I must assume you don't know anyone who has had a late term abortion. The person I know who had one was a strict Catholic and already a mother at the time. She had other children to care for, and was tied to a hospital bed on a dialysis machine, with a anencephalic baby in her womb. These types of pregnancies often take a very heavy physical toll on the body. Had she not aborted the pregnancy (and it was far from an easy decision) she might have been on a dialysis machine the rest of her life (though maybe not dead, so that wouldn't be covered under this legislation). Oh, and the baby didn't have a brain, just a brain stem so it had zero chance of life outside of the womb. This is not a procedure that women go through because they don't wish to have children. As noted by Grendel above, this is a procedure that women who want babies go through, but something goes catastrophically wrong.

If this were an honest piece of legislation based on "concerns for the fetus", it would be written in such a way that preserves a woman's health in cases of such catastrophic fetal defects and nonviability. Call me cynical but I don't believe this omission is an accident.

Edited to add: Example A, Baby K.

Uh... actually I do. Someone very very close. That's hardly the point.

I think I have made myself very clear on this topic. It's a shallow (at best victory) that did nothing good nor bad to the world of abortions.

I never claimed to be the people in my example. I am merely (anecdotally) pointing out what happens when people have kids. Newsflash, they also go back to Church.

Uh. It did something bad for women's health. It's not all about the abortion, you know?


You have a statistic for that too?

How many anecdotal episodes did you build this newsflash on? Go back to church? What if they never went?

Hopefully, if this is true, the new parents' rediscovery of religion will end before they start giving tithes to the church of money better spent for the child's needs. By all means I hope this alleged renewl of church attendance ends before child gows up dependant on the church.

1. Did the Supreme Court decide correctly?

No, I don't believe they did. I don't understand how this is related to abortion as a moral issue as it only dictates what forms of abortion are allowed, it will unlikely ever play into the choice of a woman who has an unwanted pregnancy as I understand it effects women who have a medical complication. So it will likely never prevent a wanted abortion. From what I have read (and it has been awhile) it is rare and other methods are still viable. Meaning abortions will still be had, this only complicates the issue when a woman's health is in question.

I don't think it is fair that women have to be asked to bear an even further burden ofhealth risks and medical complications in our biological commitment as the sole reproducers of our race. I don't think it is fair that a woman's quality of life is not worthy of consideration and protection under our laws wholly and completely and I don't think it is fair that a woman's heath and access to medical treatment is limited, in fact I feel this is an issue of inequality. Not only was there not one single medical professional who made this decision for our society, there was not one single female either.

I also think most any medical procedure described in detail is graphic and disturbing.

Lesly


Please explain to us the difference as you see it. The law takes into account a woman's life, but not her health. mental health?? physical health?? She might get a cold?? If the law takes into account her health it is taking into account her health.

What about a scar on her tummy?? Is that her health?? What about a stretched out vagina?? Is that her health??

How can health problems be so severe that she needs a a late term abortion, but not be life threatening.

And if it isn't life threatening, why does she need a late term abortion?

Generally, late term abortion happen for this or that reason, but what is going on in the un-general late term abortions? At the end of the day I think a provision to take the mothers life in consideration is taking her health into consideration.

Not to be argumentative, but I'm pointing out (anecdotally) in kind what happens when someone is stuck in a hospital bed on dialysis with a nonviable fetus. They start supporting abortion in such cases....even those who didn't before.

Because, unlike the woman sitting on dialysis and her close friends and family, a majority of the ignorant population believes this procedure to be, not only elective but generally on healthy babies close to term. That has been battle cry for ending PBA. And I do not accept that type of deception as a "shallow victory". It's disturbing and open-ended, not to mention grossly misrepresentative. If a woman is looking at a future on a dialysis machine (to carry a baby missing its brain to term), does that fall under "health" or "life"? WHY isn't this legislation more specific? It isn't hard...ergo, I must conclude that the legislation omits such cases for political reasons, even if it happens to adversely affect the health of hundreds of women...afterall, these cases are rare, right? Unless they happen to you.....



That's actually something called a normal healthy pregnancy, droop.

Actually the Catholic Church is quite up front about the fact that they get kids around birth lose them for a year or so, get them back for Communion, Confirmation, lose them until they marry, get them back for their children's Christening lose them until their kids Communion, Confirmation and then finally pick them back up towards the end of their lives.

