How it was easy to get the ban on late term abortions...our party went along.

[madfloridian]

Here is just some of how we got to where we are today....when a woman can not get an abortion that threatens her health 3rd trimester. She can only supposedly get one if she is danger of dying....and I wonder which of those 5 men will be looking over the doctors' shoulders making them think twice or maybe more?

Harold Ford

Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life.
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003: Vote to pass a bill banning a medical procedure, which is commonly known as "partial-birth" abortion. The procedure would be allowed only in cases in which a women's life is in danger, not for cases where a women's health is in danger. Those who performed this procedure, would face fines and up to two years in prison, the women to whom this procedure is performed on are not held criminally liable.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Santorum, R-PA; Bill S.3 ; vote number 2003-530 on Oct 2, 2003
http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Harold_Ford_Abortion.htm

Ford is chairman of the DLC now, the think tank that today has the congressional policy up for the Democrats.

And just to pick a few others:

Tom Carper:

Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life.
S. 3 As Amended; Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Vote to pass a bill banning a medical procedure, which is commonly known as "partial-birth" abortion. Those who performed this procedure would then face fines and up to two years in prison, the women to whom this procedure is performed on are not held criminally liable. This bill would make the exception for cases in which a women's life is in danger, not for cases where a women's health is in danger.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Tom_Carper_Abortion.htm

Tom Carper is one of the leaders of the DLC.


Also voting for the so-called "partial birth abortion" ban were other Democrats. The bill did not allow for a woman's health to be considered. Just a life or death situation.

In the Senate:

John Breaux, Harry Byrd, Kent Conrad, Tom Daschle, Byron Dorgan, Fritz Hollings, Tim Johnson, Mary Landrieu, Patrick Leahy, Blanche Lincoln, Miller (GA), Ben Nelson, Pryor AK, Harry Reid.

Not voting.
John Edwards, John Kerry, Joe Biden.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00051#position

There were 63 Democrats in the House who voted for it. Ford is listed above. I have not looked the others up yet.

They are not going to do anything about changing the law that was just ruled constitutional because too damn many of them voted for it.

And what will always stick in my mind was what Chuck Schumer said at a fundraiser when he chose Bob Casey to run in PA.

"So I called up Governor...our number one target is Rick Santorum...let him go back to wherever he lives, Maryland, you know you heard about it, he is Pennsylvania but he tried to get exempt from the school tax there cause he lives in Maryland even though he is a registered citizen of Pennsylvania. In any case I called up the Governor of Pennsylvania, Governor Rendell, I said who is the best candidate to beat Santorum. He there is only one person who could beat him but he won't run and B you wouldn't want him to. I said why wouldn't we want him to run, he said he's pro-life. He's a deeply religious Catholic man. Bob Casey."

"I said, those days are over Ed. Yes I'm pro-choice, but we need the best candidate. We can't insist that every democrat check off 18 different issues before they get (unintelligible) we could do that, we can't anymore. And so, we persuaded, Harry using his very...Harry has amazing insights into people...and we together persuaded Bob Casey to run. A poll yesterday...national...all the polls they did...Casey 51 Santorum 40. You should see Santorum nervous and walkin on the floor."
http://www.mydd.com:80/story/2005/8/15/121857/175

Schumer said the days were over when issues like that mattered. I guess that meant women's choice. Maybe they are sending women a message that now has Supreme Court backing....don't get pregnant if you can't stay healthy.

Issues matter. We learned that this week. The right wing is just getting started on issues like this. They were emboldened.

[BurtWorm]

1. Thank you, madfloridian!

:applause:

The applause is for your consciousness raising post. Not for the traitors who sold out women's right to choose and doctors' right to take any appropriate measures.

[sandnsea]

2. Blue Dogs

When you put economic and social issues together - the Blue Dogs are more likely to be the problem than the DLC.

We lost this fight because activists chose to stick with the basic premise of right to privacy than to educate the public as to why this particular procedure was necessary.

Am I wrong, or is the other procedure still legal, the D&E instead of the D&X? Isn't it true that 3rd trimester abortions won't be stopped, they'll just use the fetal dismemberment procedure instead? That's what is so stupid to me. This has been one big word game that hasn't changed anything in the end - except a whole bunch of people still don't have any clue about the real health care women sometimes need.

Because we are all stupider for the lack of science in this debate, WE ALL lost. Bottom line.

