|
Banned
|
The "spin":
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
<h3>You reap what you Roe.
The pro-abortion crowd seems to operate from a 'woman should have the right to do what she wants with her body'</h3> and 'until its capable of independent life, a fetus isn't a human being'.
A father CAN'T have any rights if this mindset is to be valid.
Its not that you are a sperm machine, its that its not your body (so not your choice, you can't tell a woman what to do with her body) and its not even a baby yet.
Really the next logical step in this mindset is for fathers to have no rights or responsibilities, not more rights. Then you will just be a sperm machine.
|
The setted law:
Quote:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...8_0052_ZS.html
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
428 U.S. 52
Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. 74-1151 Argued: March 23, 1976 --- Decided: July 1, 1976[*]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two Missouri-licensed physicians, one of whom performs abortions at hospitals and the other of whom supervises abortions at Planned Parenthood, a not-for-profit corporation, brought suit, along with that organization, for injunctive and declaratory relief challenging the constitutionality of the Missouri abortion statute. The provisions under attack are: § 2(2), defining "viability" as
that stage of fetal development when the life of the unborn child may be continued indefinitely outside the womb by natural or artificial life supportive systems;
§ 3(2), requiring that, before submitting to an abortion during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, a woman must consent in writing to the procedure and certify that "her consent is informed and freely given, and is not the result of coercion"; § 3(3), requiring, for the same period, the written consent of the spouse of a woman seeking an abortion unless a licensed physician certifies that the abortion is necessary to preserve the mother's life; § 3(4), requiring, for the same period, and with the same proviso, the written consent of a parent or person in loco parentis to the abortion of an unmarried woman under age 18; § 6(1),..
Held:
1. The physician appellants have standing to challenge the foregoing provisions of the Act with the exception of § 7, the constitutionality of which the Court declines to decide. Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179. P. 62, and n. 2.
2. The definition of viability in § 2(2) does not conflict with the definition in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 160, 163, as the point at which the fetus is "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid," and is presumably capable of "meaningful life outside the mother's womb." Section 2(2) maintains the flexibility of the term "viability" recognized in Roe. It is not a proper legislative or judicial function to fix viability, which is essentially for the judgment of the responsible attending physician, at a specific point in the gestation period. Pp. 63-65.
3. The consent provision in § 3(2) is not unconstitutional. The decision to abort is important and often stressful, and the awareness of the decision and its significance may be constitutionally assured by the State to the extent of requiring the woman's prior written consent. Pp. 65-67.
4. The spousal consent provision in § 3(3), which does not comport with the standards enunciated in Roe v. Wade, supra, at 164-165, is unconstitutional, since the State cannot
"delegate to a spouse a veto power which the [S]tate itself is absolutely and totally prohibited from exercising during the first trimester of pregnancy."
Pp. 67-72.
5. The State may not constitutionally impose a blanket parental consent requirement, such as § 3(4), as a condition for an unmarried minor's abortion during the first 12 weeks of her pregnancy for substantially the same reasons as in the case of the spousal consent provision, there being no significant state interests, whether to safeguard the family unit and parental authority or other vise, in conditioning an abortion on the consent of a parent with respect to the under-18-year-old pregnant minor. As stressed in Roe, "the abortion decision and its effectuation must [p54] be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician." 410 U.S. at 164. Pp. 72-75.
6. Through § 9, the State would prohibit the most commonly used abortion procedure in the country and one that is safer, with respect to maternal mortality, than even the continuation of pregnancy until normal childbirth, and would force pregnancy terminations by methods more dangerous to the woman's health than the method outlawed. As so viewed (particularly since another safe technique, prostaglandin, is not yet available) the outright legislative proscription of saline amniocentesis fails as a reasonable protection of maternal health. As an arbitrary regulation designed to prevent the vast majority of abortions after the first 12 weeks, it is plainly unconstitutional. Pp. 75-79.
7. The reporting and recordkeeping requirements, which can be useful to the State's interest in protecting the health of its female citizens and which may be of medical value, are not constitutionally offensive in themselves, particularly in view of reasonable confidentiality and retention provisions. They thus do not interfere with the abortion decision or the physician-patient relationship. It is assumed that the provisions will not be administered in an unduly burdensome way, and that patients will not be required to execute spousal or parental consent forms in accordance with invalid provisions of the Act. Pp. 79-81.
8. The first sentence of § 6(1) impermissibly requires a physician to preserve the fetus' life and health, whatever the stage of pregnancy. The second sentence, which provides for criminal and civil liability where a physician fails "to take such measures to encourage or to sustain the life of the child, and the death of the child results," does not alter the duty imposed by the first sentence or limit that duty to pregnancies that have reached the stage of viability, and since it is inseparably tied to the first provision, the whole section is invalid. Pp. 81-84.