There are several economic papers that track Church donations that make the above case as well.


I would think you'd WANT the legislation to be vague on the topic. Do you really want the US Gov pinning this procedure down on a few specific cases?

Well, it is more specific on the state level. If the federal government feels the need to control state issues on the federal level they ought to be at least as specific as the state legislation. Gosh, how about making an exception for nonviable fetuses at least? That isn't difficult to write in. It's one line. Then, a woman can try again if she wishes, rather than having to carry a fetus to term that will only be good for organ harvest.

Edited to add: Actually, I'd like to change the above statement. Right now it is exclusionary, not "vague". It needs to be written in such a way that at least makes exceptions for these types of cases...or it shouldn't exist at all.

OK, you're losing me here. The upheld Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003 contains provisions for the health of the mother. Here:


I have hi-lited the parts I am reading in reference to this conversation. The term Partial Birth Abortion seems pretty clear to me. The mother's health seems pretty clear to me. However, this is not satisfactory to you and since you're the poster you are and not someone else - I'm worried I am reading this incorrectly.

What are your concerns to this? Having read your Baby K link (which I had missed) it seems that the MOTHER WANTED to bring the child to to term despite the urging of doctors to abort. I don't see how this related to this case.

Mrs P

I agree with your argument about the lack of protection for women's health rights and what I would define as a "quality of life" argument. I just feel it is not only the consideration of the physical wellbeing or health of the woman this ignores but also the mental or spiritual health of a woman too. I can not imagine having to carry a baby to full term in the medical state you have described above and in the baby K example you gave. That would not only be a great burden on one's physical state but emotionally it would also seem to be totally inhumane and cruel to me.

Edited to add: would there ever be the possibility of a baby K in reverse? As in the woman wanted the baby aborted because of it's severe defect but the hospital could refuse because it was not life threatening for the mother.

Baby K is a horrible story but I don't see how it relates to this topic. The MOTHER decided to carry the baby to term. No one forced her to do this. From the article:

And it think these are the cases the laws are meant to stop. Isn't a mother allowed to put a baby up for adoption after birth? Or maybe the baby will be used to save the lives of other babies, and maybe it seems cruel to the individual woman, but in the end, it is not a total waste.


I think I told this story once before on this board, but it deserves repeating.

I once had a female co-worker be very candid with me. And it was her opinion that maybe some women didn't want to have to deal with the fact that they had a kid out in the world that they abandoned.

To me it made sense, especially a kid with severe defects, but is still viable. Maybe some of you hate this decision because it doesn't take into account that, if a woman wanted to(not saying anyone would), faced with having a late term abortion or being straddled to ill-functioning child or abondoning a child, would like the option to eliminate the fetus before it is birthed. This law would eliminate that option.

Is this the core of distaste for this issue. Because like BA, I'm not getting this whole, it doesn't make provisions that endanger the woman's health, when it seems to me it does.

BaphometsAdvocate, you highlight the same section ConsevPat did. I have the same response for you:


The ban was declared unconstitutional in the Ninth Circuit:



My reading comprehension must be lost in that black hole again. I did a Ctrl-F search on your post just to make double sure, and “health” did not come up. Is the word hiding, did it fall off my screen?

When Kennedy ended his majority opinion with “Respondents have not demonstrated that the Act, as a facial matter, is void for vagueness, or that it imposes an undue burden on a woman's right to abortion based on its overbreadth or lack of a health exception. For these reasons the judgments of the Courts of Appeals for the Eighth and Ninth Circuits are reversed” do you, Droop, and CosnervPat know something Kennedy doesn’t?


I think Bucket knows the mother wasn’t forced to give birth in Baby K’s case, but unlike you, she doesn’t believe the ban has a health exception.

Bucket, I’m not aware of a specific Baby K case where the mother was forced to give birth to a “living” fetus with a good chance of dying shortly after birth. We can look forward to that scenario now and ask Congress and conservative members of the Court if they’ll pick up the tab.

This story is about a husband and wife awaiting twins, but when the pro-life hospital refused to induce an “elective” abortion to save the life of one of the twins, both died.

So you are concerned that the word "health" doesn't appear in the Act?

The wording of the Act:

Does not, in fact, include the word health. Which Justice Kennedy also notes. As we read it, possibly incorrectly, the Mother's life will not be endangered fr the purpose of giving birth verses a PBA.

