I think I can guess what the general consensus is on this issue, so I will give an opinion from the other side. I had a friend who obtained a partial birth abortion. She is Catholic, and was prolife before that incident. She also already had two children, and the third was very wanted. Her third pregnancy changed her paradigm forever.

The details for the first 5+ months are a bit sketchy, but the facts are she obtained an ultrasound during the first trimester which must have indicated that the fetus had only half of a brain. The doctor was prolife himself, and knew her postion on the issue, so he did not bring it to her attention. We believe he must've assumed that her body would abort the baby naturally, but unfortunately that wasn't the case. Her first trimester medical records were "lost" somehow.

By her fifth month, she was on complete bedrest and dialysis in the hospital. She had two children at home which she could not care for, but they were able to obtain help. She did not find out the (brainless) status of her baby until the seventh month. By that time, she had gained about 130 pounds, and her kidneys were shutting down. This information is second hand because I maintained contact with her sister during that time, who kept me informed of her progress, but not her. She elected to terminate the pregnancy when she realized that her baby was not viable, although moving and it's heart still beating. If she had elected to continue the pregnancy and give birth to that (braindead) child, she would've probably required a kidney transplant. Today, she has a healthy third child and no insurmountable health problems.

What I don't understand about this legislation is...why is it so difficult to reword it in such a way as to allow the abortion in the case of severe health detriment to the mother? According to the legislation, there was "proof" that the procedure was never needed to protect the health of the mother. I've just indicated one instance (that I know of) in which this was most definitely the case. This leads me to conclude that politicians have determined that public opinion is more important than a few expendable lives. Or, its sheer ignorance. Is it ignorance, malice, or is there actually some weird natural act of God which prevents the words 'except in the case of egregious health concerns to the mother' on this legislation?

partial birth abortion ban

If such "estimates" of the right to life committee are true, and late-term abortions in the thousands are being performed on "healthy mothers" and their unborn, why no exceptions for the unhealthy?

I agree. Surely it's possible to write the law in such a way that it would be clear that we would be talking about severe negative health consequences for the mother. Perhaps it might even be possible to allow for situations in which the baby is truly braindead. In such a case, although the procedure is certainly extremely unpleasant, I don't think we can say we are killing the baby. With no brain function at all, it is not truly alive.

If there really are thousands of very late term abortions being performed on healthy babies of healthy women, then this is clearly a problem that needs to be addressed; but this law is too extreme.

According to THOMAS, the legislation does take the health of the mother into consideration. The text of S.3 From THOMAS.....





Full Text of the bill

I think this is a good bill, it's about time we restricted this viscious medical procedure, actually, it's murder pretending to be a medical procedure.

I take your point, but note the exact wording here. If the mother suffers any ill effect short of actual death, there's no protection for her. Maybe I'm quibbling, but this would seem to make it illegal to perform this procedure on a braindead baby, even if it would prevent the mother from suffering a medical catastrophe that would not actually kill her.

agreed. while I believe in a women's right to choose, partial birth abortion is going to far. at that stage of the pregnancy the fetus has developed at the minimum a rudimentary brain, internal organs, etc... the child likely feels pain during these acts. the only reson these should be allowed in the first place is to save the mother or if the child is highly deformed and disfigured.

these should be banned, and I have always felt that way. if you carry a child THAT long (at least 6 months) you should take SOME responsibility.

A partial birth abortion ban is a back door way to legislate around Roe v. Wade. However, the language in the bill (S. 5, if anyone one wants to read it at http://thomas.loc.gov/) seems vague and completely open to interpretation by the judiciary. If they stick to Roe v. Wade they won’t let this legislation be used as a tool to outlaw abortion. If they reverse there direction I think the judiciary has been handed a tool that could be used to make all abortions legal.

As background:
I think abortion is wrong 99% of the time.
I think abortion should be legal.

Like Victoria, I don't like the language here. "Necessary to save the life" is very narrow. What about the braindead fetus with the mother on dialysis? Not included, I would bet. I must ask, why not?

I agree that these procedures are gruesome and awful. I don't believe for a second the (right to life committee) statistic that thousands of healthy women are having these. Does anyone here know anyone who has had this procedure? I'll bet I'm among the very very few. If the fetus has half a brain and is a severe detriment to the mother's health, that pregnancy should be terminated....even if the mother wouldn't actually die by going through with the pregnancy.

