Federal judge says partial-birth abortion ban unconstitutional
 

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge today declared the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional, saying the measure infringes on a woman's right to choose.
The ruling applies to Planned Parenthood clinics and their doctors, who perform roughly half the nation's abortions.

U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton's ruling came in one of three lawsuits challenging the legislation President Bush signed last year.

"The act poses an undue burden on a woman's right to choose an abortion," she wrote.

Federal judges in New York and Nebraska also heard challenges to the law earlier this year but have yet to rule.

Bush signed the bill in November, saying "a terrible form of violence has been directed against children who are inches from birth while the law looked the other way."

In the banned procedure — known as intact dilation and extraction to doctors, but called partial-birth abortion by opponents — the living fetus is partially removed from the womb, and its skull is punctured or crushed.

Justice Department attorneys argued that the procedure is inhumane, causes pain to the fetus and is never medically necessary.

Abortion proponents, however, argued that a woman's health during an abortion is more important than how the fetus is terminated, and that the banned method is often a safer solution that a conventional abortion, in which the fetus is dismembered in the womb and then removed in pieces.

for full article see..

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...bortion01.html

Not to split hairs, but aren't ALL unborn children inches from birth?

Re: Federal judge says partial-birth abortion ban unconstitutional
 

No Suprise that this ruling came out of San Francisco.

Re: Re: Federal judge says partial-birth abortion ban unconstitutional
 

The district federal judge sits there, where else would it have come from, Reno?

Funny:)

Good for Judge Hamilton!

Re: Re: Re: Federal judge says partial-birth abortion ban unconstitutional
 

LOL

Re: Re: Re: Federal judge says partial-birth abortion ban unconstitutional
 

I think he's referring to the fact that the Federal Court in San Francisco has been overturned so many times that they are kind of a joke. It's where lefties go when they want something legislated that would never make it through the standard legislative process.

This is a truly horrible procedure. I know that abortion will always be legal, but partial-birth abortion should not be. I don't understand how ending the life of a viable fetus is not murder. If it was delivered and then promptly killed, it would be murder, so what's the difference?

what about in the situation where giving birth would kill the mother? would you take the fetus's life over hers?

That's not really applicable in the case of partial birth abortions. In a partial birth abortion, the fetus is partially delivered (delivery is induced) and it is killed before it is fully delivered.

Here's a site (obviously biased because it refers to the partially delivered fetus as a "baby"), however, it is basically accurate in describing the procedure.

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html

If you don't want to click the link, here's a text description of what happens (taken from the above site):

1. Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps.

2. The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal.

3. The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head.

4. The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole.

5. The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed.

---

I'm not saying abortion is right or wrong. I'm still undecided on how I feel about this one. It all (in my mind) goes back to the question of when someone becomes a person. When a fetus must be aborted in this way, there's a good chance they could survive through modern premie technology.

ok, thanks.

Here's part of my problem: Friends of mine had a baby delivered at 22 weeks. He spent the first year of his life in the hospital, at the cost of well of $100,000 per day. I'm happy to say that he's healthy & happy at this time!

Yet, if this same child had been unwanted, he would have been nothing but spare parts.

So, how do we decide when a child is a child and not a fetus? When the expentant mother decides it's a child? Or by another method?

Hey Kev thanks for grossing me out.

And why don't the women just get the abortion earlier??

I don't care as much for this though because I'm waiting until marriage.

-Rudey

possibly because they may not find out there is something wrong with the baby until that late in stage.

Do they have statistics on this? I would like to see what percentage of women could die if a pregnancy goes through.

-Rudey

Federal judge says partial-birth abortion ban unconstitutional
 

I realize that :D However, the judge in question grew up in Florida, and attended a local Jesuit law school. Kind of interesting. She came in under Clinton, so maybe she would have had the same ruling regardless of where her bench is located? But no it isn't surprising, as the 9th district is also where the ruling about the Pledge of Allegiance came from.

The issue is coming up in San Francisco and New York, which seems normal, but in Lincoln, Nebraska? That I find very interesting. I think Lincoln is much more conservative than SF or NYC.

honeychile, once I was told that the difference in a child and fetus was defined with viability outside the womb. Of course there was no definition of whether or not support methods are included in viability (machines and so on).

It states in the artcile the banned method is safer than the other, that dismembers the fetus. Dismembered, YUCK. mu_agd I have the same question, life of the mother over the fetus?

don't know statistics and don't have time right now to look. however, i do know someone who was in that situation, and thank g-d both her and her baby survived.

