| Posted By |
Message |
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 >> |
Bxgell2
Perfection
Member since 5/05 16438 total posts
Name:
Beth
|
Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Not many seemed to notice the potential impact of Bush appointing two conservative supreme court justices... but, now, we start to see the trickle down effect:
Linky
|
Posted 4/18/07 12:30 PM  |
| |
|
Long Island Weddings
Long Island's Largest Bridal Resource |
MsMBV
:P
Member since 5/05 28602 total posts
Name:
Me
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Oh I was not thrilled that he was re-elected & the POTUS when two justices were retiring. No matter what people's personal beliefs are, I think overturning Roe v Wade would have such an unreal affect on this country
|
| Posted 4/18/07 12:59 PM |
| |
|
Woodsy
LIF Infant
Member since 6/05 241 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
It's about time. It's a barbaric practice that should not be legal in a civilized society.
|
| Posted 4/18/07 1:08 PM |
| |
|
Bxgell2
Perfection
Member since 5/05 16438 total posts
Name:
Beth
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Posted by Woodsy
It's about time. It's a barbaric practice that should not be legal in a civilized society.
Let me clarify - I don't take issue at all with the ban, and in fact, though I'm pro-choice, I fully support a ban. BUT, with that said, the issue here centered on the legality of not having a "health exception" for the mother to the ban. The Supreme Court ruled against having any kind of health exception. So, as it stands, the ban doesn't provide for any kind of exception for the mom. So, while, personally, while I would probably give my life to continue my pregnancy, I personally don't think to restrict the option to other mothers who face real, significant, life threatening medical issues is fair.
Message edited 4/18/2007 1:21:32 PM.
|
| Posted 4/18/07 1:20 PM |
| |
|
Snozberry
I might steal your diamonds
Member since 2/06 4680 total posts
Name:
Melissa
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Posted by Bxgell2
So, while, personally, while I would probably give my life to continue my pregnancy, I personally don't think to restrict the option to other mothers who face real, significant, life threatening medical issues is fair.
Exactly.
Posted by Woodsy
It's about time. It's a barbaric practice that should not be legal in a civilized society.
In a civlized country, the health of the mother should be valued enough to make an exception so that she may live.
|
| Posted 4/18/07 1:25 PM |
| |
|
Woodsy
LIF Infant
Member since 6/05 241 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Posted by Bxgell2
Posted by Woodsy
It's about time. It's a barbaric practice that should not be legal in a civilized society.
Let me clarify - I don't take issue at all with the ban, and in fact, though I'm pro-choice, I fully support a ban. BUT, with that said, the issue here centered on the legality of not having a "health exception" for the mother to the ban. The Supreme Court ruled against having any kind of health exception. So, as it stands, the ban doesn't provide for any kind of exception for the mom. So, while, personally, while I would probably give my life to continue my pregnancy, I personally don't think to restrict the option to other mothers who face real, significant, life threatening medical issues is fair.
I haven't read the opinion so can't really comment on the specifics. However, as far as the health exception, that was delfined incredibly broadly in the Doe case, a companion case to Roe v. Wade.
In that case, they defined health to include the physical, mental or social (whatever that means) health of the mother.
I am 28 weeks pregnant. My baby is viable. However, under the broad definition of health under prior precedent, I could technically abort if I could claim that continuing my pregnancy would effect my mental or social health. Should society really accept that result?
Message edited 4/18/2007 1:35:26 PM.
|
| Posted 4/18/07 1:28 PM |
| |
|
Bxgell2
Perfection
Member since 5/05 16438 total posts
Name:
Beth
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Posted by Woodsy
Posted by Bxgell2
Posted by Woodsy
It's about time. It's a barbaric practice that should not be legal in a civilized society.
