yes it did. it specifically stated if the mother's health was in serious jeopardy it could be done. The AMA wouldn't have supported the bill, otherwise. by the way..it's funny to me that the AMA, comprised of doctors says that this bill is completely clear...but the judges say it isn't. http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/amaletter.html May 19, 1997 The Honorable Rick Santorum United States Senate 120 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Santorum: The American Medical Association (AMA) is writing to support HR 1122, "The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997," as amended. Although our general policy is to oppose legislation criminalizing medical practice or procedure, the AMA has supported such legislation where the procedure was narrowly defined and not medically indicated. HR 1122 now meets both those tests. Our support of this legislation is based on three specific principles. First, the bill would allow a legitimate exception where the life of the mother was endangered, thereby preserving the physician's judgment to take any medically necessary steps to save the life of the mother. Second, the bill would clearly define the prohibited procedure so that it is clear on the face of the legislation what act is to be banned. Finally, the bill would give any accused physician the right to have his or her conduct reviewed by the State Medical Board before a criminal trial commenced. In this manner, the bill would provide a formal role for valuable medical peer determination in any enforcement proceeding. The AMA believes that with these changes, physicians will be on notice as to the exact nature of the prohibited conduct. Thank you for the opportunity to work with you towards restricting a procedure we all agree is not good medicine. Sincerely, P. John Seward, MD Executive Vice President American Medical Association
The troubling thing about the 3rd trimester abortion is that it highlights the fact that in the vast majority of cases, women have abortions for the sake of their emotional health. This is not only the case with late term abortions, of any kind, but with the early ones as well. In the case of the physical health of the mother, one of the most common "abortions" used that is clearly for the health of the mother is the termination of an ectopic pregnancy. I put abortion in quotes because it is not referred to, medically, as an abortion at all. The baby cannot come to term in the fallopian tube. In fact if it continues to grow there the baby will certainly die and the mother will certainly suffer extreme pain and lose the tube and in some cases her life. I don't know whether or not we are looking at other options besides terminating the pregnancy, as far as I know we do not yet have one. The problem is that once the embryo has embedded itself it is questionable as to whether it can be moved and caused to re-embed itself. I have known a number of women whose physical health was threatened later in the pregnancy. In every single case, the pregnancy was continued. I think that the issue for woman is that when it comes to her physical life or the baby's there is a strong emotional drive to protect her baby by any means possible. In the case of the emotional health of the woman it is a very different matter. For one thing, your emotional health can legally mean anything at all: stress, discontent, depression, anxiety, worry that you won't fit into a dress, etc. But what concerns me about that arguement is that for all the concern that pro-choice groups such as Planned Parenthood have for the emotional health of women that will be jeapordized by them being forced to carry to term a baby, they seem to have no concern at all for the emotional havoc that many women go through after having an abortion. A lot of women have abortions after being pressured by family and by friends who have made the same decision and even pressured at abortion clinics. For example, one of the women I met was telling me that when she was at Planned Parenthood they asked her if she had had any asperin or tylenol in the last couple weeks. She had taken two for a headache and they told her that she really should abort because the chances were that her baby would have severe defects from the two asperin she had before she knew she was pregnant. For one thing, no OBGYN would worry about a couple pills before the baby is even attached to you. For another, asperin is considered safe for pregnant women. But after having an abortion women (and some men) are often burdened with a great deal of serious guilt about it. What is worse is that when they later are pregnant with a child they want they have a difficult time relating to the baby they are carrying because they are constantly thinking things like, "my baby was further along than this when I killed her." If pro-choice groups are so concerned with women's emotional health, why do they try to hide these effects and make women feel like they are somehow deficient or unusual for experiencing them? Why don't they promote support groups for post-abortive women? Is it perhaps because they would have to admit that having an abortion is almost never a quick easy answer to a complicated issue?
And here's the bill, itself: 1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited. `Sec. 1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited `(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the enactment. `(b) As used in this section-- `(1) the term `partial-birth abortion' means an abortion in which the person performing the abortion-- `(A) deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and `(B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus; and `(2) the term `physician' means a doctor of medicine or osteopathy legally authorized to practice medicine and surgery by the State in which the doctor performs such activity, or any other individual legally authorized by the State to perform abortions: Provided, however, That any individual who is not a physician or not otherwise legally authorized by the State to perform abortions, but who nevertheless directly performs a partial-birth abortion, shall be subject to the provisions of this section. `(c)(1) The father, if married to the mother at the time she receives a partial-birth abortion procedure, and if the mother has not attained the age of 18 years at the time of the abortion, the maternal grandparents of the fetus, may in a civil action obtain appropriate relief, unless the pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff's criminal conduct or the plaintiff consented to the abortion. `(2) Such relief shall include-- `(A) money damages for all injuries, psychological and physical, occasioned by the violation of this section; and `(B) statutory damages equal to three times the cost of the partial-birth abortion. `(d)(1) A defendant accused of an offense under this section may seek a hearing before the State Medical Board on whether the physician's conduct was necessary to save the life of the mother whose life was endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. `(2) The findings on that issue are admissible on that issue at the trial of the defendant. Upon a motion of the defendant, the court shall delay the beginning of the trial for not more than 30 days to permit such a hearing to take place. `(e) A woman upon whom a partial-birth abortion is performed may not be prosecuted under this section, for a conspiracy to violate this section, or for an offense under section 2, 3, or 4 of this title based on a violation of this section.'. (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of chapters for part I of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter 73 the following new item: --1531'. Speaker of the House of Representatives. Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate.
