Virginia Abortion Restriction Is Upheld

[Ohio Joe]

Source: Washington Post

A sharply divided federal appeals court ruled constitutional yesterday a Virginia law banning "partial birth" abortion that was overturned four years ago, bringing the state in line with a federal ban on the controversial procedure.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit overturned the Virginia law in 2005 by a 2 to 1 vote, finding that it did not allow for exceptions to safeguard a woman's health. The Supreme Court ordered the appeals judges to revisit the issue when it upheld the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act two years ago, a law passed by Congress in 2003 that is similar to Virginia's ban.

Although the Virginia law permits women to choose various abortion procedures, it specifically makes it a crime for doctors to perform a rare midterm abortion that involves partially delivering the fetus before crushing its skull to ease removal.

William G. Fitzhugh, a Richmond doctor who challenged the law, argued that the procedure can be necessary to protect the life of a patient and that banning it could prevent doctors from performing legal procedures out of a fear of prosecution. Opponents of the procedure liken it to infanticide.


Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/24/AR2009062402449.html?hpid%3Dsec-metro&sub=AR

---

Another blow to women rights... especially their right to live. What is with this complusive need to control women?

[WriteDown]

1. Never a big partial birth fan....

Once you have a fetus that can live outside the womb, then it starts to get a little dicey.

[Ohio Joe]

2. No one is a fan of it

But if it is required to save a womans life, it has no business being against the law. IMHO, the law itself here is the crime.

[WriteDown]

3. I would wager it depends on what the woman wants...

Should be similar to a living will in those cases.

[Ohio Joe]

6. I would have no issue with that

I think it would be stupid but it is not my call, it should be between a woman and her doctor. This law takes away a womans right to choose to live.

[kestrel91316]

88. I'm guessing that no woman was ever forced to undergo a "partial birth abortion",

more correctly called intact D&E, against her wishes. Do you have factual information otherwise?

Abortion is, and should always be, a private matter between a woman and her physician.

[WriteDown]

98. Drowning a one month old should be between

a woman and her bathtub. :eyes:

The cognitive ability is almost identical to an 8 month old fetus.

Abortion is not the issue, late term abortion is.

[Ohio Joe]

121. No matter how many times you try this, it is still bullshit

You have been told repeatedly that late term abortion was already against the law except to save the mother. You have agreed that late term abortion is ok to save a mother life. Why do you persist in trotting out this bullshit comparison?

[WriteDown]

128. I agree with that...

but some like the poster I was replying to, thinks that should not be the case.

[xxqqqzme]

122. You're joking right?

You do know late term terminations are rare and then only when the life of the woman is in danger because of the condition of the fetus. you do know late term terminations are not elective. You know that right?

[WriteDown]

127. Prove it....

With #'s.

[vadawg]

4. +1

[musette_sf]

5. and of course, as a literate, educated progressive,

you do know that:

(a) there is no such thing as "partial birth abortion", the term is made up by forced-birth fetal fetishists.
(b) late-term abortions are performed only in crisis situations where the fetus is severely compromised, and/or there is a medical life or death risk to the living, breathing woman.

so your concern about the chance for severely compromised fetuses to "live outside the womb" would seem to be misguided to other literate, educated progressives.

on edit: this thread should prove to be very fruitful for noticing those who should be added to my Ignore list. already it's yielding results.

[WriteDown]

7. That is pretty bogus...

Regardless how you want to term it, you are eliminating a functioning person at that point if the baby can live outside the womb. And some will say that that the term "crisis situation" is abused. Seems best to err on the side of caution. A living will-type document seems like a good choice.

[musette_sf]

10. a severely compromised fetus

can never be a "functioning person".

but then, to a forced birth fetus fetishist, every sperm is sacred.

ps, "some will say" also that you might be "pretty bogus" on your creds as a progressive and Democrat.

[WriteDown]

11. Who said anything about a severely compromised fetus?

Lets look at what Ron Fitzsimmons, the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers said:

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/26/us/an-abortion-rights-advocate-says-he-lied-about-procedure.html

[Ohio Joe]

13. 12 years ago he said "Mr. Fitzsimmons said he continued to support this procedure and abortion right

It does not matter if it was common 12 years ago, we are talking about it today AND we are talking about it being illegal.

[WriteDown]

14. So things have changed?

The arguments were the same then as they are now. I am not against it if the mother is really in danger, but the procedure should NEVER be abused.

[Ohio Joe]

17. Yes, things have changed. It is now against the law...

and a mother in danger can now simply die.

[Arugula Latte]

69. How convenient for you that you don't have a uterus and so

will never have to have a pregnancy-related health crisis happen to you. Easy for you to sit on the sidelines on your high horse.

You think lots of women get to the 8th or 9th month of a pregnancy and think: "Eh, what the heck. I'd like to 'abuse' the procedure. Sounds like a good time."


:eyes:

[EFerrari]

55. You have to use your head. We know this man is full of it because

he's saying this procedure is common. There are only a few doctors in the whole country that even do it; it can't be "common". I'll go look for some stats but that's what we're going to find. It sounds like someone greased this man's palm.

[mopinko]

94. few doctors and getting fewer

like dr tiller. few being trained in many aspects of women's health care.

[WriteDown]

103. He did not say that...

you may want reread his comments.