Let me clarify - I don't take issue at all with the ban, and in fact, though I'm pro-choice, I fully support a ban. BUT, with that said, the issue here centered on the legality of not having a "health exception" for the mother to the ban. The Supreme Court ruled against having any kind of health exception. So, as it stands, the ban doesn't provide for any kind of exception for the mom. So, while, personally, while I would probably give my life to continue my pregnancy, I personally don't think to restrict the option to other mothers who face real, significant, life threatening medical issues is fair.
I haven't read the opinion so can't really comment on the specifics. However, as far as the health exception, that was delfined incredibly broadly in the Casey case, a companion case to Roe v. Wade.
In that case, they defined health to include the physical, mental or social (whatever that means) health of the mother.
I am 28 weeks pregnant. My baby is viable. However, under the broad definition of health under prior precedent, I could technically abort if I could claim that continuing my pregnancy would effect my mental or social health. Should society really accept that result?
I understand what you are saying, but taking that logic further, I would have hoped that the Supreme Court would take into consideration, and perhaps make a ruling on what health exceptions are legal and permissible BEFORE declaring an all-encompassing ban on 2nd trimester abortions that doesn't even have ANY exception, including very real, life threatening medical issues, legal.
Message edited 4/18/2007 1:35:20 PM.
|
| Posted 4/18/07 1:33 PM |
| |
|
|
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
post deleted
Message edited 4/18/2007 4:22:57 PM.
|
| Posted 4/18/07 1:37 PM |
| |
|
MikesWife
Wanting...........
Member since 1/06 6887 total posts
Name:
Karen
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
I haven't read the opinion, but on a broad notion it doesn't make sense. If the mother's heath is at risk, there isn't there a great possibility of losing BOTH lives?? 
|
| Posted 4/18/07 1:37 PM |
| |
|
Woodsy
LIF Infant
Member since 6/05 241 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Posted by Bxgell2
]
I understand what you are saying, but taking that logic further, I would have hoped that the Supreme Court would take into consideration, and perhaps make a ruling on what health exceptions are legal and permissible BEFORE declaring an all-encompassing ban on 2nd trimester abortions that doesn't even have ANY exception, including very real, life threatening medical issues, legal.
Again, haven't read the opinion yet but I think your analysis is wrong. They have not banned ALL 2nd trimester abortions. They banned a specific type of procedure. From FoxNews.com:
The procedure at issue involves partially removing the fetus intact from a woman's uterus, then crushing or cutting its skull to complete the abortion.
Abortion opponents say the law will not reduce the number of abortions performed because an alternate method — dismembering the fetus in the uterus — is available and, indeed, much more common.
|
| Posted 4/18/07 1:39 PM |
| |
|
Kate
*****
Member since 5/05 7557 total posts
Name:
Kate
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Can anyone give an example of why this would ever be necessary:
"a physician delivers an unborn child's body until only the head remains inside the womb, punctures the back of the child's skull with a Sharp instrument, and sucks the child's brains out before completing deliveryof the dead infant"
|
| Posted 4/18/07 1:40 PM |
| |
|
Bxgell2
Perfection
Member since 5/05 16438 total posts
Name:
Beth
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
I officially stand corrected - I just read the specifics of the ban and it DOES provide for medical exceptions:
"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. "
|
| Posted 4/18/07 1:44 PM |
| |
|
suvenR
designer mutt
Member since 5/05 4239 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Posted by Kate
Can anyone give an example of why this would ever be necessary:
"a physician delivers an unborn child's body until only the head remains inside the womb, punctures the back of the child's skull with a Sharp instrument, and sucks the child's brains out before completing deliveryof the dead infant"
"Court briefs noted pregnant women having the procedure most often have their health threatened by cancer, heart disease, high blood pressure or risk of stroke."
|
| Posted 4/18/07 1:48 PM |
| |
|
nrthshgrl
It goes fast. Pay attention.
Member since 7/05 57538 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
|
| Posted 4/18/07 1:53 PM |
| |
|
Woodsy
LIF Infant
Member since 6/05 241 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Posted by Bxgell2
I officially stand corrected - I just read the specifics of the ban and it DOES provide for medical exceptions:
"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. "
So, based upon your previous posts, I assume you support this ruling...
|
| Posted 4/18/07 1:57 PM |
| |
|
nrthshgrl
It goes fast. Pay attention.
