Objection: "[P]artial-birth abortion" is not a medical term and is not recognized in the field of medicine. The Act defines "partial-birth abortion" in a way that encompasses a variation of dilatation and evacuation (D&E), the most common method of second-trimester abortion, in which the fetus remains intact as it is removed from the woman's uterus." (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists)
Response: True, "partial-birth abortion", like "heart attack" is not a medical term. Indeed, a more accurate term would be "partial-delivery abortion." But while it is true that PBA is a variation of D&E, there are "currently no medical schools that provide instruction on abortions that include the instruction in partial-birth abortions in their curriculum." The procedure was developed by abortionist Martin Haskell, who first described the procedure in 1992 at the National Abortion Federation Risk Management Seminar. What is the "medical term" for a procedure that medical schools don’t even teach? And why did the executive vice president of the American Medical Association say that "we all agree [PBA] is not good medicine"?
Objection: PAB is performed only rarely and then only when necessary to protect the health of the mother.
Response: Even the abortionists have stopped telling this lie. They were forced to stop claiming that the national figures were between 500 - 1000 after journalist Ruth Padawer showed that one clinic in Englewood, N.J., had performed the procedure 1,500 in 1994. The Alan Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood, finally admitted that the procedure is performed only about 2,200 times a year.As one source quoted by Ramesh Ponnuru notes, "[I]f a new virus [were] killing 2,200 premature babies in neonatal units, it would be on the TV evening news every week."
Objection: As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in her dissent, "the Court's opinion tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. For the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception protecting a woman's health."
Response: Most reasonable people would assume that an "exception protecting a women's health" would mean that the women would be irreparably harmed--perhaps even die--if an exception were not allowed. But in the Doe decision, Justice Harry Blackmun wrote,"[T]he medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors--physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age--relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment. And it is room that operates for the benefit, not the disadvantage of the pregnant woman."In other words, the "health exception" can be used as the trump card anytime the woman or the doctor chooses. This is why Doe established abortion on demand throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy. As long as you can find a doctor willing to do the procedure and claim that your "emotional health" is at risk, a woman can abort a healthy child on the day she goes into labor.
Blackmun's decision made a mockery of the "health" exception and--until today--made it impossible to regulate any abortion procedure. State legislatures, however, are free to write in legitimate health exceptions that actually take a woman's health into account when the decision is made to kill the child. So this objection is moot.
Objection: The law is vague and makes it difficult for doctors to comply. (Salon.com: "[H]ealthcare providers are going to have to hunker down and figure out how to both comply with the law and still provide healthcare.")
Response: Here is the relevant text in the law banning PBA:the term 'partial-birth abortion' means an abortion in which --
(A) 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 the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and
(B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus;
If any doctors are still confused maybe I can put it in even simpler terms: If the baby's whole head is sticking out, don’t kill her; if the baby's bottom half is sticking out and you can see where the umbilical cord attaches, don't kill him. If you're still confused then you need to put down the head-crushing forceps. For while you might be evil enough to be an abortionist, you're too dumb to be a doctor.
This is a great day for the pro-life movement. We have Senator Sam Brownback to thank for rejecting the Miers nomination and getting Justice Alito on the court.
We also have George W. Bush to thank and a republican Senate for confirming his choices.
Blackmun's decision made a mockery of the "health" exception and--until today--made it impossible to regulate any abortion procedure. State legislatures, however, are free to write in legitimate health exceptions that actually take a woman's health into account when the decision is made to kill the child. So this objection is moot.
'Health' exceptions are common in law. For example, if Joe is coming at me with a knife I can kill him in self-defense because he is threatening my health. Somehow, despite Blackman's decision, the law knows there's a difference between this and me killing Joe because Joe's post made me 'psychologically upset'.
What's amazing about the above passage is the declaration that the states 'may' (or may not) choose to give women what is essentially a right to self-defense. Something every other human beign has as a right recognized by natural law.
Response: Even the abortionists have stopped telling this lie. They were forced to stop claiming that the national figures were between 500 - 1000 after journalist Ruth Padawer showed that one clinic in Englewood, N.J., had performed the procedure 1,500 in 1994. The Alan Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood, finally admitted that the procedure is performed only about 2,200 times a year.
I'd be curious to see more about this. Are you telling us that of those 2,200 nearly 1,500 are performed in Englewood NJ? Am I sitting a short drive from the partial birth abortion capital of the world?
Obvious question no one asks is why so many late term abortions?