A woman who continues a pregnancy through the fifth month wants to have that child, and certainly shouldn't be allowed to terminate for elective reasons. Those types of elective abortions are already banned in 42 states, unless the health or life of the mother is at risk. another link

A good friend of mine is an expert in "woman's rights" issues. This field has come to include abortion. She tells me that the 'partial-birth abortion' method is used for about 80% of all abortion in the U.S. (I don't have a reputable website to back this up, so take it or leave it.)

I know from my own research that the term 'partial-birth' was contrived by the right in order to make people think that these type of abortions are late term abortions. They are not. A so-called partial birth abortion can be preformed during almost the whole term of a pregnancy.

That being said, I'm not going to take a stance on S.3 at this time.

As for the ambiguity of the bill, what does an abortion take place in interstate commerce? Who defines necessary to save a life?

These issues are up for interpretation.

Just as they are less than adament about making a clause to protect the mother's life, pro-lifers have always made it clear that "life" isn't the bottom line.
Making abortions illegal won't stop women from having them. All it does is make the underground procedures more likely to kill both the mother AND any supposed "persons" inside her.

Those who are 'pro-life' know this, they are just hypocrites at best, imbeciles at worst. They are in actuality, only 'pro-innocent-life'. If it wasn't for religious interpretation of "innocent" and "sinful", they'd be able to see that just because a mother has made a mistake, doesn't make her "not innocent". The term "sin" has no meaning in our laws. (well, at least up until a few days ago)

I think it's sad when our government policies are hypocritical. Hopefully the Supreme Court will not back this "law", and doctors will not be detered from providing health care to people who need safe medical procedures; who will opt for unsafe procedures in desperation.

Forcing a woman to have a child she doesn't want, can't support - won't solve the problems in this world. I'd burn my bra if it wasn't so dang expensive.

Forcing a woman to determine she wants an abortion before the five month mark of her pregnancy is overly burdensome?

You do know what this procedure entails, correct?

Breech birth (feet first) leaving only the head in the uterus. The base of the head is then punctured and the brains sucked out. Oh, and they might harvest some stem cells while they're at it...

Banning this barbaric procedure is the correct thing to do.

Mrs. P:
In the case of the woman you know, her doctor is probably legally at fault here. Not advising the woman of her rights and options is probably medical malpractice. Had she known at 3 months what the prospects were, who knows what she would have chosen. Did she eventually make the decision herself to end the pregnancy? What finally made up her mind?

Edit: spelling gaffe...

My goodness! Such histrionics.

This bill doesn't outlaw abortion, and it doesn't attempt to circumvent Roe v Wade at all. Indeed, from Roe v Wade we have this.....



There is nothing in this bill that isn't supported by the Roe v Wade decision.

Even the AMA has weighed in on this subject. Issuing a policy statement that says, in part the following:



Ok, they don't want to call it a "partial birth abortion", but the procedure identified in the bill is precisely the one they refer to as an "intact D&X", and even the AMA admits that there is no scientific reason identified for this procedure. Still though, they want leave it in the hands of the doctor, assuming the doctor acts within standards of good medical practice.

Ok, so how does one determine whether the actions of the doctor were proper?

How about a peer review by other doctors? Sounds fair to me. From the bill....



Guess I'm not sure what the problem is here.

Yes, her (first) doctor was at fault. Pictures of her first ultrasound were lost, suspiciously. She obtained a new doctor, and another ultrasound later on. Had she known she was carrying a braindead fetus I doubt she would have continued with the pregnancy, although she was strongly anti-abortion at the time, so I'm not sure. I believe her case was more than a bit unusual, as a nonviable fetus would normally be expelled naturally much earlier on.

Her mind was made up after two months in a hospital bed on dialysis, and then finding out that the child she carried actually only had half of a brain. She had swelled up like a whale during that time, and had over a hundred pounds of weight to loss due to the kidney malfunctioning. It must have been awful though, because the child was moving and its heart beating, even with only half of a brain.

Edited to add: My mind isn't set on this issue. I am completely against partial birth abortion for healthy infants, but I believe it should allow the procedure in the event that the fetus would be born brain dead, or with some sort of catastrophic birthdefect and the mother is at severe risk to her physical health. I understand the hesitance to vote in favor of this ban as it is worded.