What are your concerns regarding the omission of this word?

I understand and have already read the story of baby K, I asked for you to consider this situation in the reverse.

How do you have any idea no woman was ever forced to carry a terminal baby to term or forced to endure labor and deliver a dead or soon to be dead baby? I am quite certain this has happened, I have no reason to believe it hasn't and I have no reason to believe it won't happen again. And yes if I found out my baby had no brain or was greatly ill, or dying or possibly even already dead I would not wish to have to endure labor to then deliver a dead baby just so you guys can feel better about the opportunity of harvesting my dead babies organs or for you to entertain some bizarre misconception that a dead baby delivered by labor , not by D&E, is less icky.

All this concern for the health rights of babies with no brains, or babies that will likely never live more than a few days if even hours and will do so in constant pain. Yet not one concern is mentioned for the poor women (and families) who have these complications in their most likely WANTED pregnancies. This is not a decision a woman will make, we will never go to the doctor and ask for this, this is something our doctors, our obstetricians will tells us we need to have, but that is no longer our medical option is it? The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists opposed this ban, what about the doctor's right to choose the best medical treatment for their patients...why do women get less consideration and protection for this under our laws? Why do doctors have to limit their care when they have female patients?

EDITED TO ADD
Lesly I have read of this case, it is a very compelling read. Obviously the family did terminate the pregnancy but they had to do so away from home, and their decision was rushed, so I would argue this was done under duress and forced conditions.

There's nothing to debate here. You made up a scenario you haven't backed up but are pretty sure has happened. Accused me (and others) of forcing you (or others) to deliver a dead baby "so you guys can feel better about the opportunity of harvesting my dead babies organs " when I've never said anything remotely like this. I have no idea what you're talking about and no way answer you.

You haven't done this, but this is a lot like when you're debating someone and they bring up a fictional movie as an example to debate.

My comments to you were but one line, I clarified my understanding of baby K.

I addressed the rest of my post to the forum as a whole and yes the argument that this small tiny percentage of babies that will ever be placed in a medical condition for this procedure would offer the advantage of organ harvesting was made...."Or maybe the baby will be used to save the lives of other babies," Sorry I don't think that is for the Congress to decide or for any of my fellow citizens to decide for me. That would be a parental decision wouldn't it?

I have also given an example of how the political controversy of this medical procedure hampers parents' choices in an already very difficult experience and how it can cause an even further burden of emotional pain, the added burden on a women's health is something the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have already argued, hence why they oppose the ban. I have read of many more instances but they are purely anecdotal so I would not include them as proof. I also don't think you who argued that you were aware of the religious habits and beliefs of all parents in the US is very capable of dismissing someone else's argument as being like fiction.

So what is the purpose of piercing the skull and removing the contents before giving birth to a nonviable fetus? The doctors have already gone through the trouble of dilation (a fairly lengthy process) before extraction. Why not just finish the job and deliver the fetus? What is the purpose of making sure it is dead before it is delivered?

What in Blazes are you talking about? Who is asking women to have brainless babies? Who? I'm not. This Act doesn't seem to be. I mean what are you talking about? You've invented a scenario, backed by a ridiculous case that DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS DISCUSSION turned it around and now want to know what we're going to do about it! What about women forced to have brainless babies... WHERE IS THIS HAPPENING IN THE UNITED STATES!

You find out where this is happening... where women are forced to give birth to brainless babies in the USA and I will personally start a campaign to get that stopped. I am dead serious.

Amlord


From what i gathered in some cases the fetus head is so swollen with fluids it would not be able to come out with serious risk to the woman's life... as for the rest not sure??

Lesly


Well, obviously, there was enough consideration of health in this Ban, as has been pointed out to you numerous times.

Truth be told, I think you want the word health because it is more vague. I mean something doesn't have to be even close to life threatening to be unhealthy, right??

So even though there are plenty of provisions that take into account a women's life, and therefore her health, you are stuck on asking us if we see the word health. No, we don't see it. But we can comprehend.


Bucket



Bucket, the ban applies to viable fetuses. If it is dead it is not viable.




Nor do I and nor does the Supreme Court I merely made the remark to show positive out of a negative. If a baby only lives 3 days and has a good heart, maybe the parents could save the life of another... OF COURSE this is a decision that should be made by the parents.

