"Late-Term Abortion" -- Let's get our facts straight

[Sparkly]

I've seen suggestions lately that we "compromise" on "late-term abortion," and even an article in Newsweek (IIRC) saying Democrats might be willing to consider some restrictions on "late-term abortion."

There already ARE restrictions. Abortion past viability is already illegal in most states, as allowed by federal law, making most "late-term abortions" outlawed as it is. No Democrats that I know of have sought legislation allowing abortion in the ninth month without medical reason.

88% of abortions do take place in the first trimester:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/library/factsheets.htm#01Abortion

Individual states have their own restrictions on abortion. You can look up your state's laws here:
http://www.naral.org/yourstate/whodecides/index.cfm

[blackangrydem]

1. Kerry took a major hit for his vote vs late term abortion bill

Recent events such as the Peterson case and today's news of the fetus removed from the belly of the murdered woman in MO illuminate this even more in the minds of the electorate.

[janx]

4. How did he vote?

I haven't heard anything about this.

[JI7]

33. he voted against banning it

[blackangrydem]

86. It came up in the second debate, I believe.

[MemphisTiger]

2. I thought late term abortion was classified in

the last trimester not just the last month. Maybe the compromise is on the federal level. All the repubs have to do is include a provision for the "LIFE" of the mother. So it's one funeral instead of two. The repubs also don't believe that the life of the mother will ever occur. It must be nice to have a crystal ball to predict that. So, if it will never occur it will never be used; therefore they should have no problem including it since it never occurs. Thereby ending late term abortion.

[Sparkly]

5. I don't know if there's a clear definition

I think that's part of the confusion. There's a struggle on the definition of "viability" though (by doctors' determination vs. by strict gestational age).

You make a good point about "If it never happens, what are you worried about?"

[sandnsea]

24. life & health

Does the mother have to literally be dying in order to have a late term abortion? I think late term is anything after 3-4 months, when different procedures have to be used. Does her health count, she has some unknown condition discovered in her pregnancy and ought to terminate so she doesn't end up at death's door?

[madfloridian]

3. More on this topic.

Dean said this throughout the campaign. It makes him furious how they are using it.

Partial birth abortion ok to protect the mother
SNIP.."The notion of "partial birth abortion" is nonsense. This is a rare procedure used only to save the life or health of the mother. We have had no third trimester abortions in Vermont in the past four years..."
Source: Campaign web site, DeanForAmerica.com, "On the Issues" Nov 30, 2002

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Howard_Dean_Abortion.htm

It is already illegal and has been. They are using it as a wedge issue.

[janx]

6. Right. The fundies came up with the term "partial birth abortion"--

there is no such medical term.

Likewise, they're using the term "hysterotomy" to define some kind of sick, fantastic form of abortion that they're peddling now. The term hysterotomy does exist, but it defines the incision M.D.s use to get to the uterus. So those of us who have had ceasarian sections and hysterectomies have all experienced hysterotomies.

[Sparkly]

9. You're ahead of me

I hadn't heard of the "hysterotomy" thing. Good grief!!

[janx]

12. It's a relatively new one.

According to the fundies, the baby is lifted out of the uterus and drowned in a bucket of water.

(I teach college writing. You wouldn't believe some of the things I've seen lately.)

[Sparkly]

14. OmiGAWD!!

:crazy:

[janx]

17. That's what I said.

It was featured in the paper as a modern abortion procedure. I had to get a drink before I finished grading that one...

[Solon]

31. OK, that means that I was "aborted"....

You know what, after all these years, I didn't know I didn't exist, born from a C-Section and all. Oh shit, there I go...*POOF!!*

[yellowdogintexas]

52. Hysterotomy is also used for the simple excision of fibroid tumors

to avoid hysterectomy in a woman who wants to preserve her fertility.

Incision into the muscle of the uterus itself.

[MemphisTiger]

7. Their argument is that Life of the mother is interpreted

by these librul doctors as "quality of life" of the mother. Thats their whole argument. I wish I was making this up. They think that if the child will inconvenience the mother that the doctor will just whip out the old vacuum and scalpel and have her out of there before lunch.

[Sparkly]

8. That was REALLY crazy

And the media would have one opinionated man after another going on and on about this horrible "procedure" with NObody challenging them about what it means, what they're referring to, when it happens, etc... Once I even saw Dick Armey ranting about it for what seemed like an hour -- makes me scream!!

