Why is "Partial Birth Abortion" Vote Right?

[srpantalonas]

It clearly isn't right. The Republican Senate is effectively saying that medical science is no longer the measure for critical medical procedures, and that doctors cannot be trusted to make the right call about women's health. Legislators, they presume, are clearly superior to doctors in determining which procedures can be used and which can't. They base their arguments on "morality", selectively applying their own interpretation of morality and imposing it on all of us. In the meantime, criminalizing the procedure ban endangers the health of pregnant women experiencing complications.

The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists opposes this criminalization because "the intervention of legislative bodies into medical decision-making is inappropriate, ill advised and dangerous."

Roe v. Wade is based on the privacy argument; I would apply separation of church and state to this one. Their selective morality is derived from their belief in God, and they presume certain things like abortion is a sin, homosexuality is a sin, premarital sex is a sin, etc based on their interpretation of God's will. I don't necessarily subscribe to their interpretation of God's will, and I bet they wouldn't subscribe to mine. They wouldn't want my belief-informed morality applied to their personal lives, nor should it be. Mixing their interpretation of morality with legislation is clearly a violation of church and state.

Your thoughts?

[bif]

1. I kind of have mixed feelings about this one

The procedure is pretty horrible. If you've read a description of it it'll make you sick to your stomach. And it's done pretty late into the life of the fetus. But on the other hand, this is just one step closer to overturning Roe v Wade. And that makes me very afraid knowing the makeup of the not-so-Supreme Court.

[Beetwasher]

5. This Argument is Moot

Most surgical medical procudures are pretty horrible and would make people sick to their stomach. That's totally beside the point. The people who choose to have this procedure done are NOT doing it on a whim. It's only done in the most extreme, rare cases where the mothers life is at risk and/or the child is severely deformed. The people who have this done are absolutely devastated for the most part. They WANTED to have a child. It is not the gov'ts role to get involved in this personal, private, painful FAMILY decision.

[MojoKrunch]

9. Granted, it isn't pretty.

But then what surgical procedure is?
I mean I can't watch "the surgery channel" on cable.
I get the heebee jeebees.

//And it's done pretty late into the life of the fetus.//
What do you consider "pretty late"?
Part of the problem with general knowledge of this is the terminology used and what is meant.

"Late term" for abortions is anything during the second trimester, generally 16-26 weeks.
Full term pregnancy is 36 weeks so the latest this procedure would be done is roughly 6 1/2 months into the pregnancy.
Any abortion performed after this would be a

This link is from a JAMA article written by the doctor who invented the procedure. The author has coined the term Dilation and Extraction or D&X to distinguish it from dismemberment-type D&E's(dilatin and extraction).
In a typical D&E the fetus it terminated and then dismembered in utero.
The D&X procedure was devised in an attempt to reduce infection for the woman.
http://www.eileen.250x.com/Main/7_R_Eile/Haskell_Desc.html

In all of my research on the subject, there is nothing to indicate that abortions of this type are done for anything but extremly serious conditions... ie., mothers health or fetal anamoly incompatible with life.

This link summarizes the issue:
http://eileen.undonet.com/Main/PBAinfo/PBA_NUM2.htm

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
http://eileen.undonet.com/Main/PBAinfo/PBA_ACOG.htm

JAMA, Abortion, and Editorial Responsibility George D. Lundberg, MD
http://eileen.undonet.com/Main/PBAinfo/JAMAControversy_Series.html

Statistics from the CDC.
http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

Eileen has compiled a huge amount of data on her website derived, in part, from her years of posting on the Yahoo Abortion clubs and boards, of which I was a part.

Mojo

[Ilsa]

22. Technically, it's 38-42 weeks for normal gestation. n/t

[MojoKrunch]

36. Oh, it is that counting from last menstrual period thing.

Getation is roughly 40 weeks... yes.
Trimesters are 12, 24, 36 weeks.

Either way, it is important to talk about facts, right?
:D

Mojo

[MojoKrunch]

2. This was complete bull when Clinton vetoed it

and it hasn't gotten any fresher since.

