Partial Birth Abortion... - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Mojo_PeiPei · 10-21-2003, 08:47 PM

I was wondering what people's feelings are on this particular method of abortion. Not meant to start a flame thread, just curious if there are any reactions to the law that was passed today. Personal I'm glad they banned it. It is cruel and Barbaric, especially since the baby would otherwise be able to survive outside the womb.

** Again not trying to get into a pissing contest, I'm pretty we all pretty much know where everyone else stands on the issue as a whole, I am asking this in context of the procedure itself and the law that was passed**

Mael · 10-21-2003, 08:56 PM

while i'm pro-abortion, i have no problem with this banning. if it can live outside the womb, then unless it's a health risk to the mother, i don't think it should be done. at that point, just give it up for adoption.

The_Dude · 10-21-2003, 09:05 PM

i agree with the law on the moral standpoint, but what will this law open doors to?

bush is already bent over backwards tryin to get his ultra-con ideology into law and he's publically opposed roe vs wade. yes, politicians should be able to disagree with laws, but i dont feel comfy with our prez disagreeing with one of the landmark cases.

Quote:

I believe banning partial-birth abortion would be a positive step toward reducing the number of abortions in America.This is an issue that’s going to require a new attitude. We’ve been battling over abortion for a long period of time. Surely this nation can come together to promote the value of life.

This is why I am questioning the what kinda doors this law would open.

Quote:

.“The FDA’s decision to approve the abortion pill RU-486 is wrong,” Bush said in a statement. “As president, I will work to build a culture that respects life.”

- again, it seems that bush and his comrades are bent on overturning roe v wade.

Quote:

McCAIN [to Bush]: Do you believe in the exemption, in the case of abortion, for rape, incest, and life of the mother?
BUSH: Yeah, I do.
McCain: [But you] support the pro-life plank [in the Republican Party platform]?
BUSH: I do.
McCAIN: So, in other words, your position is that you believe there’s an exemption for rape, incest and the life of the mother, but you want the platform that you’re supposed to be leading to have no exemption. Help me out there, will you?
BUSH: I will. The platform doesn’t talk about what specifically should be in the constitutional amendment. The platform speaks about a constitutional amendment. It doesn’t refer to how that constitutional amendment ought to be defined.
McCAIN: If you read the platform, it has no exceptions.
BUSH: John, I think we need to keep the platform the way it is. This is a pro-life party.
McCAIN: Then you are contradicting your platform.

whoa---again proof that the gop wants to overturn roe v wade. they want an ammendment with no exceptions (even Mojo_PeiPei would be opposed to this

)

seretogis · 10-21-2003, 09:35 PM

This has been discussed to death in previous threads. Do a search.

Mojo_PeiPei · 10-21-2003, 09:42 PM

Abortion has, but if you read my post, I was asking in regards to the law that was passed in the senate today, which hasn't been discussed.

Killconey · 10-21-2003, 11:09 PM

Partial birth abortion deserves to be eliminated over all other forms of abortion because that is where the line between fetus and baby is the smallest (personally, I don't think there's a line at all, but that's another thread).

johnnymysto · 10-22-2003, 04:43 AM

Keeping with this thread topic, I am glad that the bill was passed. I agree with previous comments that the exercise is inhumane. I have no doubt that the majority of women who receive this procedure do not fall in the exceptions of rape, incest, or danger of mom's life. It is a CONVENIENCE procedure, designed as a last-ditch effort to remove the forthcoming anchor from the ill-prepared mother's life.

JBX · 10-22-2003, 04:47 AM

With a little research you will discover that partial-birth abortions take place in cases where the fetus suffers from abnormalities or severe defects, or the pregnancy will pose a severe risk to the mother. I think this is a foot in the door for banning all abortions. No abortion is legal now after 24 weeks unless medically necessary.

Quote:

March 13, 2003

Partial Birth Abortion Bans
Why Does the Big Lie Continue?
by KARYN STRICKLER

Overturning Roe v. Wade is only one route to the return of demeaning, deadly back alley abortions. Anti-choice extremists have used political and physical intimidation to decrease the number of abortion providers to it's lowest level in the 30 years since Roe, leaving women with very limited access to abortion services. They're working to run clinics out of business with onerous restrictions. The U.S. Congress is currently considering the most sophisticated and effective in a large arsenal of legislative weapons, a so-called "partial birth" abortion ban.

On May 14, 1998 every abortion clinic in Wisconsin ceased operations when a federal judge refused to block a state law banning "partial birth" abortion. Doctors said the ban was so broad that they could face life imprisonment for performing any abortion at any stage of pregnancy -- even for those using standard methods early in pregnancy. Women regained access to abortion services only after prosecutors promised not to prosecute doctors for first trimester procedures. Welcome to the reality of so-called "partial birth" abortion bans.

