From what I gathered from the news, the federal judge in Ohama acted so, since a similar law with no clause wrt the mother's life had recently been set aside by a higher federal court. I also heard that the partial birth abortion bill also made illegal some "standard" second trimester abortion practices. Those claims may be apocryphal, but I would not be surprised if they were true.
No, I don't think so. If the mother's health is threatened by a potentially viable fetus, the choice has to go to the mother.
so if a woman might have some really uncomfortable vaginal tearing during delivery, the baby's screwed, huh? he just gets the scissors in the head?
Max, you know I respect you greatly and that I completely understand and respect your views on this topic, but is the last part of your post really necessary? I think everyone agrees that a partial birth abortion is an undesired outcome.
No doubt, Max. Look, I have a friend who is alive only because of this procedure early in her 2nd trimester. So, I don't like the idea that you want to throw the baby out with... uhhh, wrong cliche. So, I don't like the idea that you want to condemn some mothers to death because others abuse the letter of the law.
actually, some hysterical comments by NARAL supporters notwithstanding, the language is in the bill, but the bill also adds the finding that this procedure is almost never medically necessary. there are other options.
but that's the reality, RM95....that's the ultimate reality of what he's saying. if "health" includes vaginal tears, then that's where it leaves us. i'm not saying it to be a jackass...i'm saying it because i'm incredulous about it...because it pisses me off beyond belief. because the very reality of it makes me sick to my stomach. B-Bob - again....put a provision in there that protects the LIFE of the mother...that's fine with me. but don't use the word HEALTH, because it's already been bastardized.
Vaginal tearing is a common and avoidable risk of childbirth that will not adversely impact her health, so that is a spurious example. I would be talking about major health risks that could potentially be life threatening. I would not want to limit it to life threatening in the language of the bill as that would be too restrictive.
Okay, we're good. I didn't understand your position with that clarity before now. Interesting and sad that no women post in these threads. I guess we can just go along discussing how best to administer their birthing function. La dee da.
andy....how is a vaginal tear different than the adverse effects on a woman's health from worrying about how her lifestyle will change once she has the baby...the latter has been used to justify abortion, as affecting a woman's health. i understand your point entirely...but the word, "health" has already been bastardized. it means a free pass to abort at will.
When it comes down to it, the health of the mother (an already living, breathing human being) should be paramount unless she indicates that it should be otherwise and the healthcare practitioner should have some leeway when deciding if continuing the pregnancy represents a major health risk to the woman.
i was fine until you got to the "already living, breathing human being" part. the fetus/baby is already living and already a protected life in accordance with Roe v. Wade....and we don't make distinctions allowing people to kill those who can't breathe on their own.
http://www.gargaro.com/ama.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
Lifestyle change is not used as a reason in late term abortions, which is the topic here. And when I talk about health risks, I am not talking about discomfort, I am talking about real, major risks to the mother's overall well being. No, the word "health" is a medical term and this language gives the doctor the ability to do what is necessary to protect the mother if she will be negatively impacted by the pregnancy. The problem that I have with using language that is too restrictive is that it could be used to prosecute a doctor for performing an abortion because there was a risk of blood clots in the legs, or stroke, or coma. None of those things will necessarily take the woman's life, but all of them will negatively impact her. The language needs to be broad enough to escape "PATRIOT Act interpretations" of the law.
Andy -- i don't know what to tell you other than you're just wrong according to testimony of abortion providers before congress who say they have absolutely provided abortions, and will continue to do so, on mental health reasons where the woman was worried about her responsbilities as a mother and how it would affect her lifestyle. i don't know what else to say. we tried arguing about this before and it just didn't work.
I would be in favor of excluding "mental health reasons" like the ones you describe, as they are obviously not what I am talking about. I agree with the post from the AMA and agree that if they (doctors) don't see it as unduly restrictive, it is acceptable.
So, you are OK with endangering the life of an already living, breathing woman in favor of a fetus that MIGHT be viable?
