Judge Stops Partial-Birth Abortion Ban

[Midnight Son]

- In a highly anticipated ruling, a federal judge found the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional Thursday because it does not include a health exception.

U.S. District Judge Richard C. Casey in Manhattan said the Supreme Court has made it clear that a law that prohibits the performance of a particular abortion procedure must include an exception to preserve a woman's life and health.

Casey issued the ruling two months after hearing closing arguments in the case.

A San Francisco judge has already declared the 2003 law unconstitutional, and a judge in Lincoln, Neb., is still considering the question. The three judges suspended the ban while they held the trials.

The law, signed in November, represented the first substantial federal legislation limiting a woman's right to choose an abortion. Abortion rights activists said it conflicted with three decades of Supreme Court precedent.

It banned a procedure that is known to doctors as intact dilation and extraction, but is called "partial-birth abortion" by abortion foes. During the procedure, the fetus is partially removed from the womb, and its skull is punctured or crushed.

The judge challenged the conclusion by Congress that there is no significant body of medical opinion that the procedure has safety advantages for women.

Casey said the congressional record itself undermined the finding because it included contradictory views, including nine medical associations which opposed the act because they believed the abortion procedure provides safety advantages for some women.

In the San Francisco ruling, issued June 1, U.S. District Judge said the act places an undue burden on a woman's right to choose.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=533&e=1&u=/ap/20040826/ap_on_re_us/abortion_lawsuits

A touchy issue for sure.

[MrJoshua]

I see that is very good for Bush. This will fire up the religious nuts to keep Bush in office so he can appoint judges more sympathetic.

[Bill Dungsroman]

http://img51.exs.cx/img51/4335/10001.jpg

Thanks for limiting the baby vote, Kerry!

[MrJoshua]

This is going to get ugly.

[Andrew Mayer]

I see that is very good for Bush. This will fire up the religious nuts to keep Bush in office so he can appoint judges more sympathetic.

Because bush hasn't been playing to his base...

[Malderi]

Personally, I'm pro-choice, but against this partial birth abortion.

If you haven't read up on the methodologies for this, do so, but only on an empty stomach.

[DennyA]

Yeah, I'm pro-choice, but if you haven't made the decision to get an abortion by the time this procedure would come into play, then it's time to look into giving the baby up for adoption after it's full-term. (Unless there's a horrible genetic problem, etc, or a threat to the mother's life.)

Abortion in the first trimester pretty much just stops a "potential" baby. After the first trimester, enough's going on physiologically that it's pretty much a living creature and the parent needs to deal with the responsibility of bringing it to term and finding a good home.

If a baby is going to be unwanted or neglected, then by all means, abort in the first trimester. There's no shortage of human beings on this planet. (I'll buy the adoption argument as soon as all of the currently available kids find homes.) But make that decision before the brain kicks in.

Wow. I've never posted in an abortion topic, I don't think. This should get interesting. Or redundant.

[Dean]

But the judge doesn't say, "Partial birth abortions are hunky dorey, line up girls!" He says:

U.S. District Judge Richard C. Casey in Manhattan said the Supreme Court has made it clear that a law that prohibits the performance of a particular abortion procedure must include an exception to preserve a woman's life and health.

So if the law doesn't allow a doctor to do it, when the doctor thinks it's best for the woman's health, then it's unconstitutional.

[Andrew Mayer]

If this is a procedure done to save the life of the mother it's hard to be against that.

Is pregnancy now a suicide pact?

Once again the hard right shows it's willingness to kill adults.

[Erik]

If this is a procedure done to save the life of the mother it's hard to be against that.

Is pregnancy now a suicide pact?

Once again the hard right shows it's willingness to kill adults.

In 1997, Clinton vetoed HR 1122, which would have restricted partial birth abortions to only those cases in which the mother's life was in danger.

Once again the hard left shows its willingness to kill babies - traditionally much, much worse than killing adults.

[russellmz00]

that's an interesting dilemma you bring up. if i had a wife dying from a bad childbirth, i'd choose to save the wife rather than the kid.

[Andrew Mayer]

But the point is this: They created a law that they knew would get overturned expressly to keep it out there as a political issue and fire up their base.

[Anders Hallin]

It's a bit weak that people go along with banning a certain type of abortion because it's unsettling to the stomach. You're still terminating a fetus, it doesn't matter much how you do it. Of course, it's a good tactic to implant the thought in the minds of the people that unborn fetuses should be handled with the highest degree of respect. Why? Because they're unborn babies. It's immoral to kill unborn babies!
Goodbye Roe vs. Wade, we hardly knew ye.

[DennyA]

Anders,

If you have a kid someday and really look at the development across each trimester, you'll better understand why something that seems acceptable early on can be abhorrent as late in pregnancy as when this type of abortion is performed, when the fetus is actually reacting to stimulus from the mother, and even reactive to sounds external to the womb.

A first-trimester fetus is a "potential" baby. Get mid-way into the second and you've got a living person in there. A stupid one that's still "on life support," but it's a thinking, feeling creature at that point. Remember, some preemies are now surviving from the 21 or 22 week point.

I remain pro-choice. But after watching my son's development in the womb, I now think that choice should be made in the first three months. The intact dilation/extraction procedure takes place after 16 weeks -- that is just too far in the development, particularly if it's after 20 weeks. Some of us object to this procedure for reasons that have nothing to do with "unsettling."

It should be an option if the mother's health is in danger, or if trisomy or some other extreme genetic defect is detected late. Not just because the parent doesn't want a baby.

[Brad Grenz]

What are the situations where a partial birth abortion are in the health and safety interests of the mother? I heard on NPR today that bringing a pregnancy to term and having a natural birth or C section is statistically safer for the mother than undergoing the partial birth abortion procedure. But they could have been quoting a psycho.