[Psephos]

16. "some will say" that questioning the purity of those who disagree is the opposite of progressive

try to be a bit more tolerant about the range of views expressed here...unless you want it to end up like freeperville



The essence of the liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held,
but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically,
they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that
new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment.
- Bertrand Russell

[musette_sf]

23. why don't you go harass

the person who started the "some will say" BS?

i find that rhetorical device to be disingenuous. i threw it back in that person's face and it was richly deserved.

and i'm totally intolerant of anyone who uses forced-birther fetus fetishist memes and framing on this board. there is no place for it here. there are countless fetus fetish boards to post such nonsense, and this is not one of them.

[Ohio Joe]

26. I agree, well said - nt

[WriteDown]

28. I agree....

Just think how much better the world would be if partial birth abortion fetishists were aborted. :rofl:

As my Jewish aunt says:
I kid, I kid... :)

[noiretextatique]

58. partial birth is a non-sequitur

created by anti-choice people. it is not a medical term used in the profession, but an emotially and intellectually manipulative and dishonest meme.

[Psephos]

39. Dishing with alacrity but receiving with affrontery. Luv it. ;)

[musette_sf]

50. pot. kettle. black.

[Psephos]

136. not at all - glad to have your comments n/t

[EFerrari]

25. No. Women who carry a baby for six or seven months don't do it

because they want an abortion. In these cases, the mother finds out late in her pregnancy that there is something terribly wrong with the pregnancy. It's heartbreaking and then we turn around and demonize these women.

[WriteDown]

37. See post #11.

That is likely not the case.

[noiretextatique]

59. you cite a very old article with one person

and you believe what he says to be absolute truth.
misogynists are idiots.

[lindisfarne]

74. Or they don't know they're pregnant (it happens). Or they're young and scared. Or they don't have an

abortion clinic within 5 hours of their home, and don't have a car or money. Or they're drug addicts or alcoholics and were focused on their next hit. Or they were talked out of an abortion at 12 weeks and have come to regret that decision. Or they are severely depressed and weren't mentally in a position to deal with it earlier. Or they were raped and highly traumatized and/or ashamed and couldn't bring themselves to talk about it. Or they're a child who was raped (or fooling around with the boy next door) and has little idea of what might indicate one is pregnant. Or is a married woman of menopausal age who has always had irregular menstrual cycles and was using birth control and only at 5 months picked up on the symptoms of pregnancy, never having been pregnant before. Need I continue?

[Name removed]

76. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

78. Show me the numbers. In all honesty, I did a search

and am sitting here trying to force myself to wade through all the right wing bullshit to find some good ones.

But the idea that these procedures are common is right wing baloney. You can't open the phone book and pick from providers. That's just not true.

[lindisfarne]

79. Only 1% of abortions are after 21st week. So not at all common. Having cancer is not somehow a

more justifiable reason than any of the ones I gave for having a relatively late abortion.

I know you agree - but wanted to emphasize this.

[EFerrari]

80. I've never met a woman who celebrated any abortion, at six weeks

let alone later. The right wing has somehow promulgated the idea that women just schlep off to have them and go dancing that night. It's unreal.

[lark]

113. Oh, it's worse than that

Now they can just die.

[kestrel91316]

89. Intact D&E's simply aren't done on perfectly functional, viable fetuses

beyond the point when they can be safely delivered. Again, if you have factual information demonstrating otherwise, please do provide a link for our enlightenment.

[kestrel91316]

91. What a shock. You are a man. From Texas. Betcha you're a bible-thumper, too.

And a card-carrying Republican.

[WriteDown]

96. Who says I'm a native?

I've heard that people from CA are too stupid to raise their own taxes. :)

[Scout]

102. that's even worse then, you moved there on purpose n/t

[WriteDown]

110. Yeah...I sold out....

I needed a job and some sort of income :).

[Devil_Fish]

124. For you info. CA quite rightly voted down Credit Card measures

That would have lessened the budget deficit this year, and cost us Billions every year to repay over the next 10 to 50 years. I am not against raising taxes. I am against borrowing and spending money we don't have and then having to pay it back ten fold. It's as stupid and having a credit card that you keep maxed at 25% interest for years.

As a Californian, I did not vote to "not raise taxes" I voted to not take out loans. But thanks any way for being a dick head.

[mopinko]

92. don't be so stupid.

a healthy, wanted, late term, viable fetus would be delivered alive by caesarian section. most late term abortions are damaged fetuses that are either already dead, or will live only a very short while.
this is a fantasy that women and doctors are colluding to destroy viable "babies".

[JerseygirlCT]

144. Yes. nt

[lark]

109. Why are you assuming the baby could live?

Listening to Hannity or Rush too much these days?

[JerseygirlCT]

143. Your side of caution wrt the fetus

could be at the same time a death threat to the woman. Where do you side then?

[EndersDame]

153. Why is a fetus more important than a woman?

[fascisthunter]

8. ding!

[Stellabella]

22. Yep, it's proving true, judging from the replies, that I was spot on updating

my Ignore list.

Some people just can't mind their own fucking business, and think THEY are qualified to judge another person's medical decisions.

[KTinaY2008]

72. I think before we jump quickly to put people on ignore list we

should try to educate them first. I use to believe the "partial birth" procedure as explained by the anti-choice people. I have since learned otherwise. When I first came to DU back in October I would of been one of the ones that quickly spoke up based on what I believed to be the procedure of Partial Birth Abortion. So I would of been one on your ignore list. All you would have had to tell me is read more about it, it isn't what you think blah, blah, blah.