No, the ban applies to "living" fetuses, not nonviable ones. Viable is the important word here. While growing in a mother's body, a brainless fetus can be called "living". Upon birth it will die within minutes, but if kept on life support it can "live" just as any body can "live" while the organs are kept fresh for harvesting (and during the process of harvesting itself) after the brain dies.

But after reading BA's §1531 excerpt I now think that my friend would still be covered, as she was in dialysis...though like not if she weren't. At least that's a small mercy.

You quote a section of the PBA that doesn’t have health anywhere in it, incredulously state health is in the segment you quote, and then ask me what are my concerns regarding its omission? When did legislatures start being as specific as they can by omitting words?

Physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury are part of the anankastic conditional sentence. Your life needs to be in danger in order to get a D&E abortion. Health is not a qualifier; life is, and only life.


No there isn’t enough consideration. If the woman’s health was a consideration there the legislature wouldn’t have a problem inserting the word, would it?


That’s right, Droop. You’re on to me. I want that .08% to swell to an unbearable 10%, maybe even 50%. I don’t know how I’ll come up with unexpected third trimester complications, but Congress has done a poor job securing nuclear facilities and waterways. It doesn’t hurt to start looking there. I’ll do anything to have my abortion fix!


Ah yes, you comprehend more than Justice Kennedy. You comprehend more than Congress, which wrote: “Rather than being an abortion procedure that is embraced by the medical community, particularly among physicians who routinely perform other abortion procedures, partial-birth abortion remains a disfavored procedure that is not only unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother, but in fact poses serious risks to the long-term health of women and in some circumstances, their lives.”

But you know better than Congress and Kennedy. You, along with Congress and Kennedy, know better than physicians who disagree with the ban. Shortly after the ban states PBA is not necessary to preserve the health of the mother it somehow preserves the health of the mother incumbent upon a life-threatening condition. What a load off my mind.

This is really frustrating. It feels like I’m having a discussion about mysterious, hypothetically real warrants being issued for warrantless wiretapping all over again.

Lesly What are your specific, or vague, concerns regarding this Act and it's wording?

So far your main concern seems to be that the word health is not there and that the current wording does not encompass the Mother's health adequately. Also you seem to fear radioactive deformation. Although that may be a snarkism, it's tough to tell. I'm just going off of what I read in your post.

So again, if I may: What are your specific, or vague, concerns regarding this Act and it's wording?

*edited because Cut and Paste can do funny things.

Nearly all of the things you mention have been justified (however implausibly) under the Commerce Clause, on the grounds they "substantially affect" interstate commerce in some way or other. But as Lesly pointed out above, the Rehnquist Court finally imposed some limits on it. There has to be at least some plausible attempt to show that the thing Congress wants to regulate has some kind of meaningful "nexus" to interstate commerce in some way, shape, or form. When it comes to partial-birth abortion (or really, abortion in general), I just can't see it at all.

I am also starting to feel the frustration, men know absolutely nothing about pregnancy, but what they do apparently know of it has nothing to do with a woman's involvement.



I don't think you meant this intentionally Amlord as I always find you to be respectful in a debate but your comments again highlight for me the absolute lack of consideration for the role women have in this debate.

The doctor went through the trouble of dilation? Excuse me but it is the woman who has to go through that trouble and induced labor is horrible, I know from experience, and it is painful and traumatic in and of itself. Perhaps a woman in a serious medical condition could not bear any more "trouble"? Perhaps a woman who is not only suffering the severe mental anguish of losing a baby she likely already loves, desires, has named, has dreamt of and has been eagerly awaiting to hold can not physically and mentally endure any more "trouble".

I have seen these late term abortions described differently in many manners and one is that one form is too pull the baby and another form is to push the baby. Pulling is obviously less of a demand physically and emotionally for a woman, not to mention labor and dilation are not the same thing.




You need to stop yelling at me, and address the arguments and read the link I have already provided. If you can not have a later term abortion because you are not going to possibly die, and your baby is brain dead or severely defected then how else are you going to terminate the pregnancy? You are going to have to deliver a dead baby, perhaps the baby will not die until during birth, perhaps it will live a few minutes or even hours in terrible pain, nonetheless you are going to have a brainless and dead baby and you are going to have to have it in exactly the same manner you would have to have a healthy happy baby. And as a mother who has had babies this is a very traumatic, physically, emotional and enduring thing to have to do and I can not imagine having to undergo it knowing the baby was going to be a dead baby. But don't let me bother you with the feelings, emotions, and personal needs of the women involved in these desperate situations after all women don't seem to fit into any of the supporters of this ban's arguments all to well.

