The ban on partial birth abortions

  • Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.

SpiritWalker

Tattooed Beat Messiah / Prime Mover
Feb 20, 2002
1,493
0
0
NC
webpages.charter.net
The ban on partial birth abortions​


What late-term abortion techniques have been used?​

Here are the medical definitions of abortion techniques used during the second and, occasionally, third trimester:
-The most common late-term procedure is called “dilation and evacuation,” or D&E. The woman’s cervix is dilated and the doctor removes the fetus with a combination of suction and pulling with forceps. Exactly how it works can differ from doctor to doctor. Sometimes suctioning out the amniotic fluid kills the fetus before it enters the birth canal; some doctors inject drugs into the fetal sac or cut the umbilical cord first; sometimes the procedure dismembers the fetus.
—A subset of that procedure is called “intact dilation and extraction” or D&X. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists defines intact D&X as dilating the cervix, delivering the fetus feet-first except the head, and then collapsing the skull so it will fit through the partially dilated cervix for delivery of a dead but intact fetus.
—The rarest technique is induction. Doctors inject the uterus with substances that start contractions, and about 24 hours later the woman delivers a fetus usually killed during what is essentially pre-term labor. Unlike most other abortions, it is performed in a hospital and cannot be done before 16 weeks of pregnancy.
Intact D&X is the technique most clearly targeted by the new ban, even though the restrictions also would apply to a headfirst delivery, too.


What are key arguments against a ban?​

Abortion providers argue that the ban is so vaguely worded that it could encompass cases when the other techniques are used, too — such as part of the fetus slipping out during a D&E or when complications arise during an induction.
Moreover, the obstetricians group says there are times when intact D&X may be the best procedure to save the life or preserve the health of the woman. The new ban, in contrast, says partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary for the woman’s health.

Exactly how many procedures are at stake with the ban is unclear.
But, almost 90 percent of U.S. abortions occur during the first trimester. Some 7 percent occur during weeks 13 to 15, 4 percent during weeks 16 to 20, and 1 percent later than that, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute.
NO EXCEPTION FOR WOMAN’S HEALTH
The legislation, which is similar to a Nebraska law the Supreme Court struck down three years ago, imposes the most far-reaching limits on abortion since the high court in 1973 established a woman’s right to end a pregnancy.
It prohibits doctors from committing an “overt act” designed to kill a partly delivered fetus. There is no exception to the ban if the woman’s health is at risk of if the child would be born with ailments.
Supporters argue that the bill applies only to a procedure done late in pregnancy — and relatively rarely — and that the procedure is never necessary to protect the health of the woman.
But abortion rights groups say the law has overly broad language that could criminalize several safe and common procedures, and they fault it for not providing an exception to protect a mother’s health. They also fear that the law will represent the first step in a larger campaign to eventually bar all abortions.
As a result, opponents attacked it in three separate challenges even before it became law, with lawsuits filed Friday in federal courts in San Francisco; Omaha, Neb.; and New York City. Hearings were scheduled Wednesday on all three suits’ request for temporary restraining orders that would block the law from taking effect.
In Lincoln, Neb., U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf indicated Wednesday that he had substantial concerns. “It seems to me the law is highly suspect, if not a per se violation of the Constitution,” he said at the outset of his hearing.
Kopf said the congressional record of the debate of the bill did not reflect “an objective” presentation of the facts.
He also said the law appeared to have a “serious vagueness problem.”
Planned Parenthood sued in San Francisco on behalf of the group and women seeking the type of abortions the law would ban, while the Center for Reproductive Rights filed in Omaha on behalf of physicians. The American Civil Liberties Union sought a similar order in New York.

