Should we push through a PBA ban with the exception to the mom's health?

[rockydem]

Clinton vetoed it in '96 and '97 because there was no such exception. They finally got it through but it's already been shot down in the district courts. The GOP is playing games with this issue, trying to keep it alive. Well let's push a bill through that does include such an exception.

Personally I think we should be looking towards other Western Democracies in Europe and elsewhere that have reached reasonable compromise on the issue. They allow abortion in the first trimester, with restrictions after that.

I think this is the middle ground where most Americans are - it's sane - it's rational.

Of course I doubt we could ever get there.

[Dookus]

1. we can't push anything

we're in the minority.

[Massacure]

2. I've always wanted 10 weeks. Trimseter is fine though.

[Bunny]

3. Roe v Wade allows abortion in the first trimester,

with restrictions after that. We're already at the alleged middle ground.

[rockydem]

4. more restrictions then

totally free in the first trimester - or ten weeks - whatever - but after that more restrictions, a PBA ban w/exceptions, etc...maybe some parental notification (always with certain exceptions) under a certain age - say 16...

at least we could preserve choice then - by defusing it as the political bomb it is - I really believe this is a compromise most Americans could agree with.

[Liberal Gramma]

5. You can't negotiate with Xian fundies

They take no prisoners.

[napi21]

6. The Pubs already know that the law was shot down because it

didn't have an exception. If they want to keep pushing, that's the only way it will pass muster.

[Ducks In A Row]

7. since pba is only ever done to protect the life/health of the mother

it seems a waste of time to bother with it at all.

[rockydem]

8. it isn't though

not always - read the article in the new Harper's about this issue - it's excellent - and it's not always for the life/health of the mother...

[SlackJawedYokel]

13. Did the article mention specifics?

Like just how many "PBAs"(no such procedure btw) are performed every year?
Or list the other reasons beyond life/health of mother or fetal abnormality incompatible with life that late term abortions might be performed?

My understanding is the main complaint by doctors is that banning these procedures makes for bad medicine because it ties their hands.
IIRC, the Intact Dilatation and Extraction(ID&E) procedure, mis-characterized as "PBA", was created specifically to reduce the chance of infection of the typical late term procedure, the D&E, where the fetal body is dismembered and then extracted.
Again, IIRC, these procedures are used so as to not put the woman and her body thru the trauma of a stillbirth/fatal delivery or a C-section.
Fetal dismemberment and fetal cranial collapse are necessary due to the constricted size of the not-fully-dilated cervix. Such forcing leads to infection.

But thanks for the heads up.
I'm headed to the bookstore to look up the current issue of Harpers.

[SlackJawedYokel]

15. Gah...

That's "Intact Dilation and Extraction"... damn my fingers.

Checked out that Harpers article... easily the best one I've ever read on the issue... very concise and to factual.

Didn't see where she offered anything new, however.
The only difference that was noticeable was the apparent fluidity of the two procedures... what begins as one can easily turn into the other... and I noticed she mentioned that the ID&E procedure was originally used on hydro-cephalic fetuses well before it was adopted by other OBGYNs.

[newyawker99]

20. Hi SlackJawedYokel!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[snippy]

9. Anti-abortion republicans tried to get such an amendment passed

when the bill was in the House. There was quite a bit of support for this amendment and some others which would have resulted in a bill that would pass the criteria set out by the Supreme Court for the law to be constitutional. The republican leadership would not allow any of them a vote. They insisted on a law which was exactly like others which the Supreme Court already had declared to be unconstitutional. They did not want a ban on the procedure. They wanted the issue.



I do not ever discuss late term abortion without saying that I find it impossible that anyone could disagree with the statement of the The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists on the subject.

http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/press_releases/nr10-03-03.cfm

A subsequent statement on the law being declared unconstitutional is here.

http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/press_releases/nr06-02-04.cfm

[cosmik debris]

10. Not just no

BUT HELL NO!!!