[HockeyMom]

4. 2nd Trimester

This is done in the 2nd also. The ban starts at 21 weeks. "Late" term? Yes, there are other internal procedures which can replace this, which are far more dangerous to the woman. As you said, D & E or a Saline. The bottom line is, that the fetus has to be DEAD when it comes out, or as they prefer to say is "born".

The extremists are emboldened by this. They think they are on a path to ban ALL abortions - from conception on.

I am very, very mad at our so called Democrats who voted for this ban. And those who stood by and let Alito and Roberts on the Court.

[sandnsea]

9. Voting their constituency

They aren't going to vote different if their constituents make their decisions on half the information. We have to change minds before we can change votes.

[Clark2008]

13. I was going to point that out.

In Tennessee, abortions after 21 weeks are forbidden anyway - at least as it applies to "choice."

Here's a Google index to show how backward TN is on choice issues and see exactly WHY Ford choose to support the ban on so-called "partial-birth" abortions:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=zqe&q=tennessee+abortion+law&btnG=Search

Ford has, however, supported other abortion-rights laws, including supporting stem-cell research and voting to adopt an amendment that would remove language reversing President Bush's restrictions on funding to family planning groups that provide abortion services, counseling or advocacy. Ford has often said he supports Bill Clinton's "safe, legal and RARE" stance.

He's not that great on the issue, but he was a MUCH better bet for women's rights than Bob Corker.

[sandnsea]

15. Safe, legal and medically necessary

We forgot that little ditty in the abortion debate. Most elective abortions are in the first few weeks. By the time we get to D&X, it's medically necessary. I don't understand why the consultants decided it wasn't important to explain that. You can't trust each new generation to know the scenarios others have to grapple with if you don't tell them.

[sharp_stick]

7. You are absolutely right

It was nothing but a word game, one the GOP and their fundie leash holders wanted to play to shove a wedge into the door and hold it open. They were allowed to frame the debate by calling the procedure a "partial birth abortion" and nobody called them on it because it was a great sound byte. The fundie hoards also pretended it was a common practice and done for no other reason than the woman was sick of carrying the fetus.

I think we blew it on this one really bad. By we I mean those of us who care about the right to privacy and the honest reporting of the facts. The pro-choice legal team and representatives in the House and the Senate should have never allowed this to go as far as it did, they should have slapped down the sound byte and provided pure evidence of the times this procedure is used and why it is used.

This will do nothing to even reduce the very small number of late term abortions that are carried out but it will allow the fundies a hole to pry at the next time they want to ban something.

I have never been more relieved at the fact that the Democratic Party is now in control of the House and Senate. There is not a chance in hell of another law being passed for the foreseeable future. Now it is also even more important that we wrestle back control of the White House so we can truly clean up the fucking mess that the last 12 years have given us.

I hate the republicon party and fundamentalist assholes with every fiber of my being.

[sandnsea]

10. Steve McMahon - yesterday

On MSNBC, still saying he hates partial birth abortion. Big time Dem consultant.

[e-mail]

[femrap]

18. We can't

seem to get the MSM to report OUR side....to educate the public on WHY some women MUST end their pregnancies in the 6th or 7th month.

We all need to start writing LTE that explain why late-term abortions are REQUIRED. And the women who have these abortions very much wanted to have the child.

These politicians and christofascists look upon women as 'expendable receptacles.' GRRRRRRRRRRRRR...

[sandnsea]

65. Seriously - Steve McMahon

Dem strategist, partner of Trippi who is now on the Edwards campaign. [e-mail]

You'd be surprised how many of these people have email addresses online, and will occasionally even answer you.

If we can't get the Democrats on television to support us, then I don't know how we expect any newsmodels to report the facts. Even Bill Maher bought into the spin tonight.

[madfloridian]

61. Actually I pretty much agree that the Blue Dogs are a problem as well.

I posted about the DLC because Harold Ford is chair, they have the issues paper up at the website today for congress to follow...and because Ford and Carper who voted for the ban (and Ford was vehement about it during his campaign)...are pictured as leaders.

Here is the new Congressional Agenda for the 21st Century. I have not read it, but it caught my eye and made my point that they are setting policy for the party. So far the party is pretty well going along.

http://dlc.org/

I usually don't leave the Blue Dogs out. :hi:

Yes, it is going to take all out effort letting people know that women were put in jeopardy. Locally I saw some good coverage making it clear that a woman's health could not be considered.