The most heinous issue with the bill is the astounding amount of pure propaganda being used.

Poll any "right thinking" American about PBAs and they'll tell you it is done on healthy fetuses about to be born.
Where the reality is something quite different.

As usual with the Anti-choice movement this just sickens me.
With any luck this will be challenged immediately and found Unconstitutional.

Mojo

[redqueen]

4. Not trying to be combative, but...

this is actually performed, at least in one state, on healthy fetuses. Not sure if it's more widely available than it was then, or less even. It may even be banned in all states, but I'm sure we all know doctors who will bend the rules to accommodate their patients.

I don't know how she did it, but I know a woman who found a doctor willing to perform the procedure, and she nearly had a third-trimester abortion (IIRC she was supposed to have had to travel to Georgia or Alabama to get it done), but then she changed her mind. It shocked me deeply that she would even consider it, but there you go.

[MojoKrunch]

12. But? :)

//Not trying to be combative, but this is actually performed, at least in one state, on healthy fetuses.//
Ok, if you say so.
But you'll have to present factual evidence.
The thing is that sometimes abortions are performed on healthy fetuses because they put the womans life in danger.
And because they aren't far enough along in the pregnancy to sustain a premature birth.

Any time after viability abortions are performed by Induction(rarely) or D&E's.

//Not sure if it's more widely available than it was then, or less even.//
Well, given that everything I've ever read indicates that D&E's and D&X's are performed in the realm of less than 500 per year for the entire nation, I'm not sure what this means.
http://www.hopeclinic.com/typesofab.htm

http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

//It may even be banned in all states,...//
It is Unconstitutional to ban an abortion procedure in any state if the womans life is in danger.
Most states ban *elective* procedures after 24 weeks.

//...but I'm sure we all know doctors who will bend the rules to accommodate their patients.//
How exactly is saving a life "bending the rules"?
And why shouldn't any such rule be bent to save her life?

//I don't know how she did it, but I know a woman who found a doctor willing to perform the procedure, and she nearly had a third-trimester abortion (IIRC she was supposed to have had to travel to Georgia or Alabama to get it done), but then she changed her mind.//
Ok, but realize that according to what I know, this makes no sense whatsoever.
States in the Deep South are notorious for having very strict abortion laws.

I'd be careful when presenting annecdotal stuff like this.
Do you *know* she found a doctor or did she just tell you she did?
People will do odd things for attention.
And what is more attention-grabbing than proposing to get a 3rd-trimester abortion?

//It shocked me deeply that she would even consider it, but there you go.//
After reading Sarah Hrdys book "Mother Nature", nothing about this shocks me.

I just hope your poor friend found some relief from whatever it is about her pregnancy that was bothering her so terribly.

Mojo

[redqueen]

23. yes, there's always a big 'but' ;)

"But you'll have to present factual evidence."
Well, as I said, I have no evidence, so again, if you want to dismiss it it’s fine with me. I don’t have that option, though.

"Any time after viability abortions are performed by Induction(rarely) or D&E's."
I’m really only referring to elective abortion. When the life or the the health of the mother is jeopardized, this should always be available.

"Well, given that everything I've ever read indicates that D&E's and D&X's are performed in the realm of less than 500 per year for the entire nation, I'm not sure what this means."
I was just stating for the record that I’m ignorant as to how hard she had to work to find this doctor, as well has how a woman would have to work to find a doctor willing to provide this type of abortion electively at this point (this happened years ago). She was in a heck of a state, and I wasn't going to press her on it, as it's her decision, and one I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.

"Most states ban *elective* procedures after 24 weeks."
True, but obviously (if we're to believe her story), not all do. So…

"How exactly is saving a life "bending the rules"? And why shouldn't any such rule be bent to save her life?"
Again, I’m not referring to procedures where the life of the mother is in jeopardy. This friend of mine wanted the procedure because she was in a state of extreme fear.

