I am inclined to support such a ban but I felt that the law that was just passed should have included an exemption for the mother's health rather than life. If a doctor and the woman believes that an abortion would help her health, then she should have the right to choose whether or not to have the abortion. It should be interesting to see if this thing goes to the Supreme Court.
House Passes Partial Birth Abortion
- Thread starter demsformd
- Start date
That sort of thing happens so rarely that it's not worth revising a law over. How many women do YOU know who died in childbirth in the last 100 years?
(revised for retarded typos)
(revised for retarded typos)
With all the advances in neonatal care, a mother who has difficulty past the 6th month could probably deliver the child (forced labor or c-sec). There's a good chance the baby will survive if only the mother's life was in danger. If the baby dies, it still has a better chance than aborting it.
This is the wording from HR760 (that the House passed) of how 18USC would be changed concerning a partial-birth abortion.
Sec. 1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited
(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 2 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. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the enactment.
(b) As used in this section--
(1) the term `partial-birth abortion' means an abortion in which--
(A) the person performing the abortion deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of 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; and
(B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus; and
(2) the term `physician' means a doctor of medicine or osteopathy legally authorized to practice medicine and surgery by the State in which the doctor performs such activity, or any other individual legally authorized by the State to perform abortions: Provided, however, That any individual who is not a physician or not otherwise legally authorized by the State to perform abortions, but who nevertheless directly performs a partial-birth abortion, shall be subject to the provisions of this section.
(c)(1) The father, if married to the mother at the time she receives a partial-birth abortion procedure, and if the mother has not attained the age of 18 years at the time of the abortion, the maternal grandparents of the fetus, may in a civil action obtain appropriate relief, unless the pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff's criminal conduct or the plaintiff consented to the abortion.
The Senate version S3 reads:
Sec. 1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited
(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 2 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. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the date of enactment of this chapter.
(b) As used in this section--
(1) the term `partial-birth abortion' means an abortion in which--
(A) the person performing the abortion deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of 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; and
(B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus; and
(2) the term `physician' means a doctor of medicine or osteopathy legally authorized to practice medicine and surgery by the State in which the doctor performs such activity, or any other individual legally authorized by the State to perform abortions: Provided, however, That any individual who is not a physician or not otherwise legally authorized by the State to perform abortions, but who nevertheless directly performs a partial-birth abortion, shall be subject to the provisions of this section.
(c)(1) The father, if married to the mother at the time she receives a partial-birth abortion procedure, and if the mother has not attained the age of 18 years at the time of the abortion, the maternal grandparents of the fetus, may in a civil action obtain appropriate relief, unless the pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff's criminal conduct or the plaintiff consented to the abortion.
(2) Such relief shall include--
(A) money damages for all injuries, psychological and physical, occasioned by the violation of this section; and
(B) statutory damages equal to three times the cost of the partial-birth abortion.
(d)(1) A defendant accused of an offense under this section may seek a hearing before the State Medical Board on whether the physician's conduct was necessary to save the life of the mother whose life was endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.
(2) The findings on that issue are admissible on that issue at the trial of the defendant. Upon a motion of the defendant, the court shall delay the beginning of the trial for not more than 30 days to permit such a hearing to take place.
(e) A woman upon whom a partial-birth abortion is performed may not be prosecuted under this section, for a conspiracy to violate this section, or for an offense under section 2, 3, or 4 of this title based on a violation of this section.'.
It doesn’t look to me like the intent is to deny anyone the right in a medical emergency to terminate a pregnancy, regardless of method used. It looks more like they want to save viable life from a dastardly act.
Sec. 1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited
(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 2 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. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the enactment.
(b) As used in this section--
(1) the term `partial-birth abortion' means an abortion in which--
(A) the person performing the abortion deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of 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; and
(B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus; and
(2) the term `physician' means a doctor of medicine or osteopathy legally authorized to practice medicine and surgery by the State in which the doctor performs such activity, or any other individual legally authorized by the State to perform abortions: Provided, however, That any individual who is not a physician or not otherwise legally authorized by the State to perform abortions, but who nevertheless directly performs a partial-birth abortion, shall be subject to the provisions of this section.
(c)(1) The father, if married to the mother at the time she receives a partial-birth abortion procedure, and if the mother has not attained the age of 18 years at the time of the abortion, the maternal grandparents of the fetus, may in a civil action obtain appropriate relief, unless the pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff's criminal conduct or the plaintiff consented to the abortion.
The Senate version S3 reads:
Sec. 1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited
(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 2 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. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the date of enactment of this chapter.
(b) As used in this section--
(1) the term `partial-birth abortion' means an abortion in which--
(A) the person performing the abortion deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of 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; and
(B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus; and
(2) the term `physician' means a doctor of medicine or osteopathy legally authorized to practice medicine and surgery by the State in which the doctor performs such activity, or any other individual legally authorized by the State to perform abortions: Provided, however, That any individual who is not a physician or not otherwise legally authorized by the State to perform abortions, but who nevertheless directly performs a partial-birth abortion, shall be subject to the provisions of this section.
