Landmark Abortion Holding

[Erich von Manstein]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18174245/

Ok, it's not as much of a landmark as the press is making it out to be, but it is historical in the sense that this is the first time since Roe v. Wade that the US Supreme Court has upheld any type of abortion ban. Specifically, partial-birth abortions are no longer allowed anywhere in the US. This procedure typically consists of the physician peforming the abortion pulling the fetus part-way out of the womb (hence "partial-birth") cutting open the skull of the fetus, vacuuming out the brain, collapsing the skull and then fully removing the rest of the fetus. Another method involves the fetus being torn to pieces inside of the womb, so to speak, with the pieces then being removed from the womb individually. Only the former has been banned; the latter is still legal. Regardless, this procedure is a particularly barbaric one and I for one am glad to see it go.

Before pro-choice advocates start shouting that this is but the first step towards overturning Roe v. Wade, I suggest that everyone look at the way each Supreme Court justice voted. Specifically, look at the swing vote. Justice Kennedy, the swing vote here, was also the swing vote in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1995 holding that expanded upon Roe v. Wade by allowing 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions (Roe was disinclined to allow the former and was outright against the latter). As long as Justice Kennedy remains the swing vote, little else will change.

[removeduser_487563287433]

I thought that this method was only legal in a handful of states, and even there only as a last option scenario in cases of potential harm to the mother?

[Erich von Manstein]

I thought that this method was only legal in a handful of states, and even there only as a last option scenario in cases of potential harm to the mother?

No, in 2000 Nebraska outlawed it but that was overturned by the Supreme Court. Since then every state has had to allow it in all circumstances.

Despite this, 90% of abortions in the US take place before the 3rd trimester and most late-term abortions use the fetus-scrambling method rather than the brain vacuuming method. So banning it won't change much in the realm of abortions.

[Falconius]

Apparently, according to that link, it's the first time that how an abortion is done that has been banned. Which I find intresting, particularily because its a rather disgusting way of getting things done.

Another intresting thing is that, according to the article, limiting the procedure may affect the rights to have abortions after 12 weeks. I wonder what the pro-abortionis think about this? Is 12 weeks enough time to make a choice?

Personally I think getting rid of a barbaric procedure is a plus, and that 12 weeks is more then enough time both to find out that one is pregnant and to take care of it for pro-choicers.

[Gwendylyn]

Another intresting thing is that, according to the article, limiting the procedure may affect the rights to have abortions after 12 weeks. I wonder what the pro-abortionis think about this? Is 12 weeks enough time to make a choice?

Personally I think getting rid of a barbaric procedure is a plus, and that 12 weeks is more then enough time both to find out that one is pregnant and to take care of it for pro-choicers.

Very very few people who identify as pro-choice support unrestricted partial-birth (I have never heard of one that does, but I'll always leave the possibility open). Most oppose unrestricted late term abortions, but support exceptions in the law to deal with exceptional cases.

12 weeks isn't enough if the baby is diagnosed with a rare genetic or physical disorder after 12 weeks - which does happen. There are pre-screening procedures, but not everything is known about the baby before 12 weeks is up. If a baby is going to die soon after birth, or birth of the child would cause the death of the mother, then no matter what stage of pregnancy the mother is in, she should be given the option of an abortion. If that means partial-birth abortion is the only relatively safe procedure, then I want exceptions in any law that bans it. That currently is the case is most (if not all) state laws in the US.

[Falconius]

@ Gwendylyn
I would imagine, though I have no idea whether its true or not, that in any case where the mothers life is endangered whatever abortion method needs be used to rescue her life would be an option. If not, then it is an obvious thing that should be included.

I'm personally not of the opinion that people should be able to pick and choose who joins the human race, even if they are 'geneticly defective', or if they may die soon after birth. Somtimes life just sucks and you have to deal.

But as an elective procedure without such extenuating circumstances what do you think about the choice maybe being limited to the first 12 weeks (due to this ban on procedures)?

[Gwendylyn]

@ Gwendylyn
I would imagine, though I have no idea whether its true or not, that in any case where the mothers life is endangered whatever abortion method needs be used to rescue her life would be an option. If not, then it is an obvious thing that should be included.

I know of a true example of each - a mother's life endangered (and saved by a partial birth abortion of triplets which would probably not survive), and a 7-month pregnant woman who's state had illegalized partial birth abortion and was carrying a child who would not survive past a few days (absolutely heartbreaking for her and her husband, and they almost split up over the stress it caused to them).

I'm personally not of the opinion that people should be able to pick and choose who joins the human race, even if they are 'geneticly defective', or if they may die soon after birth. Somtimes life just sucks and you have to deal.

Aye, sometimes life does suck, but sometimes we can do something about it. Its far more humane from my point of view to end the pregnancy than force the mother to go through it if the end result is the same either way.

But as an elective procedure without such extenuating circumstances what do you think about the choice maybe being limited to the first 12 weeks (due to this ban on procedures)?

