Observation on Abortion Debats

[SherriMunnerlyn]

"Better that 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted." This lofty premise has been corrupted in the abortion debate, where thousands of late term abortions are defended on the basis that there might be a few legitimate cases among them.

Seriously, does anyone agree with this practice?

I have never heard that argument made. Who is making that argument?

 

[Dragonlady]

Amnio centesis, still the go-to test for fetal abnormalities, isn't performed until 20 weeks into the pregnancy, which means that we're at 23 - 24 weeks before the results are known. Banning abortions after 20 weeks means that women at risk don't even have the information they need to make an informed decision at 20 weeks.

The bald fact is that if you believe abortion is morally wrong, then don't have one. No one is going to force you to have an abortion you don't want. That is the freedom of choice which is consist with what conservatives purportedly stand for - freedom from government interference in their day to day lives.

Nothing is more personal that having a baby. Nothing affects a woman's life more than the decision to have a baby. Yet conservatives, who believe in "personal responsibility" think, don't think women are capable of making this decision for themselves. Hypocracy at it's finest.

 

[AmyNation]

You can, and I think we should, make an exception past 20 weeks for life of mother and child.

 

[Circe]

Amnio centesis, still the go-to test for fetal abnormalities, isn't performed until 20 weeks into the pregnancy, which means that we're at 23 - 24 weeks before the results are known. Banning abortions after 20 weeks means that women at risk don't even have the information they need to make an informed decision at 20 weeks.

That must be why they set the figure at that number of weeks, so it's impossible to decide to abort impaired fetuses.

These so-called "pro-life" people are incredibly cruel.

 

[FA_Q2]

I found your statistics here . This is in the same article,

So lets do the math, 50 million times 1.3% (late term) = 650,000. That is a lot. In fact, it is more than the entire population of either Vermont or Wyoming or The District of Columbia.

There are about 13,000 abortions past 21 weeks in the US every year.


Unfortunately we don't know a lot about those women. In similar countries to us(see Australia) the #1 reason for those abortions were fetal defects. However I've also seen some stats that suggest that the US reasons are more along the lines of lack of funds and lack of abortion facilities.

Doctors already know that their licenses are on the line if the perform 3rd trimester abortions. They are not going to provide one without a sound medical reason justifying it. So it is only going to happen if there are fetal defects or the health/life of the woman is in danger.

I personally think all abortion past 20 weeks should be banned, except for life of mother and child.

Right now the line is drawn at 26 weeks. The survival rate for 20 - 25 weeks is very low and brain damage rates are very high for those that do survive. Until medicine improves sufficiently to change those outcomes there doesn't seem to be much reason to alter the current limitations.

That is false and, by extension, your next post claiming the same thing. The fact is that there are 9 states that have zero regulation against late term abortions. I already posted the relevant data here in post 19. Go and check the link, only 41 states have legal limits on late term abortions. Even some of those 41 are not enforced because they are not really constitutional (they lack key provisions that protect the mother’s life)

With that in mind, your post is incorrect and you are simply ASSUMING that none of those were elective. The very fact that over 80 percent (relevant links also provided in this thread) are elective abortions it goes without saying that SOME of those in the remaining 9 states and those in the states that are not enforceable ARE elective late term abortions. I would be hesitant to claim that it is near the same rate as earlier abortions but it is illogical to state that they are not performed electively without ANY data to back that claim up.

 

[FA_Q2]

Amnio centesis, still the go-to test for fetal abnormalities, isn't performed until 20 weeks into the pregnancy, which means that we're at 23 - 24 weeks before the results are known. Banning abortions after 20 weeks means that women at risk don't even have the information they need to make an informed decision at 20 weeks.

The bald fact is that if you believe abortion is morally wrong, then don't have one. No one is going to force you to have an abortion you don't want. That is the freedom of choice which is consist with what conservatives purportedly stand for - freedom from government interference in their day to day lives.

Nothing is more personal that having a baby. Nothing affects a woman's life more than the decision to have a baby. Yet conservatives, who believe in "personal responsibility" think, don't think women are capable of making this decision for themselves. Hypocracy at it's finest.