"Ok, but realize that according to what I know, this makes no sense whatsoever. States in the Deep South are notorious for having very strict abortion laws."
Yes, that’s true, but it’s also true that people in the South are notorious for having very flexible ‘ethical guidelines’ where money is concerned. :)

"I'd be careful when presenting annecdotal stuff like this. Do you *know* she found a doctor or did she just tell you she did"
Well, your arguments here are a bit on the useless side. First of all, since it’s anecdotal, and strictly from a logical standpoint, how do you know I’m not just telling you that she told me this? (time for the brush off! ;) )

But, to address the concern, she was truly torn about it. She didn’t want to have the abortion, but had no job, had recently moved back in with her parents (we parted ways, she partied too hard), and had started drinking very heavily. We had known each other for years at this point, and I didn't know her to be the type to spin tales to get sympathy (I'm actually related to those so I know them well!) On the contrary, it really hurt me to see her like that.

"I just hope your poor friend found some relief from whatever it is about her pregnancy that was bothering her so terribly."
Well, she ended up marrying a friend, and it seems to have worked out as of two years after the marriage, which was the last time I saw her (and the baby). They both seemed very happy. :)

[MojoKrunch]

39. Big butt?

//Well, as I said, I have no evidence, so again, if you want to dismiss it it’s fine with me. I don’t have that option, though.//
It isn't "dismiss" exactly.
I hear what you are saying, but I can only be convinced by compelling evidence.
It is rare that a person knows *every* aspect of someone elses life.

//I’m really only referring to elective abortion.//
Except that isn't a factor in this legislation, which is what makes it so terribly wrong.

//When the life or the the health of the mother is jeopardized, this should always be available.//
Why shouldn't it be available for elective abortions?
The VAST majority of elective abortions are performed before 16 weeks LMP.
Procedures after that are typically for health reasons.
Occasionally you hear of women who were forced to wait that long because they had to save up the money... or lived too far away from a clinic... or were *very* young and panicked... or were non-English speakers... or in one I heard about, was so heavy she didn't realize she was pregnant.
Why should they not be afforded the benefit of a procedure designed to reduce infection?

//I was just stating for the record that I’m ignorant as to how hard she had to work to find this doctor, as well has how a woman would have to work to find a doctor willing to provide this type of abortion electively at this point (this happened years ago).//
As far as I know, such a thing would be impossible, unethical and/or illegal as an elective procedure.
"Impossible" for exactly the reason you touched on... finding a doctor willing to do it. Last I heard, the number of clinics performing late term elective abortion can be counted on one hand.
"Unethical" because I can think of only one reason a doctor would agree to a 3rd trimester *elective* abortion and this woman would have to be committed to a psychiatric hospital to even get to that point.
And illegal, because as I said earlier, AFAIK every state in the nation bans 3rd trimester(post viability) elective abortions and many states require two doctors to sign off on a medically necessary abortions.
Your friend would have been procuring an illegal abortion which is never a good thing.

//She was in a heck of a state, and I wasn't going to press her on it, as it's her decision, and one I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.//
I'm sure she was... and she was obviously far too distraught for an ethical doctor to agree to such a procedure.

I suspect you were being manipulated... but that is just my skeptical nature talking.

//True, but obviously (if we're to believe her story), not all do. So…//
Ah... no.
It is a matter of factual law.

//Again, I’m not referring to procedures where the life of the mother is in jeopardy. This friend of mine wanted the procedure because she was in a state of extreme fear.//
I was commenting on your characterizing this as "bending the rules", when, in fact, what would be happening is an *illegal* abortion.
More correctly that doctor would be *breaking the law*.

//Yes, that’s true, but it’s also true that people in the South are notorious for having very flexible ‘ethical guidelines’ where money is concerned. :)//
(ignoring the silly generalization)
Then realize that what you are talking about is an illegal procedure and not the issue here, right?
I absolutely believe that any clinic/doctor unethical enough to perform an illegal abortion should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
By engaging in illegal activity they put into danger not only the women under their care, but the public perception of legal abortion.

If you ever find out this doctor/clinics name, please notify authorities immediately.

//Well, your arguments here are a bit on the useless side.//
Why so?

//First of all, since it’s anecdotal, and strictly from a logical standpoint, how do you know I’m not just telling you that she told me this? (time for the brush off! ;) //
Since I can't verify your story and you haven't presented any actual evidence I don't know that you haven't fabricated this story whole cloth for your own reasons.

