Supreme Cabal: Partial Birth Abortion UnConstitutional

  1. Or rather, the ban signed by President Bush in 2003 ISN'T UnConstitutional:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070418/...us_abortion_16

    You have to really wonder how the next change in the Cabal will affect Roe v. Wade. I think Roe is in serious danger of falling, soon. I think it likely that President Bush will get another pick to the Cabal.

    Two current members, Ginsburg and Stephens, are rumored to be in ill health, one of them seriously ill. You can pull that up all over the blogosphere.

    IF Roe is overturned, abortions will not become illegal, in the main, in the United States. Nonsense. BUT. What WILL happen is that this issue will go back to the States to decide, where it belongs.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Apr 18, '07
    •  
  2. 38 Comments

  3. by   CHATSDALE
    there will never be a compromise where hare held views are intrenched

    i believe that where a baby is viable there should be some restrictions..but even in my own famiy that there die hard views on both sides as in never under any circumstances...and always a mothers choice
  4. by   VivaLasViejas
    Under ordinary circumstances, I believe the decision whether or not to continue a pregnancy should be between a woman, her doctor, and her God. "Partial-birth" abortion, on the other hand, is an abomination which should indeed be banned, IMO. (Then again, I'm against second- or third-trimester abortions anyway---I think that if you want an abortion, you'd better get it done within the first 12 weeks or forget it.) It's a rare case when I agree with the so-called 'religious right', but this is one time I'll gladly stand up and say "Good for them".
  5. by   anonymurse
    This issue is being treated as unprecedented, but I think we have precedent.

    The article says "The procedure at issue involves partially removing the fetus intact from a woman's uterus, then crushing or cutting its skull to complete the abortion."

    Let's say we have a viable baby, no matter what stage of development, whose head comes out of the mother's body. At this exact moment, how do we consider this baby?

    If it's something we've never thought about, maybe we can observe how we treat it. Do we treat it as an independent little patient?
  6. by   Simplepleasures
    Partial birth abortions should not be allowed, after 12 weeks the woman should have made her decision whether or not to abort. Abortion should never be taken lightly or as an alternative for being irresponsible. My personal belief is that life begins at conception, but to take away the womans right to choose is wrong.Back alley abortions have been around for eons and should not be forced upon women in this day and age.

    I do think it is incredibly disrespectful to our county's Supreme Court to call it a cabal, but THAT is your right.
    Last edit by Simplepleasures on Apr 18, '07
  7. by   pacifica
    From msnbc.com
    The law is constitutional despite not containing an exception that would allow the procedure if needed to preserve a woman's health...Abortion rights groups as well as the leading association of obstetricians and gynecologists have said the procedure sometimes is the safest for a woman.
    Yeah, I get it that those who are against abortions have this delusional thought that women are running out there getting abortions in the last trimester out of convenience. That is utterly ludicrous.

    The disturbing thing about this ruling is there is no exception to protect the life of the mother. I hope those of you who support this ruling can put your hyperbole and emotion aside long enough to think objectively about what this means for protecting both a woman's private medical decisions and for the ability of doctors to provide lifesaving medical treatment. This decision is between a WOMAN and her DOCTOR. PERIOD. END OF STORY.

    Sorry for shouting but this sickens me that medical professionals think it is okay for the Supreme Court and the Congress to interfere with a medical procedure that may be necessary to save someone's life. :angryfire :angryfire :angryfire
  8. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from pacifica
    Sorry for shouting but this sickens me that medical professionals think it is okay for the Supreme Court and the Congress to interfere with a medical procedure that may be necessary to save someone's life. :angryfire :angryfire :angryfire
    First off, I'm not really discussing the pros and cons of abortion so much as the political dimensions of the issue.

    I think the 2003 law that the Cabal upheld today is wrong. I do NOT think it is wrong by intent, but by design. Simply put, the Federal Gov't has no right to interfere in what is essentially a State or Individual issue.

    In that we agree.

    However, I go further. The Supreme Cabal should never have legislated from the bench on this issue, in the first place. The 2003 legislation was Congress' attempt to counter-legislate from the Court. In that, apparently, they were successful.

    Here's the rub: you probably support Roe. But Roe ITSELF is the same thing: the Cabal interfering with an issue it has no business being involved in. When the Federal gov't can grant you rights, it owns your rights.

    You cannot support the concept of Roe and be AGAINST the Feds later legislating AGAINST Roe. Accepting that the gov't has a right to voice any view on this issue is tantamount to accepting that the gov't has a right to voice a counter-view to what you believe.