Again, I'm not really taking a position either way. However, your figure there is GROSSLY overstated when I compare it to what I've been able to look up on the www.

http://www.muhc.ca/media/ensemble/2002june/premature/

The meat of the article relating to your figure is found in this excerpt:

"Treating an extremely premature baby, who is very sick, can cost up to $100,000. But while the figure is staggering, it needs perspective. Barrington submits that it is less costly than a year on dialysis or a heart transplant. Furthermore, it provides the baby with the potential for a lifetime. Barrington says the cost per extra year of life gained is less than that found in just about any other area of acute care medicine. In his opinion, the promising outcome of interventions at the NICU-the survival rate, the quality of life, and the life expectancy-justify the costs. "

So in other words, a WORST CASE sick 22-week baby can still be cared for with an overall cost of UP TO $100,000. I don't know where your friend got $100,00 per day, it would seem unlikely that any hospital would charge someone 3 million dollars for a premie.

And, as far as risks to the mother, I found a little info there as well (questionable sources though).

here's the article:http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_...rth%20abortion

Here's the excerpt:

"Dr. Pamela Smith, Director of Medical Education, Dept. of Ob-Gyn at Mt. Sinai Hospital in Chicago, has stated: "There are absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered in this country which would require partial- birth abortion to preserve the life or health of the mother." And she adds two more risks: cervical incompetence in subsequent pregnancies caused by three days of forceful dilation of the cervix, and uterine rupture caused by rotating the fetus in the womb. Joseph DeCook, Fellow, Am. Col., Ob/Gyn, founder of PHACT (Physicians Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth), stated: "There is no literature that testifies to the safety of partial birth abortions. It’s a maverick procedure devised by maverick doctors who wish to deliver a dead fetus. Such abortions could lead to infection causing sterility." Also, "Drawing out the baby in breech position is a very dangerous procedure and could tear the uterus. Such a ruptured uterus could cause the mother to bleed to death in ten minutes.".."The puncturing of the child’s skull produces bone shards that could puncture the uterus." (Congressman Charles Canady (R-FL), 7/23). "

IF TRUE, what this doctor says is essentially that she's never heard of any kind of situation where a partial birth abortion being performed can make things easier on a mother that was expecting complications.

---

If the above information is correct, I really don't see a reason to do this procedure. If there is no way that the mother could lose her life or suffer a serious injury, I don't see that as even a remotely possible justification.

The question that I ask in formulating my opinion on this topic is "When is a person a person". It seems a logical way to answer that would be "Whenever a child stands a good chance of survival outside of the womb". I think in America, where we have all this medical technology available, it would be a crime to NOT give a perfectly helpless and innocent person a medical treatment that they needed to survive. The first article justifies the cost beautifully. As far as years added to life vs. dollars spent, one would be hard pressed to find a better ratio than what you'd get with even the most serious case of premature baby care.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_C...urt_of_Appeals

On the Ninth Circuit:

also from
http://www.justiceatstake.org/newsVi...b=7&docID=1447

They live in Atlanta. I didn't pull these figures out of the air, but there's always the chance that they did. I do know that the March of Dimes took care of many of the costs, but kept "billing" them so that they knew how much it was costing to keep the baby alive.



I think that you'll find that the vast majority of pro-life organizations will take the life of the mother over the fetus.

Okay, my example of the 22-week baby is two years old. With the advances of medical technology, this will probably be decreasing by the day. When then will we measure when life begins? Or will it remain that life begins at the convenience of the mother?

I think you are either fundamentally against abortion, or fundamentally for the woman's right to choose.

All else is sophistry and squabbling over details.

I agree. One's either fundamentally pro- or anti- murder.

Strong statement. Good for you.

I always thought this was a weak argument. The fetus is a developing human being. Killing it is killing it. Murder is a legal definition. But I have no problem saying you are killing your child.

However, I support your right to slay your child while its in your body. The idea doesn't particularly phase me. Does calling it murder actually make pro-choicers squeamish? How weak.

How about this:

You are killing the potential for human life.

-Rudey

Whatevah . . Have at it Hauss.

The law was overturned because of the precendent set in Stenberg v. Carhart that there must always be an exception for the mother's health.

I hope that all of you who don't like abortion also don't like the death penalty.

1.) The very description of a partial-birth abortion sounds very horrible and cruel to me.

2.) I think there's a difference between the death penalty and abortion (especially partial-birth), because killing the fetus/baby is not giving it (or in the case of a partial birth, him/her) a chance in life, and is done in such a horrible way. The person being executed is dying because he/she did something very horrible. The baby did not do such a thing. His/her only crime is his/her formation.

