Bush signs bill, sentences thousands of pregnant mothers to death.

[Ready4Change]

That's another way of looking at this. Most doctors agree that partial birth abortions are a rare procedure used only when the mothers life is at risk. So, if you deny the use of this procedure, by definition you directly endanger the mothers life.

Out of the estimated 27,000 partial birth abortion type scenarios next year, how many mothers will die due to the denial of this procedure? And when those mothers die, how many of their fetuses will survive? How many already born children will be deprived of their mothers?

[SodoffBush]

1. Bush looks at it as fewer votes he has to worry about

[onebigbadwulf]

2. as far as I knew

3rd term abortions were already illegal except in cases of risking the mother's health.

This bill was just a sheer slap in the face of freedom and democracy.

[baby_bear]

4. States may institute bans after fetal viability.

In Roe v. Wade,before which 2/3 of the states had laws outlawing abortion, the Court held that a woman has the right to choose abortion until fetal viability, but that the state’s interest
generally outweighs the woman’s right after that point. After viability, states may ban any abortion not necessary to preserve a woman’s life or health. Forty-one states and D.C. have laws addressing abortion after viability.

So, there are a couple of issues, at least, here that can be taken up in a challenge: whether the federal government can do this, rather than the states; and whether (if the former is deemed ok), then the issue whether the new law adequately provides for consideration of (and exceptions for) the woman's life or health.

s_m

on edit: Another issue for the Court would be whether the law properly respects the "viability" requirement in Roe v. Wade. My understanding is that the procedures covered by the law may be used after 14 weeks gestation.

[WindRavenX]

10. Yes, you are correct

Roe V Wade makes that so.
This new bill is just erroding women's right to reproductive freedom, nothing more than that.

[onehandle]

3. SCOTUS will shoot it down....

This is about politics, not abortion. Part of Bush '04.

[radwriter0555]

5. 27,000? Where's that number from?

Out of curiousity please....

[Ready4Change]

8. Fox News

I was watching after Bush signed the bill. They had a guy discussing it, promoting the pro-life viewpoint and he claimed there were over a million abortions performed in the US in a year, of which 27,000 were partial birth abortions. Unfortunately I don't recall his name nor what organization he was representing.

[w4rma]

6. American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Press Release

For Release: October 3, 2003
Contact: ACOG Office of Communications
[e-mail]

Statement on So-Called "Partial Birth Abortion" Law
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

Washington, DC -- The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) continues to oppose so-called "partial birth abortion" laws, including the conference committee bill approved by the US House of Representatives yesterday and sent to the US Senate. "Partial birth abortion" is a non-medical term apparently referring to a particular abortion procedure known as intact dilatation and extraction (intact D&X, or D&X), a rare variant of a more common midterm abortion procedure know as dilatation and evacuation (D&E).

In 2000, the US Supreme Court struck down a Nebraska "partial birth abortion" law in the case of Stenberg v. Carhart, ruling that the law violated the US Constitution by (1) failing to provide any exception "for the preservation of the health of the mother," and (2) being so broadly written that it could prohibit other types of abortion procedures such as D&E, thereby "unduly burdening a women's ability to choose abortion itself." The bill now before the Senate, which its supporters claim can meet any constitutional test, blatantly disregards the two-pronged test the Supreme Court carefully established in Stenberg.

As noted in a 1997 ACOG Statement of Policy, reaffirmed in 2000, and in ACOG's amicus curiae brief filed in the Stenberg case, ACOG continues to object to legislators taking any action that would supersede the medical judgment of a trained physician, in consultation with a patient, as to what is the safest and most appropriate medical procedure for that particular patient.

ACOG's Statement of Policy explains why ACOG believes such legislation to be "inappropriate, ill advised, and dangerous." The policy statement notes that although a select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which intact D&X would be the only option to protect the life or health of a woman, intact D&X "may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances, can make this decision (emphasis added)."

The Statement of Policy further reads that such legislation has the potential to outlaw other abortion techniques that are critical to the lives and health of American women. This was the second basis upon which the Supreme Court struck down the Nebraska law in the Stenberg case. The Court will invariably strike down laws that are overly broad or imprecisely drawn. Bills that frequently using terms -- such as "partial birth abortion" -- that are not recognized by the very constituency (physicians) whose conduct the law would criminalize, and that purport to address a single procedure yet describe elements of other procedures used in obstetrics and gynecology would not meet the Court's test.

In this case, the bill before the Senate fails to respect the Stenberg test because bill supporters flagrantly refuse to include an exception for the health of a woman. Instead, legislators try to circumvent the Court's requirements by issuing their own opinion to the nation's physicians and patients that such a procedure is never needed to protect a woman's health -- notwithstanding opposing opinions from the medical community.

The medical misinformation currently circulating in political discussions of abortion procedures only reinforces ACOG's position: in the individual circumstances of each particular medical case, the patient and physician -- not legislators -- are the appropriate parties to determine the best method of treatment.

# # #
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) is the national medical organization representing 45,000 members who provide health care for women.

http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/press_releases/nr10-03-03.cfm
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=569189

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[soleft]

9. Look at these stupid white men

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/031105/480/pmm10911051943

[sandnsea]

11. Well finally

For heaven's sake, call it a D&X. That's the first step. I wish we would have told the truth on D&X instead of using the spiraling into a ban on all abortions approach. I think the Democratic Party loses too often because we use political maneuvers instead of just telling the damn truth. This is a sad day and too many just don't even get it. Thanks for your post.