White House to Enforce Abortion-Fetus Law

[Cerridwen]

By KEVIN FREKING, Associated Press Writer
Friday, April 22, 2005


(04-22) 21:47 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --

The Bush administration said Friday that it would enforce a nearly 3-year-old federal law that requires doctors to attempt to keep alive a fetus that survives an abortion.

In making the announcement, the Department of Health and Human Services Department said it was an attempt to educate the public about the little-known law. Officials said they didn't know how often a fetus survives an abortion and would not say whether there have been any complaints about a lack of enforcement.

"As a matter of law and policy, the (department) will investigate all circumstances where individuals and entities are reported to be withholding medical care from an infant born alive in potential violation of federal statutes for which we are responsible," HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt said in a statement.

"We will also take proactive steps to educate state officials, health care providers, hospitals and child protection agencies about their obligation to born-alive infants under federal law," Leavitt said.

<snip>

http://tinyurl.com/7v5ky

[notadmblnd]

1. they can start with that 6 month old baby

they just murdered in Texas lst month.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. since most abortions

take place during the first trimester, how many of those fetuses would be able to survive on their own?

[Warpy]

3. They don't care

They want every fetus the size and shape of a cashew nut to be autopsied to determine whether or not it survived for a nanosecond outside the womb.

It's just a way of driving up the cost.

Assholes.

[uppityperson]

4. This is an emotional non-issue, and my experiences re abortions

This is a non-issue with highly emotional overtones to fire people up. Repeat this over and over to anyone who wants to talk with you about this.

I never saw anything that was of any size or shape to survive an abortion in my nursing career or of my friends/acquaintences experiences. Only person I know that had a mid-term abortion had been scheduled for a 1st trimester and the anti-choice people got to her first. As she had a conscience and mixed feelings about abortion (hey, a real person!) she dithered and waited and thought and struggled more with everything and finally figured there was no way she could have another baby. So she had a mid-term abortion which was hell, emotionally and physically (I am not saying that abortions should be the emotionally or physically of a sneeze, but there are levels). She talked with me a while later and her experience firmed up my conviction further that early abortions should be legal and accessable and that people are complicated.

Anyway, this is like that stupid partial-birth bs a couple yrs ago. It just hardly ever happens and the reason it happens is because of health care issues, or the woman was not able to get adequate health care, or do it at home or in the back alley abortions. It is a non-issue with highly emotional overtones to fire people up. Repeat this over and over to anyone who wants to talk with you about this.

[Cerridwen]

5. From the article

"The Born-Alive Infant Protection Act of 2002 amends the legal definitions of "person,""human being,""child" and "individual" to include any fetus that survives an abortion procedure.

Those who meet the definition of "individual" are entitled to certain protections under federal law. In particular, hospitals can't refuse to treat them."

emphasis mine

I didn't include the above paragraphs as I presumed folks would see in the article what I saw - amending the legal definition to include fetuses. My bad.

I don't trust our legal system to refrain from using said amended definition in a way which further impinges on girls' and women's rights to our own bodies, and by extension, all persons' rights to be secure in our own bodies.

I don't consider any legislation, especially legislation which would define what is legally to be defined as human, individual, person, child, etc., to be a non-issue given the propensity of factions within our legal and political arenas to turn non-issues into tools to further control what I may do to/with my own body; whether that control is with whom I may/may not have sex, take/not take drugs, bear children or not, and so on and so forth. In short, is my body mine, or is it property of "the state?"

[uppityperson]

7. This is the worst part, changing definitions

If you change a definition, the whole thing changes. I don't trust any of this legistlation either, as you say. I guess my response was regarding the bushites enforcement of keeping fetuses alive that survive abortion, and to counter what we will be hearing from the common folk, that it is good to keep fetus born alive alive. I work around some of these people who think with their emotions and you can counter with intellect, but intellect doesn't override those emotions. So I counter with simple stuff: born alive fetus doesn't happen, there are already laws to protect infants, etc. Like the article says "Officials said they didn't know how often a fetus survives an abortion". This part is a non-issue.

Born Alive Infant Protection act, b.s. I thought there were already laws keeping infants alive, and this does seem like one which is for the purpose of expanding definitions. The language chance it very worrying as they inch and creep along and next thing you know, you have no rights. Every sperm is sacred. Or is that only eggs?

[TaleWgnDg]

6. NARAL didn't oppose this bill (now law) b/c . . .

.
1.) http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/04/22/national/w153929D17.DTL">NARAL didn't oppose this bill (now law) b/c . . . it didn't and doesn't impede a woman's right to an abortion.

2.) A fetus is not "person" unless fully born alive. If a person then state(s) and federal constitutions grants all the rights and privileges as any other "natural person."

Thus, this new law doesn't change existing law other than subject potential extra burdens on M.D.s and hospitals re recordkeeping and investigations which, in turn, may kick-in potential CYA actions on the part on M.D.s and hospitals.

[Cerridwen]

8. See post #5 - it's about changing definitions n/t

[TaleWgnDg]

9. I shall try this one more time . . .

As I said in my (above) post:

1.) NARAL didn't oppose this bill (now law) b/c . . . it didn't and doesn't impede a woman's right to an abortion.

2.) A fetus is not "person" unless fully born alive. If a person then state(s) and federal constitutions grants all the rights and privileges as any other "natural person."

Thus, this new law doesn't change existing law other than subject potential extra burdens on M.D.s and hospitals re record keeping and investigations which, in turn, may kick-in potential CYA actions on the part on M.D.s and hospitals.

_______________________________________________

All of the above is correct, in law. However, I shall try to break it down further:

National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) didn't object to this bill as it was going through congress because it does not interfere with a woman's right to an abortion. Therefore, a woman may still obtain an abortion as if this law does not exist.

So what impact does this law have? This law attempts to force hospitals, clinics, and M.D.s (who do obstetrics and gynecological services including abortions) to perform certain acts if there is a "being" (call it what you will) which is "born alive" during their performance of service of obstetrics, gynecology including abortion services.

The new law then goes on to define what is "born alive:"

"the term `born alive'. . . means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion" (italicized and red colored emphasis by TaleWgnDg)
(1 U.S.C. 1, § 8 in pertinent part)
(http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:5:./temp/~c107qihdTR:: Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate, H.R. 2175) and http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/1/chapters/1/sections/section_8.html (1 U.S.C. 1, § 8)

This is the only part of the law that is new. The "born alive" part of this law then states it attaches to all other federal laws where the word "person" "individual" "child" or "human being" is used.

What does that mean? It means that if during an abortion or other obstetrical "delivery" services a "born alive" (as defined above) occurs then healthcare providers, hospitals, clinics, or M.D.s must use all medical means necessary to sustain the "alive" status of that "born alive" being.

What effect will it have? Nothing to the mother, other than she may have to sustain the burden of having a vegetative state "born alive" being as will the healthcare providers, hospitals, clinics and M.D.s who perform obstetrical, gynecological and abortion services.

In other words, it's like Warpy said above in her post: it will cost more money. And as I said in my above post: this new law doesn't change existing law other than subject potential extra burdens on M.D.s and hospitals re record keeping and investigations which, in turn, may kick-in potential CYA (cover your ass) actions on the part on M.D.s and hospitals.

After all, as you indicated the rightwingnutcases will try ANYthing in order to stop all abortions. BTW, this "vegetative state" sound similar to Terri Schiavo? It should, because it is.