The anti-choice people do a great job at getting out the word on Partial Birth Abortion. They make it seem so horrific and than tell you that the mother goes through labor and delivery anyways so killing it won't save the mothers life so why not just give the baby up for adoption. It worked for me until I took the time to educate myself. Because the procedure as they explain it wouldn't save a mothers life. She would have to go through all that work and stress anyways. They are good at that lies they tell.

[musette_sf]

73. shit-stirrers who can dig up obscure 12-year-old links

to support their fetus fetish position, are perfectly capable of educating themselves.

might i also note that the obscure 12 year old link is beloved of forced-birth fetus fetishists, were one to Google it and see where it is most often used.

you go right ahead and keep trying to "educate" them, though. i have given up on the willfully ignorant.

[Ohio Joe]

125. Wise words - nt

[Lars39]

126. Most every abortion thread is educational.

Even if the person you're arguing with has an agenda, there are lurkers here who learn something. Minds can be changed.

[Strong Atheist]

131. Belated Welcome to DU!

:toast:

[mopinko]

93. right there with you on the ignore thing.

always nice to flush them out.

[Warpy]

12. There are two points to consider here

First, the fetus is not viable and would not live outside the womb. Sometimes the fetus is already dead.

Second, the woman wouldn't survive an induced delivery.

Both conditions have existed in this type of abortion.

The skull decompression is so that the cervix can be only partially dilated, greatly reducing trauma to the woman.

Mid term abortions are done only for the most compelling of reasons. Banning the D&X procedure (its proper name) only exposes a patient population to unnecessary risk of death.

Right wingers find it icky, though, so those women will just have to die.

[musette_sf]

15. + 1

[lindisfarne]

75. And as an addendum (expanding on these issues), see #31. n/t

[lindisfarne]

18. There's no such thing as "partial birth abortion". It's a term the Right made up. Late term abortion

procedures differ.

From the CDC: "Most reported legal abortions are performed before 8 weeks of gestation, and more than three fourths are done before 13 weeks. Approximately 4% of abortions are performed at 16–20 weeks of gestation, and 1% at >21 weeks. ... Over three fourths of women who have legal induced abortion are unmarried. ... For all racial groups, educational level strongly influences when an abortion is performed. ... Overall, most women obtain abortions during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. However, girls <15 years of age are more likely to obtain abortions later in pregnancy than older women. The proportion of women obtaining an early abortion (<8 weeks) increases with age, and the proportion obtaining a late abortion (>16 weeks) decreases with age. Black women of all ages tend to obtain abortions later in pregnancy than white women."

50% of women who have an abortion after 16 weeks do so out of difficulty to arrange an abortion (courtesy of the anti-choice folks).

Only a tiny percentage of infants born in 22-23 weeks gestation will survive and those that do usually have severe health problem (the range is because it's difficult to know exactly how many weeks gestation a woman is to the exact week). A big dilemma for people in the field is do you try to resuscitate an infant this young? In many cases, millions are spent trying to save an infant who has only a tiny chance of survival, while we fail to provide access to basic care for healthy toddlers.

[WriteDown]

19. Very true, although the result is identical regardless....

of the term used. Please see post 11.

[lindisfarne]

24. Medically, there is nothing called partial birth abortion. It's an incendiary term the right made up

One person who lied doesn't change my position,esp. since my position wasn't based on anything that person said. Additionally, who knows if he is telling the truth now? I'd want to see more physicians surveyed. They might not have the problems he has with making honest decisions. If only 1% of abortions occur at 21 weeks or later, whatever procedure he is referring to cannot possibly be "common". 99% of abortions do not involve it (and fetuses at 21 weeks aren't viable).

The woman's wellbeing and needs trump the fetus's - and that's the law. When the woman's health is at risk, the abortion is legal - and that includes mental health. If the right didn't make access to abortions so difficult, there would be fewer late abortions.

[WriteDown]

27. So we are not to believe whistle blowers?

Afterall, who knows if they're telling the truth. Considering that he remained in his position for some time does lend some credibility to his statements. Also the fact that he still defended the procedure.

There's where you lose me. Mental health? What would that entail?

[lindisfarne]

29. Mental health refers to the mental status of a woman. If you don't know what "mental health" is,

please do some research. Google can help you.

[lindisfarne]

31. 2003 SC decision -banned only 1specific procedure & only if physician began with intent of using D&X

Although the law's opponents had argued that it was so vaguely written that it could be interpreted to ban the most common abortion procedure performed throughout the second trimester (dilation and evacuation, or D&E), Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, clearly identifies a variant of that procedure, intact dilation and evacuation, or D&X, as the only one that is prohibited. Based on its last census of abortion providers in 2000, the Guttmacher Institute estimated that just 2,200 D&X procedures were performed in that year, or 0.17% of all U.S. abortions; virtually all of these procedures were performed in the late second trimester. Today in the United States, nearly 90% of abortions are performed in the first trimester (before 12 weeks' gestation).

That said, there could be serious implications for individual patients and abortion providers. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg notes in her dissent, "the safety advantages of are marked for women with certain medical conditions, for example, uterine scarring, bleeding disorders, heart disease, or compromised immune systems." Under the Court's new precedent, physicians technically would be able to seek an exemption on a case-by-case basis to address such health concerns; the practicality of that option, however, is doubtful at best. Moreover, although the ruling emphasizes that a provider is subject to penalty under the law only if he or she begins an abortion with the intent of using the D&X procedure, the fear of prosecution, even if not actual conviction, may nevertheless stunt some providers' willingness to perform even D&E abortions, especially in the late second trimester.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/10/2/gpr100219.html

[WriteDown]

32. So basically anything...

depression, anxiety attacks, etc. Sorry, no go on that one.