Eight years after the anti-choice movement first introduced "partial birth" abortion legislation in the U.S. Congress and state houses across the country, it is still not recognized for what it is: part of a carefully crafted, national strategy to ban all abortion. It's easy to understand why anti-choice zealots portray the bans as narrowly drawn for the limited purpose of stopping a certain late-term abortion procedure. The mystery is why many pro-choice leaders and the mainstream media have been slow to expose the reality that nowhere in most of the bills is there any reference to stage of pregnancy--not viability, not trimesters nor weeks of gestation. A simple look at the legislation reveals that calling these bills bans on late-term abortion is factually inaccurate.

The term "partial birth" abortion cannot be found in any medical dictionary because it is a political term that anti-choice zealots made up as part of their public relations campaign to stigmatize all abortion. When talking about the bans, advocates use graphic language about late-term abortion that is different from anything found in the legislation itself. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), which represents most ob-gyn specialists, has rejected these bans, which fail "to use recognized medical terminology and fail to define explicitly the prohibited medical techniques it criminalizes."

Federal Judge Gerald Rosen, a George H. W. Bush appointee, permanently enjoined an early Michigan ban because it was so vague that doctors lacked notice as to what abortion procedures were banned. A temporary restraining order against legislation in Arkansas said that the "act applies at any stage of gestation," and that it defies logic to say that the language applies to only one type of abortion. Despite evolution in the language defining "partial birth" abortion since these decisions, a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Stenberg v. Carhart found a Nebraska statute unconstitutional and said that the definition of "partial birth" abortion remains so broad that it could outlaw the safest, most common methods of abortion used in the second trimester of pregnancy.

When voters are shown the reality of the legislation they reject attempts to ban "partial birth" abortion. The Center for Reproductive Rights (formerly the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy) reports that "after voters in Washington, Maine and Colorado were educated about 'partial birth' abortion, ballot initiatives on this issue were defeated in all three states." The Center's 1998 national poll of registered voters revealed that an astonishing 77% were seriously concerned that such bans allowed no exceptions for serious harm to a woman's health and 69 % were very troubled that the legislation is deceptive, banning the safest and most commonly used abortion procedures.

It's time to wake-up to the reality of this bogus legislation in order to protect the lives, health and dignity of women seeking safe and legal abortion. So called "partial birth" abortion bans have passed the U.S. Congress many times over the past several years and were vetoed by President Bill Clinton. President George W. Bush reiterated the high priority he places on passage of a "partial birth" abortion ban in his State of the Union address. He is anxiously awaiting the arrival of the bill, delivered by the Republican majority and compliant Democrats in Congress, so that he can make it the law of the land. Prosecutors and judges appointed by Bush could then interpret the legislation to broadly ban abortion procedures -- exactly as anti-choice radicals intend.

The pro-choice majority and its leaders must change the debate on "partial birth" abortion bans, rejecting the deceptive terms offered by anti-choice extermists since it has no relation to the content or purpose of the legislation. They must act decisively with a clear, unified message before this dishonest strategy has the intended effect of banning all abortion and rendering Roe v. Wade a hollow shell.

Karyn Strickler is the former executive director of the Maryland affiliate of the National Abortion Rights Action League where she successfully codified the principles of Roe v. Wade in state law. She was the founder and executive director of Fifty plus One, where she led an effort to defeat so-called "partial birth" abortion in Maryland in 1998 and to educate the media and pro-choice leaders across the country on the issue. She can be reached at: fiftyplusone@erols.com

Quote:

May 25, 1998
Punching the air: Explaining opposition to banning "partial birth abortions"
By Polly Rothstein
Opposing a ban on so-called "partial birth abortion" (PBA) is like arguing about a giant winged dragon: the dragon doesn’t exist. Nonetheless, people believe "partial birth abortion" exists and occurs late in pregnancy and should be outlawed. But "partial birth abortion" is not an abortion method; it is a political bludgeon to inflict damage on women, abortion rights, and pro-choice legislators.

!!Abortions are illegal after 24 weeks in most states, including NY, except to save the woman’s life. NO abortions after 24 weeks were performed outside of NYC in 1996, according to the latest correct figures from the NYS Dept of Health. (NYC Dept of Health does not review cases, so its figure are unknown. Further, as standard medical practice, if a woman’s health is jeopardized late in pregnancy, doctors attempt to deliver a healthy baby.

What the bill says - and doesn’t say:
Anti-abortion leaders made up the term "partial birth abortion." The bills passed by Congress and the NY Senate simply define PBA as when the "person performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus and completing the delivery." That’s all there is to the bill: NO definition of "partially delivers" or "delivery;" NO mention of trimesters, duration of pregnancy, or fetal viability; NO guidelines for implementation, and NO exceptions for the woman’s health. "Delivery" is misused in order to deceive. The remaining wording in the bill sets out criminal penalties.