But seeing as how it isn't really my MO to accuse people of lying right off the bat, I'm taking you at your word.
From my perspective, however, any story presented by someone in an extreme a condition as you say this woman was in is suspect... not for any malicious reason, mind you, merely for not being in their "right mind".

//But, to address the concern, she was truly torn about it.//
As well she should be.
To carry that sort of burden into the 3rd trimester must have been horrible for her.

//She didn’t want to have the abortion, but had no job, had recently moved back in with her parents (we parted ways, she partied too hard), and had started drinking very heavily.//
Oh lovely... just what fetuses need... alcohol.

//We had known each other for years at this point, and I didn't know her to be the type to spin tales to get sympathy (I'm actually related to those so I know them well!) On the contrary, it really hurt me to see her like that.//
I can only imagine how difficult it must be to watch someone spin out of control like that and in her case, take a potential someone with her.

//Well, she ended up marrying a friend, and it seems to have worked out as of two years after the marriage, which was the last time I saw her (and the baby).//
I take it he wasn't the father?

//They both seemed very happy.//
Good for her and the baby.

Mojo

[newyawker99]

17. Hi redqueen!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[redqueen]

24. Hi There newyawker99!

Thanks for the welcome! :)

:hi:

[redqueen]

3. Well it's getting to be beyond morality...

is the thing. There is a point at which the fetus becomes viable outside the mother's body, and I think this will be the area that is focused on more as we see this bill successfully challenged and struck down.

However, I agree with those who have stated that the pro-life crowd does want to see abortion outlawed entirely. That being the case, they'll never take the scientific route and tie it to the viability of the fetus.

I think it will be a new crowd that will seek to curb abortion rights, because as many have stated, the pro-life group doesn't want to curb them, they want to end them, so curbing them successfully enough so that the majority of Americans are satisfied would defeat their ultimate goal.

But that being said, I think there are many, many people who do personally know women, either as friends or relatives (the ones that do tell you that they do these things) who have had them, if not regularly, often enough that there are enough people who are uncomfortable with how common it is.

I think this group is more rational than the pro-life nuts, though, and will strive to get better and more accessible birth control as a means of reducing abortion, rather than outright banning it. Another goal of this group would be getting equal wages for women, and free quality child care so single mothers can work and be confident their kids are OK.

This is such a heated issue... I hope we can refrain from the demagoguing on this thread!

[srpantalonas]

6. Viability as a condition?

Should viability of the fetus be taken into account? How often is the procedure used for viable fetuses, and how often is the mother's health not in question, where abortion is the singular goal?

[redqueen]

10. In the third trimester, the fetus is always viable.

I think the viability should be taken into account, because it is at that point that the fetus is no longer just 'part of the woman's body' and becomes, IMO, it's own person.

As to how often it's used, I have no idea. I had the one roommate who found a doctor that would do this to her healthy fetus, so I know it's done.

[Beetwasher]

7. Please cite sources

where this was used on a healthy fetus and the fetus was disposed of afterwards.

Do you realize that during the third trimester a fetus in many circumstance can survive outside the womb? The people who have this procedure WANT to have a baby and if the mothers life is at risk and the the baby is otherwise healthy they bring it to term early or have a c-section and keep the baby in an incubator. In most of the cases where the procedure is done the baby doesn't survive because it CAN'T survive because of a severe deformity.

[redqueen]

11. Sorry, but this is a personal anecdote.

I know it's hard to accept that kind of evidence, so you're welcome to dismiss it out of hand, and I understand if you do that. However, I can't, because I actually know this person, and was involved in her life while this was happening.

I realize that third-trimester fetuses are nearly always viable. My sister works in a neonatal ICU unit, so I know that viability improves as technology improves.

However, since I was involved with that one person who managed to find a doctor to perform this procedure as an elective one, I cannot agree with you that the people who have it all want to have the baby.

[DrWeird]

15. Really? What's your definition of viable?

Because if the third trimester fetus, say for example, has no brain I wouldn't really consider that viable. And that's typical of what this procedure is used for.