[lindisfarne]

33. I'm glad you have the ability to judge another person's mental health status. I've never met anyone

who could read another's mind.

[WriteDown]

35. Why does depression....

necessitate having a 8 month fetus aborted?

[noiretextatique]

60. who in the hell do you think you are to make decisions for women?

clinical depression may in fact be a legitimate reason to have an abortion. the arrogance of you pro-fetus people is beyond appalling.

[WriteDown]

62. Why?

Why does depression necessitate an 8 month fetus be aborted?

[Ohio Joe]

30. Your putting up a strawman

Your using a 12 year old article that says the procedure was common back then. No one is saying this should be common. No one is saying whistle blowers should not be believed. You also seem to ignore that the same whistle blower felt the procedure should remain legal.

Do you want the procedure to remain legal? Are you for or against this ruling?

[WriteDown]

34. Are you reading the whole posts...

I make SPECIFIC mention that he said the procedure should remain legal.

Its not the procedure that is common, its that the demographic it is used upon is not represented accurately.

I am for the procedure if there is real physical danger to the mother, car accident, cancer, etc. No exceptions for mental health though.

[lindisfarne]

38. So you must not think one's mental health is all that important. I put the life of a human above the

continuation of the fetus down the pathway to becoming human.

The SC decision means that the D&X procedure is NOT available "if there is real physical danger to the mother, car accident, cancer" (your conditions for abortion past some ill-defined stage).

As Ginsburg pointed out, "the safety advantages of are marked for women with certain medical conditions, for example, uterine scarring, bleeding disorders, heart disease, or compromised immune systems."

[WriteDown]

42. Seems like we should also extend the privilege

to women suffering post partem depression as well. If you want to throw a newborn in the trash, then their should not be anything preventing you. The infant does not have cognitive ability anyway. The only difference is a few attached blood vessels.

[lindisfarne]

45. Your inability to think logically has just become apparent. Good-bye. n/t

[WriteDown]

48. Your lack of any real response...

seems to indicate that you cannot argue your point. Understandable. I bid you good-bye as well.

[Occulus]

134. THEY can't argue THEIR point?

YOU'RE the one going around on thread after thread, day after day, saying "See Dick run, See Jane Run, See post 11" over and over and over again.

Talk about infantile. Jesus Christ.....

[Ohio Joe]

54. WTF?

Are you serious? Totally bogus comparison and frankly you should apologize for it.

[Scout]

99. "The only difference is a few attached blood vessels"

uh huh, that's the only difference between a born fetus and one in utero, just a couple of blood vessels...

:rofl:

[WriteDown]

101. What are the others?

:shrug:

[Scout]

104. oh gee, it's INSIDE my uterus for one thing, and i'll have to be cut open through

several layers of abdomen, or i'll have to have my cervix stretched out, then i can be cut open from vagina to anus to squeeze out that crotch dropping.

do you need more?

[WriteDown]

105. Not you....

What's different about the child?

[Scout]

108. that IS what's different about a fetus in utero and a baby that has been born

fucking duh.

[WriteDown]

114. So there is nothing different then?

I'm talking about physical or mental changes to the child.

[Scout]

123. according to you, no, there are only a "few blood vessels" that are different n/t

[Ohio Joe]

43. And who are you to draw this line?

What exactly, gives you the right to get between a woman and her doctor?

[WriteDown]

63. What line would you like drawn?

The right of a viable child seems to come into play here .

[Ohio Joe]

70. oh goody, a two for one sale on strawmen

1 - I have been quite clear, WE do not have the right to get between a woman and her doctor. Once the decision has been made to perform a legal abortion, WE do not have the right to tell any woman what her reproductive rights are. Once the decision has been made to perform a legal abortion, WE do not have the right to tell the doctor how to do it.

2 - It is not a viable child, it is a fetus. How far back do you want to take your logic? Should I stop masturbating because it kills viable children? Should we stop selling contraception because it kills viable children? Viable is a big word, it covers a lot of ground.

[WriteDown]

71. Che?

1. Its now not legal, so do we now have the right? Hmmm.

2. How is it not viable if it can live out of the womb? That is the definition.

If the woman goes into labor at 8 months, has she now lost some of her rights? If the woman is 1 month overdue, has she now gained rights?

[Ohio Joe]

81. Now your contradicting yourself

The only way a third trimester abortion is legal in VA is if the continuation of the pregnancy is likely to result in the death, physical or mental impairment of the mother. Previously you were ok with that but now... I guess not. By your own definition of viable, anything prior to that is not viable... or will you want to change that as technology advances and the potential to save a fetus increases... How long till your morality outlaws my being allowed to masturbate? or use contraception?

You are correct about one thing though. I guess you do now have the right to tell a woman to die because her fetus is already dead. You do have the right to tell a woman that because there is a problem with her pregnancy she now has to die.

Pretty fucking disgusting of you to want to do that.

[WriteDown]

83. You're reading too much into it...

Still fine with that. I was just pointing out that the law has changed somewhat and may continue to be changed.

[Ohio Joe]

86. No, sorry but I don't think so

You kind say you don't support this law but all through this thread you are arguing for it. You put up strawmen, you make bogus comparisons to women being allowed to kill their babies and contradict yourself. I'm simply pointing these out as I consider womens rights to be a core liberal value. They have been steadily eaten away and I find support of that continuing to be offensive. I believe that as liberals we should all be standing against it and not be trying to come up with ways of supporting it.