392 F.Supp. 1362, affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
|
The "spin":
Quote:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-...out-abortion-c
Media Give Planned Parenthood Pass for Lying to City Re Abortion Clinic
By Warner Todd Huston | September 18, 2007 - 10:13 ET
Hiding behind a fake company name, Planned Parenthood came into Aurora, Illinois, a suburban Chicago neighborhood, and built an abortion clinic without telling the city of Aurora that it was to be an abortion clinic. Yet, all the news about this story is centering on the pro-abortion/pro-life debate instead of Planned Parenthood's lies. This story has been going on for a few days in Aurora, Illinois. It seems Planned Parenthood told a teeny, tiny white lie to the City Planning Board of Aurora about what use a new building they were constructing near a residential neighborhood would be put to. In fact, they even misled city officials as to who they even were, and those officials are none too happy about it.
The city granted a building permit to a company called Gemini Office Development LLC to build what was being called a “medical office building.” It turns out, however, that Gemini Office Development LLC is actually a shell company for Planned Parenthood and <h3>this new building was not going to be just a regular, non-descript “medical office building” but a Planned Parenthood abortion mill, instead.</h3> Curiously, Planned Parenthood neglected to tell the city of its plans until the building was complete and they were ready to open for business....
|
The harrassment and intimidation by anti-abortion activists, and the interference of religious doctrine in the practice of medicine and provision of medical reproductive health services to the least of us:
Quote:
http://www.kcchronicle.com/articles/...d176564413.txt
Aurora Planned Parenthood clinic opens its doors
Comments (No comments posted.)
AURORA (AP) – A Planned Parenthood health center opened its doors to patients Tuesday, two weeks later than planned, after anti-abortion activists raised questions about how it received its building permits.
About 100 protesters – some holding red roses, others rosaries and some with signs reading “Planned Parenthood: Bad for Aurora” – gathered peacefully on sidewalks near the clinic, which became a focus of the national abortion debate during the review.
Planned Parenthood was granted an occupancy permit for the clinic Monday afternoon.
“We have no regrets about how we went about this process,” Steve Trombley, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood/Chicago Area, said Tuesday. “We kept it private from our opponents, and we did it for good reason.”
Trombley said some walk-up patients were expected to drop by the clinic Tuesday afternoon, and appointments were scheduled for later this week.
Mayor Tom Weisner said, while Planned Parenthood was “less than forthcoming” when it used a subsidiary called Gemini Office Development to build the clinic, three attorney reviews found no legal basis to deny an occupancy permit to the clinic.
It became public knowledge in late July that Planned Parenthood would occupy the space.
The original opening date of Sept. 18 was delayed because city officials would not grant an occupancy permit while the review was under way.
Anti-abortion protesters have accused Planned Parenthood of deceiving officials in Illinois’ second-largest city into granting building permits.
Planned Parenthood officials said they were trying to protect the clinic’s staff and construction workers from protests, but there was no effort to defraud city officials.
On Tuesday, Planned Parenthood’s 22,000-square-foot, $7.5 million building was decorated with a bright pink 40-foot banner reading “This Center is Now Open.”
Reporters were allowed to briefly tour a small portion of the building. For security reasons, the windows all are located near the roof.ists
Otherwise, the large waiting room looks similar to those in other medical centers, decorated in neutral colors and with magazine racks on the wall.
The facility will serve more than 25,000 patients a year when it’s at full capacity and offer various contraceptive options, gynecological exams, pap tests, screening for sexually transmitted diseases, and abortions, Trombley said. Abortions account for less than 10 percent of Planned Parenthood’s services in the Chicago area, he said.
One Planned Parenthood supporter – Dee Manny, head of the McHenry County Citizens for Choice – said the clinic would offer valuable health services to poor and uninsured women. She also said it’s important to protect abortion rights.
“The anti-choice people want to take us back to the 19th century when contraception was not available and women begged their doctors to help avoid pregnancy,” she said.
But one of the protesters, Lucie Groleske of Aurora, said she wanted to remind women there are alternatives to abortion....
|
willravel, I'm sorry, but I view your thread viscerally, as offensive. I don't see why you want to go down this road. The obvious right for a woman to do what she wants with her own body, without being harrassed and deprived of medical care, products, and services, is fundemental, and should be a given in 2008.
Yet, as we observe here, advocates of this are painted as the "pro-abortion crowd", as if there is something flawed about the concept of a woman's inherent right, privately, and all by herself, if she wishes, in the same low key, manner, without oustside intrusion, as any man would expect to determine, what processes go on, internally, in one's body.
Observe how "newsbusters" determined that approval to build a medical clinic, suddenly becomes "illegal", if if is not disclosed, in advance, that the clinic operated in the new building will have ten percent of it's predicted activities, related to medically approved abortion procedures.
Isn't there enough interference in what should be a confidential process of a woman choosing what involves the most intimate and private parts of her body, and certainly in making unambiguously legal ones and seeking, depending on the medical options chosen, to seek and obtain safe and legal clinical care?
This has been settled law for more than 30 years. Responsible men are not the victims in these transactions. This thread seems, on the face of it, just another way to challenge a woman's right to choose, whether it is intended to be, or not. No birth control method is totally reliable. If you decide to ejaculate semen in the vicinity of a woman's reproductive organs, you give up control of where that semen goes, and what effect it has.
An alternative is this preposterous "road":
Wouldn't it be fair to word the headline, "Loses Bid to convince Court to Force Full Term Pregnancy and Birth"?
Last edited by host; 01-23-2008 at 04:10 AM..
|