[Deep13]

3. Red state Ds represent their socially conservative constituents.

If they had voted against it, the Rs would still have a majority. Ultimately, the elected officials must do what their voters want them to do. Yes issues matter. Still, not everything we want is possible. That bill would have passed no matter who was in Congress. With a D majority, on the other hand, more restrictions are unlikely and progress can me made on other issues of equal importance.

[madfloridian]

27. The Red State excuse is quickly wearing thin.

Right is right in every state. They were just afraid to speak up and point out that it was a bunch of hooey made up by the right wing.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1289

[MonkeyFunk]

67. do you think the Democrats would have the majority

they have today if they all voted for gay marriage?

Right is right in every state.... except when it's political suicide.

You know better than that - you just want an excuse to bash Harold Ford because people who like Ford once said something you didn't like about St. Howard of Burlington.

[Deep13]

68. Right is right? Do you have some scientific test for that?

One thing is certain. We don't win many elections by telling voters they are wrong and we are right.

[madfloridian]

70. 82% think a woman's health should be considered.

Poll is in this thread somewhere.

It is right for a woman and her doctor to make medical decisions. It is wrong for courts and congress to step in.

[Nederland]

5. The party went along

...because they did not want to commit electoral suicide.

The bottom line here is that the partial birth abortion bill has very wide spread support among the public. If you want to see this procedure made legal again, you need to engage in a huge public awareness campaign and convince the American people that it is a necessary option. Until then, the democractic process has spoken.

[madfloridian]

19. The "democratic process" screwed women.

And screwed over doctors and put medical decisions in the hands of congress and the courts.

It was a not a "democratic process" at all, it was theocratic process based on a religious view. And the Democrats who voted for it put women in danger. It was their job to learn and inform their constituents that there really was no such process which women requested, begged for, etc.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1289

"As a physician, I am outraged that the House of Representatives has decided it is qualified to practice medicine. There is no such thing as 'partial birth abortion' in medical literature. But there are times when a doctor is called upon to perform a late term abortion to save a woman's life or protect her from serious injury. Today the House took a step toward making it a crime for a doctor to perform such medically necessary procedures.

“This bill will chill the practice of medicine and endanger the lives of countless women. Despite what politicians tell you, there is not an epidemic of third trimester abortions in this country. This kind of legislation serves the sole purpose of chipping away women's constitutionally protected reproductive rights and overturning Roe v. Wade."

[Nederland]

22. Not sure I understand

It was a not a "democratic process" at all...

The House and Senate voted for the bill and it passed by overwhelming majorities.

A sizeable majority of Americans polled favor the ban.

What exactly is "undemocratic" about this?

[madfloridian]

24. It left about 50% of the country behind.

I do not think that is ok. If that is the "democratic process" at work, then we are in trouble. Women are not just an "issue" to be controlling.

I think you need to look up statistics on those who favored the ban.

[Nederland]

25. What 50% are you talking about? (nt)

[Greyhound]

77. The overwhelming majority of women and a significant portion of the men as well.

Even the ignorant boobs that support this largely do so out of sheer ignorance and the blind acceptance of whatever they see and hear come out of the idiot box.

[bobbolink]

6. Yet, we get flamed no end if we dare suggest on DU that Dems

are part of the problem.

Let me know when it's OK to come out and be realistic about politics.

[Zodiak]

11. They've been here for years

advocating the same stuff......spinelessness as "good political strategy"

No one really listens to them, any more, but it doesn't stop the endless squawking.

How many times can one be wrong before they start to listen? Many...many times, apparently.

[Nederland]

12. "They" were NOT wrong

It WAS good political strategy.

The fact that we now have a majority in both the House and the Senate is proof of that.

[endarkenment]

20. The fact that the republics are criminally incompetent

is why we have a majority in the house and senate. You can stop slapping yourself on the back, selling out our constituencies and standing for nothing have not and will not be the reason for winning elections.

[Nederland]

23. They hardly sold anyone out

70% of all Americans support the ban, even more in red states. The fact of the matter is that, in the cold calculation of politics, the people that oppose the ban are very very few and don't matter.

[madfloridian]

28. Please show proof of that 70% who supported the ban.

.