[WriteDown]

87. Okay...

Please point out specific quotes where I've contradicted myself. Also, if you're going to label something a strawman then explain why its a strawman. Should not be too hard.

It sounds like your saying as liberals dissenting opinions will not be tolerated.

[Ohio Joe]

97. Already done

See posts 30, 70 and 81.

Dissenting opinions are fine, no problem at all. Don't like abortion, don't do it. When opinions that restrict the rights of women... that take away them being allowed to decide if they get to live or not, start becoming law then... Yes, that is correct, I do not tolerate it and will stand against it.

[WriteDown]

100. Not really..

Those have all been responded to. I am all for women being allowed to live, but also for 6-9 month old viable children if the woman is not in physical danger.

[Ohio Joe]

120. And you go on with it... unbelievable

"Those have all been responded to."

A response is not a refutation.

"I am all for women being allowed to live, but also for 6-9 month old viable children if the woman is not in physical danger."

Sorry but this is a stinking steaming pile of bullshit. The laws as they were did not allow for this and that has already been pointed out. Yet, you keep trotting it out like it was actually happening. just like you keep trotting out your mother killing her child being the same as an abortion to save her life. Do you honestly not see your contradiction here? Plus, you keep trying to rename a fetus as a child, bullshit.

If you just want to state that as your opinion, I suggest you start a thread in the GD or Choice forums. Vigorously defending it under the context of this thread is implicit support for this law. It is implicit support for the concept of men being allowed to control women. It is implicit support for the concept that it is better for a woman to die rather then abort her fetus.

[lindisfarne]

84. In fact, having a late abortion is LESS risky than carrying a pregnancy full term - see #82.

Continuing the pregnancy is MORE likely to kill the woman than is having the late abortion (ignoring any aggravating (mental) health issues.

[Scout]

106. you don't know if it CAN live outside the womb until it has done so....

anything else is just speculation.

[WriteDown]

115. Kind of like a cat in a sealed box...

is it dead or alive?

[Scout]

119. nope, not at all like that n/t

[lark]

116. Ding, ding

That is EXACTLY what the radical neo-cons want - they want to make all contraception illegal because it makes any possible embryo not impalant. Don't know if this guy is that far gone, but he's definitely headed down that right wing path.

[musette_sf]

36. "whistle-blower" my ass. more like "forced-birth mole".

http://www.slate.com/id/2086/

You might think, from the attention paid to Ron Fitzsimmons' recantation, that he was a major player in the abortion debate. But most reporters who cover abortion--to say nothing of pro-choice insiders--say they had never heard of him. "This guy came out of the blue," says an official at one major pro-choice group. At best, Fitzsimmons is a B-league lobbyist. His group, a trade association, represents 220 clinics (but not Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the United States). While it aims to protect abortion rights, its agenda is mostly more mundane. Right now, its biggest task is negotiating contracts with pharmaceutical companies.

let's also read the response to the Times article about mole Fitzsimmons, where actual leaders in the reproductive health rights movement comment on his self-serving BS:

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/27/us/abortion-rights-backers-defend-stance-on-late-term-procedure.html

[WriteDown]

40. Do you work for a big corporation?

You seem to utilize their usual thin tactics. :rofl:

From your article

Both sides agree that no one, including the Government, keeps reliable statistics on the procedure, called ''partial birth abortion'' by opponents and ''intact dilation and extraction'' by defenders.

[lindisfarne]

41. Personal attacks are unnecessary. If you cannot debate in a civilized fashion, please leave. n/t

[WriteDown]

46. Odd that you didn't pipe up after post 23...

when the fetishist label started getting thrown around. :shrug:

[musette_sf]

47. tactics like "research"?

tactics like "citing a rebuttal"?

yeah, those are real thin tactics, all right. obvious proof that i'm a corporatist mole. :crazy:

obviously if i weren't such a tactically lame corporatist, i would just let the article you linked to stand as undisputed fact.

GFY.

[WriteDown]

49. Let's try again

From your article

Both sides agree that no one, including the Government, keeps reliable statistics on the procedure, called ''partial birth abortion'' by opponents and ''intact dilation and extraction'' by defenders.

[musette_sf]

51. Your inability to think logically has just become apparent. Good-bye. n/t

[lindisfarne]

52. His/her position is wholly inconsistent. See #34 & my response (#38) n/t

[lindisfarne]

20. Time to donate to the Center for Reproductive Rights, which argued this case. They can appeal.

Not sure if they will. But there are other battles they are fighting.

[oexpress]

66. Dirty tricks

Did you notice FOX NEWS listed Sanford as a "D" democrat on the banner below his picture? funny they did the same thing with Mark Foley ?
mistake or intentional, I'll pick the latter.

http://alice.bigbig.com/

[JonQ]

85. Oh, you did it now,

You may as well walk up to the pope and say jesus was a myth as try to argue with this group.

On one post, that labeled every single person who wasn't pro-choice as being evil (really that used that word) and woman hating I happened to say that it was possible some of them weren't evil and were actually legit in their concern for the fate of the fetus. I also said I disagreed with them, supported abortion and genuinely did not want them writing policy, that I merely didn't feel that 100% of them were evil.

The response was amazing.

Basically if your immediate response isn't: pro-life = evil, abortions should never be restricted at any point (even late in the third trimester) and men should have no opinion on the subject other than to agree with a woman who has just made those first two points you will be accused of: 1) being a brainwashed fundamentalist, 2) hating all women, 3) wanting to enslave women (someone actually said that), 4) being an evil misogynist, and the like.