[redqueen]

18. Your distinction of the fetus as damaged...

is not what I'm addressing, though. As I related, this procedure is used for elective reasons, and that's what has people so worked up. That's what they need to address in any legislation.

I agree that the health reasons such as involved in the example you used make up the vast majority of the cases where this is used, but, again, that's not what I think most Americans have a problem with. I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't just me who knows a woman who went to the trouble to plan to cross state lines to get this done electively.

[Lars39]

19. elective versus emergency surgery

Elective can also mean that the surgeon and the patient schedule the surgery. An elective surgery can also be needed for life-threatening and health-threatening reasons.

[redqueen]

25. Wow I didn't know that...

Elective to me (in insurance parlance, at least) has always meant 'optional'.

But hey, now you know I don't mean to disparage any scheduled third-trimester abortion that is needed to protect the life / health of the mother. :)

[Beetwasher]

20. Sorry, I don't believe you

and you can't cite any sources. No responsible Dr. would perform a third trimester abortion on a patients whim and I don't believe you when you say you know someome who had one. Sorry, I just don't believe your personal anecdote.

You realize of course such a procedure would have to take place in a hospital and other people would be involved. There would have to be a cover up of such a procedure because I can't believe that with others involved a doctor could get away with aborting a perfectly healthy third trimester fetus when the mothers life wasn't in danger and then disposing of the fetus (which, if not deformed, would almost certainly be alive for quite some time when removed from the mother)...I don't buy it, not for a second...

[redqueen]

26. I understand,

and that's your right. But as I told Mojo, I don't have that option.

But, just as a point of contention, do you think 'back alley' abortions were performed with midwives, or would abortions earlier in the pregnancy not need assistance? (not being argumentative, just curious as to why this story is hard to believe, but not those stories)

[Kool Kitty]

28. Yes , those women would have needed medical assistance.

But, because it was ILLEGAL, they didn't dare go to the hospital. And a lot of them died. Better it should be legal.

[Beetwasher]

29. Is Your Anecdote About A Back Alley Abortion?

I don't think it is so therefore it would take place in a legitimate setting, most likely either a clinic or a hospital, where others would be involved.

I've pointed out why the story is hard to believe. No responsible doctor would perform the procedure as you've described and be able to get away with it in front of witnessess. I just don't believe it. I could be wrong, but I don't buy it. Sorry. And even if true, this would be a case in which it was the result of an irresponsible physician who shouldn't be practicing anyway.

[redqueen]

31. No it was a doctor,

but as you say he would have been corrupt, and shouldn't have been practicing, so I wouldn't put it past such a person to do the procedure by himself or with equally corrupt assistants.

I'm not even saying you're wrong, Beetwasher. For all I know she was playing me for sympathy. I don't think so, but that doesn't equate to real knowledge. All I know is that I believed her at the time, and since I've known plenty of doctors willing to do wrong to make money, it really wouldn't surprise me.

[Kool Kitty]

21. What state does this as a matter of course, as you state?

The problem most people have is that there is no provision for the health of the mother. And, by the way, not all third-trimester fetuses are viable. A woman I worked with gave birth prematurely at seven and a half months and the baby died. Which makes the "all third trimester fetuses are viable" an incorrect statement, speaking anecdotally, of course. I never knew anyone who crossed state lines to have a third trimester abortion.

[redqueen]

27. I thought I mentioned that...

IIRC it was either Georgia or Alabama...

I also think this bill should have been voted down due to no mention of the health of the mother. But then again, that's why it will be struck down.

True, I should not have said 'all' third-trimester fetuses are viable. Nothing's guaranteed. Just meant to say that most are, and that seemingly the viability window is being pushed further and further back as technology improves.

And she never actually went through with it, as related in my other post, so really, I don't know anyone who fits that description either, since she only considered it for a time.

[Beetwasher]

32. Huh? Now you're saying you DON'T know someone who had one?

Just someone who thought about having one?

Ok, whatever. Didn't you write this, which I'm assuming was about this procedure and related to your friend who had one?