[Nederland]

30. Here you go

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/abortion_poll030122.html

American Views on Abortion
Situation Should Be Legal Should Be Illegal
All or Most Cases 57% 42
To Save Woman's Life 88 10
To Save Woman's Health 82 14
In Cases of Rape/Incest 81 17
Physically Impaired Baby 54 40
To End Unwanted Pregnancy 42 57
D&X/Partial-Birth Abortions 23 69
Pregnancy is 6 Months+ 11 86

What is really interesting is that while only 69% think that D&X abortions should be illegal, a whopping 86% think that abortion past the sixth month should be illegal.

[madfloridian]

31. You made my point. They voted against their constituency

"To Save Woman's Health 82 14 "

I am gathering the 82% is in favor of an abortion for the reason of a woman's health.

Congress voted to say no to that. The Dems I listed above and 62 others in the House say a woman's health should not be considered a reason to have an abortion. Oh, and those 5 old men on the Supreme Court agree.

[Nederland]

32. Not necessarily

There is considerable debate as to whether or not the procedure is ever necessary for the reasons of a women's health. I'm sure that you are aware that the American Medical Association board unamiously voted to support the ban, so clearly not everyone agrees on the matter. This is not to say that they are right, merely that there is clearly grave disagreement on the issue.

[madfloridian]

33. It does not matter who agrees....it takes away the right of a woman

to consult with her doctor on a condition of health. If you agree with that, then more conversation is useless. I will never agree.

I see our doctors here changing, being fearful of giving birth control. One neighbor changed doctors to get her pills prescribed. They are fearful of giving hormone therapy.

So we will never reach agreement.

[Nederland]

35. How does it do that?

I see no evidence that the bill prevents a women from consulting with her doctor about anything. It limits her options, certainly, but it does not prevent her from talking to anyone about anything.

[madfloridian]

38. So you think the courts and Congress have a right to limit a woman's options?

Why didn't you say so at first and I would not have wasted time being commonsense with you.

[Nederland]

41. That's what Roe versus Wade says

If I knew you supported a repeal of Roe vs Wade, I wouldn't have wasted time being commonsense with you either.

[madfloridian]

45. There should never have been a reason for Roe v Wade.

The fact there was a need for it to give women a right they already should have had says a lot about our country.

And it says a hell of a lot that at a Democratic forum there are people who think women are not capable of making decisions with their doctor, and people who defend the ones who voted to take away the rights.

[Nederland]

49. No reason for Roe versus Wade?

The word abortion does not appear in the constitution, nor does any statement regarding the legal rights of the fetus. A court case was absolutely necessary to clearly define what rights the fetus has and what rights a women has. Which brings up an interesting question, do you believe the fetus has ANY rights at all? For example, do you think that a women should have a right to abort a third trimester fetus because she is depressed?

[madfloridian]

50. I did not say that. You are misquoting

And you don't think a woman and her doctor have the rights.

I see no reason to discuss anymore when your mind is made up that women need to be monitored.

Done.

[Nederland]

51. Nice dodge

Answer the question.

[Nederland]

52. You are misquoting

I never said that a women had no rights. Never.

Obviously you are dodging the question. Do you think a women should be able to abort a third trimester fetus because she is depressed?

[ismnotwasm]

57. I am not a baby incubator

The constitution was written, as I'm sure you know by land-owning white men and women had no voice in it.

It's actually unfortunate how many land mark court cases had to be brought up to allow anyone-- other than land-owning white men rights.

And no the fetus doesn't have "rights"

[Nederland]

59. Fair enough

At least you had the courage to answer the question.

For the record, I disagree. I believe that:

(A) FOR THE STAGE PRIOR TO APPROXIMATELY THE END OF THE FIRST
TRIMESTER, THE ABORTION DECISION AND ITS EFFECTUATION MUST BE LEFT TO THE
MEDICAL JUDGMENT OF THE PREGNANT WOMAN'S ATTENDING PHYSICIAN.

(B) FOR THE STAGE SUBSEQUENT TO APPROXIMATELY THE END OF THE FIRST
TRIMESTER, THE STATE IN PROMOTING ITS INTEREST IN THE HEALTH OF THE
MOTHER, MAY, IF IT CHOOSES, REGULATE THE ABORTION PROCEDURE IN WAYS THAT
ARE REASONABLY RELATED TO MATERNAL HEALTH.

(C) FOR THE STAGE SUBSEQUENT TO VIABILITY THE STATE IN PROMOTING ITS
INTEREST IN THE POTENTIALITY OF HUMAN LIFE, MAY, IF IT CHOOSES,
REGULATE, AND EVEN PROSCRIBE, ABORTION EXCEPT WHERE NECESSARY, IN
APPROPRIATE MEDICAL JUDGMENT, FOR THE PRESERVATION OF THE LIFE OR HEALTH
OF THE MOTHER.