Edited again to add: The peer review for doctors isn't exactly comforting. That means that any medical professional who had to perform the procedure even in order to save the mother's life would face a trial. I see the potential for some problems there.

It is a poor idea to put up barriers to a person's ability to receive medical services. People should have the right to make decisions for themselves. Legislatures are not the people I want making decisions for me. They lack the judgement and understanding to make decisions such as this.

Further, there is no need for a law here. No problem exists which needs to be corrected.

People wondering why the law wasn't written more intelligently should ask NARAL and the other pro-choice groups. They made the decision to fight this ban absolutely and without quarter. It was a political blunder of major proportions. An intelligent general fights on defendable ground. Sometimes an intelligent general withdraws from a position in order to reach more easily defendable ground. NARAL refuses to do this.

They could have chosen to shape the debate, to indicate willingness to compromise and even, perhaps, begin to move the debate toward some kind of consensus. Instead they chose the "fight-to-the-death" tactic. The upshot is that they've allowed pro-life forces to raise a fortune in contributions, they've damaged the image of pro-choicers, and loosened the pro-choice hold over our own friendly legislators.

NARAL has a habit of being hard when they should be subtle, and of going limp when they should be tough. This is NARAL's Fredericksburg, they need new leadership.

I agree, but it isn't so one-sided as your post would indicate. The right-to-life groups are just as disingenuous and unwilling to compromise. This legislation isn't worded to allow the abortion of a dead fetus, even at risk of the mother's health. The pro-life movement used "partial birth abortion" (a term coined by them, and used in this legislation, which the entire medical association rejects)which is already banned in 42 states except for the mother's life or health, to push their agenda. Now, a doctor will be unable to act in the best interest of his patient by threat of imprisonment, and will face a trial if he attempts to do so.Something is wrong there.

Here is a bill that was proposed by Chet Edwards, which would have been a much more reasonable step in the direction of limiting this procedure. late term abortion ban proposal

Personally, I have no problem banning most partial-birth abortions. If you haven't made your choice by then, you don't have any business being a parent to begin with (and we should probably just whack you on the head with a 2x4 for being so stupid). However, as Mrs.Pigpen said, there are times when it may be necessary. A woman's health (not just death, but other aspects) and the health/completeness of the fetus should both be factors in determining if an abortion should be done. I don't think a healthy fetus and a healthy mother should be allowed a very late-term abortion, but in Mrs.Pigpen's friend's case, what was done to her was criminal and I hope the doctor lost his license.

Partial birth abortion isn't a medical term. It's just a right wing buzz word that is made to scare people. It is also done very rarely.

I just see this as a way to handcuff doctors. There are ethical late term abortions and unethical late term abortions. This shouldn't be decided by act of congress.

Partial birth abortion is NOT used as a means of birth control. Some teenager isn't going to get pregnant and then wait until she's seven months along to say, "I changed my mind, I want an abortion." That's not how it works. Partial birth abortion is usually only used in extreme cases where the mother is in danger of dying or having severe health complications from the baby.

The so-called 'partial birth abortion' is depicted as a huge inhumane action, but basically anti-choice people want to give the impression that abortion doctors do this in a gruesome way for fun. Guess what, folks. No woman really wants to have an abortion. She's not going to say, "How 'bout I get pregnant on purpose, wait until I'm about to pop it out, and kill it." Yes, the procedure is sad. They pull it partially out, then suck its brains out to collapse the head, and deliver a dead fetus (D&X procedure). But this is the safest way they know how. When a fetus is that far along, the skull has to be collapsed to fit through the woman. If they had a better way, they would do it. But they don't. It's the safest way they know how. Other procedures, like cutting the fetus into pieces and removing the pieces one by one IMO is much more gruesome. That would be much more painful (if they could even feel it) plus the limbs could scratch the inside of the woman on the way out. I also think someone said somewhere that a partial birth abortion is used on 80% of all abortions, by that i guess they are referring to the D&X procedure..... I think their friend is wrong. As far as all the sources I have read, it seems it is only used in the case that the fetus is far along, probably around twenty weeks or more, because by then its head is too big to fit through the cervix. I'm not familiar with the other procedures that take place earlier in the pregnancy but I think they might give the fetus a shot to stop it's heart beat...... I'm not sure.