[snippy]

10. The medical point of view.

I don't see how anyone can reasonably disagree with this.

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 known 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 use 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.

http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/press_releases/nr10-03-03.cfm




Neither the president nor the Congress should practice medicine.

[Sparkly]

11. The sight of that bunch of sanctimonious white men

grinning over that bill made me sick. (Your photoshop edit is right on.)

[snippy]

15. Me too. Not my edit though. It was posted on DU and I just saved it. n/t

[sandnsea]

26. D&X, D&E

The stupid part is that a late term D&E chops the fetus up inside the woman before it's removed. It's beyond me how that's a more humane choice than the D&X. We've taken these kinds of measures because of complications in pregnancy since doctors knew how. This is an entirely made up issue that completely disrespects women.

[MrUnderhill]

13. If they are ALREADY illegal... why sacrifice political capital

in a losing fight?

[Sparkly]

19. To keep them from eroding the laws any further.

The point is, there's no need to "compromise" by "limiting late term abortion," an idea that sounds very mild and reasonable -- but apparently there's a need to make it clear that it's already limited.

I think the rightwing scheme involves redefining "late term," redefining "viability," and establishing a new "unborn victims of violence" law to give citizenship to the fetus (following which abortion becomes murder under the law).

[MrUnderhill]

21. That's how THEY lose these arguments.

Why make the same mistake?

Gun control is a losing issue for us. But reasonable intermediate steps (trigger locks, waiting periods, "assault weapon" bans, etc.) still win public support. And by fighting against us on THOSE issues, WE look like the reasonable one.

Similarly, but NOT calling for a ban on all abortions... but by placing reasonable restrictions that the VAST majority support... they marginalize US and keep us from being able to fight effectively.

It's the desire to give up NO GROUND AT ALL that loses battles and wars.

[Nederland]

56. Good Post

Precisely the point I tried to express in post #55 below.

[MrUnderhill]

58. Well.... all I can say is...

#21 comes before #55... so if you're thinking of suing me for copyright infringement... fogedaboudid.

:hi:

[Nederland]

20. Answer

Because just like the Republicans, the Democrats are captive to the extremists on the aboriion issue. They just happen to be the extremists on the other side...

[gumby]

28. This 'both sides' argument is not only inaccurate,

it smears Democrats. "Both sides" are NOT equally extreme. By claiming that they are, you reduce the rights' extremism to a valid point of view. After all, it's just the "other side." Then the "other side" argument puts Democrats into the same category that blows up clinics and kills doctors.

Republicans are very clear on their public policy. They are working to make all abortions unlawful under any conditions. There is NO equivalent extremist public policy put forward by Democrats.

Your interpretation of what someone posts on a board does NOT necessarily represent "Democrats," and certainly not Democratic public policy.

The "other side" argument is one of the rights' stalwarts. It's OK that Bush stole the election because both sides do it. It's OK for Rush Limbaugh to spout hate and lies day after day because he's just the other side to Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings.

[Nederland]

29. Disagree

You say that both sides are not equally extreme. I suppose this is true, if you are saying that the Democrats are more extreme than the Republicans one this issue. For example it is the Democrats, not the Republicans, who refuse to let people that disagree with the official party stance to speak at their convention. It is the Democrats, not the Republicans, who stifle dissent on the issue.

[Solon]

30. It is the pro lifers who blow up clinics...

really, this is getting more ridiculous. It is the Republicans who take an anti woman/anti health stance on this issue.

[Nederland]

40. You are correct

It is the Republicans who take an anti woman/anti health stance on this issue.

But you completely missing my point.

My point is that there are politically two sides to this issue: pro-life and pro-choice. Democrats are firmly in the pro-choice camp and don't tolerate any dissent on the issue. Republicans are more tolerant of politicians that don't stick to the party line on this issue. The reason is obvious: a majority of American want abortion to remain legal in some circumstances. If Republicans complete shut out the pro-choice wing, they would lose valuable personalities and a large chunk of voters.

[Yupster]

84. I agree that most people are

somewhere in the middle on the abortion issue.

The extremes on both parties just lose votes.

I have read many discussions on DU where many posters have argued that abortion should be legal for any woman at any time for any reason by any method. That is an extreme position that has very little national support.

Same would go for the other side which says to ban all abortions regardless of age, health or viability.