Sorry my frustration of debating a phantom got the better of me. I apologize. Really. I am pulling through your older posts to find the link BTW... I missed it.

***
Was the link to the story with the twins, one of which was terminated due to it's being severely deformed? She had the abortion.
***

Who is forcing the women of the USA to have brainless babies? When, where, is this happening?

If this is a hypothetical question then the answer is hypothetically they need to put language in the Act that ill make sure that women aren't forced to give birth to brainless babies. I don't know where this is happening. I don't believe it is happening.

The problem is of course in the definition of defect. Down's Syndrome? Is that enough of a defect? Brown eyes?

Bucket


Agreed. The Supreme Court should not be making judgement bases on maternal feelings. Nor should we on a debate board. Those feeling should be personal between family. There has to be some dividing line wouldn't you agree??

I don’t fear it. I just don’t want to contradict Droop about my desire for more third trimester abortions. He might not know what to do with himself if I did.


1. Federalism, marginally speaking. (That was mostly in my first posts with ConservPat. This is in regards to the entire Act.)
2. Deliberate disregard of medical facts and deliberate mischaracterization of a health risk to women getting D&E abortions (paternalism is always “beneficial”). This deals specifically with health concerns.



No good can come from this legislation, to mothers or fetuses or children, if Congress sought “data” and “informed opinions” that supported its preconceived ideas about D&E. (See: Bush and WMD.) Finally,

3. A new health standard in abortion per Kennedy’s opinion and departure from Ayotte (“[O]ur precedents hold... that a State may not restrict access to abortions that are necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for preservation of the life or health of the [woman]”) and Stenberg (“Since the law requires a health exception in order to validate even a postviability abortion regulation, it at a minimum requires the same in respect to previability regulation.”). As long as a “substantial medical authority supports the proposition that banning a particular abortion procedure could endanger women's health” a health exception was required. Now “Medical uncertainty does not foreclose the exercise of legislative power in the abortion context any more than it does in other contexts.” This deals somewhat with health concerns, somewhat with federalism.

Any questions? How am I holding up as the callous, death-bringing feminist flaunting her right to abortion to my general audience? We got “consensual” sex covered. I don’t want to leave abortion out. (<-- snarky)

I’m out. The Act is based on nonsense. It’s not surprising I would find Kennedy’s opinion in defense of it is also based on nonsense. Besides, I need to get something to eat. Feminists gotta eat... children.

how'd I get involved in this... Look you've made it clear that you want to see the word health. The ban takes into account the life of the mother, that is not broad enough for you. Alot of thing could be called potentionally life threatening as already defined by the ban. But you want broader terms??
Bucket has made repeated comments about emotional and mental health of the mother. I'm not saying that you want more late term abortions, but you do seem to want the most least restrictive wording so that it could compensate for late term abortion on lessor reason than we would generally find.

Bottom line, whatever your reasoning, you want constriction on late term abortions to be as loose and vague as possible.

You're wrong. This Act shouldn't have passed, and it shouldn't have been upheld by SCOTUS based on 1) bogus medical information, 2) no health exception, and 3) federalism. Have I said any different? What "least restrictive wording" can "compensate" for less than 1% of total abortions? These abortions are not statistically significant. They're not even significant as a "pro-choice" statistic.

What else am I supposed to focus on, Droop? How does being concerned about a lack of health exception(s) make me myopic?

If Congress doesn't have a problem outlawing a medical procedure (but not abortion itself) in every state the least it can do is consult doctors who know what the hell they're talking about and insert their recommended health exceptions as amendments to the ban. But that would defeat the purpose of the ban. I'm almost 100% certain third trimester abortion without life and health exceptions was illegal in every state to begin with.

Lesly, lets stop going back and forth

Define health as you see it.

Should it include emotional and mental health?

Lesly can answer as she chooses droop, but here is the WHO’s definition of health:



http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=3663

Right, that's along the same lines I was thinking BOF. So I am wondering does she want the exemption of health to be this broad as well.