(c)(1) The father, if married to the mother at the time she receives a partial-birth abortion procedure, and if the mother has not attained the age of 18 years at the time of the abortion, the maternal grandparents of the fetus, may in a civil action obtain appropriate relief, unless the pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff's criminal conduct or the plaintiff consented to the abortion.
(2) Such relief shall include--
(A) money damages for all injuries, psychological and physical, occasioned by the violation of this section; and
(B) statutory damages equal to three times the cost of the partial-birth abortion.
(d)(1) A defendant accused of an offense under this section may seek a hearing before the State Medical Board on whether the physician's conduct was necessary to save the life of the mother whose life was endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.
(2) The findings on that issue are admissible on that issue at the trial of the defendant. Upon a motion of the defendant, the court shall delay the beginning of the trial for not more than 30 days to permit such a hearing to take place.
(e) A woman upon whom a partial-birth abortion is performed may not be prosecuted under this section, for a conspiracy to violate this section, or for an offense under section 2, 3, or 4 of this title based on a violation of this section.'.
It doesn’t look to me like the intent is to deny anyone the right in a medical emergency to terminate a pregnancy, regardless of method used. It looks more like they want to save viable life from a dastardly act.
K
Kizzy
Guest
Sharon, I agree.
I hemorrhaged in the 26th week of pregnancy with my 2nd son. I had serious, life threatening problem and I ended up delivering my son at 30 1/2 weeks. I was told the morning after being rushed to the hospital by my doctor that it was my life over the baby’s life. They would do everything to save me, but I could die. He went on to say that if they had to deliver the baby, he might not survive. At no time did my doctor suggest sucking my baby’s brain out with a straw, nor would I have heard such a thing. I was at John Hopkins in Baltimore and there were many women who had been there practically their entire pregnancy.
If there is a life threatening condition and doctors have to deliver sooner, there is a chance the baby will survive. There was a baby boy delivered in the 26th week, and he was 3 months old when my son was born. He was the cutest little baby and he survived. I talked with the mother who said he had many obstacles to get through, be he is healthy and doing well. I believe in the right to choose, but I believe that decision should be made before the 2nd trimester. What reason is there to go beyond that? Health? Phooey. I think a partial abortion is a way out for a woman who procrastinated to make an important decision early on.
I hemorrhaged in the 26th week of pregnancy with my 2nd son. I had serious, life threatening problem and I ended up delivering my son at 30 1/2 weeks. I was told the morning after being rushed to the hospital by my doctor that it was my life over the baby’s life. They would do everything to save me, but I could die. He went on to say that if they had to deliver the baby, he might not survive. At no time did my doctor suggest sucking my baby’s brain out with a straw, nor would I have heard such a thing. I was at John Hopkins in Baltimore and there were many women who had been there practically their entire pregnancy.
If there is a life threatening condition and doctors have to deliver sooner, there is a chance the baby will survive. There was a baby boy delivered in the 26th week, and he was 3 months old when my son was born. He was the cutest little baby and he survived. I talked with the mother who said he had many obstacles to get through, be he is healthy and doing well. I believe in the right to choose, but I believe that decision should be made before the 2nd trimester. What reason is there to go beyond that? Health? Phooey. I think a partial abortion is a way out for a woman who procrastinated to make an important decision early on.
K
Kain99
Guest
I must have my head in the sand... I thought Partial Birth was already illegal. 
I hate abortion just as much as the next person. I am a devote Roman Catholic and I believe that life begins at conception. I think that a nation without abortion is great but I also believe that a nation that has choice and personal freedom is greatest. The thing is that we should not put a timetable on abortion rights and if these women procrastinated, so be it. If they do not have a moral objection to it they should should not have to submit to the mainstream Christian idea of life. I believe in life and I believe in choice. Women in this nation should understand that there are better ways to combat an unwanted pregnancy than what I consider to be murder by my morals. But if they do not see things the way that I do, then they should have the right to exercise their control over their own body and their own future.
Then what about those citizens among us who don't have a moral objection to killing an adult? Or killing their already born children? What about that kid who tortured the cat and fed it to an alligator? Just because someone has no moral objection, does that make it okay for them to do what they want?
Dems, it's possible you have no idea how a partial-birth abortion is performed. My grandmother didn't - when I told her, she said, "That's not what happens! Nobody would do that!"
Let me give you a link:
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html
(not particularly graphic - drawings, not live humans)
Dems, it's possible you have no idea how a partial-birth abortion is performed. My grandmother didn't - when I told her, she said, "That's not what happens! Nobody would do that!"
Let me give you a link:
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html
(not particularly graphic - drawings, not live humans)
Toxick
Splat
If you believe that life begins at conception, then how can you view abortion - the termination of that life - as a matter of choice and personal freedom?
Almost all the pro-choice people I've talked to, hold their position based on the singular opinion that a fetus is a non-viable entity, nothing more than a growth of tissue in a woman's uterus, not unlike a tumor with potential. I can live with this. I disagree with it - but given their belief, I can see why they would consider the sloughing off of excess tissue as a method of birth control as acceptable.
But you said that you belive "life begins at conception" - which says to me that you think it's okay to slaughter a living person - a baby - and call it a "personal choice".
