome. As far as late term abortion options, partial birth - as barbaric as it is - seems to be the most humane - at least the fetus is spared the pain of the other procedures.
I really think all late term abortion - anything after the end of the first trimester, should be banned except in the case of the life of the mother being at risk, or in the case of the fetus being so malformed that it would not be viable. I was shocked to find out that elective abortions are legally performed until the end of the second trimester.
This should never be an elective, oh I don't want to have this baby, procedure. The whole thing is truly sickening, but I have to change my position, in a way. If late term abortions have to be performed, then partial birth is the least cruel, and should not be banned.
Ame
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,130217,00.html
There are two judges who blocked the ban.
In Melissa's link, it says:
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge Tuesday ruled that President Bush's Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (search) is unconstitutional and infringes on a woman's right to choose.
U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton's (search) ruling came in one of three lawsuits challenging the legislation Bush signed last year.
"The act poses an undue burden on a woman's right to choose an abortion," she wrote.
[Note- Judge Phyllis Hamilton was appointed by Pres. Clinton] See Here
But CNN says:
NEW YORK (AP) -- In a highly anticipated ruling, a federal judge found the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional Thursday because it does not include a health exception.
U.S. District Judge Richard C. Casey in Manhattan said the Supreme Court has made it clear that a law that prohibits the performance of a particular abortion procedure must include an exception to preserve a woman's life and health.
CNN Story This is the same story that Colette posted above and was posted on FOX News.com.
[NOTE: Judge Richard Casey was ALSO appointed by Pres. Clinton.] see here
Anyone see a pattern here?
"I'm sorry but, I have to technically offer you a termination." Can you imagine hearing those words at your first prenatal visit? I did. And, I chose not to. These were my probable outcomes: I could miscarry, my baby could be born at 23 weeks, stillborn, or I could have a stroke. Yes, it was scary. But abortion was just not an option. Today, I have a BEAUTIFUL baby girl. And I am so thankful for her.
I don't feel I can say what is right or wrong for another woman, but I know abortion is wrong for me. If my doctor looked at me and said that I would die having this baby if I didn't terminate him/her, then I would die having that baby. If me dying would give that child life then that is just fine with me. I know that he/she would grow up with my husband and all our family around us being loved. He/she was meant to be, they are the next generation, they need life. All I have ever wanted to be was a mom, and if giving my life for my child it survive, would be the biggest satisfaction of my life. To know they would grow and become, who knows, I gave them life.
The bottom line is if the baby is not a human being then abortion is fine, but if the baby is human then no reason is good enough. And about women being forced to be incubators?! That is nature. No one is forcing them to have babies. That is the way babies have been born from the beginning of time. HOw else do you suppose it happen?! And as horrific as abortion is not one procedure is any better than another. The argument that parital birth is better is absolutely ludicrus. Why is it that you think they have emergency c sections and avoid the breech position at when a woman wants to keep the baby? It is because it is dangerous for the mother and the baby. And we know that for sure that teh babies feel the stab in the back of the head. These are 20 weeks plus babies here. I think that it is awful. And I have a hard time following the logic that it may be right for you but not be. Get a back bone! Either it is right or wrong and taking another life(murder) is wrong regardless especially murder for convience.
We know a 23 weeker that was born and is healthy. I'm sorry but, partial birth abortions are not done for the health of anyone. Life begins at conception but, if you don't believe that then it's going to be hard to convince anyone that abortions are wrong at any stage of development.
This isn't about whether abortion is right or wrong. Most of us can agree that it is wrong for us. But, it is about whether or not the government has the right to tell a woman what to do with the thing growing in her belly. It is about a woman's right to choose.
I hear abortion rights folks say that all the time. I for one agree with Juli- right is right and wrong is wrong. There used to be a time when it wouldn't have been an issue. But, since the 60's, there has been a mixture of right and wrong and now everything is grey.
That is why the liberal judges that have blocked the ban so far have done so- to keep the government out of our private lives.
Although the same types of liberal judges have absolutely no problem whatsoever when it comes to sticking their noses in where they don't belong. Just take the Florida recounts in 2000 for example.(sorry- that should be another thread all to itself!)
Everyone feels that just because this is a free country we should all have the right to abandon certain values that we don't like because they don't suit us, and we can adopt any other standard, moral, or value that we deem as right "for me". The end result is the chaos that we see today with regards to morals and values, right and wrong.