Following the link you get to an old Slate article:
I know for a fact that abortion costs are a steeply sliding scale based on how far along a pregnancy is. In other words a very early 1st Trimester abortion can be had for less than $200, maybe less than $100. Go out into the 2nd and you're looking at over a grand. Are these poor women who suddenly won the lottery? If you can't muster the $ for an early abortion you almost certainly are not going to do it for late abortion. I'd like to see how the paper 'showed' the clinic performed 1,500 IDE's.
Probably the answer is given by the article's criticism of attempts by both sides to estimate how many IDE's are performed:
1. Safer and more convenient than the alternatives? There is no way a late term abortion can be more convenient than an early one & it certainly isn't safer. Therefore the doctor must be talking about safer and more convenient than alternative types of late term abortions. I raise this to point out that this debate would be a lot cleaner if we were simply talking about banning medically unnecessary late term abortions. The pro-life movement, though, looking for easy rather than logical victories has basically sought to ban an 'icky' type of late term abortion.
2. If a late term abortion is medically necessary then so would be a 'safer' type of late term abortion. Imagine your arm needed to be amputated. A very simple type of operation that can be done on a simple outdoor table (as was done in the Civil War) or in a high tech. operating room under super sterile condititions. The second method is not 'medically necessary' in the sense it must be done like that. Plenty of people survived the 'less safe' method but it would be wrong to outlaw the latter on the argument it wasn't 'medically necessary'.
So, Boonton, I've gotta ask. Do you agree PBAs should be outlawed or not?
I would opt to simply outlaw late term abortions with a life & health exemption (which I believe is mandated by the fact that everyone has a natural right to self-defense).
I don't see the point in outlawing PBA's. Both pro-lifers and pro-choicers seem, IMO, to be too wrapped up in the idea of incrementalism for their own good. I think this is because in the US they are both under the impression that the debate must and always will end up being a 'winner takes all' game. That's out of step with how the abortion issue was resolved with just about every other democratic country in the world.
That's out of step with how the abortion issue was resolved with just about every other democratic country in the world.
Much of the reason for that was that the abortion issues was not really decided democratically, except in the sense that a majority of the Supreme Court decided for everybody else. It's kind of silly that, until now, the Court has allowed restrictions on political speech (via McCain-Feingold) and gun ownership, things that the Constitution specifically allows, but allows almost no restrictions on abortion, which the Constitution is silent on.
True but the Constitution was democratically decided on and attempts to revise it to clearly keep its hands off abortion (or to outlaw abortion) were democratically rejected.
Thank you so much Joe for posting these.
True but the Constitution was democratically decided on and attempts to revise it to clearly keep its hands off abortion (or to outlaw abortion) were democratically rejected.
I am not sure what you are saying here. True, the Constitution was democratically decided, but the Constitution makes no mention of abortion, unlike speech or gun ownership, which the courts have allowed substantial restrictions on. So what you have is abortion, which the constitution makes no mention of, is granted much greater latitude than gun ownership and political speech, which the Constitution specifically guarantees. I know you don't see a disconnect here, but I suspect that is largely because you don't want to.
The Constitution doesn't mention most things. It is a very, very vague document (even considering the time it was written) and almost certainly it was intentionally written like that. (Actually I believe the 10th Amendment basically comes out and says there's rights not listed here but they are real and belong to either the people or states. Who knows what they are and which are the people's and which are the states?)
Here's a question in reverse, if the Constitution doesn't say the gov't should have its hands off abortion then how about a policy mandating abortion? I could see how certain 'social darwinist' types might argue that teens and welfare mothers should be required to have abortions if they cannot care for their kids. What if a state mandated abortion in those cases? If there's no right to abortion does it doesn't follow that there is a right to not have an abortion right?
Likewise Roe has its origin in the case that struck down laws prohibiting married couples from using birth control. Does such a right to privacy really not exist in the Constitution? I've seen few politicians who would tell the voters it doesn't. The reverse game works here too. If such a privacy right doesn't exist can the state tell certain married couples to use or not to use birth control based on its interests rather than theirs? If not why not?
So yes you're right but it isn't quite accurate to pretend Roe was just made up out of the blue. On the other hand I could ask you how the Commerce Clause allowing Congress to regulate interstate trade means Congress can regulate what type of abortion procedures are used in late term abortions.
Anyway, given that the Constitution may sometimes be found to mean things 'the people' didn't really expect there is a mechanism to amend it if the people really don't want the Constitution to mean that. In the case of abortion for more than 20 years now pro-life amendments have been proposed in the democratic system and roundly rejected. Even amendments that aren't necessarily pro-life (such as ones that say the states shall decide the abortion question...whether they come down pro-choice or pro-life) have been rejected....
