Warning - I freely admit to being an avid pro-lifer and view abortion as the rather gruesome murder of an innocent child, who's life deserves as much consideration as the mother who conceived him or her. That said...
In November of 2003, Bush signed into law the ban on partial-birth abortions. Six months later, a California federal district judge struck it down in Planned Parenthood v. Ashcroft and a NY judge did the same in National Abortion Federation v. Ashcroft. Both judges argue the law is unconstituitionl as it includes no exceptions for the benefit of the woman's health. After a few other judges with rather similar conclusions, the Supreme Court has agreed to consider the constituionality of a law with no protection of a woman's health (never mind the baby's!)
Though there's no statistical info on when this type of abortion is performed, but Ron Fitzsimmons, director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, estimates that the partial-birth abortion is usually performed on a perfectly healthy mother and a healthy child that is at least 20 weeks old.
Partial-birth abortions use a process called "dilation & extration" aka D&E. The procedure involves dilating the pregnant woman's cervix and delivering the child feet-first through the birth canal. However, while the head is still inside the mother's body, it is punctured with sharp scissors and the skull squeezed, allowing it to follow the body through the dilated cervix. (Try this on a dog, and you'd most likely be nailed by the animal rights activists.)
Fortunately, this procedure is easier on the mother than the previous methods, which for those interested involved inserting forceps into the womb and pulling the baby to part and removing the body piece by piece. However, either method reduces the chance the woman will be able to have children at a later date, increases the risk of breast cancer, and often leaves her emotionally scarred.
If you've had an abortion or are considering one, you might check out the Crisis Pregancy Center (http://www.pregnancycenters.org/). Whatever you are going through, they will love you, listen if you just need to talk, answer any questions, and help you find whatever help you need. And its completely free and confidential.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Previous Posts
- LivePlasma
- Colr Pickr
- Cool Site - Colr Pickr
- Stock Research - Florida Rock Industries
- Who needs a hybrid...
- Finding God's Purpose
- E12 Beta
- Thanksgiving, lil Sis & a new phone
- Paying people to search?
- Legalization of Drugs and Prohibition
Archives
- Recent Posts
- May 2005
- June 2005
- July 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
- October 2005
- November 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
3 Comments:
While I very respectfully disagree with you, I wonder why these laws never do have provisions which take into consideration the health/life of the Mother. I think it is possible to find middle ground on every issue, even one as contentious as this. If a partial birth abortion is the only way to save the life or preserve the health of the Mother, I believe that she has a right to make that choice. If a law was proposed banning these late term abortions which included these provisions for rare exceptions when the life/health of the Mother is at risk, I really believe that it would receive widespread support(and would hold up in court). Of course, a few fringe radical pro-choice groups would still oppose it, but they don't represent mainstream America, in my opinion. And while this may not be the ideal solution for the intelligent, reasonable pro-lifers like yourself, it would certainly be better than the laws they are trying to pass now, which will never hold up in court. These laws are effectively continuing to allow partial birth abortions in all cases by insisting on an absolute ban with no exceptions. My cynical explanation is that there is an entire industry built on both sides of this issue and they can raise more money through conflict than they can through resolutions, therefore some people(present company most definitely excluded) are more interested in prolonging the fight for their own self-interests, rather than making compromises for a better solution.
To respond to what "anonymous" says, I would like to make a few points. First of all, there is no situation I can imagine where having this kind of abortion would improve the mother's health. After all, she is delivering the baby, and it is of a viable age. At this same time, she could be delivering the baby live. This hardly even qualifies as an abortion, which is why they call it "partial-birth". It's actually infanticide.
Secondly, your guess about the sides of the debate is half correct- there is an institution on the abortion side called Planned Parenthood which benefits financially from abortions. However the pro-life side is a grass-roots movement which has nothing to gain financially.
And now a question- if a few "fringe" groups don't approve of a law which mainstream America could accept, does that mean the law should change, or that the public conscience should change? After all, mainstream America had no problem with slavery for quite a long time. We need to think about each issue and it's true merits, not how many people are on each side.
You make the assumption that giving birth is not dangerous. This assumption is false. There are cases where giving birth will kill the mother, it is a very traumatic shock to the body. A healthy young woman can handle it. Someone in lesser health might not be able to survive. The procedure is on occasion necessary to save the Mother's life.
If Partial Birth Abortion is infanticide, then what do you call it when the state forces a woman to put her body through a trauma that will kill her? A woman has a right to her own life, the state should not be able to infringe on that right.
Planned Parenthood is a non-profit organization. Nobody is getting rich by providing reproductive medical procedures and education to mostly poor women. That's not exactly a great business model. The pro-life politicians, on the other hand, they are getting many millions of dollars in campaign contributions because of the issue. They're the one's who are getting rich(as are the pro-choice politicians on the other side, this issue is very emotional, and that means they are able to use it to raise a good deal of money, it is in their best interest that the issue remain unsolved, so that they can use it in their campaigns.
It's okay for 'fringe' groups to disagree with a law. But we live in a democracy, so mainstream america has the final say. The important point here is that this law is not really a law. It is unconstitutional, and it has been challenged, and it will not take effect, and eventually the supreme court will strike it down. My point is that instead of going through that pointless exercise, which results in there being no law at all against partial birth abortions, why not compromise a little and allow for exceptional cases to protect the mother's health and life? That would virtually eliminate all unnecessary partial birth abortions in this country. What's so wrong with that? Your way(this law) will not prevent a single partial birth abortion. A compromise that takes into consideration the Mother's health and life, would virtually eliminate all unecessary partial birth abortions. Why would anybody who is against abortion want to take the road which leads to more abortions taking place?
Post a Comment
<< Home