I believe that all laws limiting abortion not only have to have a life of the mother clause but also a provision for the health of the child. If not, then it damn well should but I do believe that is part of the constitutional test.

 

[FA_Q2]

Law, medical science and the common person have all agreed that the cessation of brainwaves IS the end of life. Can we not apply this same standard to the beginning of life? If the end of brainwaves is the end of life, is not the beginning of brainwaves the beginning of life? I would posit that if brainwaves exist in a fetus, then life exists. At that point, abortion should not be allowed except under extreme circumstances.

You do that with any abortions you may be considering for yourself.

Otherwise, it's not really your business to interfere in other people's lives.

Current law would disagree with you.

Can we at least admit that there is a viable, legal and correct burden on the state in regulating when abortions should be legal to be performed? I believed that we already got to that point BUT it seems that every time this conversation picks back up we get back to statements like this. That implies that until the baby is completely out of the womb, then an abortion is perfectly fine. That would include 8.5 months.

Such is abhorrent in my opinion as well as almost anyone that you ask about such situations.

 

[Derideo_Te]

There are about 13,000 abortions past 21 weeks in the US every year.


Unfortunately we don't know a lot about those women. In similar countries to us(see Australia) the #1 reason for those abortions were fetal defects. However I've also seen some stats that suggest that the US reasons are more along the lines of lack of funds and lack of abortion facilities.

Doctors already know that their licenses are on the line if the perform 3rd trimester abortions. They are not going to provide one without a sound medical reason justifying it. So it is only going to happen if there are fetal defects or the health/life of the woman is in danger.

I personally think all abortion past 20 weeks should be banned, except for life of mother and child.

Right now the line is drawn at 26 weeks. The survival rate for 20 - 25 weeks is very low and brain damage rates are very high for those that do survive. Until medicine improves sufficiently to change those outcomes there doesn't seem to be much reason to alter the current limitations.

That is false and, by extension, your next post claiming the same thing. The fact is that there are 9 states that have zero regulation against late term abortions.

Completely and utterly irrelevant. ALL 50 states are subject to the RvW ruling which only permits 3rd trimester abortions in the case of a threat to the life and/or health of the woman concerned.

http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_PLTA.pdf

In its landmark 1973 abortion cases, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a woman’s right to
an abortion is not absolute and that states may restrict or ban abortions after fetal viability, provided that their
policies meet certain requirements. In these and subsequent decisions, the Court has held that
 even after fetal viability, states may not prohibit abortions “necessary to preserve the life or health” of the
woman;
 “health” in this context includes physical and mental health;
 only the physician, in the course of evaluating the specific circumstances of an individual case, can define
what constitutes “health” and when a fetus is viable;

So it doesn't matter one iota that those 9 states don't have any regulations regarding 3rd trimester abortions. They still have to comply 100% with RvW.

I already posted the relevant data here in post 19. Go and check the link, only 41 states have legal limits on late term abortions. Even some of those 41 are not enforced because they are not really constitutional (they lack key provisions that protect the mother’s life)

With that in mind, your post is incorrect and you are simply ASSUMING that none of those were elective. The very fact that over 80 percent (relevant links also provided in this thread) are elective abortions it goes without saying that SOME of those in the remaining 9 states and those in the states that are not enforceable ARE elective late term abortions. I would be hesitant to claim that it is near the same rate as earlier abortions but it is illogical to state that they are not performed electively without ANY data to back that claim up.

You are erroneously ASSUMING that just because there is no explicit STATE law there must be "elective" 3rd trimester abortions. This is completely fallacious because RvW is Constitutional Law and overrides all state laws.

So if you have actual proof of an "elective" 3rd trimester abortion then you should notify the relevant authorities and have the doctor involved prosecuted.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Law, medical science and the common person have all agreed that the cessation of brainwaves IS the end of life. Can we not apply this same standard to the beginning of life? If the end of brainwaves is the end of life, is not the beginning of brainwaves the beginning of life? I would posit that if brainwaves exist in a fetus, then life exists. At that point, abortion should not be allowed except under extreme circumstances.

You do that with any abortions you may be considering for yourself.

Otherwise, it's not really your business to interfere in other people's lives.

Current law would disagree with you.