This is a sacrosanct subject to some people here. Dissent/free thought is not tolerated. Anything less than absolute, mindless hatred of everyone on the other side is unacceptable.

Ah, I wish I could be so progressive.

[redqueen]

90. How utterly unsurprising to see you say such a thing. (nt)

[Scout]

95. no fetus is "guaranteed viable" until after it has been born and lived outside

of the pregnant woman.

gestational age is not a guarantee of surviving birth and living independently.

[JonQ]

111. Surviving birth

is not a guarantee of viability, surviving further, or living independently.

Just saying . . .

[paulsby]

129. can we cut the silly rhetoric

viable fetus has a specific meaning in the medical field.

and no, it does not mean a GUARANTEE of viability.

fwiw, there is no guarantee any baby that goes to sleep peacefully at night with no known health problems will survive the night (see": SIDS)

viable has a precise, scientific meaning.

playing word games with the meaning of viable, is as anti-scientific and emotionally laden as any other silly counter argument.

[JonQ]

141. Do you believe that once it is deemed "viable" medically

then abortions should be prevented except when threatening the health of the mother?

I made this argument, that after a certain point (like when they fetus could clearly survive outside of the womb, 8+months, maybe earlier) that abortions should be restricted to only extreme cases (health of the mother, severe birth defects, etc) and I was immediately attacked for hating women, wanting to ban all abortions and literally wanting to enslave women as some sort of baby-making machines.

[paulsby]

145. that's a tangential issue

will you FIRST concede an undeniable fact, that you just glossed over...

that viable is a word that has a specific meaning in the medical field.

fwiw, i'll jump the gun. i agree with you.

i agree with abortion on demand (iow no justification needed) in the first trimester.

after that, i do agree that restrictions should get tighter, as they do under the law.

i am surprised you used the word "health". since iirc it was you (i could be wrong) that was arguing that health was too nebulous, since it included mental health issues like depression.

fwiw, as somebody who went to grad school for psychology, im the first to admit that psychology is a "soft science" at best.

iow, i do NOT think it should be legal to terminate a fetus that is (for example) at 7 or 8 months, merely based on something as nebulous as health.

depression, for instance? no.

i also think it's a silly argument that people seem to think whatever a woman and her doctor decide is ok, IS ok.

society places immense restrictions on what doctors can do. we don't allow patients to agree with their doctor to remove organs for future sale, we don't allow doctors to prescribe all sorts of drugs that the patient wants and the doctor thinks SHOULD be legal.

society also places numerous restrictions on what we can do with our own body, as prostitution laws demonstrate.

so, it's hardly the case that abortion is some kind of exceptio0n to an alleged sacrosanct right that whatever a woman (or man) and their dr. think is ok is therefore unassailable.

abortion on demand in first trimester. restrictions after that. note that this is what roe v. wade essentially decided.

[JonQ]

146. I never disagreed that doctors have their own definition

for the word viable. And no doubt so do lawyers, politicians, expecting mothers etc. I imagine a woman who desperately wants to have a child will consider it viable before an entirely dispassionate individual would. But let's say there is an objective point in development where it can be authoritatively stated that it's no longer a parasitic fetus, but now a viable baby. I would assume abortions after that point would be considered horrid by most people.

I never made an argument about health. My argument was that pro-lifers (forced birth fetishists/women enslavers to some here) were not the devil incarnate, that it was possible to honestly feel concern for the fate of what you deem to be a child and oppose abortion not out of hatred of women but out of concern for the child. Same way I was horrified by the Andrea Yates case not because I hated women and wanted to enslave them (as some claimed), but because a whole bunch of kids were murdered. Apply that same logic to fetuses and I can understand the outrage (not agree necessarily, but understand).

But then I get hit with arguments of: it's her body her choice, no man can have any say, etc. Ok, but if that's the case can you argue for limits on late term abortions? At that point is it no longer her body, her choice? Because it's either an absolute right, or a limited right, people were trying to argue from both sides, claiming it was both an absolute right that could never be taken away, and saying that it should be limited in the late term. That is logically incompatible.

[paulsby]

147. stop parsing

we are discussing a medical issue. abortion

viable has a specific agreed upon meaning. and it's the SAME MEANING in a court of law, and in a medical textbook.

people who play word games bore me.

viable MEANS something. look it up. in a medical dictionary.

if we were discussing a legal issue (like 4th amendment), and i used a legal term, that conversation could continue because we have agreed upon definitions.

it is impossible to engage in real, valid discussion, with people who want to play with the meaning of words that are CLEARLY DEFINED WITHIN THE FIELD WE ARE DISCUSSING.

a woman can 'consider' a 1 wk old fetus viable. she can also consider it a ham sandwich. neither is correct, though.

VIABLE MEANS SOMETHING. DEAL WITH IT.

so give me a fricking break.

and i of course agree with you. i know plenty of people who are against abortion rights ( to various extent). and yes, none of them "hate" women etc. they simply feel great concern for the fetus and oppose abortion out of concern for same.

we agree with that.

i just disagree with your silly word games vis a vis "viable". it's sophomoric.

[JonQ]

148. Interesting response

you seem intent on arguing with me, when I am not disagreeing with you. This is starting to turn out exactly like that previous abortion thread, namely strident arguments against statements I never made. Perhaps you can find where I said there is no legitimate medical definition of viable? No? Then just say I want to enslave and kill all women because I secretly hate them for being empowered and having sex and we can skip a few steps.