Well if the AMA says there's no need for it, then there's no need for it. BTW, I know damn well that the NYT isn't a pro life rag. But you could find NYT articles on pro choice websites that support their claims too you know, that was my point. I'm pretty sure PBS doesn't have an agenda except to raise more money by making you buy crappy Elmo tote bags.
you're absolutely right. i merely did a search for partial birth abortion on google, and that site came up first. from there i was able to link to information you might find helpful. ultimately...if it's true information, why do you care where i got it?
I guess the quibble is that the exemption provides for cases where the life is endangered, rather than to protect health. I recognize that 'health' can be a vague term, leaving it open to a doctor's judgement -- and that the doctor's judgement will be greatly influenced by his or her own beliefs about whether abortion is ok. Maybe a better definition of protecting health that doesn't quite reach the protect the life test? I'm quite uncomfortable with criminal consequences to a doctor who may be doing what's best for his or her patient's health. And the threat of criminal prosecution (and jail time) for a judgement call. The AMA's support for the ban is pretty powerfull. Perhaps with a few tweeks it may pass. I do wish the whole discussion would be less political. The pro-choice group has to resist all restrictions, and does downplay the consequences to the women who has an abortion and other alternatives because the pro-life group pushes for outright bans of abortions.
Because I'm admitting I'm wrong and it would be nice to have this tiny victory. I use google too, I searched for "statistics + reasons for intact dilation and extraction" skipped over a site called explainplease.com, skipped over the second result which was titled "pro choice's thoughts etc" and went to the third one, PBS.
bnb, I never align myself with pro choice, and finding out they lied reminds me why, but I would never take the pro life people's side either. I mean, they say life is precious, but a lot of these people tend to be conservatives who could give a flying flip about what happens to the babies after they are born. "what, more taxes for an orphanage, hell no!" "School lunch programs, are you f*cking insane? Cut that out of the budget!"
You're right. A friend of mine was head of the pro-life organization at Rice when she was there and she ended up hooking up with the head of the pro-choice group to see where they had common ground. They decided that what they could agree on was that it was not good for women to get pregnant when they weren't ready to have children and they were able to do some joint activities to encourage women's health. That is a good model I would do well to remember.
i would encourage you to look at pro life groups that are different from that.....non-profits that truly make a difference in the lives of the women. i would also enourage you to visit http://www.democratsforlife.org/
This complaint was addressed in another abortion thread and I think that you are right that a lot of pro-life people can be horribly inconsistant. However, as has been pointed out before, a number of pro-life organizations such as crisis pregnancy centers provide a great deal of their resources to helping women after their babies are born. The one that I volunteer with provides a number of classes on parenting and prenatal care as well as just more fun classes like cooking. The center has coordinated programs to provide maternity clothes, baby clothes and baby care items, helps people get their GED, helps women with their job skills, finding work, professional counseling, marriage counseling, helps women finding day care options and housing and helps women break out of poverty cycles. Individual volunteers and churches often do support adoption homes.
which one?? my wife is planning on vounteering at the new one near Eldridge and Westheimer...my firm supports the CareNet centers big time.
The one at Richmond and Chimney Rock. I wish your wife the best, she has the opportunity to really make a difference for individual women.
As a pro-choicer, i'll concur that many of the pro-life groups do offer tremendous support for new moms. They are genuine in their concern for the babies and the moms. Many other individuals would volunteer their time or offer their homes to expectant mom's if they knew how. I wish the advocacy sides wouldn't bring their hostility to the counseling aspect. Expectant moms don't need that crap as they're making one of the toughest decisions of their lives. There really should be three distinct branches to the organizations: Counseling -- to expectant moms offering them genuine non-judgemental alternatives within the current legal framework -- helping a woman decide what's best for her within her belief system. Support -- Care/ support/ etc Lobbying -- where the pro-choice/pro-life battle should take place
I can't speak for other pregnancy centers or for each and every counselor at ours but I can certainly speak for myself. Although I am pro-life I can't think of a single time I have pressured a woman to keep her baby. That's not what we are there for. When people are in a crisis situation of any kind it is often helpful for someone just to listen to their story and help them see the big picture and to look at each of their options critically. Most of the time, being pregnant is not her biggest problem in life, it just compounds other issues. The center's general policy about it is that you can't really save babies without saving the mother too. We also make it abundantly clear that we are there for her, whatever she decides. If she decides to have an abortion, or has had them in the past, the center has a lot of resources and support groups if she needs them and isn't condemning about it. As a side note, I recently attended an adoption training seminar and was happily surprised to learn that quite a number of counselors from abortion clinics were excited about the adoption option for many of their clients. I know I am somewhat guilty of villifying the opponent so let me publicly apologize. In fact, I should add that both sides of this debate should probably look into adoption more than they do. But that's another subject.