Just as extreme a position which again has little national support.

[gumby]

35. The 1992 Casey canard?

Lessee, faulty facts about a speech are now the definition of "extremism" which is the comparable equivalent of violence at health clinics, murdering of doctors and the desire to plunge over half the citizens of this country into unequal status? Yeppers!

edit: check this out - http://mediamatters.org/items/200406250007

[Nederland]

39. No

I was actually talking about the 2004 convention. In 2004, Michael Bloomberg, Rudy Giuliani, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and George Pataki all received prime time speaking slots. What pro-life speakers appeared during prime time for the Democrats? I don't think any did.

[janx]

45. Um...probably because the Democratic party is pro-choice.

And even if one looks at the issue from a purely political standpoint, that's not a bad thing.

[Nederland]

47. Never said it was a bad thing

I only said that is difficult to argue that the Democrats are the ones that tolerate a diversity of opinions on the issue.

[janx]

50. You're right. On that issue, they don't. Thank God. n/t

[Mandate My Ass]

82. Thanks for pointing that out. Dems don't pander on this issue

Nor should they.

Pukes will "allow" pro-choice speakers at crucial times to paint themselves as moderate but their unspoken goal is to undermine choice as much as they can. They legislate anti-choice measures in deceptive packaging like the "partial birth abortion ban" and "Laci and Conner law." If you point out the encroachment on women's right to choose you're "anti-Laci" or a promoter of having "babies brains sucked out."

They also prominently display people of color at their conventions but disenfranchise as many minorities as they can once the cameras have been turned off.

Their alleged tolerance of diversity of opinion is nothing but a ploy to pull off a political bait and switch. There is no middle ground here.

[gumby]

68. Worse than lipstick on a Pig.

Bloomberg, Giuliani, Schwarzenegger and Pataki were used as public relations pawns. Their appearances at the Pub convention demonstrate deliberate deception rather than tolerance or inclusion.

The Pubs remember the last time they let the REAL spokespersons for the Pub agenda speak -- Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan -- so they let the "moderates" be their "public" face.

Purposeful deception does not seem like a useful base for an argument about abortion.

[Nederland]

74. Seemed to work

Call it what you want. They are winning and we are losing. Time to change tactics.

[Crowdance]

97. Who's this "we" of which you speak?

Seems like you mean YOU are losing, time to sacrifice the women.

[rfkrfk]

91. Not already illegal, in all states, at least

Some states do not have any meaningful attempts
at restrictions on abortions.

[madfloridian]

16. "This bill will chill the practice of medicine...."

and endanger the lives of countless women."

From October 2003

http://www.commondreams.org/scriptfiles/views03/1024-07...

SNIP..."Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, a front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, responded to the Senate vote by declaring, "As a physician, I am outraged that the Senate has decided it is qualified to practice medicine. There is no such thing as 'partial birth abortion' in medical literature. But there are times when a doctor is called upon to perform a late-term abortion to save a woman's life or protect her from serious injury. Today the Senate took a step toward making it a crime for a doctor to perform such medically necessary procedures. This bill will chill the practice of medicine and endanger the lives of countless women. This kind of legislation serves the sole purpose of chipping away women's constitutionally protected reproductive rights and overturning Roe v. Wade."

By playing fast and loose with the facts and sticking always to the margins of the abortion debate, Bush and his allies have tried to turn this issue to their advantage politically."END SNIP

Well, the term exists now, Dr. Dean. They just made up the name and got the bill passed.

[Nederland]

18. More Facts

No Democrats that I know of have sought legislation allowing abortion in the ninth month without medical reason.

Although it is true that no Democrat has "sought legislation" allowing abortion in the ninth month without medical reason, there are many Democrats, include many on this board, who hold the opinion that the rule should be abortion on demand until birth.

In particular I'm thinking of CatWoman.

[Solon]

23. The problem is that these laws are so vague in many cases...

that even in the minority of cases that require a late term abortion, for example, if it endangers the health of the mother, or the fetus in question is non viable, that they are FORCED to carry out the birth, to the detriment of the mother. That is what is wrong with trying to legislate it at all. This is not a law issue, it is a medical ethics issue, and it was and countinues to be rare, regardless of the law, so why legislate it at all?

