The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act

[tinybear]

Partial-birth abortion is defined in the law as:

"an abortion in which the person performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus and completing the delivery".

In Nov. 2003, President Bush signed into law an Act banning such abortions. But it has not been implemented throughout the US because of numerous court challenges to the constitutionality of the Act.

Do you think the Act is unconstitutional?

Read more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial...ortion_Ban_Act

[Mia]

They didn't leave a provision for the mother's health. And the wording was so vague, according to doctors, that just about every procedure they perform could be classified as illegal.

[RickSp]

Whether it is determined to be consitutional remains to be seen. It is another example of fundamentalists imposing themselves between a woman and her doctor.

[Runa216]

When in birth does this happen? right as the babies are born, or like really early. if it's right as the baby's born, that's wrong anyway.

Runa

[Mia]

Here's what the Roe V. Wade ruling is on what the states can cannot restrict:

* a woman and her doctor may freely decide to terminate a pregnancy during the first trimester

*state governments can restrict abortion access after the first trimester with laws intended to protect the woman's health.

*abortions after fetal viability must be available if the woman's health or life are at risk; state governments can prohibit other abortions.


The bill passed made all abortions in all states illegal after three months, with a provision for the mother's life but not health.

One, this took away the states' rights to determine for themselves what they will allow after three months (doesn't bother me - I draw the line at three months myself) and two, it didn't have a provision for the mother's health.

Both of these are points go against the Roe V. Wade ruling, and the law is not being enforced as judges deem it unconstitutional.

[Mia]

This is the procedure proponents of the bill said they sought to outlaw:

The procedure is usually performed during the fifth month of gestation or later. The woman's cervix is dilated, and the fetus is partially removed from the womb, feet first. The surgeon inserts a sharp object into the back of the fetus' head, removes it, and inserts a vacuum tube through which the brains are extracted. The head of the fetus contracts at this point and allows the fetus to be more easily removed from the womb

[Runa216]

ewww, not nice. if you're going to get an abortion, get it as soon as you can, don't wait until then.

Runa

[RickSp]

Quote by: Runa216 ewww, not nice. if you're going to get an abortion, get it as soon as you can, don't wait until then. Runa

The so called "partial birth abortion", a name made up by the fundamentalists, is an emergency procedure. It is not a typical abortion.

They are also very rarely performed in late pregnancy. The most common justifications at that time are: The fetus is dead. The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger. The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her. The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth. Many which fall into this category have developed a very severe form of hydrocephalus.

D & X / PBA PROCEDURES

Regettably but not surprisingly, most of what you hear about "partial birth abortions" from the religious right ranges is inaccurate at best.

[Runa216]

yeah, I don't trust anything that the religious people say.

Runa

[Mia]

Quote by: RickSp The so called "partial birth abortion", a name made up by the fundamentalists, is an emergency procedure. It is not a typical abortion. D & X / PBA PROCEDURES Regettably but not surprisingly, most of what you hear about "partial birth abortions" from the religious right ranges is inaccurate at best.

All true. That is why this bill is somewhat of a sham. Easily passed when it's not taken into consideration that it's almost exclusively performed under extreme conditions where it is, in fact, warranted.

However, there are women who waited too long to do this procedure and use 'depression over the pregnancy' or another non-serious medical issue as the health issue that justifies the procedure. Especially during the 5-6 month phase

A bill needs to be crafted to allow the procedure under the most common reasons sought to begin with, as you listed, but banning those not MEDICALLY, and SERIOUSLY risking life/health of mother.

[tinybear]

Quote by: Mia This is the procedure proponents of the bill said they sought to outlaw: The procedure is usually performed during the fifth month of gestation or later. The woman's cervix is dilated, and the fetus is partially removed from the womb, feet first. The surgeon inserts a sharp object into the back of the fetus' head, removes it, and inserts a vacuum tube through which the brains are extracted. The head of the fetus contracts at this point and allows the fetus to be more easily removed from the womb

Ouch, that must be painful, right?

[Mia]

For the baby, it sure must be. Maybe for the woman too, I don't know. I know anyone who does this, unless in the one of the cases cited on page one, is a sicko and a muderer.

I feel sorry for the women for whom it is truly necessary and have to go through it. How awful and emotionally painful if not physically.

[tinybear]

So why do the courts still say the Act is unconstitutional? Surely it's constitutional to ban inflicting such pain to a baby and then taking away its life in the process?

[RickSp]

Quote by: tinybear Surely it's constitutional to ban inflicting such pain to a baby and then taking away its life in the process?

I'm increasingly coming to the view that your posts are really just a long running joke.

[tinybear]

Funny thing, Rick, I was thinking the same thing about yours. :)

[Mia]

Quote by: tinybear So why do the courts still say the Act is unconstitutional? Surely it's constitutional to ban inflicting such pain to a baby and then taking away its life in the process?

I already answered that. These kinds of laws are supposed to be up to the individual states. I agree every state should have a law against this procedure as you seem to, but the bill did not leave a provision for the exception in cases of the mother's health being in danger.

Go back over the last two pages. The cases where this happens most often are listed, and it has to be allowed for these cases and a few other circumstances.

[tinybear]

It already provides for an exception when the mother's life is in danger, right?