This, in case you do not recognize it, is lifted directly from Roe versus Wade.

[madfloridian]

34. And don't say polls support no exclusion for health when they clearly do...

and then change the topic to the AMA.

[Nederland]

36. Fair enough

Clearly though, there is a significant gap between your position and the position of the American majority. Wouldn't you agree?

[madfloridian]

39. No, the vast majority think a woman should have the health option.

.

[Nederland]

44. But what about this question?

To End Unwanted Pregnancy:
Should be Legal: 42
Should be Illegal: 57

For the record, I'm with the minority on this question. I think that an abortion to end an unwanted pregnancy should be legal, at least in the early stages. Perhaps that the problem with these polls, you don't know what people are thinking when asked.

[mdmc]

21. The 2006 plan was brilliant

- Let the idiot son do whatever he wants, until the sheeple have no choice but to throw them out. Then step in.

2006 was our year, not a year of tactical political strategy.

[Zodiak]

69. No...you cannot point to a majority as proof of good strategy

Correlation is not causation. I could just as easily say that it was Mark Foley and point to a majority as proof. It is a logical fallacy. Doing nothing and capitulating to Republicans has degenerated this country down to the nub. Everyone here is well-aware of that as we have all lived through disappoitment after disappointment.

A good strategy would result in our getting what we want politically....a majority is only the most important thing to people trying to keep their jobs. To the People (the REAL bosses), results matter.

We have had precious little results, only capitulations (not compromises, capitulations).

But I know my little diatribe will not dissuade you. Continue your saturation of the board with Democratic top-down authoritarianism; I will not stop you.

[bobbolink]

71. yup, party before country

good "strategery"

[sandnsea]

16. What's Herseth supposed to do?

She lives in the state that just outlawed abortion. How's she supposed to fight every abortion law when Dems from other regions of the country won't stand up beside her? This is an education failure, which is kind of ironic considering we're supposed to be the party of educators too.

[hfojvt]

26. the state recently voted to over-turn that law

unless there has been a new development.

[sandnsea]

47. 56-44; on a complete BAN

Do you seriously think that's what the vote would be on D&X legislation?

[bobbolink]

72. I have no idea what you're talking about.

I didn't address anything to any "herseth".

Methinks you were looking for something to attack.

Too close to home, maybe?

[DawnIsis]

8. I have been so upset since I heard this ruling....

to be told that if I need chemo or dangerous drugs during pregnancy my choice is to either NOT receive treatment or go forward with the treatment with a baby in my womb. To be told that if my baby is found to be affected by abnormalities that would prevent any quality of life and financially bankrupt my family I must give birth against my will.

This has changed my entire outlook about becoming pregnant. I realized that before becoming pregnant I must save enough money to pay for genetic screening to ensure a healthy child and that I must be completely tested for cancer and other diseases. And if all else fails Europe here I come!

If there is a bright side it's that soon stem-cell research will produce so many cures the embryo argument will simply fade away as these hypocrites rush to get the treatments.

Anyone who voted for this bill should be ashamed of themselves.

[scorpiogirl]

14. I have been upset since this too and I have already had my kids

To me, it's the larger picture of gov't legislating women's bodies in any way, shape or form. It's not about the procedure as much as that. Propaganda that says that a woman would electively end a late term pregnancy when she has no health risk is wrong. I don't believe that occurs at all. The bill says risk to the mother's life. How about risk to her health where she becomes incapaciated in some way and already has children? Who will take care of them? Are the mother and already-born children less important than the child who will not survive anyway.

Welcome to DU, btw.

[madfloridian]

29. You made a very good point about required medication .

during pregnancy. Bet those men who voted for it never thought that much about it all.

[MonkeyFunk]

66. Sorry

then you misunderstand the decision.

This decision does NOT prevent late-term abortions.

It prevents ONE of multiple PROCEDURES used to effect a late-term abortion.

It's a stupid law, and a stupid decision, but it does NOT force any woman to continue with a pregnancy that she doesn't want or can't bear.

[DemBones DemBones]

80. Paranoia will destroy ya.

This is a ban of ONE type of late term abortion. There are other types of late term abortions.

