Judge Rules Against Partial-Birth Abortion Law

Pages

Reuters:

Yahoo wrote:

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A controversial ban on late-term, or partial-birth, abortions signed into law by President Bush (news - web sites) late last year was ruled unconstitutional on Tuesday by a judge in the first federal court decision against the law.

San Francisco-based U.S. District Court Judge Phyllis Hamilton said the law was unconstitutional because it was vague and posed an "undue burden" on abortion rights.

She sided with Planned Parenthood (news - web sites) in its lawsuit against the federal government, which had defended the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. The law also faces challenges in federal courts in New York and Nebraska.

I hope as few women as possible end up having to use this procedure... Brr...

Hell, I think it should be outlawed.

A San Francisco-based judge ruling in favor of abortion? That''s a shocker.

San Francisco-based U.S. District Court Judge Phyllis Hamilton said the law was unconstitutional because it was vague and posed an ""undue burden"" on abortion rights.

Speaking of ""vague""...what is an ""undue burden?""

On to the Supreme Court...

Where it hopefully gets reversed. Partial Birth abortions are sick and wrong.

"Dr.Ghastly" wrote:

Where it hopefully gets reversed. Partial Birth abortions are sick and wrong.

Agreed.

From the AP story:

""the banned method is often a safer solution that a conventional abortion, in which the fetus is dismembered in the womb and then removed in pieces.""

ugh...

Having a baby myself I can''t tell you how my view on abortion has changed over the years. I respect a women''s right, but all women should have to sit through an ultrasound before they make their final decision.

Interestingly, my view on abortion hasn''t changed at all since having my son.

"Pulse" wrote:

From the AP story:

""the banned method is often a safer solution that a conventional abortion, in which the fetus is dismembered in the womb and then removed in pieces.""

Did I read the wrong article? This statement was not in the linked article at all.

The above quote is wrong and misleading, in any case. Partial-birth abortion is *always* more dangerous than other methods. It is an unnecessary risk to the mother, and a horrible way to kill a baby at the moment of birth. You don''t purposefully deliver babys in the breach position (feet first). My wife is a doctor and has delivered many babies. Whoever made that quote obviously was not a doctor, nor did they consult one.

"BrokenCrayon" wrote:

Partial-birth abortion is *always* more dangerous than other methods.

That''s not what the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says.

""the banned method is often a safer solution that a conventional abortion, in which the fetus is dismembered in the womb and then removed in pieces.""

How can someone say that there isn''t a life there?

"Strekos" wrote:
"BrokenCrayon" wrote:

Partial-birth abortion is *always* more dangerous than other methods.

That''s not what the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says.

Score one for ACOG and abortion-rights.

http://www.healthatoz.com/healthatoz/Atoz/ency/abortion_partial_birth.html

Intact D&X, or partial birth abortion first involves administration of medications to cause the cervix to dilate, usually over the course of several days. Next, the physician rotates the fetus to a footling breech position. The body of the fetus is then drawn out of the uterus feet first, until only the head remains inside the uterus. Then, the physician uses an instrument to puncture the base of the skull, which collapses the fetal head. Typically, the contents of the fetal head are then partially suctioned out, which results in the death of the fetus and reduces the size of the fetal head enough to allow it to pass through the cervix. The dead and otherwise intact fetus is then removed from the woman''s body.
Risks

With all abortion, the later in pregnancy an abortion is performed, the more complicated the procedure and the greater the risk of injury to the woman. In addition to associated emotional reactions, D&X carries the risk of injury to the woman, including heavy bleeding, blood clots, damage to the cervix or uterus, pelvic infection, and anesthesia-related complications. There also is a risk of incomplete abortion, meaning that the fetus is not dead when removed from the woman''s body. Possible long-term risks include difficulty becoming pregnant or carrying a future pregnancy to term.

Is the procedure ever medically necessary? First of all, the procedure itself requires several days to perform, since the cervix must be dilated first. This means that the procedure is never used in an emergency to save the life of the mother. In addition, the procedure is medically risky to the mother.

However, I''ll quote an earlier article (1998) published in JAMA (full text, subscription only unfortunately):

None of these risks are medically necessary because other procedures are available to physicians who deem it necessary to perform an abortion late in pregnancy. As ACOG policy states clearly, intact D&X is never the only procedure available.
Intact D&X (partial-birth abortion) should not be performed because it is needlessly risky, inhumane, and ethically unacceptable. This procedure is closer to infanticide than it is to abortion.

I was under the impression that this procedure was only used as a last-ditch medical emergency mother''s-life-in-danger kind of thing. I can''t believe that anyone, pro-choice or not, would elect this procedure over a far simpler and safer first trimester abortion.

"Alien13z" wrote:

I was under the impression that this procedure was only used as a last-ditch medical emergency mother''s-life-in-danger kind of thing. I can''t believe that anyone, pro-choice or not, would elect this procedure over a far simpler and safer first trimester abortion.

