Senate Passes Partial-Birth Abortion Ban

[corplinx]

Don't know where to begin with this. I am pro-privacy so usually I say abortion is an issue between you and your respective deity or lack thereof. However, the partial birth procedure has always struck me as barbaric in an uncivilized way and I am against it.

That said, there are some prickly issues with this:

A. Does anyone actually perform this procedure? Its particularly gruesome and probably is against the hippocratic oath. Is the only time this is performed when the mother's life is in danger and a c-section can't be performed?

B. Women's reproductive "rights". First it was the "right to choose" and now its "reproductive rights". Is there a problem with "privacy rights" ? I think the clever use of words reveals a sly agenda of inventing new rights and ingratiating them in the culture. I have seen two strains of thoughts from activists on this bill. One is that this bill is just a stepping stone for further abortion limits. I find this to be misleading. Who cares? The question is "should it be allowed or not" not "will banning it make people write more bills that won't pass". The second strain of thought I see are from the "reproductive rights" crowd. They see reproduction as a right of course. Don't know where to even begin with that brilliant viewpoint.

Now, I hate generic abortion debates so let's try to keep this one ontopic.

[Skeptical Greg]

Do you have a link to the bill?

It could be a lot of double talk without any teeth...

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Do you have a link to the bill?

It could be a lot of double talk without any teeth...

You have just described 80% of all legislation, with another 10-15% being double talk with too many, and usually hidden, teeth.

NA

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by corplinx
Don't know where to begin with this. I am pro-privacy so usually I say abortion is an issue between you and your respective deity or lack thereof. However, the partial birth procedure has always struck me as barbaric in an uncivilized way and I am against it.

That said, there are some prickly issues with this:

A. Does anyone actually perform this procedure? Its particularly gruesome and probably is against the hippocratic oath. Is the only time this is performed when the mother's life is in danger and a c-section can't be performed?

B. Women's reproductive "rights". First it was the "right to choose" and now its "reproductive rights". Is there a problem with "privacy rights" ? I think the clever use of words reveals a sly agenda of inventing new rights and ingratiating them in the culture. I have seen two strains of thoughts from activists on this bill. One is that this bill is just a stepping stone for further abortion limits. I find this to be misleading. Who cares? The question is "should it be allowed or not" not "will banning it make people write more bills that won't pass". The second strain of thought I see are from the "reproductive rights" crowd. They see reproduction as a right of course. Don't know where to even begin with that brilliant viewpoint.

Now, I hate generic abortion debates so let's try to keep this one ontopic.

Abortion is the most incredible matriarchal totalitarian deception ever. Late-term abortion is a war-crime since abortion is a leftist tool of warfare against democracy and the nation-state using cultural terrorism.

Women say: "Gosh, don't take abortion away...it protects a woman's health."

Isn't unprotected sex with dozens of partners every week leading to pregnancy the most unhealthy act there is?

JK

[rikzilla]

Personally I believe there should be a sliding scale on abortion. It would go like this:

Yes to any and all requests for 1st trimester abortions. Big fat YES to the "morning after" pill.

Maybe to 2nd trimester. This is the grey area....and should be defined by physicians based on the health risks to the mother.

No to third trimester abortions. No to "partial birth" abortions unless a physician can verify that the mother's health is in extreme and imminent danger.

Why can't there be a coherrent policy such as this that makes a sensible compromise between pro and anti abortion arguments???

-zilla

[Baggle]

I agree, riz. That is what I've always said about the issue as well. I think abortion is fine until there is a functioning brain in that womb. Up to this point, the baby is a clump of human cells, and the abortion can be ethically compared to a person removing a family member with a working body but no brain activity from life support, IMO. After that, the practice is quite disgusting, IMO, and exactly on par with infanticide. Of course, in my area, no abortions later than 1st trimester are allowed anyway. Not sure if it's the law or simply the policy of the doctors who do it. On a tangent, people who don't want the 'morning after' pill circulating really tick me off. They claim that it is the equivelent of an abortion(does not allow a possibly fertilized egg to attach), yet there are methods of actual birth control(not emergency contraceptives) that do exactly this each and every time they are utilized. bleh.

