Burnt Orange Report

legislation to ban a made up medical procedure

If it's "made up", then what's your beef?

they account for less than 1/10 of 1% of all abortions performed in the US

If so few, then, you're right, it's no big deal to ban them.

If you are wondering what partial-birth abortion is, you can view drawings showing the procedure here (no gore, these are clinical-style drawings):

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBA_Images/PBA_Images_Heathers_Place.htm

Before anyone can claim to have an informed opinion, whether they support or oppose prodecures of this type, they have an obligation to understand exactly what is entailed.

Actually, D&Es are more common than that, particularly in the first 12-15 weeks. In fact, because it is a common procedure, the Supreme Court ruled against the Nebraska law in Stenberg vs Carhart citing that the vague definition of "partial birth" could have included D&Es.

What's at issue here is a similar vagueness. Nowhere in the law are weeks or time frame mentioned as part of the definition. The authors supposedly addressed that issue by more specifically defining the procedure.

NRA supporters should recognize the criticism of this law.

I've seen this "made up" argument before, so I'm not sure I understand the point. The procedure as described in the law is used.

Mark, I want to be sure I understand what you're saying:

>>If so few, then, you're right, it's no big deal to ban them.

So am I correct that you're saying that if a bad law only affects a few people, it's no big deal?

The made-up part is incorrectly calling it a "partial birth" abortion. There's no "birth" involve, "partial" or otherwise.

Of course, this is coming up from the people who think clear-cutting promotes "healthy forests" and "clear skies" can be full of smog.

>>If so few, then, you're right, it's no big deal to ban them.

So am I correct that you're saying that if a bad law only affects a few people, it's no big deal?

No, I was being ironic, because, as you say, such an argument is illogical - yet is constantly used by those who support Partial Birth Abortion. "It hardly ever happens anyway", as if that supports the legal right to what is, for all intents and purposes, infanticide.

We are all missing the two biggest points here:

1. There is no provision to save a mother's life. If a federal judge hadn't handed down a restraining order yesterday preventing the Justice Dept. from moving against several doctors under the new law then concievably a woman could be told by her doctor today that she will die b/c though there is a safe and effective procedure to save her life, the federal government has said that she can't have it because of their religious beliefs. That is disgusting

2. Furthermore, couldn't Bush get at least one woman that voted for this to be at the signing? I think Landrieu did, Kay Bailey Hutchison was "absent" which further suggests to me that she is secretly pro-choice. If anything, the photo op says that despite the fact that this law affects women's health, despite the fact that it affects mostly young people, despite the fact that it tends to affect minorities disproportionately we are not going to have any women, young people or minorities on the stage when their lives are written off as unimportant by a handful of politicians.

THAT'S what's pathetic.

anon,

The procedure that the law describes can be said to be partial birth in that the baby is outside the mother's body except for the head.

Are you saying that this procedure is never carried out? I saw an interview on Newshour that indicated those procedures were carried out (though specific examples were not given by the person defending the abortion procedure).

I'm asking this question, but frankly, it's not like I haven't read about it. The debate and the facts are poor on both sides.

This may be seen as heresy by the left, but I invite comments. I have read folks on the left lament that Roe v Wade has suppressed swing /Democrratic leaning voter turnout and policy because they feel that the Courts have taken the debate out of the politcal branches of government. The effect is why not tolerate some anti-abortion Republicans if you agree with them some other issues, because the Courts will always keep their anti-abortion policy from ever being law.

The argument is to welcome an erosion of Roe v. Wade so that the issue returns to the politcal branches of goverement, where the progressives will kick the conservatives' ass on this issue because the vast majority of americans are pro choice. The result is that many swing voters will be to afraid to vote Republican and will vote Democratic on this one issue alone.

I do not subscribe to this view, but I toss out the argument for the purpose of feedback.

Name, you overestimate support for abortion. It's 50/50, generally, and opposition to abortion has been increasing over time.

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

As to your argument, I think regardless of the merits, the special interests in support of abortion within the Democratic Party would never tolerate giving an inch on the issue anyway. They've already made it a litmus test for judicial nominees to the extent of forcing previously unheard of filibusters by Senate Democrats.

Mark,

It is not 50/50 generally. Look at the polls about the availability of abortion or even the questions about the Supreme Court decision.

The 1/19-21/03 CBS poll: 77% think abortion should be available or available with stricter limits.

The 1/19-21/03 NBC poll: Only 8% think it should always be illegal.

The 1/19-21/03 ABC poll: 14% think it should always be illegal. 39% think it should be be mostly or always illegal.

56% favors the 1973 Woe v Wade ruling.

The 1/15-16/03 Time/CNN poll: 40% think abortion should always be legal; 86% think it should always or sometimes be legal.

I see little evidence of 50/50 splits.

Personally, I have no problem siding with Republicans on issues. I don't really listen to the party line. I have a set of core values that with the facts of the debates leads me to my conclusions. I have no issue with putting limits on abortion in theory, depending on the issue involved and the facts.

For what it's worth, my wife and I decided that we would not have an abortion when there was concern about birth defects, given my wife's age. I had worked with retarded children and adults, so I had no problem accepting that possibility. I personally am against abortion in general, though I support the ability to choose. However, because of severe deformities that would not have allowed the child to survive outside the womb, my wife had a D&E in the 16th week.

As far as I can see from reading the bill itself, that would be illegal now. No congressman has the right to make that decision for us, that my wife would have had to go through the remaining weeks bringing to term what would have been a dead child.