Member since 7/05 57538 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Posted by Bxgell2
I officially stand corrected - I just read the specifics of the ban and it DOES provide for medical exceptions:
"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. "
And what if the baby has no chance of survival? Do you know if they allow for that exception?
|
| Posted 4/18/07 2:01 PM |
| |
|
SweetTooth
I'm a tired mommy!
Member since 12/05 20105 total posts
Name:
Lauren
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Posted by nrthshgrl
Posted by Bxgell2
I officially stand corrected - I just read the specifics of the ban and it DOES provide for medical exceptions:
"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. "
And what if the baby has no chance of survival? Do you know if they allow for that exception?
I was wondering that myself, what about cases where abnormalities are not discovered unti later in the pregnancy, like hydrocephalus?
|
| Posted 4/18/07 2:10 PM |
| |
|
dpli
Daylight savings :)
Member since 5/05 13973 total posts
Name:
D
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Posted by Woodsy
I haven't read the opinion so can't really comment on the specifics. However, as far as the health exception, that was delfined incredibly broadly in the Doe case, a companion case to Roe v. Wade.
In that case, they defined health to include the physical, mental or social (whatever that means) health of the mother.
I am 28 weeks pregnant. My baby is viable. However, under the broad definition of health under prior precedent, I could technically abort if I could claim that continuing my pregnancy would effect my mental or social health. Should society really accept that result?
In general, I would agree with you, but I think there can be cases where mental health should be a consideration. If someone like Andrea Yates had been given the option to abort her last child, I am not sure it wouldn't have been in the best interest of everyone in that family.
I can't imagine having an abortion myself and have a hard time with all of these debates, but I do think there has to be some allowance for exceptions.
|
| Posted 4/18/07 2:15 PM |
| |
|
nrthshgrl
It goes fast. Pay attention.
Member since 7/05 57538 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Posted by SweetTooth
Posted by nrthshgrl
And what if the baby has no chance of survival? Do you know if they allow for that exception?
I was wondering that myself, what about cases where abnormalities are not discovered unti later in the pregnancy, like hydrocephalus?
I was thinking along the lines of chromosome defects eg. Trisomy 13. Half of the babies do not survive the first month. 3/4 dont survive past 6 months.
|
| Posted 4/18/07 2:17 PM |
| |
|
Bxgell2
Perfection
Member since 5/05 16438 total posts
Name:
Beth
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Posted by Woodsy
Posted by Bxgell2
I officially stand corrected - I just read the specifics of the ban and it DOES provide for medical exceptions:
"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. "
So, based upon your previous posts, I assume you support this ruling...
Not necessarily - from briefly reading through the opinion (and I mean brief), there's some dispute as to whether or not this type of abortion may be medically necessary in certain cases that aren't accounted for in the ban. In addition, I agree with the other posters regarding serious birth defects. I have dear, dear friends who both tested positive for a severe genetic disease, that would result in fetal death within 2-3 weeks of birth. The test results to determine if the baby would or would not have the disease don't come back until the 2nd trimester, so, depending on where the ban stands on this particular issue, I may still have dispute with it.
But, I'm not totally informed about the ban, or the opinion. I'm going to read through them tonight. I'll let you know what I think tomorrow 
|
| Posted 4/18/07 3:11 PM |
| |
|
Ophelia
she's baaccckkkk ;)
Member since 5/06 23378 total posts
Name:
remember, when Gulliver traveled....
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
this is considered a huge victory in my office (we argued the case for the gov)
it remains to be seen if it will further erode Roe v. Wade.
separation of church and state is eroding far faster though.
|
| Posted 4/18/07 3:22 PM |
| |
|
MrsS2005
Mom of 3
Member since 11/05 13118 total posts
Name:
B
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Posted by Bxgell2
Posted by Woodsy
Posted by Bxgell2
I officially stand corrected - I just read the specifics of the ban and it DOES provide for medical exceptions:
"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. "
So, based upon your previous posts, I assume you support this ruling...