OPPONENTS’ STRATEGIES
Also Wednesday, an abortion rights group was airing a television ad that says Bush’s signature would erode doctor-patient privacy rights and could represent his first step toward overturning a woman’s right to end a pregnancy. The NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation is spending nearly $500,000 to air ads in Washington, as well as Des Moines, Iowa, and Manchester, N.H., the sites of key early voting in next year’s presidential contest.
And activists, organized by the National Organization for Women, were planning a protest outside the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, where Bush was to sign the bill.
“We won’t stand by silently as this administration attempts to erode our rights,” NOW President Kim Gandy said.
The new bill defines partial birth abortion as delivery of a fetus “until, in the case of a headfirst presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of the breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus.”

Sponsors of the legislation say it is used about 2,200 times a year, principally during the 20th through 26th weeks of pregnancy.
 
Last edited:

JTRipper

Chimpus Maximus
Sep 12, 2001
1,862
0
0
Denial
www.planetunreal.com
What, that's it? Surely they left out the part about how women will now be sold to be shackled to kitchen appliances, barefoot and pregnant. I could swear that I heard something about that.


btw - it was just signed seconds ago.
 

JTRipper

Chimpus Maximus
Sep 12, 2001
1,862
0
0
Denial
www.planetunreal.com
My stand is that the notion that this is some sort of setback for women's personal freedoms is ridiculous, but the more rabid leftists are already frothing over the "slippery slope" that a prohibition on outright infanticide has started us on.

Unless you meant my stand on the broader issue of all abortion - I'm not sure I've ever gotten into that here. It's sort of complicated, and I don't think anyone's likely to change my views on this particular issue, so I usually don't get into it. If that was what you asked though, I suppose the simple version goes something like this:

I don't know when life really starts. At some point between conception and birth though, there clearly comes a time when that little sack of cells becomes a sentient and viable being. This is not a "blastocyst", "fetus", or any other dehumanizing term you care to choose. At almost any point in the third trimester, that little sack can be removed from the mother and be an independantly living child. Sometimes, this can even happen in the second trimester. Wherever this transition point is appears to vary, but terminating it after that point is killing a child. This brings us back to the salient point - I don't know when this occurs, and neither does anyone else. There is a period where abortion is acceptable, and then another where it is not, but I don't know where the dividing line should go. I deem that prudence and simple human empathy demand that we err on the side of caution. Either one person suffers the consequences of their own actions, or another person may suffer fatal consequences instead.

Your article mentioned that 1% of abortions performed in the US are late term procedures, as if the figure is so trivial as to be insignificant. This is a pretty common perspective that I see in media. There are over one million abortions performed in the US anually - last year, 2,700 of them would have fallen under this ban. I don't think 2,700 children tortured and murdered is insignificant, and I don't think that the "right to cut a viable child to pieces" or the "right to puncture a viable child's head and collapse its skull" are vital freedoms for women.
 

Cactus

The Evil Spatula
Mar 19, 2000
1,970
2
0
42
Ithaca (A.K.A. Cornell's Bitch) NY
i'm in between the "we know what's best" and "slippery slope" arguments. i'm pro choice, but partial birth, from what i actually know about the procedure, lands in a highly dubious gray area even for a pro-choice man like myself. i mean it's really kinda... terrible...

i think choice should be up to a point, you can control if you will bring a child into this world. just like if you decide you want to buy a TV, or get a dog. however, unlike POSESSIONS like dogs and TV's, a child after it is born has human rights, and therefore a point needs to be determined to see when it achieves eligibility for those rights. be it at conception, be it at the point when it can survive outside the womb, be it the moment of birth, on a legal and ethical and enforcibility angle, the line has to be drawn. i personally would have it be drawn BEFORE partial birth abortions. i'm not of the "life begins when sperm meets egg" persuation, nor am i the eager woman's rights advocate saying "by banning any one specific form of abortion, we're taking everyone's rights away and we might as well put women in tubes and have them shoot out babies." i think the policy makers should exercise common sense. slippery slope arguments is contingent on people not having any common sense.

example: slippery slope argument says that if i download music off the internet, that means i'm violating a law, which makes me likely to violate other laws, which means i'm probably out violating laws against murder. therefore everyone who downloads music are axe murderers and rapists. this argument is stupid. because it's contingent on people not having common sense. common sense dictates taht people who download music still aren't going to go out and rape and murder.