It doesn't have anything to do with medical care the mother might receive, such as chemotherapy, and it doesn't stop a woman from having genetic screening and having an abortion if her baby is not perfect.

[madfloridian]

81. Read my post at the very bottom of the thread.

It could be harmful, and it takes away rights of women.

[sandnsea]

84. Fetal Dismemberment - are you friggin' serious???

You support this idiocy because the more dangerous to the mother = hacking the fetus up - is somehow preferable to you????

[femrap]

17. Let me K & R this....

Without women, Dems don't get elected. Period. They better start to realize this. And they better realize as well that this theorcratic trend has gone about as far as it is going....the hypocrisy is just too visible to the 78% of those who are NOT 'Conservatives Without Conscience' (Title of John Dean's book).

Women are pissed....ie look at what happened to Imus. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH....and that goes for Dems as well. We are 51% of the population.

[Solly Mack]

37. Recommended

[MasonJar]

40. i am definitely pro-choice, but I do believe that we have to allow

our candidates to have varied ideals. Casey was upfront and the dems knew his stance, which I abhor, but he did beat Santorum, who had a lot less going for his election. Santorum is perfectly situated on Faux News. We the citizens need to take a new approach to this issue. Men need to be held accountable; would they want to carry a fetus around for 9 months? If so, let's find a way for them to do it. That should end this argument for good. I am sure science can come up with an imbilical sack for men to wear around their bodies once they have impregnated their female friends. Just remove the entire sac and place it on them for the full term. Come on all you scientists our there, come up with something asap.

[madfloridian]

42. Varied opinions on the rights of women? That is my question.

When did it become ok to say a woman was not capable of making her own decisions?

Oh, I forgot, Rovian policy which we swallowed hook line and sinker.

[MadHound]

43. One other matter needs mentioning in relation to your post

And that is the fact that the Dems could have put a halt to both the Alito and Roberts nomination, holding out for better candidates, if they had held together for a filibuster. Instead they exhibited a lack of unity, a lack of a spine, and the lack of will to do what the people want them to do. Sure, the powder is still dry, the nuke option hasn't been used, but guess what, we all lost in this battle.

[blm]

46. To be accurate, Edwards, Kerry were at California State Dem Convention and Frist

scheduled this vote in quickly, BECAUSE he knew they were en route. Daschle told them he would call them if their vote was needed to make a difference.

[Mass]

73. And Kerry voted AGAINST the Conference report

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00402

[leftchick]

48. any democrat aligned with the DLC is culpable

thank you madfloridian for shining a light on the traitors to womens rights.

[madfloridian]

53. Ob/Gyns oppose the ban. Post at Kos.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/20/143242/968

This is in reference to the 2003 bill.
Here is the source.
QUESTION: What do medical organizations say about the banned procedures?

ANSWER: The American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists (ACOG) has said that one of the procedures that would be banned by the bill -- a particular form of the "intact D&E" -- "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." ACOG has continued to oppose the amended version of the federal "partial-birth" abortion ban passed by Congress this year, stating "ACOG does not support either version of the bill because neither affords physicians the discretion they need to use the best abortion procedure for their patients."

With respect to the form of intact D&E addressed by ACOG, the American Medical Association (AMA) has said: "This procedure may minimize trauma to the woman's uterus, cervix, and other vital organs. Intact D& may be preferred by some physicians, particularly when the fetus has been diagnosed with hydrocephaly or other anomalies incompatible with life outside the womb." Since publishing this statement the AMA has nonetheless endorsed the version of the ban on "partial-birth" abortion passed by Congress.

For Further Information, Contact:
Planned Parenthood Federation of America

http://www.ppacca.org/site/pp.asp?c=kuJYJeO4F&b=139586

Maybe the AMA doesn't think the OB/GYNs are the deciders.

[Gloria]

54. 100% Correct. And note this: Babs Boxer may be introducing her

poorly named bill, but she was Joe Lieberf*ck's best buddy in 2006. As was Schumer et al.

Babs, like so many Democrats STILL haven't learned to frame a damned thing. "Freedom of Choice Act" which makes it sound like women should be able to freely choose from a fast-foof menu, VS PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION. Which wins??

I emailed Babs about renaming her bill with a title that reflects a bit more urgency....something like WOMENS HEALTH PROTECTION ACT. Something that reflects the seriousness of the whole issue.....


