http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/06/ab...ion/index.html

Personally I'm glad the judges are doing this. IMO there should have been a concession for allowing abortion if a woman's health is in danger. I know this is a VERY touchy issue and some do take it personally. Please no jabs at each other. Thanks for your consideration. [img]smile.gif[/img]

<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#00FF00">I am not so sure, after six months the only time such a thing should be preformed is if the mothers life is in danger. Then a decision needs to be made on whose life to save. Otherwise, to me sticking scissors into an almost fully developed babies skull and sucking out the brains is murder. I know people who have gotten this done just because they don't want the baby. I am not sure were they find the legit doctors to do this but it is sickening when it happens, and the mothers life is not on the line. We are not talking about a clump of cells here. </font>

Here's what partial birth abortion is:

Partial Birth Abortion
Is it Really Happening?


Brenda Pratt Shafer, a registered nurse from Dayton, Ohio, assisted Dr. Haskell in a Partial Birth Abortion on a 26-1/2 week (over 6 months) pre-born baby boy. She testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee (on 11/17/95) about what she witnessed. According to nurse Shafer, the baby was alive and moving as the abortionist delivered the baby's body and arms - everything but the head. The doctor kept the baby's head just inside the uterus. The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, his feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors through the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks he might fall. The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby was completely limp."

With forceps, the doctor turns the baby around in the womb to be positioned feet first. The baby's legs are pulled out into the birth canal. The baby is alive at this point. .

The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head, which remains inside the birth canal. The baby's hands and feet move.

The abortionist stabs the scissors into the base of the baby's skull. The scissors are spread to enlarge the opening. The suction catheter is then inserted and the brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The head slides out easily.
<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#00FF00">
There's a diffference between outlawing this and outlawing abortion completely.</font>

[ 11-07-2003, 04:02 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

I fail to see how the judges can say the health of the mother isn't taken into account. I mean, maybe she can't have the partial-birth abortion if she's got a headache about it, or if it will add unwanted inches to her waistling, but come on, what exact "health" effects do these judges want taken into account.

As I recall, Roe v. Wade left room for the possibility that at some point during the pregnancy, the baby's rights began to supercede the mother's.

This is the kind of judicial legislating-from-the-bench that turns folks against the judiciary. It's completely bogus. Except where the mother can suffer serious injury or death, this should be banned -- Americans want it.

"Oh, but, Timber, what about cases of rape or incest?"

Well, other abortion rights still exist. Sorry to point this out, but in my admittedly callous opinion, if a woman is 6 mos. into her pregnancy before deciding she doesn't want her baby, she can't be trusted to think for herself -- or her baby.

<FONT COLOR=ORANGE>We have some friends of ours that had a baby that was born at 29 weeks of age. That little one was in the hospital for two months but she is a thriving baby. In the case of our friends, it was determined that the baby wouldn't live if left in her mother's womb, so they induced labor and she was born naturally.

I question why a c-section couldn't be performed after 6 months if the woman's life is in danger, instead of an abortion of this type.

I can't see any reason for an abortion at this stage of the pregnancy, and I don't understand why anyone would be in favor of this type abortion.

The pro-abortion lobby is alot like the gun lobby in that they believe any restriction will lead to an eventual ban. A woman needs the right to a PBA like the average citizen needs the right to own a bazooka. I just can't get the argument. :(

<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#00FF00">Most of us are not Doctors. For those of us who are not, can we say we know all possible complications that can occur when having a baby? I admit I am ignorant in the matter. Are you sure you can say that there could never be sure a case could arise were this is the only way to save the mother? I can't and neither can Bush that is why he placed that stipulation in the law he was trying to create.</font>

The form of abortion is not banned if it 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," according to the text of the law.

<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#00FF00">Signing this piece of legislation is one of the only thing Bush has ever done that I agreed with.

On the other hand, making abortions illegal will never stop the procedure from being performed and when it comes to partial birth abortion that is sad.</font>

AFAIK, this is not a nationwide injunction, but only for a particular state or area. I am SICK and TIRED of unelected judges nullifying laws passed by elected representatives. Where are the checks and balances?

Bingo! There's that backlash I was talking about.

<font color = lightgreen>Personally, I am pro-choice; however, I don't see the medical need for partial-birth abortion. I agree with Timber Loftis--if you cannot decide whether or not to keep a baby after 6 months then you cannot make other life-and-death decisions for the child.
However, I want to leave the topic at hand and touch on something tangentially. If a total ban on abortion is enacted, or a ban that prevents easy/widespread access to abortion providers, then the poor folks will simply go to a back-alley medical "chop shop" and take their chances, while the rich will travel to where such procedures are easily obtainable. The net result will be the same--those who want an abortion, regardless of any legal ban, will find a way to get one.

That being said, it does seem that lately some judge is waiting for a bill to be ratified into law so he (or she) may subsequently rule it unconstitution, sometimes even before the President signs the bill. [img]graemlins/saywhat.gif[/img] The strange thing is that some of these blockage rulings are happening at odd times such as 1:00 in the morning; are the judges staying up all night just to see what happens? Finally, isn't it the job of the Supreme Court, not a simple Federal judge, to rule on the Constitutionality of a law?

If the President wants to play hard-ball with the Judiciary, then enforce the law as passed in spite of the judge's ruling. The judge cannot force the Executive to quit enforcing a law....</font>

Which is why I think it's a damned shame our tax dollars can support upwards of $5K to have a kid plus 3 cartons of milk a week (along with other AFDC benefits) but our tax dollars have been dictated by repug assholes to NOT fund abortions. Personally, I'd rather pay to kill the kid as pay to raise it -- as raising it is more costly.