The government is makes laws against killing people all the time. Uiversally it is wrong. So what is the difference? That thing in her belly is either human and deserves life or it is not and it doesn't matter. If it is human (which it is) then no excuse is good enough. Never should it be someones right to decide whether someone else lives or not. Born or unborn.
Some thoughts. Of all the abortions done in the US in a year (around a million and a half?), partial births maybe account for a couple of hundred of those. This is a very rare procedure done in most cases because the fetus "is not viable" (won't live long past birth)and/or will risk the mothers life if born. Pro-Life arguments maintain a fetus is a life and I believe this as well. It's also maintained that life has a right to life equal to the rest of us but by banning partial births (so often used to assure a woman won't die giving birth) isn't a judgement being made that the mother's life is worth less than the fetus's?
Doesn't the fact that these abortions are done so late point to the fact that these are almost always people who wanted their babies, who intended to deliver it? That this is a last resort and that mourning families are left behind? I'm thinking that in partial birth abortions in particular, this isn't a matter of a woman's right to choose but a woman's right to live and a family's right not to lose a piece of itself.
I also wonder about preemies. If part of the argument against partial birth abortions is that these fetus' can live outside the womb with the medical technology we have today might there be pressure on families who give birth to extremely premature babies to give up their right to refuse heroic measure to keep their babies alive?
My position on abortion shifts a lot. Most days I know it's something I would likely never consider for myself but something I wouldn't want a ban on. Other days I'm angry at how some women might use it without a thought to their actions. Though even when I think it should not be allowed I still have that 'except...', like most people who oppose it, that says 'except when a mother's life is in danger.' Partial birth abortions ARE that exception. The reasons for them stand apart and independent from the reasons for most abortions.
Even when my opinion swings to the pro-life side of things I'm still frustrated with how partial birth abortions have become a tool to use in the argument against all abortions. Half truths are told, scary pictures shown and people come away with the impression that they're being done all the time with little regard for life. They're used as a political weapon against all abortions when they really have little in common with that issue.
Honestly I'm frustrated by the whole debate because it's so polarized. I know pro-lifers and pro-choicers often have a lot in common, including an overwhelming concern for children and respect for life. I just wish they could get together and work from the middle instead of hissing from opposite sides of the fence. Not reffering to this board of course! I've never seen a debate on any aspect of abortions that was this polite.
Just a quick comment...my life WAS in danger when I was expecting my last baby. I do not believe for one minute that my doctor would have performed a partial birth abortion. He did mention a c-section. If my baby was not "viable" I would still rather deliver & hold my baby & have that time to grieve. We do know a lady that had a 23 week old baby. From all the families in the NICU they all wanted their babies to live. I'm not sure how it works if you didn't want to try...I do know that if their baby would have been one day earlier (considered 22 weeks they wouldn't have even tried). Hope no one minds these comments. We do all have a free will and our own beliefs. Yes, I am so glad everyone is polite!
IMO Dawn, I found your argument weak in that without the option of PBA a family must choose between the life of the mother and that of the baby. If the baby is around 23 weeks' gestation, there is no reason to kill it. If the mother's life is in danger a cesarean section would do since the baby's chances of survival outside the womb are favorable after that point. Therefore, no such monumental decision would have to be made.
I was curious to find out how accurate the claim is that PBA's are mostly used to save the life of the mother. I wondered, of all the PBA's performed, how many of them are specifically to save the life of the mother. I did some research. I went to the Right To Life website (where I found the answer to that question) as well as Planned Parenthood, just to be fair and balanced.
-------------------------------------------------
1. http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBA%20NYT%20lied.pdf
This document is in PDF format. It describes the testimony of a doctor who in fact negates the claim that PBA's are mainly used to save the life of the mother and are therefore rare. It is copied from the February 26, 1997 edition of the New York Times. Try as I might, I am unable to copy and paste the first 2 paragraphs here for this post, but be sure to read this article as it contains a lot of pertinent information.
2. http://www.house.gov/burton/RSC/haskellinstructional.pdf
This document, also PDF, is a 1992 paper in which Ohio abortionist Dr. Martin Haskell explained step by step how to perform the method, and why he prefers it.
I will summarize:
He states that "Dialation and Extraction is an alternative method for achieving late second trimester abortions to 26 weeks. It can be used in the third tri-mester."
He also states that "it's advantages are that it is a quick, surgical outpatient method that can be performed on a scheduled basis under local anesthesia."
He offers a reference to one other doctor that he knows of (Dr. James McMahon, inventor of the procedure) who performs this procedure
up to 32 weeks or more.