Back on topic, I've always heard that so-called 'partial-birth' abortions are more of a righty scare tactic than anything. An urban legend, if you will. They have been performed, but the rate at which they are performed is so low that all of the media attention this bill got was probably nothing more than a publicity stunt. I also think that it was a no win issue for the democrats who voted against it. It's one of those, "Why do you hate babies?" votes. The majority of those against the bill probably had no problem with the banning of the procedure(unless they are really uneducated on the subject, which I wouldn't doubt either), but like everything else, the bill was probably porked to the extreme. You vote no for reasons of pork, and you look like somebody who agrees with the procedure. For this reason, whoever authored the bill could've put anything they wanted in there and the people voting against it would be screwed both ways. A yes vote would be giving the green light to enemy pork, a no vote would be looking like a baby killer. Tough choice, but in the long run, I think the democrats would've been better off if they just bit their lip and voted yes, while already planning the massive pork that will be in the next "save our forests" bill, which I am sure some were already doing. bleh.

-Baggle

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Abortion is the most incredible matriarchal totalitarian deception ever. Late-term abortion is a war-crime since abortion is a leftist tool of warfare against democracy and the nation-state using cultural terrorism.

Women say: "Gosh, don't take abortion away...it protects a woman's health."

Isn't unprotected sex with dozens of partners every week leading to pregnancy the most unhealthy act there is?

JK

The most impressive Pro-Choice argument I've heard to date...;)

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Personally I believe there should be a sliding scale on abortion. It would go like this:

Yes to any and all requests for 1st trimester abortions. Big fat YES to the "morning after" pill.

Maybe to 2nd trimester. This is the grey area....and should be defined by physicians based on the health risks to the mother.

No to third trimester abortions. No to "partial birth" abortions unless a physician can verify that the mother's health is in extreme and imminent danger.

Why can't there be a coherrent policy such as this that makes a sensible compromise between pro and anti abortion arguments???

-zilla

To: rikzilla

You may not know it, but what you outlined is essentially the Roe v. Wade decision.

In the first trimester, the fetus in invaible outside of the womb, therefore abortion can be considered a medical procedure; as such, it is a privacy issue and must therefore be permitted.

In the second trimester, because of medical advances, the fetus may be viable outside of the womb, so the states were given some flexibilty in regulating it. Abortion on demand would not be allowed, however abortion in the case of rape, incest, or health dangers it would be permitted.

In the third trimester, the fetus is reasonably viable outside of the womb, so abortion would only be permitted if the life of mother was at risk, or if the fetus was in such bad shape that it would not survive outside of the womb. Note: this is about the only time partial-birth abortion is done.

> Good call guy!

[DrBenway]

"Partial birth abortion" is not a medical procedure. You won't find this term mentioned in a medical textbook. This is a political term.

Politicians are attempting to practice medicine without a license.

[Crossbow]

To: DrBenway

True enough!

The medical term is 'Dialation and Extraction'.

[Smalso]

I seem to recall an incident that happened in the early sisties while I was in the Army at Fort Sill, Ok. A man in our platoon was awaiting word from the Red Cross that his wife, who was in South Carolina, had delivered their baby. When the word finally came and he was given emergency leave to go home, he was told that his wife had a lot of trouble with the delivery, was in a lot of danger and they had to "take the baby." I've heard the term several times. I assume that this is not necessary as much as it was in years past; I hear more and more of C-section deliveries. If this is what the propaganda term "partial birth abortion" is referring to, I can think of a lot of things much more important that Congress should be spending time on.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Crossbow
The medical term is 'Dialation and Extraction'.


Dilatation and extraction


It's a procedure necessary for the health of some women.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by DrBenway
"Partial birth abortion" is not a medical procedure. You won't find this term mentioned in a medical textbook. This is a political term.