Can we at least admit that there is a viable, legal and correct burden on the state in regulating when abortions should be legal to be performed? I believed that we already got to that point BUT it seems that every time this conversation picks back up we get back to statements like this. That implies that until the baby is completely out of the womb, then an abortion is perfectly fine. That would include 8.5 months.

Such is abhorrent in my opinion as well as almost anyone that you ask about such situations.

Have you ever read the RvW decision for yourself?

Because if you did you would know that is already prohibited by RvW.

 

[FA_Q2]

Doctors already know that their licenses are on the line if the perform 3rd trimester abortions. They are not going to provide one without a sound medical reason justifying it. So it is only going to happen if there are fetal defects or the health/life of the woman is in danger.


Right now the line is drawn at 26 weeks. The survival rate for 20 - 25 weeks is very low and brain damage rates are very high for those that do survive. Until medicine improves sufficiently to change those outcomes there doesn't seem to be much reason to alter the current limitations.

That is false and, by extension, your next post claiming the same thing. The fact is that there are 9 states that have zero regulation against late term abortions.

Completely and utterly irrelevant. ALL 50 states are subject to the RvW ruling which only permits 3rd trimester abortions in the case of a threat to the life and/or health of the woman concerned.

http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_PLTA.pdf

In its landmark 1973 abortion cases, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a woman’s right to
an abortion is not absolute and that states may restrict or ban abortions after fetal viability, provided that their
policies meet certain requirements. In these and subsequent decisions, the Court has held that
 even after fetal viability, states may not prohibit abortions “necessary to preserve the life or health” of the
woman;
 “health” in this context includes physical and mental health;
 only the physician, in the course of evaluating the specific circumstances of an individual case, can define
what constitutes “health” and when a fetus is viable;

So it doesn't matter one iota that those 9 states don't have any regulations regarding 3rd trimester abortions. They still have to comply 100% with RvW.

Read the cited passage again diedro. It is VERY specific. It says that STATES can regulate as they see fit. There is, at this time, no federal laws or court cases that ban or restrict third trimester abortions. Again, those are assumptions on your part. I have assumed nothing. The facts state that there are 9 states that DO NOT REGULATE late term abortion. That is a FACT. The federal government also does not regulate those abortions. That is another fact. Note: regulation in this sense is pertaining to the decision making process and whether or not you can have an elective abortion in the third trimester, not that the medical procedure does not have to be carried out a certain way. You are extrapolating something that is NOT in Roe. The judges did not (as they actually cannot, that would be legislating from the bench – something that is NOT within the courts power) stipulate that 3rd trimester abortions were illegal. All they said was that the states may, should they so desire, regulate a particular gestation period that abortion would be illegal afterword.

So, I reiterate, as per the facts linked to already, there are 9 states where late term abortions are allowed under law for any reason that the mother decides including simply changing their mid about having the kid. Also, as per the facts already given, most abortions are not for medical necessity.

There is NOTHING presented as yet showing that there are very few late term abortions (as it pertains to late term abortions overall) that are not elective not even getting into the fact that you are claiming that it virtually never happens. You have no data to back your claims up as of yet, I do on the other hand.

If you find such data, then I might have to re-evaluate my claim but until then…

 

[FA_Q2]

You do that with any abortions you may be considering for yourself.

Otherwise, it's not really your business to interfere in other people's lives.

Current law would disagree with you.

Can we at least admit that there is a viable, legal and correct burden on the state in regulating when abortions should be legal to be performed? I believed that we already got to that point BUT it seems that every time this conversation picks back up we get back to statements like this. That implies that until the baby is completely out of the womb, then an abortion is perfectly fine. That would include 8.5 months.

Such is abhorrent in my opinion as well as almost anyone that you ask about such situations.

Have you ever read the RvW decision for yourself?

Because if you did you would know that is already prohibited by RvW.

Yes I have, many times. You are incorrect.

Cite the passage that makes third trimester abortions illegal[ if you believe that to be true. As shown above, your current cite DOES NOT make that statement.

You do realize that such a ruling is NOT legal, right? The judges cannot create a law from whole cloth that does not exist. They can only deal with the law that is placed in front of them. Do you even realize what the law in question was?

Hint: it was NOT concerning a federal law. It was a STATE law. IOW, they could not make a federal law that banned anything while determining the validity of a state statute. All they may do is strike the law or parts of the law to make it fall within the constitution.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There are about 13,000 abortions past 21 weeks in the US every year.

A large number in my opinion.

Unfortunately we don't know a lot about those women. In similar countries to us(see Australia) the #1 reason for those abortions were fetal defects. However I've also seen some stats that suggest that the US reasons are more along the lines of lack of funds and lack of abortion facilities.

I personally think all abortion past 20 weeks should be banned, except for life of mother and child.

I would like all abortion ended, but I know that is not realistic.

Law, medical science and the common person have all agreed that the cessation of brainwaves IS the end of life. Can we not apply this same standard to the beginning of life? If the end of brainwaves is the end of life, is not the beginning of brainwaves the beginning of life? I would posit that if brainwaves exist in a fetus, then life exists. At that point, abortion should not be allowed except under extreme circumstances.

No one disagrees with that.

The disagreement concerns how to go about ending it.

 

[Derideo_Te]

That is false and, by extension, your next post claiming the same thing. The fact is that there are 9 states that have zero regulation against late term abortions.

Completely and utterly irrelevant. ALL 50 states are subject to the RvW ruling which only permits 3rd trimester abortions in the case of a threat to the life and/or health of the woman concerned.

http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_PLTA.pdf

In its landmark 1973 abortion cases, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a woman’s right to
an abortion is not absolute and that states may restrict or ban abortions after fetal viability, provided that their
policies meet certain requirements. In these and subsequent decisions, the Court has held that
 even after fetal viability, states may not prohibit abortions “necessary to preserve the life or health” of the
woman;
 “health” in this context includes physical and mental health;
 only the physician, in the course of evaluating the specific circumstances of an individual case, can define
what constitutes “health” and when a fetus is viable;

So it doesn't matter one iota that those 9 states don't have any regulations regarding 3rd trimester abortions. They still have to comply 100% with RvW.

Read the cited passage again diedro. It is VERY specific. It says that STATES can regulate as they see fit. There is, at this time, no federal laws or court cases that ban or restrict third trimester abortions. Again, those are assumptions on your part. I have assumed nothing. The facts state that there are 9 states that DO NOT REGULATE late term abortion. That is a FACT. The federal government also does not regulate those abortions. That is another fact. Note: regulation in this sense is pertaining to the decision making process and whether or not you can have an elective abortion in the third trimester, not that the medical procedure does not have to be carried out a certain way. You are extrapolating something that is NOT in Roe. The judges did not (as they actually cannot, that would be legislating from the bench – something that is NOT within the courts power) stipulate that 3rd trimester abortions were illegal. All they said was that the states may, should they so desire, regulate a particular gestation period that abortion would be illegal afterword.

So, I reiterate, as per the facts linked to already, there are 9 states where late term abortions are allowed under law for any reason that the mother decides including simply changing their mid about having the kid. Also, as per the facts already given, most abortions are not for medical necessity.

There is NOTHING presented as yet showing that there are very few late term abortions (as it pertains to late term abortions overall) that are not elective not even getting into the fact that you are claiming that it virtually never happens. You have no data to back your claims up as of yet, I do on the other hand.

If you find such data, then I might have to re-evaluate my claim but until then…

RvW is explicit as far as the RESTRICTIONS imposed on states as far as 3rd trimester abortions are concerned. Those RESTRICTIONS are quoted above. ALL states MUST comply with those RESTRICTIONS without exception. The current attempts by GOP run states are deliberate attempts to OVERTURN RvW simply because it ALLOWS HEALTH EXEMPTIONS that can ONLY be determined by a DOCTOR.

The onus remains on YOU to prove that there has been a single case of an "ELECTIVE" 3rd trimester abortion is violation of the RvW ruling.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Current law would disagree with you.

Can we at least admit that there is a viable, legal and correct burden on the state in regulating when abortions should be legal to be performed? I believed that we already got to that point BUT it seems that every time this conversation picks back up we get back to statements like this. That implies that until the baby is completely out of the womb, then an abortion is perfectly fine. That would include 8.5 months.

Such is abhorrent in my opinion as well as almost anyone that you ask about such situations.

Have you ever read the RvW decision for yourself?

Because if you did you would know that is already prohibited by RvW.

Yes I have, many times. You are incorrect.

Cite the passage that makes third trimester abortions illegal[ if you believe that to be true. As shown above, your current cite DOES NOT make that statement.

You do realize that such a ruling is NOT legal, right? The judges cannot create a law from whole cloth that does not exist. They can only deal with the law that is placed in front of them. Do you even realize what the law in question was?

Hint: it was NOT concerning a federal law. It was a STATE law. IOW, they could not make a federal law that banned anything while determining the validity of a state statute. All they may do is strike the law or parts of the law to make it fall within the constitution.

Here is an accurate synopsis of the RvW ruling;

http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_PLTA.pdf

BACKGROUND: In its landmark 1973 abortion cases, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a woman’s right to
an abortion is not absolute and that states may restrict or ban abortions after fetal viability, provided that their
policies meet certain requirements. In these and subsequent decisions, the Court has held that
 even after fetal viability, states may not prohibit abortions “necessary to preserve the life or health” of the
woman;
 “health” in this context includes physical and mental health;
 only the physician, in the course of evaluating the specific circumstances of an individual case, can define
what constitutes “health” and when a fetus is viable; and
 states may not require additional physicians to confirm the attending physician’s judgment that the woman’s
life or health is at risk in cases of medical emergency.

The onus remains on YOU to prove that there has been a single case of an "ELECTIVE" 3rd trimester abortion in violation of the RvW ruling.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Current law would disagree with you.

Can we at least admit that there is a viable, legal and correct burden on the state in regulating when abortions should be legal to be performed? I believed that we already got to that point BUT it seems that every time this conversation picks back up we get back to statements like this. That implies that until the baby is completely out of the womb, then an abortion is perfectly fine. That would include 8.5 months.

Such is abhorrent in my opinion as well as almost anyone that you ask about such situations.

Have you ever read the RvW decision for yourself?

Because if you did you would know that is already prohibited by RvW.

Yes I have, many times. You are incorrect.

Cite the passage that makes third trimester abortions illegal[ if you believe that to be true. As shown above, your current cite DOES NOT make that statement.

You do realize that such a ruling is NOT legal, right? The judges cannot create a law from whole cloth that does not exist. They can only deal with the law that is placed in front of them. Do you even realize what the law in question was?

Hint: it was NOT concerning a federal law. It was a STATE law. IOW, they could not make a federal law that banned anything while determining the validity of a state statute. All they may do is strike the law or parts of the law to make it fall within the constitution.

Roe v. Wade concerned a state law that violated the Constitutional right to privacy and the due process rights of women seeking abortions:

State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy.

Roe v. Wade

Because the 14th Amendment compels the states to afford due process rights to all persons in a given state, laws in other states similar to the law in Texas were also invalidated.

In 1992 Roe was reaffirmed by the Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, where although the first trimester restriction was replaced with an ‘undue burden’ doctrine, the right to privacy was nonetheless upheld as a fundamental right in the context of substantive due process.

What’s been bizarre these last 40 years, of course, is the constant conservative effort to increase the power of the state at the expense of individual liberty.

 

[FA_Q2]

Completely and utterly irrelevant. ALL 50 states are subject to the RvW ruling which only permits 3rd trimester abortions in the case of a threat to the life and/or health of the woman concerned.



So it doesn't matter one iota that those 9 states don't have any regulations regarding 3rd trimester abortions. They still have to comply 100% with RvW.

Read the cited passage again diedro. It is VERY specific. It says that STATES can regulate as they see fit. There is, at this time, no federal laws or court cases that ban or restrict third trimester abortions. Again, those are assumptions on your part. I have assumed nothing. The facts state that there are 9 states that DO NOT REGULATE late term abortion. That is a FACT. The federal government also does not regulate those abortions. That is another fact. Note: regulation in this sense is pertaining to the decision making process and whether or not you can have an elective abortion in the third trimester, not that the medical procedure does not have to be carried out a certain way. You are extrapolating something that is NOT in Roe. The judges did not (as they actually cannot, that would be legislating from the bench – something that is NOT within the courts power) stipulate that 3rd trimester abortions were illegal. All they said was that the states may, should they so desire, regulate a particular gestation period that abortion would be illegal afterword.

So, I reiterate, as per the facts linked to already, there are 9 states where late term abortions are allowed under law for any reason that the mother decides including simply changing their mid about having the kid. Also, as per the facts already given, most abortions are not for medical necessity.

There is NOTHING presented as yet showing that there are very few late term abortions (as it pertains to late term abortions overall) that are not elective not even getting into the fact that you are claiming that it virtually never happens. You have no data to back your claims up as of yet, I do on the other hand.

If you find such data, then I might have to re-evaluate my claim but until then…

RvW is explicit as far as the RESTRICTIONS imposed on states as far as 3rd trimester abortions are concerned. Those RESTRICTIONS are quoted above. ALL states MUST comply with those RESTRICTIONS without exception. The current attempts by GOP run states are deliberate attempts to OVERTURN RvW simply because it ALLOWS HEALTH EXEMPTIONS that can ONLY be determined by a DOCTOR.

The onus remains on YOU to prove that there has been a single case of an "ELECTIVE" 3rd trimester abortion is violation of the RvW ruling.

?Where did that come from?

I never made that claim at all.

My claim was simple – that elective 3rd trimester abortion do indeed happen and that is totally legal AND in accordance with Roe. I thought you made the claim that elective 3rd trimester abortions did not occur and were ILLEGAL according to Roe. They are not.

I am confused as to where we got off track here? Can you point out where you think I was claiming that Roe made 3rd trimester abortions illegal? The entire point of my last two posts was disproving that as I thought that was the claim you were making when you stated this:

Completely and utterly irrelevant. ALL 50 states are subject to the RvW ruling which only permits 3rd trimester abortions in the case of a threat to the life and/or health of the woman concerned.
[snip]
You are erroneously ASSUMING that just because there is no explicit STATE law there must be "elective" 3rd trimester abortions. This is completely fallacious because RvW is Constitutional Law and overrides all state laws.

So if you have actual proof of an "elective" 3rd trimester abortion then you should notify the relevant authorities and have the doctor involved prosecuted.

That seems clear to me that YOUR claim was that Roe ONLY allows 3rd trimester abortions in case of danger to health. My entire contention is that is incorrect, Roe simply guarantees that right exists in that case and it is up to the states to regulate anything beyond that. Hence where 9 states that do not do so was relevant. 3rd trimester abortions are NOT in violation of roe, therefore it is impossible for me to provide any evidence anyone is violating Roe in that matter. BTW, if that is your claim, the onus is on you to show that such abortions ARE against Roe. As previously stated, they are not and the reasons are given in my last two posts.

In those states, elective third trimester abortions ARE legal, they ARE in accordance with Roe and they do occur. None of that ever claims that such is against the constitution – that would be silly to state. I don’t think that anyone thinks abortions are against the constitution in any form at all.

I really am confused as to how we ended up here?

 

[FA_Q2]

Roe v. Wade concerned a state law that violated the Constitutional right to privacy and the due process rights of women seeking abortions:

And? That is not against anything I have stated at all. As a matter of fact, that goes right into my contention this entire time.

Because the 14th Amendment compels the states to afford due process rights to all persons in a given state, laws in other states similar to the law in Texas were also invalidated.

Again, that is what I am stating. The counter that Derideo is making is that it actually made certain abortions illegal. Roe did no such thing. It just stipulated under what circumstances a state must be within to regulate abortion.

What’s been bizarre these last 40 years, of course, is the constant conservative effort to increase the power of the state at the expense of individual liberty.

Has no berring on the point and is partisan poking. Please check that at the door so we don’t turn thin into another one of the THOUSAND partisan bullshit abortion threads that already exist. We were getting somewhere on this one.

 

[Abraham3]

A late term abortion is one performed after the normal point of fetal viability outside the womb (i.e., a fully formed baby). This is what the Texas legislator wanted to preserve with her filibuster. Pro Choice people don't like to talk or think about this issue.

That is incorrect. The phrase "Late Term Abortion lacks a hard definition. It is only rarely used to indicate past viability. The incidence of them is microscopic and the vast, vast majority of those are truly performed to save the lives of the woman. The number of Gosnells out there is not large enough to have any significance on the constitutionality of abortion on demand.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Read the cited passage again diedro. It is VERY specific. It says that STATES can regulate as they see fit. There is, at this time, no federal laws or court cases that ban or restrict third trimester abortions. Again, those are assumptions on your part. I have assumed nothing. The facts state that there are 9 states that DO NOT REGULATE late term abortion. That is a FACT. The federal government also does not regulate those abortions. That is another fact. Note: regulation in this sense is pertaining to the decision making process and whether or not you can have an elective abortion in the third trimester, not that the medical procedure does not have to be carried out a certain way. You are extrapolating something that is NOT in Roe. The judges did not (as they actually cannot, that would be legislating from the bench – something that is NOT within the courts power) stipulate that 3rd trimester abortions were illegal. All they said was that the states may, should they so desire, regulate a particular gestation period that abortion would be illegal afterword.

So, I reiterate, as per the facts linked to already, there are 9 states where late term abortions are allowed under law for any reason that the mother decides including simply changing their mid about having the kid. Also, as per the facts already given, most abortions are not for medical necessity.

There is NOTHING presented as yet showing that there are very few late term abortions (as it pertains to late term abortions overall) that are not elective not even getting into the fact that you are claiming that it virtually never happens. You have no data to back your claims up as of yet, I do on the other hand.

If you find such data, then I might have to re-evaluate my claim but until then…

RvW is explicit as far as the RESTRICTIONS imposed on states as far as 3rd trimester abortions are concerned. Those RESTRICTIONS are quoted above. ALL states MUST comply with those RESTRICTIONS without exception. The current attempts by GOP run states are deliberate attempts to OVERTURN RvW simply because it ALLOWS HEALTH EXEMPTIONS that can ONLY be determined by a DOCTOR.

The onus remains on YOU to prove that there has been a single case of an "ELECTIVE" 3rd trimester abortion is violation of the RvW ruling.

?Where did that come from?

I never made that claim at all.

My claim was simple – that elective 3rd trimester abortion do indeed happen and that is totally legal AND in accordance with Roe. I thought you made the claim that elective 3rd trimester abortions did not occur and were ILLEGAL according to Roe. They are not.

I am confused as to where we got off track here? Can you point out where you think I was claiming that Roe made 3rd trimester abortions illegal? The entire point of my last two posts was disproving that as I thought that was the claim you were making when you stated this:

Completely and utterly irrelevant. ALL 50 states are subject to the RvW ruling which only permits 3rd trimester abortions in the case of a threat to the life and/or health of the woman concerned.
[snip]
You are erroneously ASSUMING that just because there is no explicit STATE law there must be "elective" 3rd trimester abortions. This is completely fallacious because RvW is Constitutional Law and overrides all state laws.

So if you have actual proof of an "elective" 3rd trimester abortion then you should notify the relevant authorities and have the doctor involved prosecuted.

That seems clear to me that YOUR claim was that Roe ONLY allows 3rd trimester abortions in case of danger to health. My entire contention is that is incorrect, Roe simply guarantees that right exists in that case and it is up to the states to regulate anything beyond that. Hence where 9 states that do not do so was relevant. 3rd trimester abortions are NOT in violation of roe, therefore it is impossible for me to provide any evidence anyone is violating Roe in that matter. BTW, if that is your claim, the onus is on you to show that such abortions ARE against Roe. As previously stated, they are not and the reasons are given in my last two posts.

In those states, elective third trimester abortions ARE legal, they ARE in accordance with Roe and they do occur. None of that ever claims that such is against the constitution – that would be silly to state. I don’t think that anyone thinks abortions are against the constitution in any form at all.

I really am confused as to how we ended up here?

OK, let's start again from the beginning by posting the summary of the RvW decision;

Roe v. Wade: Section XI

To summarize and to repeat:

1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a life-saving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life [410 U.S. 113, 165] may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

2. The State may define the term "physician," as it has been employed in the preceding paragraphs of this Part XI of this opinion, to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined.

In Doe v. Bolton, post, p. 179, procedural requirements contained in one of the modern abortion statutes are considered. That opinion and this one, of course, are to be read together. 67

This holding, we feel, is consistent with the relative weights of the respective interests involved, with the lessons and examples of medical and legal history, with the lenity of the common law, and with the demands of the profound problems of the present day. The decision leaves the State free to place increasing restrictions on abortion as the period of pregnancy lengthens, so long as those restrictions are tailored to the recognized state interests. The decision vindicates the right of the physician to administer medical treatment according to his professional judgment up to the points where important [410 U.S. 113, 166] state interests provide compelling justifications for intervention. Up to those points, the abortion decision in all its aspects is inherently, and primarily, a medical decision, and basic responsibility for it must rest with the physician. If an individual practitioner abuses the privilege of exercising proper medical judgment, the usual remedies, judicial and intra-professional, are available.

Which part of that ruling do you have a problem with?

 

[FA_Q2]

RvW is explicit as far as the RESTRICTIONS imposed on states as far as 3rd trimester abortions are concerned. Those RESTRICTIONS are quoted above. ALL states MUST comply with those RESTRICTIONS without exception. The current attempts by GOP run states are deliberate attempts to OVERTURN RvW simply because it ALLOWS HEALTH EXEMPTIONS that can ONLY be determined by a DOCTOR.

The onus remains on YOU to prove that there has been a single case of an "ELECTIVE" 3rd trimester abortion is violation of the RvW ruling.

?Where did that come from?

I never made that claim at all.

My claim was simple – that elective 3rd trimester abortion do indeed happen and that is totally legal AND in accordance with Roe. I thought you made the claim that elective 3rd trimester abortions did not occur and were ILLEGAL according to Roe. They are not.

I am confused as to where we got off track here? Can you point out where you think I was claiming that Roe made 3rd trimester abortions illegal? The entire point of my last two posts was disproving that as I thought that was the claim you were making when you stated this:


That seems clear to me that YOUR claim was that Roe ONLY allows 3rd trimester abortions in case of danger to health. My entire contention is that is incorrect, Roe simply guarantees that right exists in that case and it is up to the states to regulate anything beyond that. Hence where 9 states that do not do so was relevant. 3rd trimester abortions are NOT in violation of roe, therefore it is impossible for me to provide any evidence anyone is violating Roe in that matter. BTW, if that is your claim, the onus is on you to show that such abortions ARE against Roe. As previously stated, they are not and the reasons are given in my last two posts.

In those states, elective third trimester abortions ARE legal, they ARE in accordance with Roe and they do occur. None of that ever claims that such is against the constitution – that would be silly to state. I don’t think that anyone thinks abortions are against the constitution in any form at all.

I really am confused as to how we ended up here?

OK, let's start again from the beginning by posting the summary of the RvW decision;

Roe v. Wade: Section XI

To summarize and to repeat:

1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a life-saving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life [410 U.S. 113, 165] may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

2. The State may define the term "physician," as it has been employed in the preceding paragraphs of this Part XI of this opinion, to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined.

In Doe v. Bolton, post, p. 179, procedural requirements contained in one of the modern abortion statutes are considered. That opinion and this one, of course, are to be read together. 67

This holding, we feel, is consistent with the relative weights of the respective interests involved, with the lessons and examples of medical and legal history, with the lenity of the common law, and with the demands of the profound problems of the present day. The decision leaves the State free to place increasing restrictions on abortion as the period of pregnancy lengthens, so long as those restrictions are tailored to the recognized state interests. The decision vindicates the right of the physician to administer medical treatment according to his professional judgment up to the points where important [410 U.S. 113, 166] state interests provide compelling justifications for intervention. Up to those points, the abortion decision in all its aspects is inherently, and primarily, a medical decision, and basic responsibility for it must rest with the physician. If an individual practitioner abuses the privilege of exercising proper medical judgment, the usual remedies, judicial and intra-professional, are available.

Which part of that ruling do you have a problem with?

I have never had a problem with Roe. I have never expressed a problem with Roe.

I will add that the following:

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life [410 U.S. 113, 165] may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

Means that elective third trimester abortions are perfectly legal in states (9 of them atm) that have not regulated that procedure.

That has been my contention since the beginning.