Years ago I wrote a real letter to NARAL on this subject. "Choice" sounds like a trivialization of the issue, while the other side goes for the gut, dishonestly if need be. Both work in their favor.

Language matters. While your at it Dems, how about having someone on-duty 24 hours a day after those hearings explaining PBA and how it doesn't exit?? NOPE, just let the media take the term and use it and get it nice and engrained in the American psyche....

[riverdeep]

55. The thing is, what do you do when women in red states

agree with the ban. Pro life has been conducting a stealth campaign for years which in many state has resulted in a defacto overturning of Roe v Wade. Little changes in the laws here and there over time has made it awful. I think in Mississippi there is one abortion clinic in the entire state. This of course, only applies to the poor and not well connected. The rich will always have access to whatever they want.

Someone stated that politicians should be educating the public on the truth of this issue. That's much harder said then done. The people who are most in favor of these kind of things are also the most insulated from divergent points of view. They watch Fox, they get their learnin' from the Bible, not from no egg head perfessors. Policticians, with rare exceptions, are not leaders of public opinion, they are followers. Change the public, then chage policy.

[madfloridian]

60. That is not always true. We just assume they approve of the ban.

Polls show most have pretty good common sense about it over all. It is the usual third who never give up on Bush who are the ones pushing this so hard.

If we wanted to educate them, it would not be hard. I am the only Democrat in my family except for one daughter. All others, uncles, cousins, brothers, sisters are Republicans.

Out of all the ones who are Republicans, NONE of them give a hoot about the issue of abortion. Even the Catholic side of the family just simply doesn't care. They are the kind of Republicans who call those wedge issues, just like we do.

[Exiled in America]

56. Don't look now, but this is why a lot of people have gone third party....

...something I seem to remember you being against. But then again, I always thought that you were a very outspoken Democratic party apologist. Either suddenly because it is an issue that affects women it cuts closer to home, or I'm just totally remembering wrong and making an unfair characterization. Either is possible.

In any case, this is merely one of countless examples of the betrayals of too many in the democratic party on issues where there can be no justifiable compromise. I don't know how we fix that, but it is certainly a major problem.

See my sig line.

[madfloridian]

58. I am not an apologist for anyone or any party.

I believe this issue needs to be realized for what it is, and for who supported it.

I don't think 3rd party is the way, if that is what you are saying. I intend to hold this one accountable in every way.

I am very outspoken on rights.

[Exiled in America]

64. I respect that.

I just wanted to post and say that I respect what you've said.

[omega minimo]

62. Like they went along with the Alito and Roberts appointments.

:evilfrown:

[madfloridian]

63. Here's post about Ginsberg's dissent, just posted here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x719618

"In 1985, Ginsburg, then a federal appeals court judge, argued in a law review article that the court should have emphasized "a woman's autonomous charge of her full life's course." Citing decisions on sex equality, she contended that Roe vs. Wade was "weakened … by the opinion's concentration on a medically approved autonomy idea, to the exclusion of a constitutionally based sex-equality perspective." In this week's case, Ginsburg, now the only woman on the court, attempted to re-conceive the foundations of the abortion right, basing it on well-established constitutional principles of equality. Borrowing from her 1985 argument, she said that legal challenges to restrictions on abortion procedures "do not seek to vindicate some generalized notion of privacy; rather, they center on a woman's autonomy to determine her life's course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature."

For Ginsburg, this alternative understanding of the right to choose has concrete implications. It means that any restrictions on the abortion right must, at a minimum, protect a woman's health. It also means that no such restriction can be justified on the paternalistic ground that women might turn out to regret their choices or are too fragile to receive all relevant information about medical possibilities. In her view, such paternalistic arguments run afoul of the guarantee of sex equality because they reflect "ancient notions about women's place in the family and under the Constitution — ideas that have long since been discredited."

Her dissent was powerful.

The poster links to the LA Times article.

[Mass]

74. Clinton voted NO both on the bill and the conference report.

Any reason why she is singled in this (and you know I am not a fan of Clinton).

[madfloridian]

75. I am not sure what you mean.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00051#position

I used this page listed above, and I concentrated on the ones who voted FOR it. I don't think I mentioned the ones who voted against it. but I think it was understood I was critical of those who voted yes.

I did not mention her name. The picture is the leaders of the DLC.

I have not been critical of Senator Clinton and Bill Clinton, and I have not said much about them....except I think they should have spoken out on the war. They could have had a lot of influence.