[Nederland]

46. Yes

I would prefer European style laws that determine that legality of abortion based upon the health of the mother and the term of pregnancy. France, for example, bans abortion after the 10th week except in cases where the life the mother is in danger. The seems a little too short for me, but the principle is correct and consistent with the idea expressed in Roe vs. Wade.

[sandnsea]

27. Misinterpretation

A woman and her doctor should make this medical decision, just like people and doctors make every other medical decision there is. The very idea that woman are having abortions for fun in their 8th month of pregnancy is beyond demeaning. There is absolutely no reason for any law about late term abortions because they're always done for medical reasons. I do not want a doctor having to worry about murder charges when making medical decisions for my daughter. If people actually THINK, instead of reacting to the propaganda from the right, they'd see that medical decisions are the right of doctors and patients ONLY.

[Nederland]

32. Misinterpretation

I think you are the one who is misinterpreting things.

People that want to ban third trimester abortions do not believe that women are having late term abortion "for fun". People that want to ban third trimester abortions believe do so because they believe its murder--regardless of a woman's motivation.

[janx]

34. Motivation?

The reason these very rare abortions are done is to save the mother's life. I guess you could call that motivation if it pleases you.

[Nederland]

41. Yes, motivation

The desire to save one's life is a very string motivation. What's your point?

[sandnsea]

36. So she should just die?

Great solution. If you were standing in front of me I could say what I think of that. On this board, I'd get banned.

[Nederland]

43. Never suggested that (nt)

[sandnsea]

48. Yes you did

Because if you don't understand that abortion on demand in the last trimester is to save the woman's life or her health, and you give credence to the nutjobs who want to outlaw it, then you're saying women should just die. Even the Catholic Church allows abortion if a woman is dying. I don't know anybody who is against abortion if a woman is dying. There is really no legitimate debate regarding late term abortions. The right MADE IT UP, they pretend women are having these abortions as just another life option. It's not true. People need to stop perpetuating that idiotic idea and start talking about the medical facts. The right to make your own medical decisions seems to me to be pretty fundamental.

[Nederland]

49. Where exactly did I say that?

Give me the sentence and post you are talking about.

[sandnsea]

79. Don't pretend

"IMHO, this is a classic example of Democrats being controlled by an extremist minority and eventually screwing themselves and women in the process. We need to start getting smart on this issue or we will lose the whole ball game."

You don't understand late-term abortion. You have bought into the bogus notion that women are having them for no reason at all. Since women have them for life and health reasons only, there's no reason to make a law against them. Medical decisions should stay in the hands of doctors and patients. It's that simple. There's nothing extreme about it at all.

[Solon]

37. Actually many pro lifers believe both are true in some cases...

but the problem is putting a value on a person's life base on a arbritary value. As in any medical situation, there are odds, and the Law should be neutral in this. Doctors are the best qualified to determine what is the best medical treatment, even in this case. If the woman will die or be crippled if she brought the fetus to term, why should the Government step in to stop a medical procedure? Doesn't that lower her life's value to nothing more than property of the state, and if not, why not?

[Bridget Burke]

38. People who want to ban abortions think they are all murder.

Rape? It's the woman's fault.

[Nederland]

44. True

There is a segment of the pro-life crowd that thinks that way. A very small segment, but one that exists.

[MrUnderhill]

51. That's an exaggeration

It's simply untrue to claim that those procedures are ALWAYS performed for medical reasons. In fact, there have been good medical arguments made that they ("they" in this case are the "partial birth" abortions) are almost NEVER done for medical reasons - unless you expand "medical reasons" to include "I'm going to be very depressed if we don't do this".

If you think about how the procedure is performed, there are almost no physical health dangers where this is preferable to the birth - though I could imagine one or two, they would be incredibly rare. It may be the easiest procedure (for the doctor) at that point... but hardly the safest, and certainly no safer than delivery. I mean... we're talking about a breech delivery here.

[sandnsea]

76. You're wrong

Here, scroll down and READ. You just don't know what you're talking about.

http://www.lifeandlibertyforwomen.org/issues/issues_partial_birth_abortions.html

[MrUnderhill]

83. Well, it wouldn't be the first time...

... but I don't think so. I've read this one before (as well as the testimony before congress of doctors who have performed hundreds of these procedures) and the article is not compelling. They want to pretend that late-term abortions simple don't really take place. This is untrue. They want to pretend that all of these pregnancies are "wanted children" and nobody would EVER make up their mind to end the pregnancy at eight months. Again - untrue... and many in our party (and on this board) defend her right to do so for ANY reason.