I don't like speaking for women, but personally I would draw the exemption as broadly as has WHO. As a teacher of mentally retarded kids for 25 years, I worked with enough satellite mental health issues to know that emotional well-being is important. I think problems with mental health can and do produce physical ailments.

Droop, I can't even tell a prostate cancer patient whether he should proceed with brachytherapy or hormone therapy. Should a health exception include mental health? I suppose it can in some cases. Is she already a mental health patient with a history of harming herself? Then yes, because I can't justify tying a medically insane woman to a bed for 9 months. Was the woman raped, came forward with her story in the third trimester and wants an abortion due to mental distress? Then probably not, because we're past the point of viability. Then again, if she did not have access to legal abortion to begin with...

Four pages of debate with men (mostly) agreeing with the ban or seeing nothing wrong with the ban lacking a health exception gives me a cumulative impression that women don't need to be concerned about a health exception. I can't shake the feeling that now you're trying to get me to suggest we have the final say in our health.

What's up with this focus on control? I'm concerned I may find myself in that 1%. Men should be just as concerned that their wives, their sisters, their daughters and granddaughters may be part of an unfortunate statistic. Our positions on issues aren't defined by vaginas and penises. The abortion debate, when it comes to women's health at least, should not be the exception (no pun intended).

I doubt we do agree on the dividing line. Interesting language you have chosen, maternal, I was making the argument more on a human level, not just a female one, as I did frame my original argument in the context of my belief that this ban is a means of unequal treatment and protection under the law. The law does make judgments on feelings and emotions....cruel and unusual punishment, pursuit of happiness, freedom, marriage and this decision most certainly was emotional in it's considerations.

I see no reason why I should be asked to ignore any issue regarding the quality of life of another or the possibility that they are being asked to undergo a greater amount of pain or suffering because of a lack of consideration or protection for their gender's needs under our nation's laws.

See but here's the thing. As outlined in the the Act PAB is:

So if we're going to get all squishy about the quality of life of the Mother shouldn't we consider the quality of life of the partially delivered living fetus? (Which is still being called a fetus because it's legs are still inside the womb? COME ON IT'S A HUMAN BABY!)

And again for the zillionth time - brainless babies not withstanding - when is PAB the only way to save a mother's life? I can't stress this enough. This is a dangerous, rarely used procedure that IS STILL PROTECTED for all the reasons it might ever be done. Nothing has been banned!

(I'm not yelling Bucket, I'm emphasizing)

Abortion. The touchiest of touchy subjects. I can only say 'kudos' to the new Supreme Court and its decision. There is only one way to look at this issue when one takes an objective, logical stance. A partial birth abortion is no less than out right murder. The difference between a partial birth abortion and dumping your newborn in an alley dumpster is a matter of seconds. I challenge anyone to explain to me the difference, and not the literal difference, i.e. the matter in which the newborn dies (scissors in the back of the skull, or suffocating in a dumpster.) I mean, the moral difference. There isn't a distinction you can draw. This is a cruel practice, committed to the most innocent of human life. No sensible person could be a proponent of such an idea based on any sense of real morality. Which brings me to my real point. This is not about right and wrong. This is not about a woman's right to choose. This is about guilt. Stay with me, I promise I'm going somewhere with this.

I don't believe it is a coincidence that liberals cling to this issue as strong as they do. They live off of guilty Americans, and without them, are doomed. The support for Global Warming, universal health care, welfare and tax increases would certainly die without a guilt-ridden society desperate for self worth. What better way to create a guilty America then to convince the public that murdering children was morally neutral and in some cases brave and noble. I need not have experience being a woman to make the statement that millions of soon-to-be sons, daughters, brothers, and sisters, that are aborted each year has a substantial effect on the overall guilt level of society. (Conservatively estimated). This is the Liberal's strongest tool. They will fight any regulation, any restriction to ending the life of a fetus.

One man's guilt is another man's power.

One thing that must remembered is that this was a facial challenge. On the basis of that challenge, this law isn't unconstitutional.

Justice Ginsburg states:



This is true, but... that part was part of a whole. A law is facially unconstitutional if it is vague and overbroad. A law can encroach upon some of an individual's constitutionally protected right - so long as the law serves a legitimate purpose and that encroachment is not substantial - and still be facially valid. This wasn't the case in Stenburg, but this is the case here. Even without the health exception, this law does not substantially burden the right of a woman to choose... it is, therefore, facially valid.