"But that being said, I think there are many, many people who do personally know women, either as friends or relatives (the ones that do tell you that they do these things) who have had them, if not regularly, often enough that there are enough people who are uncomfortable with how common it is."

You can't back this claim up with any statistics or cite any sources because it's just your opinion, and you base it on knowing one person who considered the procedure, but didn't have it. Maybe she didn't have it because no one would perform it, regardless of what she told you, I would think that's a more likely explanation.

The statistics PROVE that this procedure is VERY rare, so there are not "many, many people who do personally know women, either as friends or relatives (the ones that do tell you that they do these things) who have had them, if not regularly, often enough that there are enough people who are uncomfortable with how common it is."

No, people are uncomfortable with it because of a propoganda campaign carried out by an hysterical right wing spin machine that wants to control women's bodies by hook or crook. Apparently they've got you fooled into believing this procedure is common and readily available to anyone who wants one if they could only find a corrupt doctor. Sorry, but that's just plain bullshit propoganda.

[redqueen]

34. Urgle

No, when I referred to knowing women who had had them 'if not regularly... then', I was talking about abortions in general. I know people who have had... let's just say at least three, and while that's not regular, it's enough to be disturbing. But again, making reliable contraception more affordable / accessible is the answer to that, not making the procedures themselves illegal.

You're right about the propoganda campaign re: third-trimester abortions, but as far as the propoganda campaign about abortions in general, I don't think it's the pro-life crowd that's doing the convincing. I think that kind of information has to come directly, because the pro-life crowd is so rabid that they turn off anyone who isn't already leaning toward their way of thinking.

Sorry to have set you off there.

[Kool Kitty]

43. Let me get this straight-you know

people that have had at least three, did you mean, THREE abortions apiece? If you do, do them a favor and tell them about contraception. Another thing that the reich-wing is downright stupid about is teaching contraception. The information has to come directly, from who? What did you mean? Women that have had abortions telling other women that abortion is wrong? The reich-wing propaganda is the one doing the convincing. And their so-called "facts" usually aren't facts at all. Like the one about having an abortion makes you more likely to get breast cancer. I still can't figure out where they got that.

[w4rma]

8. American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Press Release

For Release: October 3, 2003
Contact: ACOG Office of Communications
[e-mail]

Statement on So-Called "Partial Birth Abortion" Law
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

Washington, DC -- The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) continues to oppose so-called "partial birth abortion" laws, including the conference committee bill approved by the US House of Representatives yesterday and sent to the US Senate. "Partial birth abortion" is a non-medical term apparently referring to a particular abortion procedure known as intact dilatation and extraction (intact D&X, or D&X), a rare variant of a more common midterm abortion procedure know as dilatation and evacuation (D&E).

In 2000, the US Supreme Court struck down a Nebraska "partial birth abortion" law in the case of Stenberg v. Carhart, ruling that the law violated the US Constitution by (1) failing to provide any exception "for the preservation of the health of the mother," and (2) being so broadly written that it could prohibit other types of abortion procedures such as D&E, thereby "unduly burdening a women's ability to choose abortion itself." The bill now before the Senate, which its supporters claim can meet any constitutional test, blatantly disregards the two-pronged test the Supreme Court carefully established in Stenberg.

As noted in a 1997 ACOG Statement of Policy, reaffirmed in 2000, and in ACOG's amicus curiae brief filed in the Stenberg case, ACOG continues to object to legislators taking any action that would supersede the medical judgment of a trained physician, in consultation with a patient, as to what is the safest and most appropriate medical procedure for that particular patient.

ACOG's Statement of Policy explains why ACOG believes such legislation to be "inappropriate, ill advised, and dangerous." The policy statement notes that although a select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which intact D&X would be the only option to protect the life or health of a woman, intact D&X "may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances, can make this decision (emphasis added)."

