Sorry, I respond one post at a time and I get busy at work sometimes so it takes me a bit to respond. It doesn't matter how it protects the mother, the only thing that matters is that if there IS a major health risk to the woman, that she is protected. You and I can't determine whether it is necessary and neither can lawmakers, it is up to the doctor and his/her patient.
So you're saying we should legislate for the common good by determining that we can't decide what the common good is? Personally I think promoting a culture of life is good for the common good, but I might just be a religious wacko.
I agree with you absolutely. The biggest problem we have in politics, IMO, is absolutists. I am pro-choice, but there is room for reasonable restrictions. I am anti-prohibition but recognize that there is a legitimate government interest in controlling some substances closely. Thank you. I am going to have a lot of fun with this. If he decides to become an athlete, he will have a great name for it. "Three pointer for A.C. Moooooon!" LOL
ok...agreed...we're making progress. but here's the problem, andy. they're using mental health as a criteria by which to say, "yeah..go ahead and abort." that's a pretty soft science, and as someone who has dealt in litigation with mental health examiners, i know they're extremely indefinite. so...where does that leave us? how do we exclude that out? because, literally, in that kansas report, every single person who had a partial birth abortion chalked it up for mental health reasons. every single one.
Not to say that it COULDN'T happen, just to say that it hasn't as yet. All I want is to protect women IN CASE something does come up. If we were basing all of our decisions on what has happened in the past, then you would have a point, but there are bigger issues. What if there WAS a case where the woman needed an abortion for whatever reason to protect her from serious physical consequences? That is what I want to see protected. If we never see a case that meets the standard, then there is no harm in having the language in the bill. Right back atcha. It is telling that you would condemn a woman to a coma rather than allowing her to have a procedure that could avoid it.
andy -- did you read the AMA letter citing the fact that there is a medical peer review before any criminal procedures begin??
But aren't you saying that you would allow a procedure to kill a viable fetus in order to prevent a possible stroke?
Now you are just making things up. What if the space aliens land and they have two humans in their tentacles and they say you have to choose one or the other but they will kill one no matter what...andy, its not medically going to happen.... And when the = comes two humans alive over one dead and one alive, I go for the two humans alive...
Again, I am saying that the language in the bill should specify major physical problems, not mental ones. I have repeated this point no less than five times.
ok...i think this would have my desired effect...which is ultimately zero partial birth abortions...we know for a fact there wouldn't have been the 187 (or so) that were performed in Kansas in 1999...not legally, anyway.
Absolutely, if the chance of a stroke is high enough that the doctor thinks it is a major physical risk.
there was language in both bills...the language in the first bill was found to be too vague, i believe. those who drafted the second bill worked to shore that up.