[Erik]

But the point is this: They created a law that they knew would get overturned expressly to keep it out there as a political issue and fire up their base.

And Clinton refused to sign a compromise bill with wide popular support in order to appease his hardcore base.

[Doug Erickson]

What Denny said. when you see your child via ultrasound in the second trimester, it becomes REALLY hard to support late-term abortions.

I'm still pro-choice from a libertarian perspective, but it should NEVER be treated as a cavalier decision.

[Anders Hallin]

But then it's about killing an unborn baby humanely. And that's likely to pass muster after a few years. It seems the only workable way is to see a fetus as a potential baby for as long as the carrier does it. And as such, it's a surgical problem and should be treated as such.

[Andrew Mayer]

I'm still pro-choice from a libertarian perspective, but it should NEVER be treated as a cavalier decision.

It's a good point.

The end all be all for me is that I want people to have options. You can scream about saving the babies all you want, but while the extremists who are trying to define the debate we'll continue having to use Frankenstein as our political and biological text book.

[Euri]

This is a non-issue, the Republicans are turning it into an issue with their stupid law.

The fact is, ID&E are *EXTREMELY* rare. I want to say less than one half of one percent of all abortions.

They only happen when:

The fetus is dead.
The mothers life is in immediate danger.
The fetus is so malformed that it will never be conscious and will probably die soon after being delivered anyway.
The continued pregnancy would pose a significant risk to the mother.


The thing is, these happen very, very, very rarely. Usually for the reasons listed above. I would *fully* support a ban on those "partial births" that are done in the second trimester and onward for the singular reason that the woman no longer wants to be pregnant.

But, again, this isn't a real issue. They don't happen very much, and when they do it's for the reasons listed above. Take a step back and breathe, folks.

Edit-

Also, just like the Republicans have done with the "Kerry voted against giving our troops equipment!!!!" They lie and spin when it suits them.

HR1122 would have stripped women of their choice of a SAFE method of abortion. The bill would require OTHER METHODS be used BEFORE this one if her life was in immediate danger.

Here (http://archive.aclu.org/congress/l051397a.html) is what the ACLU said about the bill. I belive Clinton vetoed for similar reasons, though I am having trouble finding the text accompanying his Veto, so I'm working from memory.

[Erik]

They don't happen very much, and when they do it's for the reasons listed above. Take a step back and breathe, folks.

I'm not 100% sure about that. Kansas is one of the few states that requires abortion providers to file detailed information about procedures they've performed, including specific data about partial birth abortions.

Here's the 1999 report:

http://www.kdhe.state.ks.us/hci/99itop1.pdf

The relevant numbers:

Number of partial birth procedures: 182

For terminations where partial birth procedure was performed, was fetus viable: No (0) / Yes (182)

Was the abortion necessary to: Prevent patient death (0) / Prevent substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function (182)

If the abortion was necessary to prevent substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function, was the impairment: Physical (0) / Mental (182)

182 partial birth abortions on viable fetuses where the threat to the mother was purely "Mental".

[Erik]

Here is what the ACLU said about the bill. I belive Clinton vetoed for similar reasons, though I am having trouble finding the text accompanying his Veto, so I'm working from memory.

The ACLU may have objected to it, but the AMA - an organization of actual doctors rather than civil rights activists - approved of it. Here is the text of their letter:

May 19, 1997

The Honorable Rick Santorum
United States Senate
120 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510


Dear Senator Santorum:

The American Medical Association (AMA) is writing to support HR 1122, "The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997," as amended. Although our general policy is to oppose legislation criminalizing medical practice or procedure, the AMA has supported such legislation where the procedure was narrowly defined and not medically indicated. HR 1122 now meets both those tests.

Our support of this legislation is based on three specific principles. First, the bill would allow a legitimate exception where the life of the mother was endangered, thereby preserving the physician's judgment to take any medically necessary steps to save the life of the mother. Second, the bill would clearly define the prohibited procedure so that it is clear on the face of the legislation what act is to be banned. Finally, the bill would give any accused physician the right to have his or her conduct reviewed by the State Medical Board before a criminal trial commenced. In this manner, the bill would provide a formal role for valuable medical peer determination in any enforcement proceeding.

The AMA believes that with these changes, physicians will be on notice as to the exact nature of the prohibited conduct.

Thank you for the opportunity to work with you towards restricting a procedure we all agree is not good medicine.

Sincerely,


P. John Seward, MD
Executive Vice President
American Medical Association

[Euri]

And how many of those 182 were extremely malformed? I don't know, so I'm asking you.

Also trying to hunt down Clintons exact reasons for Veto.

[Euri]

Wait wait wait. Those statistics look tricksy to me. Why are there SO MANY out of staters compared to people from Kansas?

I mean 7 people in state, 175 out of state. Is Kansas surrounded by states that have already had state level legislation against it or what?


The mental functioning statistic also looks tricksy. I want to know the reasons. To me, a person that is not a physician, that looks like doctorspeak for "the child is going to be severely retarded and severely malformed therefore it will nearly destroy this persons life."

Edit-

In the more comprehensive statistics, Missouri sticks out.

[Brad Grenz]

The mental functioning statistic also looks tricksy. I want to know the reasons. To me, a person that is not a physician, that looks like doctorspeak for "the child is going to be severely retarded and severely malformed therefore it will nearly destroy this persons life."

Not the way I read it. It sounds to me like those statistics are talking about the mother, not the fetus. Mental retardation is a physical malady. Sounds to me like 182 women decided a baby would cramp mommy's style...

[Ben]

That's not what Euri was saying, I don't think. The mental strain of having a seriously disabled child.

[Brad Grenz]

Ah, that would make sense. You really could use more details in those stats.