Politicians are attempting to practice medicine without a license.

No, its just more descriptive than dialation and extraction. I am not a politician and I think its a fairly descriptive term to the layman.

Can you think of a better terminology for the layman? Something with no connotations one way or the other.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Isn't unprotected sex with dozens of partners every week leading to pregnancy the most unhealthy act there is?

JK

HAHAHAhahahahaha. You made me snarfle my TAB.

[zakur]

From USA Today's article (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-03-13-abortion-bill_x.htm) on the Senate vote:The legislation's significance may be more political than practical. Leaders on both sides of the issue said the ban is unlikely to reduce the number of abortions. "There are alternative procedures, and those will be legal," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., a physician who supports the ban.

Dilation and extraction, the medical term for the practice that would be banned, was used in an estimated 2,200 of 1.3 million abortions performed in the USA in 2000, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a research group that backs abortion rights. Proponents of the ban say the figures are higher.

Abortion rights advocates predict the Supreme Court will rule the ban unconstitutional because it makes an exception to protect a woman's life, but not her health. "It directly inserts the government between a woman and her physician," said Kate Michelman of the National Abortion Rights Action League.

[Doctor X]

Corplinx:

. . . and probably is against the hippocratic oath.

Abortion of all forms is against the Hippocratic Oath. However, surgery is also forbidden, along with having sex with members of your patient's household--male or female, free or slave.

I found it hilarious that years ago then Congressman Charles "ScrewLoose" Schumer declared that banning abortions would force doctors to "break their Hippocratic Oath."

Apparently, he did not know what he was talking about, Heavens to Betsy.

Nevertheless, what is missing in the debate is the "why" these procedures are performed.

--J.D.

[c0rbin]

Abortion should not be used as birth control.

Suck it up if you are gonna fnck it up.

That's what I say and I am an athiest who loves cooter.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by corplinx
No, its just more descriptive than dialation and extraction.

"Dilatation" refers to spreading or dilating the cervix using instruments. "Extraction" means removing the contents of the uterus using instruments. I don't think these terms are too complicated for the average person to grok. Certainly, the lay public has learned a great deal about a number of medical procedures in the press over the years.

Further, the law is directed at physicians, not the lay public. The lay public aren't in danger of breaking this law. The language of the law ought to be consistent with the language of medical practice, if doctors are to understand it and obey it.

"Partial birth" connotes a baby about to be born, or in the process of being born. In most cases, the D&E procedure is done well before a viable birth would be possible. Thus the "partial birth" term is misleading and emotionally inflammatory.

If a fetus dies late in the pregnancy, a D&E might be the only way to remove it.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by DrBenway



Dilatation and extraction


It's a procedure necessary for the health of some women.

Thanks for the correction!

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Corplinx:
Abortion of all forms is against the Hippocratic Oath. However, surgery is also forbidden, along with having sex with members of your patient's household--male or female, free or slave.--J.D.

My medical school class took the oath of "Louis Lasagna," in place of the outdated Hippocratic Oath.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by DrBenway
If a fetus dies late in the pregnancy, a D&E might be the only way to remove it. [/B]

The law in question (http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c108:1:./temp/~c108WVEsDU:e17494:) does not ban the procedure in that case:

Prohibits:

Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

MattJ

[DrBenway]

Aero,

The link isn't working. I tried searching for a text of the law and came up with too much other stuff for me to sort through at the moment. Forgive my ignorance of the actual text.

Case: an 18 year old mentally retarded, psychotic girl living in a group home starts gaining weight. People discover she's about 4 months pregnant. Would she be forced to carry the pregnancy to term under this law?

[Doctor X]

DrBrenway:

My medical school class took the oath of "Louis Lasagna," in place of the outdated Hippocratic Oath.

I would not consider the Hippocratic Oath as "outdated" as much as "misunderstood" and "horribly Bowderiz'd." I am unfamiliar with Louis Lasagna, prefering straight pasta dishes.