example: slippery slope said that if you take away the first amendment rights to free speech from someone, no matter how incredibly obsene their opinions are, you might as well stuff a ball gag in everyone's mouths. this again assumes that people have no common sense. prevailing common sense gives society the ability to accept certain declarations and view others as violations. by the slippery slope argument, if we take away the rights of people to circulate kiddie porn, we will surrender our right to free press. this is why slippery slope is used only by people who don't have any better arguments.

a ban on partial birth abortions isn't going to overturn Roe v. Wade. it's going to outlaw a specific procedure. and people will use their common sense to know that abortions are still acceptable in most cases, that women have these rights, but only up to a certain point, which is what the interpretations of laws up to now have been, and what the interpretation will be from this point forward.
 

Nachimir

Crony of Stilgar
Aug 13, 2001
2,517
0
36
Shelf Adventure.
Yeah. Abortion shouldn't be an issue, but even if we invented non-disruptive, 100% effective birth control stupidity would still outrun it.
 

Twrecks

Spectacularly Lucky
Mar 6, 2000
2,606
10
36
In Luxury
www.twrecks.info
This is where communism rules. No lengthy costly legal debacles, misconcieved ethics are cast aside for the communal good. If it is a State approved planned pregnacy then NO abortion, Duh. Otherwise end it as soon as possible/detected, and fine those parties responsible, or irrisponsible parties, as the case may be.
No law suits could be filed for "OOps I removed your uterus" or "gosh dan, was that your testes?".
DNA will quickly assertain who the sperm doner was.
Child birth should be a right, not a freedom. A freedom that burdens both the medical/insurance and the work force.
However that is not the way it is here in the US. So my stand would be it is the choice of the birth parents, provided they are leagally married to decide the outcome of their genes. Unwed mothers could petition to adopt the fetis if they could prove finacial stability. face it, an unwanted child is UNWANTED. Stupidity should be penalized, such as defacto sterilization for repeat accidental pregnacy offenders (even men).
As to proceedures, the one SAFEST to the woman should be used, the fetis will die. Economis and Logic should predicate any arguements, not frenzied emotions or fanatical religious beliefs.
And eat my shorts on these "If I hadn't been born" commercials. No dorky door things would have been different. I agree killing is bad, but until proof of cognizant thought can be determined (new borns don't have this IMO) then it's extermination. Boo Hoo all you dreamers want on fertilized eggs. Saving every pregnacy is ludicrous, were we draw the line may come down to what country you reside in... uh, like it does now. I just wish the Feds would make their minds up and stand by it.
 

SpiritWalker

Tattooed Beat Messiah / Prime Mover
Feb 20, 2002
1,493
0
0
NC
webpages.charter.net
T.. it just seems cruel are unthinkable to kill a child that is easily viable.. I have no real issues with abortion, up to a certain point. And after that point, the "fetus" needs to be considered a person, with all right entitled. Just because a child hasn't had a cognizant thought, that shouldn't be an issue. Since an unborn does know hunger, sleeps, and can respond to stimuli. If there is no risk to the mom, then the child, which the mother allowed to come this far, hsould have to be held responsible for the child that she carries.. If a mom leaves the hospital the day after the baby is born, and kills the baby, then the mother is held responsible.
 
bah....I debate this abortion shiit so much in class I am sick of it.

Canidate:"Abortions for everyone!"

Crowd:"Boooooooooo!"

Canidate: "Ok...Abortions for no one!"

Crowd: "Booooooooo!"

Canidate:"...Abortions for some, free American flags for others!"

Crowd: "YAAAAAY!"
 