Their math is also poor. They take 12% of 1.2 Million and say that it is 14,000 ended pregnancies after the first trimester - that's off by a factor of 10:1

Please describe a medical condition that would require this specific procedure at just before full term? One where the delivery of the fetus would not be less damaging to the woman's physical health. There's a different argument between whether an abortion is called for AT ALL and whether THIS PROCEDURE is the one that must be done. The procedure is what has overwhelming opposition from all areas of society. The evidence for this is the large number of Pro Choice Democratic legislators (and those of us on this board) who are willing to go against what seems to be the pro choice position to ban this procedure. You can think whatever you want of me, but these politicians KNOW how to stick their finger in the wind and tell which way it blows (it's what they are BEST at).

Understand that I don't mean this to be personal... as you said it's a very small number of situations. I'm addressing this 99% from the POLITICAL side. What increases our chances of regaining and sustaining a national majority.

[sandnsea]

87. The article did

A condition where the fetus's head grows to unbelievable proportions. You don't want to know. I don't know why, but you just prefer your partial-birth, mama's killin' her babies, lalaland. You could help though, somebody like you could help the rest of us Democrats understand the mentality that ignores facts when they're put in their face.

Oh, and we've got the removal and needle in the back of the neck; or chopping up the fetus and pulling it out limb by limb, then crushing the head and pulling it out. Yeah, women are lining up for that.

[Cheswick2.0]

94. hydrocefali...... the vast majority of reasons for late term abortions

unless you think women should labor to give birth to a head larger than a basketball.

[Baconfoot]

88. hands out citation for making stuff up as per section 2348 of plan 9 NT

[July]

98. Pregnancy is riskier to women's health than abortion. nt

[Cheswick2.0]

93. Abortion on demand?

WTF is that?

[On the Road]

22. That's a Good Site

I spent some time looking through some of the link and learned some things.

One thing I really wish Planned Parenthood would do to publicize the information on how slowly the feuts develops, and how anti-abortion data is often widly inaccurate. Like this:

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/abortion/silentscream.HTM

The key argument for the anti-abortion folks is that the fetus is a human being. If you believe that, it's hard to support legal abortion.

I myself had heard that electrical activity in the brain begins at 10-12 weeks, and that that was a resonable point to define life. Turns out it's not true at all, and that the line could reasonably be drawn closer to the end of the second trimester.

Many people still think abortions kill viable human beings. Planned Parenthood is stuck in the rhetoric of a right to choose and usually avoids the issue of whether the fetus is human. Too bad -- the facts are all on their side.

[mrgorth]

67. This is bullshit

My wife does ultrasound for a living and 10 weeks is much more realistic. This is why we lose credibility.

[On the Road]

72. Look at What They Say on That Link

The ability to move is not the key. Even individual cells in a petri dish move.

It's the development of the nervous system and the brain. Whatever activity takes place at ten weeks, there's no cerebrum there. In my mind, a fetus can't qualify as human without a developed brain, which is closer to the end of the second trimester rather that the first.

I realize Planned Parenthood is a partisan organization. It's very difficult to find dispassionate information sources. But it made me realize that what I had heard in the past came from anti-abortion literature.

I agree with the anti-abortion crowd that the status of the fetus should be the primary factor in evaluating abortions rather than survivability outside the womb. I don't necessarily agree with the conclusion they reach.

[countryjake]

25. Give them an inch...

and they have taken it all! Even implying that abortion is some moral issue, at all, is caving into the whims of the right. Supposed liberals who spout that abortion should be "legal but rare" are, themselves, turning this into something moral, rather than a civil right, due to women of child-bearing age, that should be provided & made available to all strata of our society. Putting a condition on abortion makes it seem like some "evil" practice rather than a medical procedure, & compromising on late-term ones is acknowledging some nonexistent barbarity.

[Nederland]

57. Ridiculous

That's the argument the NRA uses for gun control.

"We have to fight against trigger locks because the next thing you know they will be repealing the 2nd amendment."

Its a bullshit argument in both cases.

[countryjake]

89. Fighting for women's liberation...

is not about making the Democratic party look good or garnering votes for some win in a bogus election or propping up a slew of politicos who have fallen for the scam which the PBABA laws represent.