[Mass]

76. This is a picture of her and you focus on the DLC. However, neither Reid, Leahy, or Byrd are

members of the DLC while many people supposedly from the DLC voted against the ban.

[madfloridian]

78. I posted Ford's vote first and I stated why.

He is chairman of that group now. They have the policy for congress up right now. It is right there...the congressional agenda.

www.dlc.org

I did not pick on Hillary, I did not even mention her. I did not go into why anyone did not vote...I simply said they did not vote.

I thought I was fair.

I am sorry you think I wasn't. I usually read something over and over and over, but I might as well not bother. I was concentrating on the Yea votes for the ban. I wanted to call attention to the fact that the new leader voted for it.

I am stating now I was not offending Hillary or Kerry or anyone.

[madfloridian]

79. Chilling effect of abortion ban more evident in these articles. I was not aware of some of this.

Father Knows Best: Dr. Kennedy's magic prescription for indecisive women.
http://www.slate.com/id/2164512/pagenum/all/#page_start

This is a no holds barred column from Slate.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Miscarriage of Justice
The federal "partial-birth" abortion ban has grave implications for all
pregnant women, not only those seeking to end pregnancies.
http://www.prospect.org/web/printfriendly-view.ww?id=1380

One very chilling part from the Prospect article:

"But at least one federal court has said that sending police to a woman's
home, taking her into custody while in active labor and near delivery,
strapping her legs together and her body down to transport her against her
will to a hospital, and then forcing her, without access to counsel or court
review to undergo major surgery constituted no violation of her civil rights
at all. The rationale? If the state can limit women's access to abortions
after viability, it can subject her to the lesser state intrusion of
insisting on one method of delivery over another.

There are other implications to upholding laws that award the fetus separate
and greater rights than those of the woman. Comments by Kennedy in a
concurring opinion in another Supreme Court case, Ferguson, suggest that he
would have no objections to advancing fetal interests by permitting states
to "impose punishment" on a woman who even "risks" causing harm to the
fetus. In that case, the purported risks were those created by low-income
pregnant women who used illegal drugs and who had no access to appropriate
drug treatment despite seeking health care. "

Are you feeling creeped out yet? I am .

From Salon:

Danger: Pregnant women thinking
http://www.salon.com:80/mwt/broadsheet/2007/04/20/pbab_ruling/index.html?source=newsletter

"But as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg points out in dissent, Kennedy doesn't
propose giving women more information about partial-birth abortion
procedures. He says it's up to the Congress and the courts to substitute
their judgment and ban the procedures altogether."

The Times notes, "This way of thinking, that women are flighty creatures who
must be protected by men, reflects notions of a woman's place in the family
and under the Constitution that have long been discredited," a point that
Justice Ginsburg made in her dissent but that bears repeating. The majority
opinion -- or, "atrocious result," as the Times aptly calls it -- "severely
eroded the constitutional respect and protection accorded to women and the
personal decisions they make about pregnancy and childbirth."

[Breeze54]

82. OMG!

:wtf:

[madfloridian]

83. Apparently has to do with rights of fetus above rights of mother..

I read this part again from Salon, and I had missed the implications before. Perhaps it is because they did not want the mother to deliver naturally, wanted to force a Caesarian because it was safe for the fetus.

It just is something I can not wrap my mind around. Explains the part about strapping her down.

And the more you look at what Wednesday's ruling says about our highest court's view of women's rights and autonomy, the worse it gets. Over at the American Prospect, National Alliance for Pregnant Women prez Lynn Paltrow makes the obvious connection: If fetal rights are more important than maternal rights when it comes to abortion, you can probably argue that fetus trumps mom in other areas, too, like forcing C-sections on reluctant mothers in the interest of fetal health, or penalizing pregnant women for not practicing optimal prenatal care.

Sounds extreme, doesn't it? Well, Paltrow writes, "this argument is already being used to justify court-ordered Cesarean sections in cases where physicians believe that a c-section will prove more beneficial to the fetus (this despite the fact that c-sections constitute major surgery and pose increased health risks to the pregnant woman and in some cases the fetus as well)." As of now, she says, the practice is rare.

Men should not have those rights over women. It is why a physician's religious views will now start to figure in. I am way too old for worrying about this baby stuff anymore, but I see changes in the medical community here.

We recently changed doctors after ours of many years retired. Our new one is at a clinic, and conservatism is very obvious. It is an uncomfortable environment.