The Statement of Policy further reads that such legislation has the potential to outlaw other abortion techniques that are critical to the lives and health of American women. This was the second basis upon which the Supreme Court struck down the Nebraska law in the Stenberg case. The Court will invariably strike down laws that are overly broad or imprecisely drawn. Bills that frequently using terms -- such as "partial birth abortion" -- that are not recognized by the very constituency (physicians) whose conduct the law would criminalize, and that purport to address a single procedure yet describe elements of other procedures used in obstetrics and gynecology would not meet the Court's test.

In this case, the bill before the Senate fails to respect the Stenberg test because bill supporters flagrantly refuse to include an exception for the health of a woman. Instead, legislators try to circumvent the Court's requirements by issuing their own opinion to the nation's physicians and patients that such a procedure is never needed to protect a woman's health -- notwithstanding opposing opinions from the medical community.

The medical misinformation currently circulating in political discussions of abortion procedures only reinforces ACOG's position: in the individual circumstances of each particular medical case, the patient and physician -- not legislators -- are the appropriate parties to determine the best method of treatment.

# # #
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) is the national medical organization representing 45,000 members who provide health care for women.

http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/press_releases/nr10-03-03.cfm
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=569189

[Mistress Quickly]

13. as an elective option it should be illegal

But as a means to preserve the health or life of a woman, it is purely a medical decision, and as any other medical decision, should be made between the doctor and woman.

And yes, there are women who would elect to have this done for merely personal, non-health reasons.

[Cheswick2.0]

38. no there are not women who would elect to do this for non medical reasons

wow you have a warped opinion of women. You really think women wake up at 7 or 8 months pregnant and decide they want an abortion?

[eridani]

47. Bullshit

Elective 3rd trimester abortions are already illegal in every state I know about.

IMO having one is like having a doctor slit your throat. Usually, you wouldn't want that to happen, but if your airway was blocked you'd cheerfully accept a tracheotomy, I'll bet.

[jeanmarc]

14. Backdoor to Roe v. Wade

Pass legislation that is sure to be challenged and let this corrupt Supreme Court reinterpret the law and we'll have Roe v. Wade overturned.

Just keep the cases coming, boys! - Antonin and Clarence

Hell, I bet they go 'Colmes' on us and hire some attorney to challenge the new law themselves.

[Hammie]

35. I don't think I would attack via Roe

I would attack the lack of constitutional authority to outlaw medical procedures. Surgical procedures are not in interstate commerce. The procedure is alway performed in the same state where it is consumed. State medical boards could prohibit the procedure, individual states could even do it, but there is no logical reading of the constitution that gives congress the authority to do it.

[Loonman]

16. Typical Right Wing Bull-oney

This is what cheeses me off.

This procedure is very rare, and you usually would only hear about it in a medical atmosphere.

Anti-choicers pick the most lurid and horrifying depictions of abortion procedure because it suits their agendas.

No rational person would approve of partial birth abortion for contraceptive purposes, but this is what the right wing wants you to think.

[redqueen]

30. EXACTLY

They've succesfully managed to demagogue this issue into the most horrific example they can, in order to further their agenda. They know most Americans support a woman's right to choose, so they have to do this to get any attention whatsoever.

However most people I know support a woman's right to choose, so I don't really fear their ever succeeding. Even the most horrid SC decisions (e.g. Dred Scott) are eventually overturned. I'm not even that worried about it getting to the SC, since there's clear precedent here for it to be overturned and no real basis for appeal after it is.

To be honest I think the only reason any pro-choice senators (including repubs) voted for this is because they know it will be declared unconstitutional. It's strictly for show. And that is what really bothers me, to be honest -- how easily the public is distracted by such emotionally charged issues.

How I wish Democrats would pull the same 'razzle dazzle', perhaps using newly homeless children & families (not those that the right likes to think 'like to be homeless' - thanks Raygun), or malnourished children, as their 'heartstring pullers', to fight the evil machinations of the right.

[Hippo_Tron]

48. OH MY GOD...

Back in March when I was visiting Washington I was in the Senate gallery when they were discussing this. One Senator did exactly that, gave the most disgusting example possible.

[Hammie]

33. Congressional overreaching

There is no authority delegated to Congress in the constitution to ban any kind of abortion technique whatsoever. Congress has no authority to speak in the matter whatsoever. I predict that this law will fail constitutional muster and be tossed by the Federal courts.

