Dubya signs anti-abortion bill

[Elok]

I don't care about coat hangers. If you break the law, you take risks. The women who do that crap presumptively make the decision to have it done. I have no sympathy for people who kill their own children for any reason but the preservation of their own lives. Death for convenience must end.

[Jac de Molay]

Oh yeah . Im sure the women who have to go through this rare, traumatic procedure are doing it as a flippant matter of convenience. They probably pencil it in between Shiatsu and their manicure.

[Spiffor]

Jac:
The anti-choice people consider the termination of anything that's in the womb (whether a bicellular zygote or a 9 months old fetus) to be murder.
Edit: this means that any abortion, and not only the one that has been just banned, is eveil in their eyes.

[Guynemer]

How is that an emergency C-section is suddenly viewed as a benign procedure?

I've seen several. Ain't nothing benign about them.

[Ned]

Sava, or anyone else, I would be inclined to listen to you if you could explain how killing a baby at this point in its delivery could save the life of a mother? How could the birth of a dead infant be any different than the birth of a live infant under these circumstances?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by rah
Even as a pro-choice proponent, I'm pleased that a law that will prohibit

.... in which a fetus is partly delivered before being killed, usually by having its skull punctured....

has been signed. WHATEVER THEY CALL IT.


I don't see it as slipping down the slope. I see it as prohibiting an inhumane form of abortion.

Given that it's a rare late term procedure, and the women having it as a therapeutic abortion procedure literally had months to decide to have legal abortions by other means, I have absolutely no problem outlawing this procedure on ethical grounds.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Jac de Molay
What if she doesn't want a c-section? So you wanna force a woman to undergo C-section in second and third trimester, thus putting her life at risk from surgical complication? It always amazes me the lengths to which people go to tell someone what should be done with their body.

If the fetus is viable, then Roe v. Wade clearly establishes that the state has an independent protective interest in the fetus' life and well being. Not to the point where it can order a procedure which would likely kill the mother, however, neither can the fetus be ignored.

Yeah, you go right ahead and show us how partial-birth abortions, which number ~2000 a year, have destroyed thousands of lives.

Considering that this procedure is generally performed on viable fetuses, and that the killing of the fetus is done with it's head exposed, the simple fact that it's ~2000 a year establishes "thousands" of lives destroyed, using the existing criteria of Roe v. Wade.

And the decision goes just beyond life-saving situations, What if the women is on chemo? What if the fetus is severely damaged because of assault?

And once and for all

QUIT CALLING IT PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION

So it has a different technical name. If I refer to "car" instead of "automobile" I'm fairly sure we can be clear we're talking about the same thing.

[Drake Tungsten]

I'm just pumped that Nebraska has a federal judge. Wasn't aware of that until now.

[Jaguar]

Re: Dubya signs anti-abortion bill

Originally posted by Sava

http://www.msnbc.com/news/989539.asp?0cv=CA01

I think its a shame... ten men just got up on a podium and made a decision that should be between a woman and her doctor. This is also a step down that slippery slope because we all know that Bush and company are extremists who want all abortion banned, including rape, incest, medical necessity...

a sad day

It is also a sad day because serial killer Gary Leon Ridgway was caught, putting us one step closer to living in a police state.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by SpencerH
As has been stated, the problem is that health is defined so broadly by the supremes to make any law including an out for health reasons unusable.

This is not correct, nor is it appropriate to blame SCOTUS. The term "health" itself, without qualification, is inherently vague, and there have been a litany of disability, insurance, worker's comp and other cases involving the use of the term, the great majority of which are reflected in "Words and Phrases." Words and Phrases is recognized as the definitive guide to decisional law construction and interpretation of words and phrases for which the terms themselves have been the subject of litigation. SCOTUS, like every other court, uses Words and Phrases as an authoritative source, as well as other existing decisional law.

There is nothing preventing Congress, or a state legislature, from giving a specific statutory definition of health, or any other term, for the purposes of the specific statute they wish to pass. The failure, deliberate or otherwise, is legislative, not judicial.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I'm just pumped that Nebraska has a federal judge. Wasn't aware of that until now.

Every state has a few. And actually, it was a Federal judge in Nebraska who first defined an Indian as a human being for legal purposes in the United States, back in 1879.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
All they had to do was to make an exception for mother's health and restrict the ban to after viability (ie, third trimester) and they would have been good to go (ie, Constitutional).

I am going on record as to actually agree with Imran.

But I won't delude myself with wishful thinking that abortion protesters will stop with this. Elok's own comments bear this out.

[Elok]

Damn straight. BTW, what's this "constitutional" BS? The constitution and its amendments say nothing at all about abortion, or anything that could be even remotely construed as implying abortion rights. Yes, I know, Roe v. Wade, but if that had absolutely no constitutional background, which it doesn't appear to, it was merely an abuse of power.

[MrBaggins]

Personally, I think that a fetus has zero rights. I'm utterly unmoved by any emotional sentiment in this regard.

I'm all for a womens right to chose. At any point.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Jac de Molay


What if she doesn't want a c-section? So you wanna force a woman to undergo C-section in second and third trimester, thus putting her life at risk from surgical complication? It always amazes me the lengths to which people go to tell someone what should be done with their body.

Obviously, if she's having an abortion, she needs someone to tell her what to do, she has no ****ing clue.

Yeah, you go right ahead and show us how partial-birth abortions, which number ~2000 a year, have destroyed thousands of lives.

2000 qualifies as 1000's doesn't it?

And the decision goes just beyond life-saving situations, What if the women is on chemo? What if the fetus is severely damaged because of assault?

You mean like Metzenbaums jammed into their skull?

And once and for all

QUIT CALLING IT PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION

The baby is partially out isn't it?

ACK!