----


You should know that using ALL CAPS online tends to be considered yelling - emphasis mine. I'd recommend italics or boldface type or both.

----

It should also be noted, that this law does not prohibit all intact D&E abortions. It is very, very specific.

The entire head of the fetus must not intentionally come out of the woman's body before the act that kills the fetus is performed. The entire head... out of the woman's body.... intentionally. Not the womb, the body.

As I understand it an intact D&E may still be legally performed if the entire head is out of the womb... if the top of the head is out of the woman's body... if you can see the eyes, ears and nose of the fetus outside of the woman's body. And, an intact D&E may still be legally peformed if the entire head comes out of the woman's body if that was not the intent of the procedure.

Now, personally, I can't even begin to imagine what the impact of an intact D&E procedure is on everyone involved, the woman in particular. I do believe that intact D&E's may be necessary and that they may be better for the health of the mother in certain circumstances. But is this particular type of D&E... one in which the fetus's entire head is outside of the woman's body... necessary? I understand that it might be better, but is it necessary? All surgery has some risk to a person's health.

Being that this law has absolutely no impact on intact D&E's where the entire head is not outside the woman's body - let alone any other types of abortion procedures, I fail to see how this law is facially invalid.

More confusion regarding the procedure, I guess. Here's a breech diagram of D&E. This is what the ban has to say about body parts:

§1531
the person performing the abortion 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 theperson knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus;

It bans head-first and breach-first "partial birth abortions". I'll respond to the rest of your post when I can. I'm surprised and a little disappointed someone as concerned with the bogus claim of a valid state interest on the issue of gay marriage can assume the opposite is true with such a politically motivated Act like this one.

For some one who based their most fervent opposition to my argument on their belief that I was basing my concerns on fictional or made up events...where are mothers, fathers and doctors choosing to use this procedure to terminate a late term abortion because the baby has brown eyes? This seems to me to mock the very harsh and real realities of the parents in these situations who do have to make these heartbreaking and nightmarish choices.



Most recognize it as yelling.

The child is severely deformed and/or suffering from an irreversible medical illness that is fatal, obviously this child's quality of life is already loss, that is why it's mother, father and it's doctor have chosen this procedure in the first place. The decision of choosing to terminate a baby in this latter stage of a pregnancy is a decision made with solely the child's "quality of life" as the guiding principle. You are trying to ignore the context in which I have asked you to consider the woman's needs. That is a dishonest presentation of my argument.

I don't think you are even bothering to read my argument in it's entirety. I never used the word fetus as I realise and recognize that to any of the women and families who are in these situations that would warrant this procedure this is their baby. My argument also has never focused on the life and death ultimatum, I have clearly defined my belief that this ban negates a woman's equal standing and protection in the law for quality of life and health issues. It is also a ban, I have no idea how you can argue nothing has been banned, but that is only the legal language set forth in this legislation, obviously the effect on women and their health and what procedures are and are not readily available because of all this controversy is far more overreaching. But I am sure that was the intention of it's language to begin with.

I already offered you one documented story, that you obviously have not read, I am familiar with other anecdotal ones, and here is yet another story that explains that this procedure is often not being offered to women who desperately need it and are in fact being asked to go against their medical wishes and yes carry their dead baby around....waiting, ban or no ban.

This story is a problem between a doctor and a patient. This has NOTHING to do with the PBA Act. The baby was dead. Therefore the PBA Act has no jurisdiction over this case. Ms. Magazine tying the lack of this woman to find a doctor willing to or capable of performing a D&E to a recent ban (the story was written in 2004) on Partial Birth Abortions that DO NOT ban D&Es on dead babies is simply disingenuous. You know it's illegal to walk around on Sunday with an ice cream cone in your pocket in New York! I wonder if that has anything to do with the lack of doctors who can perform PBAs.

This legislation is written in such a way that a doctor could receive prison time for performing a D&E on a braindead (anencephalic) baby, if the mother's life is not in mortal peril. That is a fact. You don't see how this might impact the number of physicians willing to perform D&Es in other cases, or the number trained to do them with any level of proficiency? It's seems a pretty obvious connection ...why place yourself in the position of a potential prison sentence?