I will repeat myself from my previous post, yes doctors do have a definition for viable. And assuming that is the only definition possible, for the sake of argument, after it is deemed viable by licensed competent doctor then I would say abortions after that point are getting ethically sketchy. Do you disagree?

[paulsby]

149. i agree vis a vis viable

if it wasn't you that was playing word games with viable, then so be it.

it is important.

and for fuck's sake, it's not the ONLY definition possible.

it is the one we use WHEN DISCUSSING FETUS'. it is both a legal and medically agreed upon definition.

that matters.

you can say that for YOU, the word viable means "it has a heartbeat" or "it looks human" or "anytime after the 2nd week", but that's YOU, not what we are talking about.

grok it?

but yes on the MAIN point i agree with you. as i have repeatedly stated.

[JonQ]

150. And as I have repeatedly stated

I agree there is a legal and medical definition that is perhaps distinct from an individuals personal definition, as you seem to state here. But before you compared that to calling it a ham sandwich.

[paulsby]

151. that's a legal reference

there's an old saw saying "you can indict a ham sandwich"...

it was a reference to that.

it has to do with legal sufficiency, grand juries, etc.

[lark]

107. Don't think it is at all as portrayed by the msm

I learned a lot from listening to the people that worked for Dr. Tiller after his death. They told stories of women who learned for example that the baby did was missing most of it's brain, would not live, and would be in agony until death overtook them once they lost the use of the umbilical cord to nourish them. They gave sad examples where the mother would have died if the baby was delivered. They stated they NEVER did late term abortions where the mother and baby could survive the birth.

Don't buy into the neo-con fables. All they want to do is control women thru their wombs and end birth control to keep us fat and on the farms pumping out low cost labor.

[KakistocracyHater]

112. have you heard that the ban also prevents pulling a dead fetus out

& women have already died from a similar law in South America; reaching past the cervix was outlawed.

..."In El Salvador, women who develop ectopic pregnancies -- when a fertilized egg gets stuck in a fallopian tube, giving it no chance of survival -- are kept under guard in a hospital. A prosecutor must certify that the embryo has died or the woman's tube has ruptured before doctors can intervene."....
http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2006/11/26/nicaragua_abortion_ban_called_a_threat_to_lives/

..."In Nicaragua, Dr. Oscar Flores Mejía, of Nicaragua's National Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said the new law has sent fear and confusion through the medical community. He said many doctors understand the ban to mean they can do nothing "to interrupt pregnancy from the moment of conception until birth."

..."That rules out operations to save women with ectopic pregnancies, eclampsia, cardiac problems, or other life-threatening complications if doctors could not guarantee that the fetus would survive, Flores said.

"This law is forcing us to be delinquent in our jobs," he said."...

..."Ana Isela Vega, who was three months pregnant when she suffered a miscarriage this month, was refused the necessary procedure to evacuate her uterus in a public hospital in the city of León, said Marta María Blandón, Central America director of Ipas. According to Blandón, the doctors worried they could not operate for legal reasons. Under pressure from women's groups who explained that the law did not forbid removing an already-deceased fetus, the doctors finally operated."....

..."In the hardscrabble village of Cuajachillo outside the capital lives a family who believes their daughter was the first victim of the draconian ban. The public prosecutor for crimes against women is investigating whether doctors fearful of punishment even before the newly-passed abortion law had gone into effect stood by while Jazmina del Carmen Bojorge, 18, died from complications to her pregnancy.

Bojorge was awaiting her second child when she and her 5-month-old fetus died this month in a public hospital in Managua. Bojorge's family says they took her to a hospital when she complained of limb pains and weakness. When her condition worsened, doctors say they determined her fetus was dead, but Bojorge went into shock before they could save her."...

[lapfog_1]

140. Nobody waits until 21 or 22 weeks into the pregnancy

and then decides "I don't really WANT a baby, time to go down and have the doctor kill it".

Nobody does that.

The only reason that women go through this is because THEY might die or the baby is so malformed, it will be dead upon delivery and there simply isn't any reason to carry the pregnancy to term.

[asksam]

9. Three Step Solution

1. Find out what extramarital affairs or other hypocritical/illegal behavior the two Rethug "judges" are engaging in (given that they are neocon Rethugs, it's almost a given).

2. Use it to pressure them off the bench. Get em to retire somewhere or have them arrested (if it's something illegal).

3. Have the case brought again.

[tomm2thumbs]

21. wouldn't this be ruled under 'self defense' then? egad, has it come to that? /nt

[msongs]

44. good thing none of you were ever fetuses nt

[lindisfarne]

53. In fact, my mother would have had a much better life had she aborted me. I never would have known

that I'd been aborted, so it hardly matters.
At the time, abortion wasn't legal.

[WriteDown]

57. Same if she drowned you in a tub at 1 month...

Just sayin'... :)

[defendandprotect]

65. Right . . .we would have insisted on killing our mothers in order to be born--!!!!

:evilgrin:

[EndersDame]

154. Or we might not have survived and have taken our mothers with us

Allot of the reasons women get D & E's are because the fetus dies and would complicate the pregnancy

[lark]

118. Good thing some of us have had children ,

love them dearly, but still support the right of woman to choose whether or not to continue a particular pregnancy.