The bill may be unclear, but its fiery rhetoric is specific, untrue, and widely believed. Abortion foes claim the doctor extracts the body of a fully developed fetus, pokes scissors in the nape and suctions out the brain. They say PBA even occurs during birth, and call it "infanticide" and "murder." The Conservative Party dishonestly repeats the mantra that "a full-term fetus is killed after being partially delivered by its mother" and uses the term "nearly born" fetuses. The term "late-term abortions" is also inaccurate. There is no phrase or word that pro-choice people can use to refer to this fictitious procedure.

It’s important to understand that during the second trimester, the cervix is still thick and firm in order to retain the pregnancy, and does not easily dilate. It is understood that in all methods of abortion between 18 and 24 weeks, doctors avoid tearing the cervix by reducing the size of the fetal skull.

Proponents assert that this bill merely bans one brutal method of abortions late in pregnancy. In fact, it is so vaguely worded and so broad that it confuses everyone - doctors, the press, and politicians. The threat of prosecution would deter doctors from performing D&E, the most common procedure used in the second trimester, and many legal experts believe it would apply to first trimester abortions as well. Both occur before viability, which typically begins at 24-28 weeks.

The bombast has deceived some of the public and the media, but not the courts. The courts across the country that have considered similar state bans have prohibited enforcement, finding them unconstitutional because they are too vague and they violate women’s constitutional right to privacy. PBA laws are not about "late-term" abortions; they are a direct attack on Roe v. Wade and if upheld by the Supreme Court, Roe will have been overturned.

Despite incredible distortions, political pressure to outlaw so-called "partial birth abortions" is intense. The NYS Conservative Party says it won’t endorse candidates who refuse to support the ban. Pro-choice legislators are harassed by anti-abortion religious groups and will face a blitz of grisly ads against them at election time. Those who stand up to this relentless political pressure deserve pro-choice support.

The good news: No member of Congress who voted against the "Partial Birth Abortion Act" was defeated in 1996.

Q&A
Q: If there are no abortions after 24 weeks anyway, why not just let the PBA ban pass?

A: This law would put a chill on all D&E procedures. Standing idly by is foolish, and anyway would set a lamentable precedent. Pro-choice advocates must dispute the fraudulent pictures and descriptions because they increase opposition to abortion and lead to making all abortions a crime (which is the real goal.)

Q: I saw pictures of PBA and it’s so abhorrent it should be outlawed.

A1: The issue is a fraud. The diagrams are produced by Right to Life to depict a procedure they want you to believe is used to abort healthy fetuses in the final weeks of pregnancy.

A2: Respond with questions:

Did you know that abortions on viable fetuses are illegal?
How many abortions after 24 weeks do you think were done in NYS in 1996? You can enjoy surprising them with ZERO!
How many healthy women do you know who sought abortions in the last months of pregnancy?
Have you read the bill?
Q: Why are you for PBAs?

A: Nothing in medicine is known as "partial birth abortion." I can’t favor a fake procedure invented by anti-choice forces.

A1: Medical decisions belong to doctors and patients. No one wants legislators dictating medical treatment or deterring their doctors from doing their best for them.

A2: I expect to be attacked at election time, but it’s worse to harm patients and threaten all abortion rights.

Q: Does the fetus feel pain?

A: Medical researchers and medical literature say that the pathways in the brain that permit the sensation of pain develop after 30 weeks.

Q: What do obstetricians say about PBA?

A: The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) said, "The intervention of legislative bodies into medical decision making is inappropriate, ill-advised, and dangerous."

gabshu · 10-22-2003, 06:01 AM

I always think that it's funny that a bunch of middle aged men in suits think they can tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies. I am very much opposed and appaled that this law would pass. I respect other people's opinion that this is a cruel procedure but I don't agree with it. I believe that this desicion is better left up to the mother, and as mentioned earlier this law is just the first step to do away with Roe vs Wade.

lurkette · 10-22-2003, 06:32 AM

This procedure is so uncommon that I'm amazed it's caused the furor it has. I think mostly anti-abortion forces wanted some kind of symbolic victory.

I also think that necessity is the mother of invention, and if doctors can't perform "partial birth" abortions (which, frankly, do sound barbaric!) to save the mother's life, they'll either get better at diagnosing problems earlier so they can abort earlier, or develop other, less gruesome methods to terminate a dangerous pregnancy in the third trimester. I don't think this is the huge victory that anyone's painting it to be.

seretogis · 10-22-2003, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Abortion has, but if you read my post, I was asking in regards to the law that was passed in the senate today, which hasn't been discussed.

Did you even do a search?

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...birth+abortion

Peryn · 10-22-2003, 11:01 AM

I dont believe it is possible for anyone who knows the details as to how a partial birth abortion is cunducted could possibly disagree with the ban. I am curious, how anyone could agree and support singularly THE most barbaric, inhumane, disgusting, and frankly immoral procedure in out country today.