Tx Bubba,

I'm very sorry to hear about your loss. This gives you a perspective that few people have. My wife and I also lost a child, and had to have a D&C at 12 weeks. It's painful to think about, much less discuss.

That said, I don't think a D&E at 16 weeks would qualify as a partial-birth abortion according to the language of the bill. The link I posted above shows the PBA procedure, and has another link showing the D&E procedure. Regardless, perhaps there should be a time limit in the PBA ban, or an exception for children that are unable to survive outside of the womb.

Thanks, Tom. Actually, I regret posting that for many reasons. I didn't say it out lightly but with some difficulty.

That said, I think there are the very least conditions to consider that aren't present in the law.

Thank you guys for sharing these experiences here. I would like to see BOR become a community where we can respect each other and share our ideas and experiences so that we are all better people. I'm glad that Mark and Sherk and the other conservative voices are here- they make things a lot more interesting.

I think that what we see is that this procedure is not common, it is not done lightly and it is a deeply personal and often tragic decision that families must make and no politician ever has the right to make that decision for families. I understand the opposition to abortion- personally I would not want my wife, sister, mother or daughter to have one. But that does not change the fact that I cannot impose my morals, my definition of life and my predilictions on others. I fear the day when a woman dies or when a child is born only to suffer for a few years and then die when such suffering and such injustice was unnecessary.

That which unites us- liberals and conservatives- is far greater than that which divides us. We both believe that human life mustn't be taken lightly or for transient causes. Allowing a woman to die because she could not recieve a safe, effective medical procedure seems because politicians decided they didn't think it was moral seems to be an egregious violation of the sanctity of human life. I would oppose this legislation even if it did have a provision for saving a woman's life, but the lack of such a provision makes it particularly odious.

Once again, thank you for sharing and God bless you all.

Andrew,

You wrote ... "but that does not change the fact that I cannot impose my morals, my definition of life and my predilictions on others."

Regardless of one's person moral beliefs, I would hope that we could agree that, regardless of who, if anyone, is correct, there can at most be one and only one moral truth. If (we) pro-lifers are correct in saying that the unborn child has a soul, and an innate right to life given to it by God, then, whether or not anyone personally believe abortion is moral or immoral, abortion is murder. On the other hand, if abortion advocates are correct (or at least some I have met, I don't know that any of you would agree w/this or not), if the unborn child has no soul, no rights, and an abortion is morally indistinguishable from an operation to remove a tumor, pro-lifers are nuts, and we have no valid reason to oppose legal abortion. What I am getting at is personal belief or unbelief doesn't change the underlying facts ... although I would love to tell my Macro Prof. that I don't believe in Difference Equations, and their absence from my answer shouldn't make it wrong :)

But my point is that you, and a lot of other abortion supporters that I know, frequently make the point that pro-lifers can't allow their religious beliefs to intrude on the rights of pregnant women. But why, then, should irreligious beliefs be allowed to intrude on the rights of the unborn child. Someone's personal opinion on the moral stature of the child does not change that stature, it is still a human being, whose life was given to it by God, and that right may not be legally violated. If someone "personally" believes that abortion is murder, why should they support policies that allow those with different beliefs to commit murder.

To take an extreme example, lets say someone's religious/irreligious beliefs led them to the conclusion that homosexuals had no rights, damaged society, and that anyone could morally shoot them on sight, if they wanted to. Everyone here would agree they were nuts, and would support laws to outlaw the murder of homosexuals, excepter perhaps in rare and extreme cases of self defense. We would happily tell them that their moral beliefs, or the lack there of, do not change the fact that murder is wrong, and must be prohibited.

Christians would support such laws on the basis that homosexuals, like all sinners, are loved by God and have an inalienable right to their lives. Large numbers of non-believers would similarly have non-religious beliefs that would lead them to protect the rights of homosexuals. I think that we could all agree that, in this context, it would make no sense to argue that you "personally" believe homosexuals have rights, but don't believe your religious views should be imposed on others, because what we would be dealing with is restraining a portion of the population that claims that their (ir)religious beliefs justify killing others.

So why shouldn't we protect the unborn children from those who argue that they have no rights?

Sherk

Andrew,

Have you read the law? There is a clear provision for the health of the mother:

"(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than years, or both. 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."

The abortion lobby is obviously not satisfied with this clause, because they prefer a loophole wide enough to drive a truck through. Hypocrites.

The problem is that the exception only applies to instances of saving a woman's life. The law should have an exception which applies to the endangerment of the overall health of the woman.

Why don't you take your own advice and read the law?

I've posted a response to this post on my web log.

The law should have an exception which applies to the endangerment of the overall health of the woman.

That's an attempt to backdoor a loophole, since the abortionist would presumably define the endangerment of health. "Bad hair day, dear? I recommend a partial birth abortion!"

I am finding the discussion here to be highly thought provoking.
internet casinos

highest casino payouts

big bonus casinos

flash casinos

new online casinos

Andrew, Mark, Tom, Owen, Joshua, Bubba. I'm so glad you men have it all figured out for us "girls." Bush and his cronies have been quietly and secretively chipping away at all of our civil rights, abortion included but not exclusively. The right to free speech, freedom of the press, doctor/patient confidentiality, to gather in groups ... all of these rights, and whatever else he can think of, are in jeopardy.
And by the way...If I want an abortion, I have the right to have one. No questions, no excuses, for whatever reason, and without apology.