Women really need to educate themselves on this issue. The abortion law has always included a provision that states may ban abortions in the third trimester unless the health or safety of the mother is at issue. The Reblicans have made it appear to the public that any woman can change her mind in her third trimester and get an abortion. That is completely false. Read Roe v. Wade. Read Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Restrictions on third trimester abortions have been around since Roe v. Wade was decided.
This is simply the first step in the Repbulicans crusade to to have Roe v. Wade overturned in its entirety.
This bill is a slap in the face to all woman. This is a decision to be made between doctor and patient, not between Senator and President.
I implore everyone to read about this issue and VOTE!!!! If you believe in a womans choice to control her own body then make sure George W. Bush is not re-elected. Chief Justice Renquist and Justice O'Connor are waiting for him to be re-elected before they retire from the Supreme Court. Then he will appoint Scalia as the Chief Justice and appoint two more pro-life justices. Make no mistake if Bush is re-elected, Roe v. Wade is as good as gone.
wacky
Posted:
Member since
Re: Partial birth abortions
Wow Im def voting this year. Becky very deep. Im so sick of all these politicans telling me what I can and cant do.
Lisa Rose
Posted:
Member since
Re: Partial birth abortions
Does anyone know if abortions are legal in any other country in the world? I am just curious, if they are, how they handle the controversy!!
alina
Posted:
Member since
Re: Partial birth abortions
Abortions are legal in most developed countries, I believe. Not sure whether the Third Trimester abortions are legal in most or only some countries.
Tammy5-03
Posted:
Member since
Re: Partial birth abortions
Becky, thank you for making the issue so clear. It upsets me so much how this issue has been so turned around. People are being misled to believe that 3rd trimester abortions are done for convenience. It is already only done for severe anomalies or the health of the mother. There are only a few places in the country that do it. It is VERY uncommon. The term itself is unclear and has no medical significance. This is specifically done to undermine Roe vs Wade. It can be interpretated to mean a variety of procedures done to terminate pregnancy including D&E which is how most 2nd trimester abortions are done. How can anyone belive that the intention is not to take away abortion rights? If you threaten physicians with prison for performing certain medical procedures, its only a matter of time before they are no longer done.
yabbobay
Posted:
Member since
Re: Partial birth abortions
Posted by Becky
This bill is a slap in the face to all woman. This is a decision to be made between doctor and patient, not between Senator and President.
Chief Justice Renquist and Justice O'Connor are waiting for him to be re-elected before they retire from the Supreme Court.
amen Becky...while roe v wade is for early termination only and the supreme court has already banned 3rd trimester abortions in the past...this is inching up to overturn Roe v Wade...
but I thought Oconnor was a centrist, and pretty much left her republican routes...didn't she vote in favor of planned paretnhood? (although I don't know much about the case)
I was just thinking about the Supreme Court last night and wondering why the Republicans are waiting to retire....why not do it now and secure the spot...they can't be that confident that GWB is going to win - nothing is guaranteed
kmcwed
Posted:
Member since
Re: Partial birth abortions
So what you're saying is the Senate banned partial birth abortions in their entirety? That even a woman whose life is at risk cannot have a partial birth abortion?
I misunderstood, then. I thought the senate passed something stating PBAs were illegal UNLESS medically necessary.
If they have been banned in ALL instances, then I agree with everyone who says it's a huge step backward for women. That's terrible news...
Sassy
Posted:
Member since
Re: Partial birth abortions
I don't understand how if medically necessary, they can force it not to be done
So if I will die by keeping the baby, that's OK?
yabbobay
Posted:
Member since
Re: Partial birth abortions
I think 3rd trimester was banned around 1995 (don't quote me on the dates) - with the exception of medical emergencies
now I think this is the next step...no trimester at all?
and I guess what people are worried about is that the movement is to move towards banning 2nd trimester - emergency exeptions...then no 2nd tris at all
then onto 1st trimester...
jvs77
Posted:
Member since
Re: Partial birth abortions
I was discussing this issue with my boss earlier today who is very into politics and advocacy and follows it closely.
According to him, women will still be allowed to have an abortion 'if' their life is at risk.
He also said that he saw a CNN special where they showed a partial birth abortion of an 8 month old baby - I really don't want to get too graphic here, the details literally nauseated me...but to put it nicely, in order to be a partial birth abortion, and not a live birth - the head/brains of the baby must not be 'born' - I'll leave this to your imagination...
If a woman's life is at risk - I definitely think that she should decide how to proceed. If the new ban does state that this will not be the case (contradictory to what my boss said) - then that is very frightening and disconcerting.
Jordan
Posted:
Member since
Re: Partial birth abortions
Posted by kmcwed
So what you're saying is the Senate banned partial birth abortions in their entirety? That even a woman whose life is at risk cannot have a partial birth abortion?