Not necessarily - from briefly reading through the opinion (and I mean brief), there's some dispute as to whether or not this type of abortion may be medically necessary in certain cases that aren't accounted for in the ban. In addition, I agree with the other posters regarding serious birth defects. I have dear, dear friends who both tested positive for a severe genetic disease, that would result in fetal death within 2-3 weeks of birth. The test results to determine if the baby would or would not have the disease don't come back until the 2nd trimester, so, depending on where the ban stands on this particular issue, I may still have dispute with it.
But, I'm not totally informed about the ban, or the opinion. I'm going to read through them tonight. I'll let you know what I think tomorrow
I briefly read the opinion and dissent. I find the dissent enlightening and disheartening, especially with respect to the "evidence" on which Congress based its findings when passing this Act.
Although there's an exception for the life of the mother, there's no exception for the mother's health. There appears to be a consensus among the medical community that this procedure is safer than other abortion procedures for women with certain medical conditions. The Act contains no exception to allow these women to choose this procedure over another more dangerous procedure.
|
| Posted 4/18/07 3:22 PM |
| |
|
maybebaby
LIF Adult
Member since 11/05 6870 total posts
Name:
Maureen
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Posted by Woodsy
It's about time. It's a barbaric practice that should not be legal in a civilized society.
I completely agree. I think it's a disgusting practice, and do not know how doctors perform that type of abortion. I don't understand abortion in the first place, BUT this type of abortion is so inhumane.
Message edited 4/18/2007 3:24:45 PM.
|
| Posted 4/18/07 3:23 PM |
| |
|
Woodsy
LIF Infant
Member since 6/05 241 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Posted by dpli
Posted by Woodsy
I haven't read the opinion so can't really comment on the specifics. However, as far as the health exception, that was delfined incredibly broadly in the Doe case, a companion case to Roe v. Wade.
In that case, they defined health to include the physical, mental or social (whatever that means) health of the mother.
I am 28 weeks pregnant. My baby is viable. However, under the broad definition of health under prior precedent, I could technically abort if I could claim that continuing my pregnancy would effect my mental or social health. Should society really accept that result?
In general, I would agree with you, but I think there can be cases where mental health should be a consideration. If someone like Andrea Yates had been given the option to abort her last child, I am not sure it wouldn't have been in the best interest of everyone in that family.
I can't imagine having an abortion myself and have a hard time with all of these debates, but I do think there has to be some allowance for exceptions.
I think the problem with that argument is that it creates an incredibly vague standard. Where do we draw the line?? If giving birth is going to bum me out, does that really trump the baby's rights to be protected by law? Because technically, that does fit into the "mental health" exception. We can't forget that this is an incredibly brutal procedure done on VIABLE babies and that the court has to strike a balance between the two. Actually, the recent case discusses in graphic detail how brutal the procedure is...
I think your Andrea Yates example is a poor one. Don't you think we, as a society, should try to prevent that situation through education, mental health treatment, and social services rather than through a brutal procedure that ends the life of a viable baby?
|
| Posted 4/18/07 3:32 PM |
| |
|
MrsS2005
Mom of 3
Member since 11/05 13118 total posts
Name:
B
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Posted by maybebaby
Posted by Woodsy
It's about time. It's a barbaric practice that should not be legal in a civilized society.
I completely agree. I think it's a disgusting practice, and do not know how doctors perform that type of abortion. I don't understand abortion in the first place, BUT this type of abortion is so inhumane.
IMO, another abortion procedure commonly used is no more humane than this one (sorry to be graphic, but it involves dismembering the fetus in the uterus). I believe doctors choose the procedure that is now banned over others b/c it's considered a safer procedure and poses fewer health risks for the mother.
|
| Posted 4/18/07 3:36 PM |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 >> |