[Justathought]

11. I disagree with this suggestion.

This is letting go of some real factors concerning abortion. The choice of the woman if she has been brutally raped or the choice of a young child who has been raped as a result of incest. I am against abortion for the sake of convenience but I do not believe the Democratic party should move toward the republican right wingers just to get more votes. What we should be doing is demonstrating how such women are being counseled before such a decision is made. If they are not being counseled in fairness, bring that out and show how we can support better measures for better counseling. Show that we have the upper hand on preventing abortion by programs that look at alternatives whereby the woman is clear that other options are available. Then through all of this, let the woman make the final decision based on what she knows.

[SlackJawedYokel]

14. Argh.

I am against abortion for the sake of convenience
I'm sorry, but that phrase really yanks my chain.
:)

I'm wondering just how many folks actually know women, not 3rd hand accounts, but real women who aborted for the sake of "convenience".

To me that is like saying I got my broken leg put into a cast for the sake of "convenience".
I mean it isn't like you die from a broken leg, right?
So my life isn't in danger or anything.

Please don't feel like I'm singling you out or anything... I'm glad that we agree that women should be the ones to make their own decisions.
I just needed to say this.
:)

[pop goes the weasel]

12. There is no such thing

"as a partial birth abortion."

Are you concerned, instead, with late term abortions? That's a completely different issue. After the 6th month of pregnancy, there are only 2 or 3 dozen abortions performed, and you can bet that those few are done for the health of the mother or because the fetus is badly deformed (such as having no brain) that it can not possibly survive outside the womb.

Could we have a law that simply says that abortions during the last 3 months of a pregancy be for the health of the mother or because of the non-viablity of the fetus? Sure, and while we are at it, we can have a law mandating that everyone obey gravity. If it makes someone feel better to have such a law, sure, go ahead. It's stupid, but go ahead.

[madfloridian]

16. It is NOT a political decision...never was.

It was made that way years ago as a wedge issue. It is between a woman and her doctor at all times. If we do anything else, we are just beginning to be like them...losing our values to win.

[RB TexLa]

17. None of this really has anything to do with abortion

It's much more basic than that. The government has no business regulating something inside one's body. Doesn't matter if it is a male or female body, the right to chose an abortion is part of that. The right to get a vasectomy without having to get one's wife's permission or notifying her is part of it.

The concept of outlawing abortion is based on the principle of one's rights ending when they infringe on another's. Obviously the government can punish me for ingesting certain amounts alcohol and driving a car on the public highways. The question regarding abortion is extending rights to an unborn fetus. The law does this in regard to something done to a fetus by a force other than the mother. But the rights granted in Roe v. Henry Wade are where these rights stop.

Many medical procedures are horrible to watch, quite a few of them are pretty violent. If you have ever had wisdom teeth removed you know this because your jaw is sore for a week from where they almost break it opening it wide to work in there.

There is much more at stake. I know many pro-choice Republicans and independents that vote for anti-choice candidates, they feel Roe is not going to be overturned. I understand that there will be various restrictions and such on abortion, I am not going to sound like a NRA extremest who thinks a bill allowing someone to buy 29 guns in a month but not 30 is the end of the second amendment. But we have to look at what the far right wants and where it could lead.

Already they have moved from the fetus to the zygote in as far as what is "scared life." It is not much more of a step for them to declare sperm and eggs to be "scared life." I can't think of many people that want to see this kind of government intrusion in our bodies.

Stem cell research finally became a national issue discussed at water coolers this year, but it is really the tip of the research. DNA and human cloning research has been pushed aside because George Bush and Bill Clinton found it to be "icky." They both said that science can not operate in a moral vacuum. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Think of all the science that would not have come about if we were to only research what was morally correct at the time.

This brings us to what I feel was the biggest issue of the election, Supreme Court nominations. Politicians don't make decisions on matters of such controversy, they never have they never will. The right to an abortion was not granted by any legislative body, no legislative body outlawed segregation, it's not what they do. The congress decides how much to tax people, where to build roads, how many guns and tanks to buy, the courts make decisions regarding the granting or removing or affirming of rights, especially societal changing decisions. And now we have another four years of a President whos favorite justice is Clarence Thomas. God help us.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.