That''s the deal, it can''t be used as a ""last-ditch medical emergency mother''s-life-in-danger kind of thing"" as it takes days to prepare the procedure.

"BrokenCrayon" wrote:
"Pulse" wrote:

From the AP story:

""the banned method is often a safer solution that a conventional abortion, in which the fetus is dismembered in the womb and then removed in pieces.""

Did I read the wrong article? This statement was not in the linked article at all.

The above quote is wrong and misleading, in any case. Partial-birth abortion is *always* more dangerous than other methods. It is an unnecessary risk to the mother, and a horrible way to kill a baby at the moment of birth. You don''t purposefully deliver babys in the breach position (feet first). My wife is a doctor and has delivered many babies. Whoever made that quote obviously was not a doctor, nor did they consult one.

Nope, you didn''t miss anything. That quote was from here:(a story by the AP and Fox news. Sorry for no link originally, I was in a mad rush out the door when I submitted my first post)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,...

And let me elaborate. The quote was added to mostly for this part ""which the fetus is dismembered in the womb and then removed in pieces"". Hence the ""ugh"" I placed after it. That is BARBARIC. Also, I have yet to hear a compelling case for partial term abortions.

As for my view on abortion, I must say in college I was naive and believed the information given to me in my ""Diversity"" class that an abortion in the first trimester is not killing anything because at that point the baby is just the ""makings"" of a baby. The analogy I was given was that when you have eggs, sugar and flower you don''t have a cake...it has to cook first. Good old UMass. Thanks for the valuable info! While abortion would never be an option for me or my wife, the analogy did seem to lessen the severity, albeit only by a little.

Well, since having my first child and going to an ultrasound and hearing a heart beat within the first 8 weeks was an incredible eye opening experience and drastically changed my views. Hence my quote that women should be forced to have an ultrasound before they make a decision.

Hopefully that clears things in my post up...but just in case it does not.

abortion = sad, bad, and hopefully avoidable.
partial term abortion = very, very bad.

I was under the impression that this procedure was only used as a last-ditch medical emergency mother''s-life-in-danger kind of thing.

NARAL and the NY Times will be happy to hear that you have gotten that impression, since they want you to regardless of the facts...

The reason that abortion doctors fought so hard to avoid having the Justice Department subpeona abortion records was because they didn''t want the truth revealed about the medical ""necessity"" of any partial-birth abortions.

The reason that abortion doctors fought so hard to avoid having the Justice Department subpeona abortion records was because they didn''t want the truth revealed about the medical ""necessity"" of any partial-birth abortions.

*cue music*IMAGE(http://members.aol.com/kilobyte9/xfiles.gif)The truth is out there!;)

Seriously, though, do you have any links to support that?

Doctors have a legitimate fear of litigation, no matter how good and ethical and whatever else they are.

I can''t believe that doctors want their patient''s right to privacy violated, nor their ability to treat their patients further degraded (which is already compromised by lots of lawsuits, whether they''re a great doctor or not).

The justice department wasn''t asking for specific patient records. They were asking for the case files with all identifiers removed. This is a common occurance for case studies, research, other court cases, etc.

They wanted to see in what percentage of partial birth abortions the mother''s actual health was in jeopardy. Given that the number is negligable, abortion rights activists went to the media with cries of Ashcroft violating abortion patient rights: a blatant misrepresentation if there ever was one....

That may be very true in fact JMJ, but I still think you''re dealing with a doctor''s understandable reaction to the Justice Department wanting to question their decisions. Whether it''s immediately effective (prosecution) or later on down the line results in oversight a doctor doesn''t want...has a very logical and discrete difference, but not who''s going to be logical and discrete about this issue?

That may be very true in fact JMJ, but I still think you''re dealing with a doctor''s understandable reaction to the Justice Department wanting to question their decisions.

That''s not the case being made. The lawyers arguing to keep the records away from the Justice department are claiming that it would violate patient''s rights.

I am against abortion all together, but I can''t believe that there are people in this world that think that this procedure is anything but the barbaric murdering of infants at birth. Can anyone out there come up with a single reason this procedure would be necessary? Why would it not be easier to just have the baby and pass it along to someone that sees a baby as something other than a choice?

Come to think of it, how many abortions today are performed for a ""good"" reason?

I know this site is angled towards pro-life, but it was the first result I got from google link:

Why Abortions Are Performed
The overwhelming majority of all abortions, (95%), are done as a means of birth control.

Only 1% are performed because of rape or incest;

1% because of fetal abnormalities;

3% due to the mother''s health problems.
Source: Central Illinois Right To Life

Reasons Women Choose Abortion (U.S.)