At the mere mention of the word "fetus" in the prez's little law, last year Ashcroft & his lackeys (ie. the federal police!) called upon the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department to begin the attack upon all abortion providers, doctors, clinics, support organizations, & women who have sought the procedure in the past. This is not some imagined infringment, tho the gun-rights advocates might use it as an example of how swiftly things slide.

The PBABA cultivates the hoax that fetuses are legally "citizens" due rights under the Constitution & worse, their "civil rights" need to be protected by law enforcement from the negligent choices of women & their doctors. It is hype of the most absurd kind & is ONLY intended to eventually portray all abortion as murder.

Giving in to concocted & imaginary rights of the unborn can only succeed in denying women our inherent right to control our bodies & our selves!

[RUDUing2]

42. the best source to use is the Alan Guttmacher Institute..

cause it is trusted by both sides...

http://www.agi-usa.org/index.html (click on abortion)


From their abortion info page:

An Overview of Abortion in the U.S. (2003, presentation tool)

Induced Abortion (US) (2003, fact sheet)

Lessons from Before Roe: Will Past be Prologue? (2003, policy analysis)

State Facts About Abortion (2003, fact sheets)

State-by-State Trends in Abortion in the United States (2003, presentation tool)

Three Decades of Legal Abortion (2003, policy analysis)

Trends in Abortion in the United States, 1973-2000 (2003, presentation tool)

Mifepristone for Early Medical Abortion: Experiences in France, Great Britain and Sweden (2002, research)

State Policies in Brief (2002, fact sheets)

Sharing Responsibility: Women, Society and Abortion Worldwide (1999, special report)

More resources on abortion

[diplomats]

54. I am not a Catholic, but it's my understanding

that the Catholic Church bans abortions for ANY REASON AT ALL! Not even if the mother is dying do they allow an abortion.

[RUDUing2]

61. I am catholic and they do (and they don't)

the wording is a little unclear and a lot of it depends on how you and/or your priest interprets the canon law...

Elective abortions are banned (but even there dissent abounds)..

some priest (and the pope, etc) say this also applies to abortions to save the mothers life...other priest say it doesn't cause the church allows a type of *self defense* loophole...

also the church allows an abortion that is a *side effect* of another procedure...

for instance there is dissent over whether you can have an etopic pregnancy aborted...but you can have the fallopian tube (including the fetus) removed w/no naysaying by the church..

There really is no *one* stance for all catholics...but the so-called *official* stance (but not an infallible declaration) is that all abortion is wrong and that you cant even have one to save the mothers life because the life of the fetus is just as important (whackjob reasoning in my opinion...)...however the majority of american catholics believe that abortion should remain legal even if they are personally opposed to it, and almost all believe that there should be exceptions made for mothers health and life..and if the fetus has severe or incompatible w/life anomalies/defects...

[onenote]

53. an explanation why the federal ban is problematic

Previous decisions striking down "partial birth abortion" laws have criticized the absence of a "health of the mother" exception and have relied on factual findings regarding the medical need for and safety of such procedures in certain situations.

The federal legislation contains a series of very specific "factual findings" that state that the "moral, medical and ethical consensus" is that the practice of performing "partial birth abortions" is "never medically necessary". These findings go on to state that the procedure is "unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother" and, in fact, pose risks to the mother's health and, in some cases, her life. Based on this "finding" that "partial birth abortion" is "never medically indicated to preserve the health of the mother" the legislation declares that there is no constitutional need for a "health" exception.

There are two problems with this: first, the idea that Congress can make this finding takes the issue out of the hands of doctors, which is where it should be determined. I do not believe that that the medical evidence in fact supports the finding. And if the constitution can be subverted just because Congress "finds" that up is down or black is white, well...welcome to 1984, a couple of decades after the fact.

Finally, after blustering on for paragraph after paragraph with respect to the absence of any medical need, ever, for the procedure, the legislation does include an exception where the procedure is "necessary to save the life of the mother" due to a "physical" disorder, illness or injury. Of course, what if its unclear whether the mother will live or die? Is it "necessary". Its one of those things that's easier to know after the fact. For example, what if she's got a condition that's going to kill her, but going through with the pregnancy will kill her sooner, or prevent her from getting life-preserving treatment in a timely fashion.