If Congress had "found" that fetuses are human beings, thereby making them subject to the full protection of the laws, they would still be wrong, but at least they would be within their constitutional authority.

[KamaAina]

37. It's not right, it's far right!

Little by little they chip away at abortion rights. Already states are playing around with waiting periods (time enough for anti's to take down license no.'s and harass people...) and parental notification ("But you have to notify parents when you give her an allergy pill!" </whine> ). They're even pressuring med schools to stop offering abortion training (no providers = no abortions).

Shoe industry take note: These anti's will not stop until women are barefoot and pregnant -- unless WE stop them!

[srpantalonas]

40. what about restricting it to specific medical conditions? EOM

[sistersofmercy]

41. Agree 100% with your argument!

:kick:

[opihimoimoi]

42. See any 3 legged deer running around??

Mother Nature tells us flawed individuals should not be allowed to live. It is Her way of culling the weak.

Now that we have not listened to Her and have ukamillion Humans living in vegatative states, nursing homes, etc etc as a result who is the wiser??

Telling a Person she must deliver her fetus/child even if shown that the child is flawed with Downs Syndrome, etc is CRUEL. That the Parents must care for a flawed child forever AGAINST THEIR WILL is cruel. The State has no business dictating matters so personal.

The RTLrs are causing unneccessary pain and suffering for parents and this society.

[sistersofmercy]

44. Ummmmm! I'm confused!

Are you preaching to the choir or was that rhetorical question? But agree with you! The RTL ppl are dirt in my humble opinion.

[wrkclskid]

45. Wait a minute?

Are u suggesting that because a child may be mentally retarded that is a good reason to kill them, so as to cull the weak? Mentally Retarded people live happy quality lives that I would in no way wish to deny them. Should I kill someone who is missing an arm? According to u I would be doing nature's work. Now I can understand if a mother finds out her baby is going to be braindead and onyl lie a few months, but I think that after the third tri-mester when the fetus is viable down syndrom is in no way a reasonable excuse for an abortion. If the parents can;t take care of the child, they may put it up for adoption. As someone who has the pleasure of working with challenged children I can tell u that they add a lot to this sad world and while if they were deer they would not survive we are humans, and what makes us unique is our humanity. Sorry if I misunderstood ur post but u seem to be advocating some kind genetic enginnering.

[Hippo_Tron]

46. Haven't I already explained this?

Bill Frist needed to get something passed high on the right wing agenda so he could look like he has some balls. I'm a moderate and there is no way in hell I would vote for this if I were a US Senator. In addition, this is a case of what I'd call "dirty politics". Senators are not voting for what they truly believe in because somebody says "lets work together on this bipartisan bill with the GOP and be all happy".

[wrkclskid]

49. My honest assesment of this bill

And perhaps I am being too cynical, is that thew fact that it is unconstitutional is why the repukes even bother with it. They want it to be overturned. That way they can do somthing for their base, continue to gripe about "left wing" judges and have something to rile up their christian right base with. In all honesty, I never think the right to an abortion will ever be oerturned. I think the repukes don't want it to be. Once it is, what will they get theri base all riled up about, what reason will the religious right have to vote for them? They can try gays but most mainstream americasn, while not exactly being gay friednly tend to cringe when politicians insult homosexuals, it makes the politician seem like a bully since gays are a fairly powerless minority unfrotunately. Yes, their are some true beleiers in the Senate and in the House, but the majoirty, even if it if they are persoanlly pro-life, don;t want the right oerturned. Right now it is the perfect whipping boy for them and they don;t want to lsoe it, so they take an issus such as this bill, where sentiments can easily be manipulated and they parade it around to feed red meat to their base and make them seem "sensible" to the average American. One pro-life repuke who is running for a state rep in his home state next year asked me seriously: "Do you really think the right to an abortion will ever be overturned? Because I can tell you it will not. Because we don't know what we would do." I guess it is kind of like if my red sox finally win the series, what will we Red Sox fans do? A silly analogy I know, but hey I am still depressed about that game. :-)