The Constitution doesn't mention most things. It is a very, very vague document
We must read different Constitutions. I find the document pretty specific in the powers it grants and the limitations it imposes on the various branches of the federal government.
On the other hand I could ask you how the Commerce Clause allowing Congress to regulate interstate trade means Congress can regulate what type of abortion procedures are used in late term abortions.
I think we could have a pretty long discussion about the "Commerce Clause" and how it is has been abused, but the courts have taken a very expansive view of the "Commerce Clause", so those are the rules we have to play under. I may not like it, but that's the way it is.
We must read different Constitutions. I find the document pretty specific in the powers it grants and the limitations it imposes on the various branches of the federal government.
Here's the 10th
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.
Please provide me with a clear and specific list of these powers and tell me if they are delegated to the states or to the people? Barring that please tell me how the text instructs us to decide such a question as to whether or not a power is included above and who has it. For example, the power to regulate abortion. Does it belong to the states or to the people. If it is to the people then individuals have the power to make up their own minds. If it is the states then the recent ruling violates the 10th by imposing a PBA ban by Congress on the states whether they want it or not.
I think we could have a pretty long discussion about the "Commerce Clause" and how it is has been abused, but the courts have taken a very expansive view of the "Commerce Clause", so those are the rules we have to play under. I may not like it, but that's the way it is.
What's curious here is that conservative justices strike down expansive laws that rely ont he commerce clause. A while ago, for example, there was a law about using guns within a certain distance of schools. The Congress based this on the commerce clause but the court ruled the connection to interstate commerce was too thin and struck it down.
However when medical pot came up suddenly conservatives learned the commerce clause applies because a state allowing a cancer patient to buy pot grown entirely in the state and not allowed to be exported from the state might still impact the pot market in other states therefore Congress had the right to overrule. Likewise the PBA ban law is even less connected to interstate commerce...if it isn't you might as well say Congress can regulate haircuts from DC in every small town in the US.
What is clear, though, is that the Commerce Clause isn't clear. At some level expansionists have a valid point. Just about everything does indirectly impact interstate commerce. Restrictionists also have a point, if there's such a thing as iterstate commerce then there has to be intrastate commerce which would be the state's domain to regulate.
Which brings me back to the point about democracy. 'The People' know that there is a chance a decision may go the way they don't like. This may be because the decision is 'wrong' or it may simply be the right decision but with a result they don't like. Knowing that they also know that they have the option to alter such a decision. In the case of pot, for example, they can make Congress pass a law leaving the states alone or they can pass an amendment restricting the Commerce Clause.
Likewise with abortion there has been ample democratic attempts to reverse the Roe decision and they failed the democratic test. As I pointed out no court has stopped legislatures on voting for 'life amendments' yet they have failed to even garner a majority even when they restrict themselves to just overturning Roe.
ucfengr,
I brought up 3 cases where the commerce claus came into play. The PBA ban, the gun case and states that let cancer patients use pot. I didn't bring them up to say 'these are all abuses of the commerce clause' but rather to point out that the commerce clause is rather vauge here and the evidence is that so-called objective justices who seem to be very committed to a non-activist reading of the Constitution have nevertheless appeared to pick and choose the version of the commerce clause that fits their desired outcome rather than applying a single objective version. In other words if Scalia isn't going to read the Constitution objectively who are you going to trust to do it?
So what I'm saying is even if you had judges that you think are the best possible there would still be a certain amount of uncertainity on how they would decide any particular case. You'd have the risk that a decision would mean the Constitution will end up meaning something you didn't expect and quite possibly you won't like. This risk is inherent in the system we have and there is a democratic solution to it. That a decision has stood for so many decades doesn't frustrate the democratic system. Those demanding that the states regulate abortion or that it be outlawed from the Federal gov't have had plenty of democratic opportunities to make their case. It would seem the majority would rather the courts decide this messy issue. Perhaps that is just passing the buck but that would appear to be the democratic expression of many of the people.
BTW, please take a peek at the questions I asked in post 11. If you're so sure Roe was decided incorrectly then what about the 'reverse' cases?
please go to www.verabradley.org and watch the video in the lower left corner. the latter part of that video tells my story; i was told that an abortion was necessary to save my live. on my lap you will see the proof that they were wrong.
Perhaps then you should consider suing the doctor who told you such a thing for malpractice. If you don't mind my asking, what made the doctor think an abortion was needed to save your life?
attorney defense angeles los airport criminal