    The sooner Roe goes back to the States, the sooner the Cabal is not an abortion football instead of a Court. And the better off both sides of this debate will be.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
  9. by   pacifica
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    First off, I'm not really discussing the pros and cons of abortion so much as the political dimensions of the issue.

    I think the 2003 law that the Cabal upheld today is wrong. I do NOT think it is wrong by intent, but by design. Simply put, the Federal Gov't has no right to interfere in what is essentially a State or Individual issue.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.

    Thank you for your reply. I should have clarified that I was not directing my original comment toward you. You were very clear that you are interested in this as a Federal power vs. state rights issue. I agree with much of what you say. Although it terrifies me to think that certain states would make laws that completely disregard medical expertise. I'm afraid that those who can afford to will be able to go to another state to get appropriate, i.e. lifesaving, medical care, while poor women will likely suffer and possibly die.

    What upset me was comments from others who brought up the whole myth that women are aborting near full-term fetuses left and right out of sheer selfishness and irresponsibility. That is what I was responding to in my first comment.
  10. by   sanctuary
    It distresses me that ANY medical decision would be considered approved or not approved based on religious thinking. After all, there are churches that say blood transfusions are a sin. There are those who say that any alliopathic intervention is a sin. What happens if the court gets stacked in that direction, and ER nurses and docs are arrested for doing their job?
    I think that any legal involvement is overstepping the proper place of the courts.
  11. by   JeanettePNP
    Quote from pacifica
    From msnbc.com


    Yeah, I get it that those who are against abortions have this delusional thought that women are running out there getting abortions in the last trimester out of convenience. That is utterly ludicrous.

    The disturbing thing about this ruling is there is no exception to protect the life of the mother. I hope those of you who support this ruling can put your hyperbole and emotion aside long enough to think objectively about what this means for protecting both a woman's private medical decisions and for the ability of doctors to provide lifesaving medical treatment. This decision is between a WOMAN and her DOCTOR. PERIOD. END OF STORY.

    Sorry for shouting but this sickens me that medical professionals think it is okay for the Supreme Court and the Congress to interfere with a medical procedure that may be necessary to save someone's life. :angryfire :angryfire :angryfire
    Can you provide some examples where partial birth abortions on a viable fetus are performed only to save the life of the mother, and that PBA was the only or safest alternative?
  12. by   SuesquatchRN
    Actually, D&X is not unconstitutional. The statute in question that prohibits it except to save the life of the mother has been deemed to be constitutional.

    I have very bad feelings about this decision simply because the health of the mother has been excluded.

    I do agree that this was always a state and not federal issue, and I am a strong supporter of a woman's right to have an abortion if she wishes. NYS made it legal to have an abortion on demand in the first four months of pregnancy a year before Roe v. Wade was decided. I thought that the NY law was sufficient, as abortions post-4 months could only be obtained for medical necessity and there is a point at which it's a baby, not a blastocyst. But I cringe to see Roe chipped away at because it will thrust poor, ignorant women back into dangerous situations. A woman with money could always fly to Puerto Rico or England. A high school dropout working in a rural Wal*Mart doesn't have the same options.

    So, like most of the human race, I am a hypocrite. I agree that Roe overstepped the place of the judiciary but I don't want to see it overturned.
  13. by   CHATSDALE
    their are thoughtful decisions on this issue and calling those who have different views 'delusional' is not a way to gain understanding...and i can't believe that all or even most PBA ae done to protect the life of the mother

    not everyone who works at walmart is poor and ignorant [different post i know]


    Yeah, I get it that those who are against abortions have this delusional thought that women are running out there getting abortions in the last trimester out of convenience. That is utterly ludicrous.

    The disturbing thing about this ruling is there is no exception to protect the life of the mother. I hope those of you who support this ruling can put your hyperbole and emotion aside long enough to think objectively about what this means for protecting both a woman's private medical decisions and for the ability of doctors to provide lifesaving medical treatment. This decision is between a WOMAN and her DOCTOR. PERIOD. END OF STORY.

    Sorry for shouting but this sickens me that medical professionals think it is okay for the Supreme Court and the Congress to interfere with a medical procedure that may be necessary to save someone's life. :angryfire :angryfire :angryfire[/quote
  14. by   cardiacRN2006
    Quote from ChayaN
    Can you provide some examples where partial birth abortions on a viable fetus are performed only to save the life of the mother, and that PBA was the only or safest alternative?


    Look, if a mother is at the later stages and she needs an abortion to save her life, then they can do a c-section, or delivery without puncturing the base of the skull and sucking out the brains. I'm pro-choice, but partial birth abortions are digusting.

close