Federal judge says partial-birth abortion ban unconstitutional

[Rudey]

Originally posted by mu_agd
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

[aurora_borealis]

Originally posted by ktsnake
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.

I realize that 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?

[mu_agd]

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

-Rudey

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.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by honeychile
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?

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.

[godfrey n. glad]

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

On the Ninth Circuit:

The court is considered by some to have an overly liberal bias, but arguably a majority of its judges are conservatives. While 17 judges have been appointed by Democratic presidents, 5 of those are solid conservatives. Thus only 12 of the Democrat-appointed judges are liberals or moderates, potentially leaving the remaining 15 as conservatives. It is often cited as "the most overturned appeals court in the United States", but this is mostly a product of its high caseload. On a percentage basis, the circuit is not overturned much more than any other.

also

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.”

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

[honeychile]

Originally posted by ktsnake
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.

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.

Originally posted by aurora_borealis
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?

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?

[James]

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.

Originally posted by honeychile


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.

[/b]

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? [/B]

[honeychile]

Originally posted by James
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.

[MTSUGURL]

Originally posted by honeychile
I agree. One's either fundamentally pro- or anti- murder.

Strong statement. Good for you.

[James]

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.

Originally posted by honeychile
I agree. One's either fundamentally pro- or anti- murder.

[Rudey]

How about this:

You are killing the potential for human life.

-Rudey

[James]

Whatevah . . Have at it Hauss.

Originally posted by Rudey
How about this:

You are killing the potential for human life.

-Rudey

[GeekyPenguin]

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.

[Taualumna]

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.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by GeekyPenguin
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.

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.