-------------------------------------------------
Again I ask, if a fetus is known to be viable outside the womb around 23 weeks, why would anyone perform a "D&X" after that point if the purpose was not to kill the baby?
-------------------------------------------------
On the Planned Parenthood website I could not find any pages whatsoever that gave any information dealing specifically with partial birth abortion.
1. http://www.plannedparenthood.org/library/ABORTION/HealthBenef.html
Most pages seem to sing the praises of abortion as an answer to many of society's ills, and state that the lack of "safe and legal" abortion is in fact a detriment to society as well as children.
After reading this page, I gather it stands to reason that, in a state in which abortion is not legal, there would simply be too many children being born leading to problems that the government would have adequately providing services for all of them.
2. http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about/pr/031021_abortion_ban.html
This article is a statement by Planned Parenthood President Gloria Feldt regarding how the "so-called Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 will bring an end to providing the best and safest health care for women."
Specifically with regard to PBA, it appears that Ms. Feldt interprets the ban as an inclusive attack on ALL abortion.
3. http://www.plannedparenthood.org/library/facts/abotaft1st_010600.html
The above sentiment is very pointedly stated on this page where it says
" The hidden agenda of these zealots is to make all abortions illegal."
4. The notion that the PBA ban encompasses ALL abortion is deceptive. It is, however, promoted in this website. http://www.plannedparenthood.org/library/facts/abotaft1st_010600.html
"In November 2003, Congress passed, and the president signed, an abortion ban, the first federal legislation to criminalize abortion."
This statement is undeniably misleading in that it gives a totally inacurate description of the legislation by blatantly omitting the minor detail that the ban refers to "partial birth" abortions only.
5. I did an internal site search for "partial birth" AND for "dilation extraction" and every item that came up portrayed hostile opposition of the ban which was signed into law.
6. I found the remainder of the abortion information on the PPH website to be nothing more than propaganda in favor of abortion. It only provided argument in favor of, and provided seriously little specific information or statistics.
For example, under the heading "Surgical Abortion", http://www.plannedparenthood.org/ABORTION/surgabort1.html, which may be the only page on which the procedure in question is specifically refenced with any objective information, the procedure for a D&E is very briefly explained, in fact, too briefly. The meaning for the initials D&E are not given, and the description of the extraction of the fetus uses only the words, "removed from the uterus with medical instruments, suction, and curette." In my opinion, I could not make a truly informed decision on this procedure given the tidbit of information provided here.
Through the past 2 hours, I have languished over pages and pages of pro-abortion information, and I am now physically sick to my stomach and tired.
When I regain my composure, I would like to see, of all the abortions done in the US, what percentage are PBA's? I am betting it is quite small, and therfore ironic, given the position PPH has taken on the ban.
I hope that I have not single-handedly overdone the topic. I too welcome the opportunity to "tell it like it is" from my perspective and hopefully not offend anyone. Thanks for reading.
One article I read from the late nineties claimed that of that almost 1.5 million abortions done that year, 150 were the partial births.
But you know what's frustrating about this topic? The lack of information and statistics. Several pages cited a statistic that said only 9% of D&E were dones to save a woman's life but that number seems to have come from one doctor who related his career experience and I've no idea where his politics might lay.
I would say that "the lack of "safe and legal" abortion is in fact a detriment to society as well as children" makes sense to me. I can see that fetus' not aborted may become children unwanted and abused.
As for cesearians, they aren't without risk themselves (though many doctors don't seem to get that). I assume families in that position would likely consider that. As a choice, I can agree with cesaerians in that situation. But if there's no choice and it's something they must do because D&E's are banned, I find that pretty grim.
The info I found on survival rates for preemies puts a baby of 23 weeks at 1% though I think I've seen as high as 20%. (http://www.edwardhumes.com/articles/babyer_faq.shtml)
If a preemie that early survives there are also issues of severe disabilities that the baby is more than likely to have. But, again I have to wonder that if a woman has to undergo a surgial procedure to deliver a baby that premature are we also going to insist that everything is done to keep that baby alive? Will the family be allowed to decide to take the baby off life support? Will a family whose baby was simply born that premature have their right to let a baby die naturally without extrodinary measures being taken questioned?
Cocoa, I'm not offended by it! I kow your opinions come from a caring and informed perspective. I'm getting info from you and being driven to find my own info...this is the kind of debate this subject needs more of!
|
Members