Completely ignoring the wording of the bill or where it could lead, does anyone actualy agree that the process should be allowed in any but the most dire of circumstances?

DukeLeto · 10-22-2003, 01:48 PM

Peryn, not one poster <i>has</i> explicitly agreed with this statement:

Quote:

Originally posted by Peryn
Completely ignoring the wording of the bill or where it could lead, does anyone actualy agree that the process should be allowed in any but the most dire of circumstances?

The point of JBX's lengthy and informative post above yours is that PBA is an <b>entirely fictitious procedure!</b> It has no basis in medical science, and therefore the use of the term in legislation that will soon be the law of the land (until its first court challenge, that is) is deceptive. I might also add that it is a fundamentally poor premise of discourse to attempt discussion of changes in the law without also discussing the wording of the legislation that would make the changes. The "wording of the bill" IS the bill. Failure to understand this betrays a lack of information regarding our country's method of government.

10-21-2003, 08:47 PM	#1 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Partial Birth Abortion... I was wondering what people's feelings are on this particular method of abortion. Not meant to start a flame thread, just curious if there are any reactions to the law that was passed today. Personal I'm glad they banned it. It is cruel and Barbaric, especially since the baby would otherwise be able to survive outside the womb. Again not trying to get into a pissing contest, I'm pretty we all pretty much know where everyone else stands on the issue as a whole, I am asking this in context of the procedure itself and the law that was passed __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. Last edited by Mojo_PeiPei; 10-21-2003 at 08:55 PM..

10-21-2003, 09:35 PM	#4 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	This has been discussed to death in previous threads. Do a search. __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

10-21-2003, 09:42 PM	#5 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Abortion has, but if you read my post, I was asking in regards to the law that was passed in the senate today, which hasn't been discussed. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

10-21-2003, 11:09 PM	#6 (permalink)
Killconey Crazy Location: Various places in the Midwest, all depending on when I'm posting.	Partial birth abortion deserves to be eliminated over all other forms of abortion because that is where the line between fetus and baby is the smallest (personally, I don't think there's a line at all, but that's another thread). __________________ Look out for numbers two and up and they'll look out for you.

10-22-2003, 04:43 AM	#7 (permalink)
johnnymysto Overreactor Location: South Ca'lina	Keeping with this thread topic, I am glad that the bill was passed. I agree with previous comments that the exercise is inhumane. I have no doubt that the majority of women who receive this procedure do not fall in the exceptions of rape, incest, or danger of mom's life. It is a CONVENIENCE procedure, designed as a last-ditch effort to remove the forthcoming anchor from the ill-prepared mother's life. __________________ "I'm disinclined to acquiesce to your request." - Capt. Barbossa

10-21-2003, 08:56 PM	#2 (permalink)
Mael Banned Location: The Hell I Created.	while i'm pro-abortion, i have no problem with this banning. if it can live outside the womb, then unless it's a health risk to the mother, i don't think it should be done. at that point, just give it up for adoption.

10-22-2003, 06:01 AM	#9 (permalink)
gabshu Psycho Location: The capital of the free world??	I always think that it's funny that a bunch of middle aged men in suits think they can tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies. I am very much opposed and appaled that this law would pass. I respect other people's opinion that this is a cruel procedure but I don't agree with it. I believe that this desicion is better left up to the mother, and as mentioned earlier this law is just the first step to do away with Roe vs Wade. __________________ Go Kool Aid. OH YEAAHH http://www.retrocrush.com/archive2003/koolaid/

10-22-2003, 06:32 AM	#10 (permalink)
lurkette My future is coming on Moderator Emeritus Location: east of the sun and west of the moon	This procedure is so uncommon that I'm amazed it's caused the furor it has. I think mostly anti-abortion forces wanted some kind of symbolic victory. I also think that necessity is the mother of invention, and if doctors can't perform "partial birth" abortions (which, frankly, do sound barbaric!) to save the mother's life, they'll either get better at diagnosing problems earlier so they can abort earlier, or develop other, less gruesome methods to terminate a dangerous pregnancy in the third trimester. I don't think this is the huge victory that anyone's painting it to be. __________________ "If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." - Anatole France

10-22-2003, 11:01 AM	#12 (permalink)
Peryn Junkie Location: San Diego, CA.	I dont believe it is possible for anyone who knows the details as to how a partial birth abortion is cunducted could possibly disagree with the ban. I am curious, how anyone could agree and support singularly THE most barbaric, inhumane, disgusting, and frankly immoral procedure in out country today. Completely ignoring the wording of the bill or where it could lead, does anyone actualy agree that the process should be allowed in any but the most dire of circumstances? __________________ Dont cry kid, It's not your fault you suck.