Nevertheless, in the case you state, understand that an anti-abortionist would consider the proper solution allowing the girl to carry the child to full-term then allowing either it to be raised by the girl's parents, adopted, or sold off to medical experiments.

--J.D.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Nevertheless, in the case you state, understand that an anti-abortionist would consider the proper solution allowing the girl to carry the child to full-term then allowing either it to be raised by the girl's parents, adopted, or sold off to medical experiments.

Ok, 'nuther twist: the girl is on lithium and other medications known to cause birth defects. To protect the baby, should she be taken off these medications? Her life will not be in danger off meds, but she may be much crazier. She will suffer emotionally off meds.

Here's more info on the Louis Lasagna oath, one of the versions of the medical oath used today:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_modern.html

Quote:
I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

Written in 1964 by Louis Lasagna, Academic Dean of the School of Medicine at Tufts University, and used in many medical schools today.

[Doctor X]

Here I am sort of arguing as Advocatus Diaboli for the anti-abortion side . . . they would argue that the potential life outweighs the "inconvenience" to the mother.

However . . . even the more strict anti-abortionists tend to concede allowing abortion in the case of rape or incest, perhaps to prevent Arkansas from exploding [Stop that!--Ed.]. The case you cite would be rape, since the patient is unable to give informed consent for sexual contact.

"Informed consent for sexual contact?" The mind boggles. . . .

--J.D.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by DrBenway
Aero,

The link isn't working. I tried searching for a text of the law and came up with too much other stuff for me to sort through at the moment. Forgive my ignorance of the actual text.

Case: an 18 year old mentally retarded, psychotic girl living in a group home starts gaining weight. People discover she's about 4 months pregnant. Would she be forced to carry the pregnancy to term under this law?


I found it at The Senate's Webpage (http://www.senate.gov/) Apparently they don't want anyone hot-linking their stuff. Jerks...

Follow the link above,

click "Legislation & Records"

Search for SE 3

select the version passed by the Senate.



I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that in your example, there are likely many non-prohibited procedures that could be used. You appear to be more knowledgable than I on medical procedures. Is "dilation & extraction" the only (or even the best) procedure at 4 months?

MattJ

[fishbob]

Does anyone actually perform this procedure? I have not had a chance to confirm, but I was told that this procedure is extremely rare. Which leads to the conclusion that this VOTE is political posturing and is of value only to politicians. The LAW will be of no value to anybody, because it has no application.

[Smalso]

Originally posted by fishbob
I have not had a chance to confirm, but I was told that this procedure is extremely rare. Which leads to the conclusion that this VOTE is political posturing and is of value only to politicians. The LAW will be of no value to anybody, because it has no application.

I think that about puts it in a nutshell. That's what all this **** is all about: keeping the religious right happy.

Originally posted by fishbob
I have not had a chance to confirm, but I was told that this procedure is extremely rare. Which leads to the conclusion that this VOTE is political posturing and is of value only to politicians. The LAW will be of no value to anybody, because it has no application.

Partial birth abortions shown increasing. (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030114-75792581.htm)

originally posted by Smalso

I think that about puts it in a nutshell. That's what all this **** is all about : keeping the religious right happy.

If the religious right is the only group opposed to partial birth abortions, that says something, and not about the religious right.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by LukeT
If the religious right is the only group opposed to partial birth abortions, that says something, and not about the religious right.

The religious right opposes all abortions, but cannot get them banned. Can't even come close.

This bill, however, passed the Senate 64-33.

It seems to me that there are people not in the religious right who believe this procedure should be banned.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by corplinx

No, its just more descriptive than dialation and extraction. I am not a politician and I think its a fairly descriptive term to the layman.

Can you think of a better terminology for the layman? Something with no connotations one way or the other.