Edited to add: To continue, I think it's worth noting that with this legislation it is actually in the doctor's interest to er on the side of caution in the other extreme. It the woman dies or suffers from disability because he refused treatment, it could be covered under a malpractice charge. On the other hand, if he performed an abortion and could not prove sufficiently that the woman's life was in dire jeopardy, he/she ends up in prison. So why on earth would anyone perform this procedure for any reason whatsoever? Why especially would anyone get trained to perform it, because if they aren't they can just claim they didn't have the expertise and avoid a malpractice suit altogether.

I apologize for the delay in responding... I wanted to do some more research before posting. You are right to some extent in that I was confused a bit about the procedure. There is so much information and various procedures that fall under the same name D&E.

I also learned that vertex procedures - one that involves the head first - are actually much rarer than the breech procedures. I also understand now that these procedures - originally performed because of complications that either meant the head would not be deliverable through the cervix or, in the case of vertex presentation, the abdomen is distended or there is some other abdominal deformity that won't allow the abdomen to come through the cervix. Is that a correct, or at least mostly correct, characterization?

According to Stenburg, the breech extraction is also known as D&X (dilation and extraction). But also according to Stenburg, the procedure done for vertex presentation still involves the crushing or piercing of the skull. Now, if the entire head is outside of the womb and vertex procedures are done - as stated in oral arguments - because the obstruction occurs in the abdomen, why would it be necessary to crush or pierce the skull when it is already outside the woman's body? Is there something that I'm missing there?

Keep in mind that during oral argument, the respondent stated that the fetal demise in these procedures occurs not simply to kill the fetus but to facilitate the delivery of the fetus. She argues that if the doctor performs an overt act "for the purpose" of killing the fetus, that such a procedure could be constitutionally criminalized. So, if an intact D&E performed with a vertex presenation is done because - as the respondent claims in oral arguments - the head is not the problem, how does crushing or piercing the skull outside of the woman's body "facilitate delivery" when the skull is no longer an obstacle to the delivery of the fetus?

But this aside, after further review of both cases, I do agree that the law, as written, is unconstitutional in that it doesn't allow an exception for the physical health of the mother.

The line that the Congress would like to draw is that partial delivery outside of the woman's body and the subsequent overt act of killing the fetus is the equivalent of completely delivering the fetus and the subsequent overt act of killing the fetus. And that the overt act in the specific procedure defined in the statute is for the sole purpose of killing the fetus and not to facilitate the delivery of the fetus.

In the case of a vertex delivery, I'm inclined - based on what I know - to agree with the State. I fail to see, based on my limited knowledge, how crushing or piercing the skull once it is outside of the woman's body "facilitates delivery." In the case of the breech delivery, I don't know whether it's necessary or not... or if there is a safe way to do it such that it would not "intentionally" violate the law. That being the case and given the medical uncertainty and a lack of statistical data regarding this fact, a physical health exception would do no harm. And, should safer means be developed that provide for death in utero and could be considered as safe as this procedure, I think the issue could be revisited.

I do not believe that the law is overbroad and, therefore, unconstitutional on those grounds. I do believe that there needs, at this point, to be a physical health exception and the law is, therefore and in support of precedent, unconstitutional on those grounds.


I'm sorry, but I don't believe that the State's interest in this case is bogus. The State does have an interest in preventing infanticide. Roe recognizes this interest as valid, Casey recognizes this interest as valid, and Stenberg recognizes this interest as valid. I doubt that you would argue that that interest doesn't exist either. The issue is the extent to which the State can exert legal force in that interest. The State is drawing a line and I think that, in this case, they are drawing that line badly.
My girlfriend believes that the fetus has no rights that surpass a woman's right to choose until it is completely out of the woman's body. I disagree, I think there comes a point at which a living fetus, viable or non-viable, has the right not to be killed - even if it means simply allowing it to die. And, personally, I don't feel that the line of demarcation regarding constitutional preference between protecting one or the other of the two conflicting rights exists at the opening of the vagina.

I don't read that in the legislation. I am (honestly) asking you to show me where it states this.

We need to make the differentiation between a typical D&E and an intact D&E.

The law doesn't prohibit non-intact D&E's. It does prohibit intact D&E's that are done in the manner described in the Act.

A brain dead fetus may still be considered a "living fetus." As such, an intact D&E done in the manner described in the Act would be prohibited unless the mother's life was in mortal peril.

I must respectfully disagree.
The legal definition of death is: