Observation on Abortion Debats

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I was under the impression that any abortion past the first trimester was done only when the life of the mother or child was in jeopardy. It seems I was correct. Even then it is the mother's choice. If the baby has a good chance of survival, she can opt to save the baby instead of herself. My daughter had a "C" section delivery at 26 weeks due to health problems and the baby "Mike" lived. He is a fighter and still doesn't know how to quit. The woman that shared her hospital room had the same process performed to save her baby at 27 weeks and the baby died. Both mothers were OK. The other woman has given birth to a healthy baby since then but my daughter can't have any more children without risking her own life and that of the baby. She has adopted two children since then and foster parents as well.

Granted neither of these were abortions but one had the same result. Only the mother will suffer the consequences so she must be the one to make the decision. No one else is capable of making the decision for her.

I think proponents of the bill feel as if they are assisting the fetus to have a choice. I don't see anywhere anything that indicates that they would put the mothers life at risk in doing so.

If that was their intent, then that makes no sense. An embryo or fetus is incapable of ‘making a choice.’ And such legislation would be clearly un-Constitutional. See: Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). The defeat of the measure likely saved the taxpayers of Texas money wasted defending the law in Federal court, only to have it invalidated.

 

[FA_Q2]

In the chart within your link any state that allows abortions beyond the first trimester do so when the life and or health of the mother is in jeopardy or there are abnormalities in the fetus.

I saw no states listed that allowed abortions beyond the first trimester that did not require the mother's health to be in question.

Perhaps you could list the states that do so?

Second page of the report:

41 states prohibit some abortions after a certain point in pregnancy.

Meaning that 9 do not. Don’t have the state names but that statement shows that they are there.

The chart only outlines 22 of the state laws as the ones that walk the line and also relize that some of those laws ARE NOT BEING ENFORCED because they are likely not constitutional. The constitutionality is in question because it might not have sufficient protections against life of the mother – a clear requirement in Roe.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What exactly is a "late term abortion"?
The only legal abortions that I am aware of can only be performed in the first trimester.
Later than that the life or mental well being of the mother has to be at risk to abort the fetus.

Yes, and who determines that "the life and health of the mother is at risk"? Why, that would be the abortion doctor getting paid to kill the baby. No conflict of interest THERE.

 

[FA_Q2]

What exactly is a "late term abortion"?
The only legal abortions that I am aware of can only be performed in the first trimester.
Later than that the life or mental well being of the mother has to be at risk to abort the fetus.

Yes, and who determines that "the life and health of the mother is at risk"? Why, that would be the abortion doctor getting paid to kill the baby. No conflict of interest THERE.

Some require a second doctor but I really have to question as to whether or not you have another solution for that. Really, there is not a conflict here. In these cases there is documentation, a crew and a thousand other things that prove one way or another what happened. Hospitals are not places where you go to the corner room and some doctor ‘claims’ that you are in danger then aborts your baby. There are ultrasounds, tests, nurses and the like around that procedure.

I don’t think that many are going to do so illegally and when they do they are going to get caught. It might be sad and pathetic with how long that takes like with Gosnell but that is not a law problem but an enforcement problem. There are better ways to locate and prevent that abuse than trying to take away the doctors ability to make the danger to the life of the mother determination.

 

[Dragonlady]

Yes, and who determines that "the life and health of the mother is at risk"? Why, that would be the abortion doctor getting paid to kill the baby. No conflict of interest THERE.

Doctors make a whole LOT more money caring for a woman who carries her fetus to term and has a live birth - hundreds, versus thousands. The doctors who perform abortions, also perform live births and LB's are far more lucrative.

 

[JFK_USA]

It's a medical practice that political proponents don't even want to regulate. Didn't Gosnell's horror house indicate that the procedures in abortion clinics need to be investigated and some should be shut down? Doesn't society have the responsibility to investigate the impact abortions might have on the mental and physical health of some women? Is it possible that some babies are slaughtered outside the womb when they are "accidentally" born? If anybody ever saw the horror show of a typical partial birth abortion the whole industry would be shut down. The abortion nazis would rather keep the holocaust wholesale killing of the unborn a secret.

So because of 1 psychopath, we should deny a constitutional right to law abiding citizens? Isn't that what you conservatives went against during the gun debate? Don't deny a constitutional right because of 1 psychopath's (or multiple in the gun debate) take away the constitutional right of law abiding citizens?

People who are pro choice are "abortion nazis". They are normal people who believe in defending a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body. Not have old white men in the Capitol deciding what to do with her own body. Her own personal liberty. Yeah I guess that "being a nazi" GTFO.

 

[FA_Q2]

It's a medical practice that political proponents don't even want to regulate. Didn't Gosnell's horror house indicate that the procedures in abortion clinics need to be investigated and some should be shut down? Doesn't society have the responsibility to investigate the impact abortions might have on the mental and physical health of some women? Is it possible that some babies are slaughtered outside the womb when they are "accidentally" born? If anybody ever saw the horror show of a typical partial birth abortion the whole industry would be shut down. The abortion nazis would rather keep the holocaust wholesale killing of the unborn a secret.

So because of 1 psychopath, we should deny a constitutional right to law abiding citizens? Isn't that what you conservatives went against during the gun debate? Don't deny a constitutional right because of 1 psychopath's (or multiple in the gun debate) take away the constitutional right of law abiding citizens?

People who are pro choice are "abortion nazis". They are normal people who believe in defending a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body. Not have old white men in the Capitol deciding what to do with her own body. Her own personal liberty. Yeah I guess that "being a nazi" GTFO.

Limiting late term abortions has nothing in common with your straw man at all. THAT is the topic here – LATE TERM ABORTIONS. It does not force anything on the woman. She still retains the right to abort.

 

[Derideo_Te]

What exactly is a "late term abortion"?
The only legal abortions that I am aware of can only be performed in the first trimester.
Later than that the life or mental well being of the mother has to be at risk to abort the fetus.

Yes, and who determines that "the life and health of the mother is at risk"? Why, that would be the abortion doctor getting paid to kill the baby. No conflict of interest THERE.

Am I correct in assuming that you are female from your Avatar? If so let me provide you with 2 incidents from real life and let YOU be the judge as to whether the "life and health of the mother is at risk". Please bear in mind that carrying any fetus to term and giving birth still carries a risk to the life of the woman concerned. Even with today's medical facilities women still die during childbirth. Both of these instances occurred in the 3rd trimester.

In the first case a mother of 3 is told that her fetus us dying and that she is being poisoned via the placenta. If she does not have an abortion she might have to have a complete hysterectomy after she eventually gives birth to a dead or dying baby.

In the second instance the fetus is diagnosed as anencephalic which means that it will probably die shortly after birth.

In both instances there was a risk to the life of them women concerned and it happened in the 3rd trimester when many states are banning all forms of abortion. Furthermore in both cases these women wanted to have children and both subsequently did have another pregnancy and give birth to healthy infants.

So are YOU going to override the highly qualified decision of the "abortion doctor getting paid to kill the baby" because YOU believe they have a "conflict of interest"?

How many women will end up dying because of a complete ban on all 3rd trimester abortions? How would YOU feel if YOU were in the position of one of these women and YOU were denied the option to save your own life? On what basis are YOU forcing a mother of 3 children to risk her own life simply because YOU don't trust qualified medical doctors to make the right decision?

 

[PaulS1950]

To my knowledge there is no "complete ban" on third trimester abortions. If the life or health of the woman is in danger then abortion is an option.

 

[Derideo_Te]

To my knowledge there is no "complete ban" on third trimester abortions. If the life or health of the woman is in danger then abortion is an option.

States are enacting laws that make it impossible for clinics to perform any abortions at all unless they meet some impossible to achieve standards. In these instances there is a virtual "complete ban" on all abortions, nevermind only those in the 3rd trimester. For instance North Dakota has passed a law that effectively outlaws the only abortion clinic in the entire state. Texas has the 2nd largest population and is trying to shut down almost all the clinics in the state. Louisiana can close down a clinic for any minor infraction even when that same infraction would allow a regular clinic to remain open while they remedied it.

The point here is that while clinics must be regulated the right to an abortion should not be in the hands of petty officialdom. The decision belongs in the hands of the pregnant woman and her medical provider and no one else should be allowed to make that decision.

 

[PaulS1950]

States are enacting laws that make it impossible for clinics to perform any abortions at all unless they meet some impossible to achieve standards. In these instances there is a virtual "complete ban" on all abortions, nevermind only those in the 3rd trimester. For instance North Dakota has passed a law that effectively outlaws the only abortion clinic in the entire state. Texas has the 2nd largest population and is trying to shut down almost all the clinics in the state. Louisiana can close down a clinic for any minor infraction even when that same infraction would allow a regular clinic to remain open while they remedied it.

The point here is that while clinics must be regulated the right to an abortion should not be in the hands of petty officialdom. The decision belongs in the hands of the pregnant woman and her medical provider and no one else should be allowed to make that decision.

The new law that is going into effect in North Dakota still allows for exceptions for reasons of the health of the mother.
"A new law that bans abortion at 20 weeks postfertilization and contains limited exceptions is scheduled to go into effect later in 2013"
emphasis is mine.

 

[Derideo_Te]

States are enacting laws that make it impossible for clinics to perform any abortions at all unless they meet some impossible to achieve standards. In these instances there is a virtual "complete ban" on all abortions, nevermind only those in the 3rd trimester. For instance North Dakota has passed a law that effectively outlaws the only abortion clinic in the entire state. Texas has the 2nd largest population and is trying to shut down almost all the clinics in the state. Louisiana can close down a clinic for any minor infraction even when that same infraction would allow a regular clinic to remain open while they remedied it.

The point here is that while clinics must be regulated the right to an abortion should not be in the hands of petty officialdom. The decision belongs in the hands of the pregnant woman and her medical provider and no one else should be allowed to make that decision.

The new law that is going into effect in North Dakota still allows for exceptions for reasons of the health of the mother.
"A new law that bans abortion at 20 weeks postfertilization and contains limited exceptions is scheduled to go into effect later in 2013"
emphasis is mine.

The law requires the doctor to have admitting privileges at the local hospital. If they deny those privileges no abortions can be performed. In effect they are banning all abortions by putting in place restrictions that make it impossible to comply with the law since it is now in the arbitrary hands of someone who has no accountability to the electorate.

 

[JFK_USA]

States are enacting laws that make it impossible for clinics to perform any abortions at all unless they meet some impossible to achieve standards. In these instances there is a virtual "complete ban" on all abortions, nevermind only those in the 3rd trimester. For instance North Dakota has passed a law that effectively outlaws the only abortion clinic in the entire state. Texas has the 2nd largest population and is trying to shut down almost all the clinics in the state. Louisiana can close down a clinic for any minor infraction even when that same infraction would allow a regular clinic to remain open while they remedied it.

The point here is that while clinics must be regulated the right to an abortion should not be in the hands of petty officialdom. The decision belongs in the hands of the pregnant woman and her medical provider and no one else should be allowed to make that decision.

The new law that is going into effect in North Dakota still allows for exceptions for reasons of the health of the mother.
"A new law that bans abortion at 20 weeks postfertilization and contains limited exceptions is scheduled to go into effect later in 2013"
emphasis is mine.

The law requires the doctor to have admitting privileges at the local hospital. If they deny those privileges no abortions can be performed. In effect they are banning all abortions by putting in place restrictions that make it impossible to comply with the law since it is now in the arbitrary hands of someone who has no accountability to the electorate.

In the Ohio budget, abortion doctors are suppose to attain admitting privileges at local hospitals yet in the same budget, hospitals are prevented from giving admitting privileges to doctors who perform abortions. It's impossible to comply with regulations that republicans are trying to enact to shut down abortion clinics.

 

[PaulS1950]

No doctor can function in the hospital without those privileges. Most doctors have affiliations with at least one hospital. The main care doctor can refer a patient to the hospital in Ohio but must have an "attending physician" present for care. Ohio also allows late term abortions in consideration of the mothers health and well-being.

This information is in the link provided earlier in the thread. You should really look it up.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The new law that is going into effect in North Dakota still allows for exceptions for reasons of the health of the mother.
"A new law that bans abortion at 20 weeks postfertilization and contains limited exceptions is scheduled to go into effect later in 2013"
emphasis is mine.

The law requires the doctor to have admitting privileges at the local hospital. If they deny those privileges no abortions can be performed. In effect they are banning all abortions by putting in place restrictions that make it impossible to comply with the law since it is now in the arbitrary hands of someone who has no accountability to the electorate.

In the Ohio budget, abortion doctors are suppose to attain admitting privileges at local hospitals yet in the same budget, hospitals are prevented from giving admitting privileges to doctors who perform abortions. It's impossible to comply with regulations that republicans are trying to enact to shut down abortion clinics.

Exactly. By creating regulatory requirements that are impossible to meet they are de facto "outlawing" abortions. Curious too how those who decry government regulations as being too onerous on corporations are so willing to impose additional onerous regulations on corporations they abhor in order to drive them out of business. Furthermore it isn't the Democrats who are passing these new burdensome corporate regulations either.

 

[AmyNation]

Most hospitals don't grant abortion doctors with admitting privileges for a number of reasons. If they get state funds, in some states it's against the law. The don't want the conflict and possible loss of benefactors allowing abortion doctors AP would bring, they are religious and don't believe in abortion, they only grant ap to those on staff, they only grant ap to those who graduated from their medical program, they only grant Ap to doctors who are part of a specific organization. etc etc etc.

 

[FA_Q2]

To my knowledge there is no "complete ban" on third trimester abortions. If the life or health of the woman is in danger then abortion is an option.

States are enacting laws that make it impossible for clinics to perform any abortions at all unless they meet some impossible to achieve standards. In these instances there is a virtual "complete ban" on all abortions, nevermind only those in the 3rd trimester. For instance North Dakota has passed a law that effectively outlaws the only abortion clinic in the entire state. Texas has the 2nd largest population and is trying to shut down almost all the clinics in the state. Louisiana can close down a clinic for any minor infraction even when that same infraction would allow a regular clinic to remain open while they remedied it.

The point here is that while clinics must be regulated the right to an abortion should not be in the hands of petty officialdom. The decision belongs in the hands of the pregnant woman and her medical provider and no one else should be allowed to make that decision.

And that can be addressed as none of those would be constitutional. That makes it an all-around moot point. That is already against the law HOWEVER bans on late term elective abortions are not. That restriction on abortion is perfectly reasonable.

 

[Derideo_Te]

To my knowledge there is no "complete ban" on third trimester abortions. If the life or health of the woman is in danger then abortion is an option.

States are enacting laws that make it impossible for clinics to perform any abortions at all unless they meet some impossible to achieve standards. In these instances there is a virtual "complete ban" on all abortions, nevermind only those in the 3rd trimester. For instance North Dakota has passed a law that effectively outlaws the only abortion clinic in the entire state. Texas has the 2nd largest population and is trying to shut down almost all the clinics in the state. Louisiana can close down a clinic for any minor infraction even when that same infraction would allow a regular clinic to remain open while they remedied it.

The point here is that while clinics must be regulated the right to an abortion should not be in the hands of petty officialdom. The decision belongs in the hands of the pregnant woman and her medical provider and no one else should be allowed to make that decision.

And that can be addressed as none of those would be constitutional. That makes it an all-around moot point. That is already against the law HOWEVER bans on late term elective abortions are not. That restriction on abortion is perfectly reasonable.

Sorry, I am having difficulty understanding which part you are referring to as being "That restriction on abortion is perfectly reasonable". Could you please clarify? Thank you.

 

[PaulS1950]

Amy,

can you give an example of a state wherein abortions are illegal?

Amy nation said

If they get state funds, in some states it's against the law.

 

[FA_Q2]

States are enacting laws that make it impossible for clinics to perform any abortions at all unless they meet some impossible to achieve standards. In these instances there is a virtual "complete ban" on all abortions, nevermind only those in the 3rd trimester. For instance North Dakota has passed a law that effectively outlaws the only abortion clinic in the entire state. Texas has the 2nd largest population and is trying to shut down almost all the clinics in the state. Louisiana can close down a clinic for any minor infraction even when that same infraction would allow a regular clinic to remain open while they remedied it.

The point here is that while clinics must be regulated the right to an abortion should not be in the hands of petty officialdom. The decision belongs in the hands of the pregnant woman and her medical provider and no one else should be allowed to make that decision.

And that can be addressed as none of those would be constitutional. That makes it an all-around moot point. That is already against the law HOWEVER bans on late term elective abortions are not. That restriction on abortion is perfectly reasonable.

Sorry, I am having difficulty understanding which part you are referring to as being "That restriction on abortion is perfectly reasonable". Could you please clarify? Thank you.

The restriction that you cannot have a late term abortion but can have one within the first 20 weeks. As long as there is a provision that provides for the health and life of the mother and child, that is a reasonable restriction. If the law contains other onerous restrictions that make aborting difficult then THAT is unconstitutional BUT the ability for the state to regulate the gestational period is constitutional and right.