Partial birth abortion procedures right now are very safe. If they're banned, women will find ways to get one anyway, but in less safe and less sterile conditions. That will just endanger their health even more.

here is some more info on 'partial birth abortions.' You'll notice a little ways down it says:

Doesn’t the law permit elective third-trimester abortions?

No. Long-standing, unchallenged statutes in 40 states and the District of Columbia prohibit elective abortions by any method after fetal viability (the point at which the fetus can survive outside the womb, usually at the beginning of the third trimester).

so it's not like the woman can really choose anyway, not that she would want to. She would need a good reason such as the fets having a severe disorder or that her health is in danger.

Do I think women should be able to choose in the third trimester? No. I agree with that law on it right now. But I do not and will never agree with the ban on partial birth abortion until they can prove that there is a safer and more humane way to do it.

I know I certainly don't want some old white guys in congress telling me what to do with my body. Abortion is a private matter that should be dealt with between a woman and her doctor, not some government official who knows nothing about her life, her circumstances, and medicine.


So after rambling on for a while, I'll just say that here shouldn't have been a ban in the first place. We are asking why there isn't an exception for the mother's health, but that is because if there were an exception for a mother's health, then it would be just like before, since those are the only circumstances they are performed under anyway.

I'll leave you with this article..... it's a bitttt liberal for me, but I think she makes some nice points.

Happy Thanksgiving everybody...... right now I am thankful that the right hasn't completely taken away a woman's right to choose..... yet.

It's been over a month since Cephus wrote that, but I feel the need to respond anyway.
Cephus, how in the hell do you feel you can judge someone in a difficult position so harshly, especially when it is a situation that you will never find yourself in?! You will never be pregnant. You will never find yourself in any of various difficult situations which cause women to consider having an abortion. Women don't wake up one day and say "I think I'll go ahead and get that abortion today." If it takes someone until a later term in their pregnancy to make their decision, this is in no way a reflection of their intelligence, and most definitely not an indicator of how fit they are for parenthood! Unplanned pregnancies are life-altering, and no one makes a decision about something life-altering in five minutes. Shame on you for judging every woman who has been in that position for reasons you don't know and will never experience.

For the point of argument, I'll just pretend that a fetus is equivolent to a person to avoid debating the point.

Deciding whether or not to give birth is a matter of someone's bodily integrity. If you decide not to give birth to a late term fetus, thats obviously going to harm it, but that's one of the situations where a person is entitled to protect their own interests.

What if someone (a fully formed, independent person, not a fetus) needed your kidney or they'd die? Well, if you refused to give them your kideny, you would for all intensive purposes killing them, your decision would result in their death. But, they're not really entitled to your kidney, you're not just a holding cell for organs to be harvested for other people. If through your grace and goodwill you want to genorously grant one of your kidneys to someone else, then it would be a choice you decide to make to help this person, but not something they have any right to. By the same token, no one has the right to use someone else as an incubator. Using someone's body is the ultimate exploitation, if someone is forced to give an organ they are being exploited, if someone is forced to act as an incubator they are being exploited.

The timing is irrelevent, people should always have the right to withdraw consent in matters where they would be required to give consent. If someone suggested they would give their kidney and decided not to later, for any reason, but lets say they decided that they weren't comfortable with it and they felt forced into it to begin with, they can't be forced to give up a kidney because they suggested that they would be willing at one point.

Ahhh, a perfect example of how people will WILFULLY MISREAD something.

Previously quoted, yet ignored:



First, kidney failure, or impending kidney failure, IS a "life-endangering physical condition", so, contrary to what some have blithely claimed, the specific instance given would not be prohibited by this bill.

Second, since "a dead fetus" can't be killed, the legislation DOES permit the "abortion" of the fetus.

Come on folks, it ain't that hard to actually READ what's in front of you!



PERSONAL ATTACK REMOVEDMorally, one can only withdraw consent if doing so will cause no harm to others who have relied upon your consent for their actions. A simple example would involve one person climbing down a rope. Before climbing down the rope, he asks a passerby to hold the rope for him, thereby soliciting the passerby's (Bozo) consent. Bozo say's "sure", and takes hold of the rope. Kelly proceeds over the edge of the cliff and down the rope.

What happens if Bozo "withdraws his consent." Tragedy. Kelly has literally put his life into Bozo's hands, and Bozo will need a damn good reason to justify letting go of that rope, else he may find it justly knotted about his neck in due course.