The mother's health doesn't enter into the equation.

#1: To do a partial birth abortion, you have to deliver the fetus.

#2: At the age when partial birth abortions become necessary, the baby could survive outside the womb.

Assume those two premises and there is really no situation in which the mother's health would be helped by a partial birth abortion.

However, I do agree that if some hypothetical situation arose in which the mother was in need of such a procedure because of a legitimate threat to her health (although I really can't even imagine a way this procedure would be of any help), then fine.

What I really have a problem with is people who decide to end a pregnancy this late and use this procedure as a convenience.

I think the point GP is trying to make is that many people are anti-abortion because they wholly believe in the sanctity of all human life. This includes the lives of convicted criminals. If someone wants to be anti-abortion because of the above named reason, fine. They shouldn't be surprised when people call them out for being contradictory when they cry *for* the death penalty.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, some scholars and observers believe that the case against the Ninth Circuit is overstated, and note that the court “is more likely than other circuits to handle complex issues that require legal pioneering in a rapidly changing society.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That's just another way of saying "some" (liberal) scholars and observers stating that they agree with judicial legislation when it serves their purposes.

And with some, it's not a question of human life. It's a question of justice.

The criminal is receiving justice. Is the fetus?

Based on legal precedent, the mother's health does. The government is allowed to restrict access to abortions, but there must always be an exception for the mother's health. It's the law. I'm willing to bet that if this makes it to the Supreme Court, they'll uphold the decision.

If you want to have the sanctity of human life argument, we can start another thread for that....

Yes. For some it is justice. I can understand their viewpoint there. I don't always necessarily agree, but that's life. It's just irking for people to pick and choose what lives are sacred. That's God's job.

I'm not really a sanctity of life person.

I've just looked at the facts, and my view is that this particular procedure is unnecessary, irresponsible and barbaric.

I'm actually perfectly okay with some earlier term abortion procedures -- in fact, I would go so far as to say that in the case where the potential mother excercises responsibility and good decision making skills early, she's got every right to terminate that pregnancy.

However, once a fetus reaches a point where it would be viable outside the womb, I begin to have a problem with killing it. That's where I think this procedure is unnecessary.

In the brief research I did on this topic, I could not find one specific instance of a mother's health being brought into jeapordy. However, I'm all in favor of a stipulation in the law requiring that so long as doctors use it responsibly (and I'm talking murder trials for the ones that don't).

Not in America, that's the jury's job.

It's a graphic procedure, to be sure. If a woman is going to have an abortion (for whatever reason) she will 99.9999% of the time elect to do it as early as possible. If it's personal, she'll want as few people as possible to realize she's pregnant. If it's medical, it needs to be done asap to prevent further problems. I've never heard of a case where a woman carries a baby to 8 months and then says "Ya know, I've changed my mind." If she has a 'partial birth' abortion, it would no doubt be out of medical necessity and not simply on a whim. Also note that abortion often causes fertility issues (if not complete infertility), especially if performed later on in the pregnancy. And as with any operation, there are risks to life and limb. It's not a decision to be made lightly!
If we attempt to deny women the choice (or hinder their ability to implement the choice) to make decisions about their own bodies, we'll be no better than the Third World countries we've attempted to liberate.

I don't think people's issues with partial birth abortion has anything to do with a woman's choice. If someone wanted to have an abortion for the reason that she just doesn't want to be pregnant, she should have it as early as possible. It isn't something that I agree with, or encourage, but I guess if someone wants to do it, she should be able to. It is the partial birth thing that I have issues with.

I've looked for statistics before and haven't found any. Here's a webpage that outlines the major reasons (aside from potential death of the mother) that D&X abortions are performed:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba1.htm#why


Essentially, the whole thing about D&X abortions is that they are almost never performed unless it would be a very bad idea to go through with the pregnancy (and in the rare cases where it is performed for "no good reason," that's against medical regulations in many states). You can't just wake up one day and say, "Oh, whoops, I changed my mind and I don't want to have this baby anymore, guess I'll go have an abortion!" Any doctor who performs this procedures weighs the pros and cons very carefully simply because of its nature.

There is nobody sane in the world who chooses the most violent, goriest procedure available to get rid of a fetus just for the hell of it. Most people out there choose the procedure that will cause the least discomfort for both them and the fetus -- anybody who doesn't is pretty clearly crazy (and in that case, they need to be having an abortion because I don't want any more crazy people having children). And if someone doesn't understand that, I think they're missing out on a fundamental piece of the argument.