Yes, exactly. Clinton vetoed the bill twice b/c they failed to have provisions stating that if the woman's life was at risk, then it was OK to have the Late Term abortion. With Bush in office, and overturning RvW being his pet project, he didn't think it was necessary to think or care about the women who actually carry his precious countries babies for 9 months.
Sassy - that's exactly the message the Senate is giving by passing this: So long as the child is born, we don't care how it got here - even if that means the mother died giving birth to it.
Partial Birth Aboriton is NOT a medical term. This was coined by anti's. Later term abortions were never banned - as far as I can find - Clinton vetoed it twice b/c the terminology in the ban was too vague and could be applied to 2nd trimester abortions.
9/30/2003--Conference report filed in House. (There are 2 other summaries) Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 - Amends the Federal criminal code to prohibit any physician or other individual from knowingly performing a partial-birth abortion, except when necessary to save the life of a mother that is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury.'
So - it seems, it does allow for an abortion if the mother's life is in danger. Thank goodness!
sn00k4
Posted:
Member since
Re: Partial birth abortions
The way I see it is the whole use of terminology is playing a HUGE part of how this message is construed. I personally don't think that anyone should have a right to say what can or cannot be done to someone's one body. But knowing that our freedoms are limited (contrary to what the popular opinions are) then this just seems like this is major step backwards in regards to woman's rights.
It sickens me to think that some white haired old man cares more about an unborn fetus than an existing member of society...
StayandJohn
Posted:
Member since
Re: Partial birth abortions
Not pro-life not pro-choice but I ask you, why would a woman go through 7 or 8 months of pregnancy and then abort? If her life was at risk couldnt she have a c-section instead? It is just as invasiave as a PBA.
I'm sure that a woman who was well progressed in her pregnancy and that her baby was able to survive outside her womb would not opt to terminate.
I dont know if any of you remember but back in 95 or 96 a woman was 8 months along and decided that she couldnt go through with the pregnancy, she found a dr willing to perform a LTA for $$$. This dr. ripped the arm off of the baby and never completed the procedure, the woman went into labor immediatly, her beautiful daughter was born with one arm. How will she explain that to her daughter when she ask's her mom why do I only have one arm?
If both the mother and child were at risk and PBA was the only option thats one thing, but its very sad that SOME women use this as a form of BC and there are dr's out there that can be bought.
Jordan
Posted:
Member since
Re: Partial birth abortions
Actually, it seems as if we're not getting the entire story...yet again. This is what I found, just 2 days after your piece was printed, JVS77:
The key objection raised by opponents is that the bill does not provide an exception for physicians who think that a woman's health would be endangered if her pregnancy were not terminated, and therefore, they say, the bill may be unconstitutional.
Becky
Posted:
Member since
Re: Partial birth abortions
Everyone is right, but it is confusing because all politicians are masters at manipulating language. The existing law allows states to ban third trimester abortions unless the HEALTH OR SAFETY of the mother is at risk. The new law only allows them if the LIFE of the mother is at risk. It takes away the possibility of a third trimester abortion if the woman is faced with any potentially horrendous outcome other than actual death.
Erica - O'Connor (if I remember correctly) wrote the opinion in Planned Parenthood, which was actually the Supreme Court's first major step back from Roe. Where Roe said that states could NOT regulate at all during the first trimester, Planned Parenthood allowed states to reguate to a certain extent (the waiting period, minors have to involve their parents, etc.) during the first and second trimesters.
Renquist and O'Connor want to be replaced by a Republican, not a Democrat. They waited out Clinton even though they have been wanting to retire since the early 1990s. Bush seriously jeopardizes his reelection bid if he has to make appointments now. If he chooses moderates, he loses the support of his own conservative following. If he picks conservatives he risks a very likely backlash from the public during the election - especially since he didn't win the popular vote in the last election (I wont get started on that one!) before any controversial appointments.
yabbobay
Posted:
Member since
Re: Partial birth abortions
thanks becky...I was confused...I thought that states had rights over 2nd trimester...1st was allowed...third was not...I guess I have to read more..
but still I thought O'Connor went against her conservative routes...and became a centrist...so I would think she'd want a moderate conservative (GWB would be forced to nominate)
its sad there are only 2 non conservatives in the court right now :( - I like to see balance
Becky
Posted:
Member since
Re: Partial birth abortions
Erica, I can't remember what it was that she said, but O'Connor was so excited when Florida was called for Bush (the first time) that she made some comment about how pleased she was. It was at some function where people had gathered to watch the election results. It caused major controversy when the election ended up on the lap of the Supreme Court because most people felt that she had already shown her bias by publicly stating relief and pleaure that Florida had been taken away from Gore and given to Bush.
I can't remember exactly what she said, but I was on information overload during the recall. I was a Recall Junky and would listen to CNN all day long at work and then rush home to watch it on t.v.
Where she falls on the spectrum of liberal to conservative, I am not sure. But she scares me.
Sassy
Posted:
Member since
Re: Partial birth abortions
Do we as voters get any say in this at all? WIll this be on a voting poll?