[lindisfarne]

56. Fertilized eggs: anti-choicers say they represent A HUMAN. In fact, in the first 7 days, the egg can

split and create identical twins, or even triplets.
A fertilized egg has the potential to create one or more humans when the circumstances are correct, just as an unfertilized egg or a sperm has the potential to create one or more humans, when the circumstances are correct.

In case you wanted another point for debates with anti-choice people.

As a total aside (but very interesting nonetheless)
If you're curious about identical twins, there's also the monochorionic & dichorionic distinction, which in fact, influences the likelihood of developing certain traits and health problems (for example, schizophrenia is more likely to be seen in both identical twins if they are monochorionic than dichorionic; this shows that the in utero environment can be different when twins have different sacs rather than sharing one; placentas can also be shared or separate).

There are fairly common cases of identical twins being misidentified as fraternal because they were in separate sacs. Many physicians tell parents the twins are fraternal if there are separate sacs. If you've been told you're a fraternal twin, but you and your twin look identical, there is the possibility an error was made; genetic tests ($100-200) can give you an answer if you care enough to pay the money!

[defendandprotect]

61. Fertilized eggs also quite often fail to attach to the womb lining . . . .

often conception end in miscarriage --

and males are most frequently lost, up to the age of 2.

[sutz12]

68. You're using too many big words...you're obviously wrong...God doesn't use big words...

:sarcasm:

:)

[defendandprotect]

64. "Partial Truth Abortion" seeks to strip women of the right to self-defense . . . !!!

Are males ready to give up their right to self-defense?

[mullard12ax7]

67. War criminals go free, women and gays are 2nd-class citizens: let's go lecture

other countries on human rights issues!

[lindisfarne]

77. Why might a female get to 20+ weeks and need an abortion? See #74 for many possibilities. There are

also health-related reasons. About 1% of abortions are done in Week 21 or later.
I don't think having a child should be punishment for having sex, getting raped, somehow missing the signs of pregnancy.

#74 is here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3938829&mesg_id=3939173

#31 - info about 2003 SC decision is here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3938829&mesg_id=3938939

[paulsby]

130. equating

having a child WITH the word "punishment" is an argument that is destined to fail.

and i say that as somebody who is pro-choice.

[lindisfarne]

132. That's the way the anti-choicers see it - you fooled around, now you pay the price. Saying you can

have an abortion because of rape but not because a condom failed is making having the child punishment - or if you please, "payment", for your actions.

[paulsby]

133. maybe in your mind

i know LOTS of anti-choicers.

that's not even close to how they think.

[Occulus]

135. Yes it is.

And you know that.

It's exactly how they think, most of us have heard those exact words from them before, and if you say otherwise, you're a filthy liar.

Every last anti-choicer I've ever heard of believes that if you don't want a kid, you don't open your pants, and if you have a kid after having done so, tough shit. Why the hell do you think they're so against low-income assistance for someone on welfare who has a kid? The child-as-punishment is exactly how they see it, and you're lying to say otherwise.

[paulsby]

137. i don't respond to ad hominems

all you do is say "LIAR LIAR"

i'm still waiting for the "pants on fire" reference...

[Occulus]

138. I figured that would be as far as you would get.

I posted the rest for the benefit of everyone else.

[paulsby]

139. if you are so intellectually void

that you feel the need to instantly devolve into ad hominems, you'd do best by benefiting yourself with some character improvement or something

hth

[Occulus]

152. You DO know the difference between the personal "you" and the editorial "you", right?

Or are you too much of a cop to see anything other than a personal insult when I direct my ire toward your profession job as a whole?

[JonQ]

142. So the only possible reason anyone could oppose abortions

is hatred of women and a desire to "inflict" children on them? Somehow I don't see that as enough motivation to explain the widespread opposition to abortion.

It also doesn't explain why the longer you wait the greater the opposition. It seems like if the desire was to punish women with being pregnant abortions would be deemed wrong at any point. But I know plenty of people of people (myself for instance) who are in favor of abortions rights to a point, that get a little squeamish once the fetus can survive outside the womb (say 8.5 months in) and when the health of the mother is not at risk. That doesn't seem to follow the "evil slut must be punished" rhetoric you're assigning to many millions of people.

By way of a counter example: if the other side were to say the only reason pro-choice folks favor abortions is that we love to fantasize about babies getting their heads bashed in and their brains sucked out I'd say they are leaning a little hard on the rhetoric and should try to come back down to reality and stop demonizing the opposition.

I try to give the opposition (in any argument) the same courtesy I expect from them.

[lindisfarne]

82. Maternal mortality (excl. of abortion):9.1 deaths/100,000 live births. Late abortion: 1 per 100,000

procedures. Carrying a pregnancy full term is more risky than having a late abortion.

=========
By the early 1990s in the United States, the risk of death in early abortion was less than 1 death per 1 million procedures, and for later abortion, about 1 death per 100,000 procedures (Koonin et al. 1992). The overall risk of death in abortion was about 0.4 deaths per 100,000 procedures compared with a maternal mortality rate (exclusive of abortion) of about 9.1 deaths per 100,000 live births (Koonin et al. 1991a, 1991b).

http://family.jrank.org/pages/4/Abortion-Risks-Abortion.html

[and-justice-for-all]

117. First Arizona now Virgina...what the fuck?!

This a clear indication of just how ignorant people are.

Anyone who thinks all pregnancies are healthy ones are fools. So when a fetus makes it to the 7th or 8th only to die or to show sever birth defects, the women is forced to carry the child through delivery...

Those anti-women folks are just control freaks, hell bent on telling everyone what is best for them.