In short, the problem is that the law pretends medical issues are all yes/no, either/or, life/death, black and white in nature. Ain't so. Never will be. And the fact that Congress wants to pretend otherwise is what's horribly scary.

onenote

[Nederland]

55. Question for All

On edit: fixed link

Were you in favor of the 1995 bill banning late term abortions? This bill banned "partial birth" abortions but contained a section to prevent the woman from being prosecuted and a section that allowed the procedure to be done in cases where the woman's life was in danger.

Here is the complete text:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=104_cong_bills&docid=f:s939pcs.txt

My point is simple: Clinton vetoed this bill--a bill that protected women from prosecution and offered an exception in cases where the woman's life was in danger. As a result, Republicans kept pushing this issue (especially in the South) and under Bush we ended up with a bill that had no exception for the circumstances where a woman's life is at risk. In other words, we are far worse off today than we would have been if Clinton had simply signed the damn thing 8 years ago.

IMHO, this is a classic example of Democrats being controlled by an extremist minority and eventually screwing themselves and women in the process. We need to start getting smart on this issue or we will lose the whole ball game.

[Bridget Burke]

59. No, I wasn't in favor of the bill.

Do you have a list of issues that we should abandon to become more like Republicans?

[Nederland]

63. Its not a question of abandoning issues

Its a question of being smart.

Today woman are more at risk because we played hardball on an issue that had absolutely no popular support. That's dumb.

[onenote]

60. here's an answer

First, here's Clinton's veto message. http://www.pregnantpause.org/lex/partveto.htm

Second, see my previous post.http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1436910&mesg_id=1437334&page=

As the above-referenced post indicates, the problem with the 1995 bill was that it failed to provide an exception where a woman's health (not just her life)was in danger. That's an untenable distinction and, in fact, if Clinton had signed the bill, it probably would've been struck down as unconstitutional (as subsequent, and similar, state laws were). I suppose you could argue that Clinton should've signed it and relied on the court to bail him out, but that's a chickenshit way to govern.

And the current law does contain an exception for the life of the mother. It may be weaker than the one in 1995, but as a practical matter, I doubt there's any real difference.

onenote

[Nederland]

64. Not sure I agree

If you think the 1995 would have been struck down, why do you believe the current one won't?

[onenote]

71. I hope it will

But the issue is whether the Court will give deference to the Congressional findings. Those findings are intended expressly (the statute reads like a freakin' legal brief, not a piece of legislation) to undermine the basis on which the courts previously have struck down laws that otherwise seem pretty similar. Personally, I don't think the court is "compelled" to obey Congressional findings that fly in the face of reality, but I am quite fearful that a majority of this particular court (or, the court we're likely to have during the next four years) will use the Congressional findings as an excuse to distinguish this case from prior cases.

onenote

[RUDUing2]

62. nope, because of the same reason Clinto vetoed this bill..it didn't

make provisions for the health of the mother or the health of the fetus..meaning allowances for severe anecephaly, etc...

[MrUnderhill]

65. I think the difficulty with that distinction is

what constitutes "health". I think a large majority want to make sure that any medically necessary procedure is available... but restrict this particular procedure in every other case. But HOW do you restrict it to physical health rather than mental health? How does one craft language that keeps a doctor from certifying "she'll just flip out if we don't do this... she'll be in a mental ward for life" even though everything is physically fine.

[RUDUing2]

69. as a woman I think mental health is just as important as physical health

that is why it HAS to be left to the doctor and the woman...yes that means that there may be occasions that it is used incorrectly...but that is a risk that must be taken if we believe that woman are sentinent beings that are able to make choices concerning their own bodies and their own health.

For me it comes down to a very simple question.. Are women full members of society or are they lesser members who have to taken care of by society?

[MrUnderhill]

70. I can respect that. But understand

that a large majority of people don't agree with you... and you don't win elections by ticking off large majorities of the people... and when the OTHER side continues to win because of a hard-line position? You lose FAR more.

[Yupster]

85. But if depression is included as health, then

the whole law is meaningless, because what women who is pregnant with a fetus she wants to abort would not be depressed?

It would make the ban meaningless if depression were a health exception.

Why even go through the charade at that point.