I am on the fence. As far as I see it, the first trimester should be unrestricted for elective abortion. The second trimester it gets iffy, and I don't know where to draw the line - or even if *I* should since I am not a scientist (who can tell when a functioning brain has developed), nor one entirely versed on all the situations that could delay an elective abortion (ex: law requires minors to have parental consent but they can appeal to a judge (think fear of abuse from parents, or parents causing abuse that led to pregnancy) - except that by the time consent is granted we've past those 12 weeks in most cases). Abortion really isn't a simple decision, and I don't think our laws should reflect hard numbers and little flexibility.

[Erik]

Another intresting thing is that, according to the article, limiting the procedure may affect the rights to have abortions after 12 weeks. I wonder what the pro-abortionis think about this? Is 12 weeks enough time to make a choice?

This was a claim made by abortion rights groups.
Justice Anthony Kennedy refuted it.

Partial birth abortions are only really used for very late 3rd trimester abortions, so this shouldn't affect abortions in the first 24 weeks.

I think 24 weeks is ample time to get an abortion (12 weeks is kinda short I think)
I'm against all 3rd trimester abortions except in cases where the baby wouldn't survive anyways (in that case having a late abortion is less traumatic than having a dead born baby), or where the mother is in life's danger.

@ Gwendylyn
I would imagine, though I have no idea whether its true or not, that in any case where the mothers life is endangered whatever abortion method needs be used to rescue her life would be an option.

it's not:

The law is constitutional despite not containing an exception that would allow the procedure if needed to preserve a woman's health, Kennedy said. "The law need not give abortion doctors unfettered choice in the course of their medical practice," he wrote in the majority opinion.

Doctors who violate the law face up to two years in federal prison.

Here is an interesting dilemma:
Leave a woman to die, or face a two year prison sentence....

[removeduser_487563287433]

Well, even though I associate pro-lifers with some god awful Catholic Irish reality where you have to eat your new borns to provide for your small army of kids suckling at your wife's tired dugs whilst you work down t'pit for a penny a day, can't say I'll argue with this particular method being banned.

[Last Roman]

I'm a pro-choice person, but I'm glad they've banned partial birth abortions.

[Hotspur]

I'm a pro-choice person, but I'm glad they've banned partial birth abortions.

Agreed. I think you'll find that most pro-choice supporters believe in reasonable restrictions. I also believe in parental notification...

[Sosobra]

Agreed. I think you'll find that most pro-choice supporters believe in reasonable restrictions. I also believe in parental notification...

Parental notification thats hogwash. If girl/woman is getting an abortion in secret there is a reason she is not telling here parents or guardians. Notifications are attempt at backdoor discouraging abortions.

[danzig]

Parental notification thats hogwash. If girl/woman is getting an abortion in secret there is a reason she is not telling here parents or guardians. Notifications are attempt at backdoor discouraging abortions.

Kids need parental approval for every other medical procedure there is no reason abortion should be excluded from that. Im generally pro choice (I do favor some restrictions) but I absolutely would want hell I demand to know if some doctor in a clinic would be preforming a procedure on my daughter.

[deRougemont]

No surprise on this ruling; partial-birth abortion is an authentically barbaric procedure. Pictures of the aftermath should be enough to make a person reject abortion all-together.

[Lusted]

I've seen pics of the aftermath, it is disgusting but doesn't change my pro-choice stance(before 24 weeks but with exceptions for later term abortions based on genetic diseases/mothers health/rape cases).

[removeduser_487563287433]

Not to mention the social and economic necessity of abortion. It's the matter I'm least open to, my opinion is concrete.

[Lord Bohemond]

Parental notification thats hogwash. If girl/woman is getting an abortion in secret there is a reason she is not telling here parents or guardians. Notifications are attempt at backdoor discouraging abortions.

You actually believe that 13 year old girl should be able to make that decision without her parents' knowledge?

Every major medical procedure needs parental knowledge. Sorry, but just because your religion says abortion is okay, that doesn't mean we can trample parental rights.

[removeduser_487563287433]

You actually believe that 13 year old girl should be able to make that decision without her parents' knowledge?

Every major medical procedure needs parental knowledge. Sorry, but just because your religion says abortion is okay, that doesn't mean we can trample parental rights.

It's a quagmire of ethics but in the end, yes, I think that a thirteen year old girl should be able to have an abortion without her parent's knowledge, if she cannot be convinced otherwise, if the alternative is 14 year old mothers or dead 13 year olds at the hands of unsafe abortion alternatives.

[Shaun]

Well, who cares if the image is particularly gruessome? Have you ever seen a birth? I have, ewwww!
Would it be better if instead of sucking out the brains, they dance around playing with flowers singing songs of praise and beautifully bright clothing, and instead just give the foetus a lethal injection?
Ultimately, all abortion ends in death (duh!), does it really matter on the methods?

[Lord Bohemond]

I understand where you're coming from. I misunderstood. My apologies.

If its her safety you're concerned about - parental notification is imperative. Its not unheard of for her boyfriend to pressure her into an abortion to cover his tracks. If she's in an abusive relationship that resulted in a pregnancy the parents definitely need to know.

Yes, there may be a tiny few who do a coathanger abortion to avoid parental knowledge. But there's very little we can do about such things. If she's so cowardly and immature that she refuses to take the sensible path, there's very little we can do for her.