D&E is very descriptive, assuming you know the definition of "dilate" and "extract". (Not implying that you don't, corplinx)

I have a hard time thinking of D&E as having any connotation. It is the medical term for the procedure. An "abortion" is a D&C, and I'm blanking on what the "C" is. (I am not a doctor, but I married one on TV.)

In response to your orginal question:

Yes it is gruesome, but only because it involves dismembering babies. What's your problem? ;)
Seriously, I have trouble with abortion, I would not recommend it anyone I know, but I think it's a personal decision. These late term abortions give me trouble, and I think that any moral person should not consider one unless the baby is not viable.

If you consider that the baby is not viable, then the question should become: What is the best way to handle its removal? Is bringing an unviable baby to term, then "birthing" it with a C-section, to let it die soon after a healthy way for mother (and father)? What if the dying baby is causing damage to the mother?

So, I think a D&E should be a medical decision, made with full information, between a doctor and the family.

Originally posted by aerocontrols

It seems to me that there are people not in the religious right who believe this procedure should be banned.

Exactly, so it isn't just pandering to the religious right behind this bill as some implied.

[Smalso]

Originally posted by LukeT


Exactly, so it isn't just pandering to the religious right behind this bill as some implied.

The religious right is firmly behind this bill. I have yet to find one of them oppossed to it. Whether the motivation behind the bill is to pander to them or not, that is exactly what it does. State by state and congressional district by congressional district, the religious right carries a lot of political clout. That's all I meant.

[Galadriel]

Per Planned Parenthood's website, only 1.8% of all abortions are done after the twentieth week, and Bill Frist himself admitted that there are "other methods" for terminating a late-term pregnancy. Most states have laws prohibiting elective abortion after a certain gestation period (which is usually twenty weeks, although with some it's as low as 12 weeks; I know New York at one time had its cutoff as 24 weeks). The truth of the matter is that 88% of all abortions are performed in the first trimester, with 55% of all abortions being performed in the first eight weeks.

The anti-abortion gang would have you believe that women who are seven and eight months pregnant are marching to the clinics yelling, "Gimme an abortion!" when the truth is that the vast majority of late-term abortions are done for medical reasons. This whole ban is flashy, true, but in the end it does as much good as banning the killing of unicorns.

[Doctor X]

The anti-abortion gang would have you believe that women who are seven and eight months pregnant are marching to the clinics yelling, "Gimme an abortion!"

They are not? Dang . . . Cletus, put away the shotgun. . . .

This whole ban is flashy, true, but in the end it does as much good as banning the killing of unicorns.

What have unicorns ever done to you!!

"God, I'm bored. Might as well be listening to Genesis." Rik Mayall, The Young Ones

Probably should not admit that I am listening to "Duke's Travels. . . ."

So what would you prefer? Gary Glitter? Katrina and the Waves? Creme Brule?

--J. "666 is no longer alone!" D.

Fine . . . most, if not all, of Gabriel's lyrics would have been better if he was on acid . . . .

[Galadriel]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Fine . . . most, if not all, of Gabriel's lyrics would have been better if he was on acid . . . .

You mean he wasn't?!?!? :eek:

[Doctor X]

Someday look up his "explanation" for the lyrics of Supper's Ready. Again, great music but. . . .

I remember seeing them perform live--we were behind the band. I vaguely recall hearing Phil asking, "what the f**k am I singing?!!" Mike Rutherford told him, "beats me, but the instrumental part we wrote is coming." Then he hit him with the taser.

However, what I do remember is a bunch of lost teeny-boppers wondering why they were not hearing "Sussudio." Looking down at the band as Phil wailed out a 9/8 time, one remarked: "I didn't know Phil Collins was a drummer!"

Remindeth me of a joke I recreated. With an old rock fan I joked, "Was Paul McCartney in a band before Wings?" The man laughed and said, "just a little one."

About five minutes past and a teenager listening added helpfully, "I think it was the Beatles.

The youth today . . . with their hotrods, short skirts, and their rock and roll. . . .

--J.D.