Appropos of nothing: What are your views on capital punishment, by the way?
No.
Research the decision (Roe v. Wade) and you will see that the court ruled as follows;
(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.
(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.
(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.
This proposed law doesn't seem to be contrary to that decision at all.
H
Heretic
Guest
So its less wrong if someone goes up to a pregnant woman in her 8th month and sticks a knife in her womb killing her fetus than it is if someone walks up to a woman holding a day old baby and kills it?
And abortion is not a right we are born with, if it was mankind would have been performing abortions when we were still covered with hair and throwing our own feces at each other. It is a right that science has given us and the law of man has allowed. It is a very unnatural process.
And abortion is not a right we are born with, if it was mankind would have been performing abortions when we were still covered with hair and throwing our own feces at each other. It is a right that science has given us and the law of man has allowed. It is a very unnatural process.
jlabsher
Sorry about that chief.
If man wasn't allowed to fly...
I don't think its right either but this is America-freedom is what we are supposedly about. I think it is part of the republican party's agenda to outlaw all abortions. Of course with the advent of cloning and stem cell research the waters really get murky.
Not everybody believes in the idea of life begins at conception. My Roman Catholic faith dictates that idea for me but it is not applicable for the millions of atheists and non-believers in the nation.
While I am a Catholic, I am also a student of the law and the way that I interpret the Constitution, abortion is a legal right of women. The 14th Amendment defines a person with the protection of consitution as being a citizen, born or naturalized. Thus the unborn are not citizens and they do not have rights. Women also have the invaluable right to control their body in any manner that they see fit. If they do not want a child or carrying a child will cause long-term health damage, women must have the right to abort that child.
Adopting the idea of life begins at conception means that the government is in essence endorsing Christian religious ideas and that can never happen if we are to stay the secular state that we are. Illegal abortion would also force women to revert to going to the allies and receiving unsanitary and deadly abortions that are performed with coat hangers. Thousands of women died before Roe because of abortions like these. I am not going to let America oversee the death of millions of children and mothers because the moral elitests in this nation felt that their views were far superior to the immoral satanic people of the United States.
The partial birth abortion ban is a sound idea in principle, but there must be more leniency for the health of the mother in the passed legislation.
And by the way, Ken the Supreme Court struck down Nebraska's statute banning partial birth abortion, which was almost exactly the same as this new federal law, a couple of years ago 5-4.
And I support the death penalty when the crime calls for its application.
Toxick
Splat
That's not my point.
What atheists and agnostics believe has nothing to do with what I said. My point was that you said that you believe that life begins at conception. You continued to say that abortion is a matter of personal choice, and by extension, fine by you.
Unless you think murder is just another fun bit of rough and tumble in everyday life, this view doesn't seem to jibe.
Also your tone in the above paragraph seems to indicate that your Roman Catholic faith dictates the believe that a fetus is a human being, but you rather resent that, and would rather believe otherwise. Am I judging that correctly?
Yeah - I know the law. That's not what I was talking about.
I was wondering how you can condone what you admittedly see as the termination of viable life - commonly called murder.
I know I'm sounding self-righteous and beligerent. I really don't mean to. I'm just trying to see how you can align your two very disparate, indeed opposing, viewpoints.
Not at all.
Judeo-Christian theology states that "Thou Shalt Not Steal". By your logic above, there should be no laws infringing on one's right to rob and pilfer, lest we become a tyrannical theocracy.
Interesting. Your one of the few pro-choice people I've met who supports capital punishment. I often have a hard time coming to grips with the viewpoint that it's okay to slaughter an unborn child, but a cold-blooded criminal scumbag should be sacrosanct. I also have problems with those "pro-life" people who support the death penalty. (FWIW, I do not support it.)
The analogy concerning theft is too radical. Theft needs to be outlawed in order to maintain order as does murder.
You see I believe that there are better ways to stop abortions rather than ban it. (In fact under Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, two pro-life presidents, the abortion rate increased but under Bill Clinton the rate decreased.) The matter is that when people get whatever is restricted if they really want it. Women will have abortions performed on them with hangers if that is the only way that they can have an abortion. This results in the death of two people not just one. This is a matter of choosing between two evils and the lesser one is to allow choice.
There are other laws that go against my Catholic faith like allowing the Pill and vasectomies and other forms of birth control. But they are necessary in society and I will always defend the law of this land. I oppose the death penalty morally but I feel for the relatives of victims and understand that they want closure. That and what some of these people completely warrants their death.
You see I believe that there are better ways to stop abortions rather than ban it. (In fact under Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, two pro-life presidents, the abortion rate increased but under Bill Clinton the rate decreased.) The matter is that when people get whatever is restricted if they really want it. Women will have abortions performed on them with hangers if that is the only way that they can have an abortion. This results in the death of two people not just one. This is a matter of choosing between two evils and the lesser one is to allow choice.
There are other laws that go against my Catholic faith like allowing the Pill and vasectomies and other forms of birth control. But they are necessary in society and I will always defend the law of this land. I oppose the death penalty morally but I feel for the relatives of victims and understand that they want closure. That and what some of these people completely warrants their death.