Twrecks

Spectacularly Lucky
Mar 6, 2000
2,606
10
36
In Luxury
www.twrecks.info
It's all well and good you hold life in high esteem SW, but mb you're projecting your own drive for self preservation. Maybe the kid will grow up to be Charlie Manson or Ted Bundy, maybe Leonardo DiVinci or Albert Einstien. It is those kinds of irrational thought that prevent decisive legislation from being inacted and preserved. I really don't give a c4rp about someone eles's baby, unborn or otherwise. OH that maybe very unhumanitarian of me, but really ,there's millions of kids that I'd rather help that actually need help. And there's plenty of adults too. However, I loathe able body pan handlers. They just piss me off. Everybody is so wrapped up in trying to be PC they forget that what we have is a socio-economic crisis. If you base law on physical and financial requirements it typically will stand to reason it will hold true to it's intent and garnish support. Not so with anything that church can try to re-establish it's influence over the state. <wave American Flags here>
I'm a firm beliver that man is basically good and can govern himself. Stupid ppl are not dumb just lazy, they would rather someone else govern them because responsibility and ownership require a fair amount of work and effort. Unfortunately our (US) government encourages ppl to be lazy, dunno, mb to perpetuate their power base by giving fanatics a bone to chew, or that's what the masses really do want. This whole Abortion thing is nothing more than a diversion that could be resolved to a tee for eternity if it didn't provide so much entertainment and expending of potential energies. So what you have here is two control factions playing tug-a-war over a bunch of lazy ppl getting excited and playing out their so called RealLife games instead of comming to a logical conclusion to the whole affair. Arguing is fun, I know, I'm an Engineer.
Think about it, noone like being told what to do, but if you are informed of the possible choices tendencies are that you will pick the same one that otherwise would have been preached to you by someone with your interests at heart and not their own. Why? because usually there is only one right answer in a given situation. If the placenta is still attached, get a coat hanger, if not, the hover. If the birth canal is too small, make the object passing through it smaller. The how is not the question, rather the why and who makes that desicion. I just hope that a government that serves the ppl makes that choice for all those dumb lazy free loafers rather than a self-serving theocracy make it. <wave American Flag again>
I guess that's why a few Americans keep the process of free elections in tact and try to keep level headed individuals as our representitives. If later we decide to ammend the current set of laws something can be done about it. Yet we have to contend with factions at the same time. Very complicated stuff political science. Prolly why I failed the course. Once ppl agree to comprise some control will be reliquished from their lives, no matter what the courts decide. Don't worry, I will never be appointed to office. All those dead baby party jokes involving pitch forks kinda did in my public carrer oppurtunities.
 

JTRipper

Chimpus Maximus
Sep 12, 2001
1,862
0
0
Denial
www.planetunreal.com
Twrecks said:
I agree killing is bad, but until proof of cognizant thought can be determined (new borns don't have this IMO) then it's extermination.

So post-partum abortions are ok too?

Maybe the kid will grow up to be Charlie Manson or Ted Bundy, maybe Leonardo DiVinci or Albert Einstien. It is those kinds of irrational thought that prevent decisive legislation from being inacted and preserved.

If you haven't turned into DaVinci or Einstein yet, you're just not going to. There's still a chance you could become Charlie Manson or Ted Bundy though, so maybe we shouldn't be so harsh on procedures that could prevent that.
 
Last edited:

Nachimir

Crony of Stilgar
Aug 13, 2001
2,517
0
36
Shelf Adventure.
Twrecks said:
Child birth should be a right, not a freedom.

People should be taught to handle freedom with responsibility. Unfortunately, noone has figured that one out yet, but it's always more desirable than state control.
 

oosyxxx

teh3vilspa7ula
Jan 4, 2000
3,178
71
48
unneeded "comic" relief

I think a cool name for a pro wrestling finishing move would be "The Retroactive Abortion."

<Jim Ross> Austin to his feet. He pulls Kevorkian up by the ears, boot to the gut, STUNNER! NO! Kevorkian blocked it! Thumb to the eye. Kevorkian's fist is entering Austin's trunks. RETROACTIVE ABORTION! RETROACTIVE ABORTION! RETROACTIVE ABORTION! *one* *two* *THREE* *DING DING DING DING*