[peacebird]

73. Why would you want to limit it to just physical health?

How are any of us to judge what it too much for someone to bear? Mental health can be a tenuous thread for some people, immediately popping to mind are the mothers who snapped with post partum stress and murdered their children. If a woman and her doctor feel that an abortion in the final trimester is needed, far be it from me to say "I know better".
By then a woman has felt the child move. It is not a decision taken lightly by anyone. In most cases it is made because of physical need - either the mother is in grave danger, or the fetus is too damaged/unviable. But in those cases where the doctors and families involved feel that the mothers mental health requires this procedure - I bow to their assessment as they have much greater knowledge of the individual case than I.

[Nederland]

66. Fair enough

However, I think its important to understand that your position is different from the vast majority of Americans. A majority of Americans believe that once the fetus reaches the third term, it has some rights. Yes, if a woman's life is in danger they believe that the woman's rights trump those of the fetus's, but they don't believe that a woman's right to "health" trumps the fetus's right to "life".

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm merely saying that there is a heftly political price we are paying for this type of position.

[Bridget Burke]

75. Google "anencephaly"

Use the "Images" option.

Then, get back to us.

[peacebird]

77. the religious right don't want to trust women with a choice

but they are willing to trust us to raise a child?

and as a woman - it ticks me off to no end that anyone thinks they have the right to tell me that i HAVE to bear a child. Let's just be clear about this - If MEN could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament!

[Nederland]

80. Done

Looks like a horrible disease/condition. Are you prepared to argue the notion that its OK to kill people with horrible diseases?

Again, I'm not trying to convince you that you are wrong on this subject. I'm merely pointing out that by insisting on playing the hard line you are causing woman to be worse off.

[Bridget Burke]

100. Anencephaly is lack of a brain.

It's not a "disease".

Yet you'd force a woman to bring one of these monsters to full term & go through childbirth--when the result is a creature that will not live. If I disagree, I'm "playing the hard line".

[onenote]

78. a political price only if we let the other side define the issue

You are right that the gut feeling of most Americans is that partial birth abortion is something that should rarely be used. But I also think that most would accept the idea that an exception should be made where a mother's life could be endangered without the procedure. And that's where it gets tricky. The right wants it to be basically that you have to do the procedure to "save the life of the mother" -- which suggest an imminent threat to the mother that cannot be avoided through any other means. So, for instance, if a woman develops a medical condition that requires a form treatment that would be harmful to the fetus, is the abortion "necessary to save the woman's life"? That requires a verdict of whether she will survive the condition if treatment is delayed. Could it be argued that she can have the treatment and if the fetus is harmed or even killed, so be it, but the abortion isn't "necessary"? How can you ever tell? What has to be made clear to the public is that its not enough for it to be necessary to "save" the mother, but that it has to, at very least, allows the procedure when a doctor concludes that not doing the procedure will endanger the woman's life...i.e., create a greater risk to her life than would be the case if she didn't have the procedure. THat's different from merely "saving" and its something that I think most folks would agree is an appropriate line.

onenote

[Nederland]

81. I agree that the issue is difficult to define

but the arguement that government should do nothing simply because the issue is "difficult" apparently isn't selling with the public.

[LynnTheDem]

90. Then the "public" needs to be properly informed.

Democrats should stand by their stances on issues.

Or merge with the republican party.

If the majority of Americans think republican "values" are the correct "values" to have, that's their shame, not ours.

If the Democratic Party comes down to 1 person left, that's to the glory of that 1 person.

The American majority were pro-slaves for a very long time, too.

[July]

99. Like some other medical issues, it IS difficult.

That's why the person/people involved and their doctors should be making these difficult decisions about abortion, do not resuscitate orders, life support, right to die, etc. And no-one else.

[Cheswick2.0]

92. When women have abortions for health reasons in late term

it is because the fetus is dead or will die within moments of birth, in which case it is cruel to force the woman to carry it to term.

If people were really educated they would know the reasons why women have late term abortions and we wouldn't have to cater to their ignorance.

[Cheswick2.0]

95. women's health...... n/t

[talk hard]

96. "Late-Term Abortions" are a myth.

I am a medical transcriptionist. I have transcribed surgery reports in California - ya know, ultra kneejerk liberal California - for 30 years. I have NEVER, NOT EVEN ONCE, come across such a procedure. And such a procedure would have to be done in a hospital.

Let's face it kids, it doesn't exist. It's bullshit. It is intended to get all the melodramatic red state folks all riled up thinking about the "widdle babbies."

I refuse to enter into a discussion on this topic for the above reason. It's a red herring and should be exposed and treated as such.