Wants to postpone childbearing: 25.5%
Wants no (more) children: 7.9%
Cannot afford a baby: 21.3%
Having a child will disrupt education or job: 10.8%
Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy: 14.1%
Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy: 12.2%
Risk to maternal health: 2.8%
Risk to fetal health: 3.3%
Other: 2.1%

Source:Bankole, Akinrinola; Singh, Susheela; Haas, Taylor. Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries. International Family Planning Perspectives, 1998, 24(3):117–127 & 152 As reported by:The Alan Guttmacher Institute Online:

Some other sites with slightly different statistics:
WRBS.com, krla.org...still looking for a more pro-choice side of the statistics, but there doesn''t seem to be a pro-choice site that cares about statistics.

Also, concerning Partial Birth Abortion being the safest method of abortion I found this from the Center for Disease Control:

Fewer than one woman in 100 develops a major
complication from induced abortion, and
fewer than one in 100,000 dies (7,8 ). The risk
of morbidity and mortality from legal abortion is
directly related to gestational age at the time of
abortion"”the earlier the gestation, the safer the
procedure (9,10).

And an article with some interesting information about Partial Birth Abortion.

I,m back, And it seems that I was right about the Liberal rogue judges out of control.

"Tobyus" wrote:

I am against abortion all together, but I can''t believe that there are people in this world that think that this procedure is anything but the barbaric murdering of infants at birth. Can anyone out there come up with a single reason this procedure would be necessary?

Well, I don''t see how anyone can argue with 45000 or so OB/GYNs that belong to ACOG, which has said that the procedure can be necessary (link posted earlier in the thread). So we are equal in our disbelief.

Well, I don''t see how anyone can argue with 45000 or so OB/GYNs that belong to ACOG, which has said that the procedure can be necessary (link posted earlier in the thread). So we are equal in our disbelief.

I somehow doubt they were all asked.

I agree with Pulse. Seeing your baby''s heart palpitate on the ultrasound monitor and hearing the pace of its heartbeat is an experience that will change one''s view on this things completely, if there''s at least a tiny bit of humanity left in his/her heart.

Me and my wife would never go for an abortion to get rid of the baby. Not now, not before, not ever. Like Pulse said, abortion itself is disturbingly cruel enough, and late-term one is plain viscerally barbaric. I understand, though, that some do want to have it as an option. Maybe our society is not ready to get rid of that just yet. Just like it''s not ready to abandon capital punishment for crimes now.

Maybe this abortion method needs to stay, but more needs to be done to educate and influence people''s minds. I would have no problem with having the government do that. Make those videos shown to kids in the schools in Family Life classses. Anything that would possibly make them avoid getting pregnant and/or bringing the pregnancy to late term. I would have no problem with the mandatory classes being made a requirement for the admission to the procedure. Obligatory family planning councelling, maybe even advise to undergo a sterilization. Subsequent community service, dammit. I don''t know.

Just make partial-birth abortions illegal. Easy.

"Strekos" wrote:
"Tobyus" wrote:

I am against abortion all together, but I can''t believe that there are people in this world that think that this procedure is anything but the barbaric murdering of infants at birth. Can anyone out there come up with a single reason this procedure would be necessary?

Well, I don''t see how anyone can argue with 45000 or so OB/GYNs that belong to ACOG, which has said that the procedure can be necessary (link posted earlier in the thread). So we are equal in our disbelief.

Most of those members sign up for membership, pay dues, engage in continuing medical education and get publications. The ACOG is not a democratic institution, it is governed by an executive board responsible for electing fellows into membership. Fellows being the upper tier of membership by those who wish to have voting privledges, etc., etc.

It''s mostly an organization for Ob/Gyn physicians to join and become certified so they can say they are ""board certified"" physicians. Only a very small percentage of doctors actually get involved in the politics and organization.

"Pulse" wrote:

As for my view on abortion, I must say in college I was naive and believed the information given to me in my ""Diversity"" class that an abortion in the first trimester is not killing anything because at that point the baby is just the ""makings"" of a baby. The analogy I was given was that when you have eggs, sugar and flower you don''t have a cake...it has to cook first. Good old UMass. Thanks for the valuable info! While abortion would never be an option for me or my wife, the analogy did seem to lessen the severity, albeit only by a little.

Wow, that is a pretty terrible justification for abortion. I am glad I haven''t subjected to garbage like that at my university. Of course, I haven''t taken a ""diversity"" class either. Fortunately, I have a real argument for abortion for you. The choice in ""Pro-Choice"" is not ability to choose between whether or not to have an abortion. Women are going to have abortions, whether it be in the regulated environment of a clinic or with a coathanger in the bathtub. So, legalizing abortion is really just a utilitarian solution to this problem. With abortion legal, the process in so much safer for women and it really saves lives in the long run.

I am personally no fan of abortion, legal or otherwise. It is the stamping out of human life, no two ways about it. Unfortunately, I do believe it is a necessary evil.

Edit: Yeah, I am not too sure how I feel about partial birth abortions. I really don''t have enough infor about when it is implemented

Duttybrew, we''re talking not just abortion here -- but late-term or partial-birth abortion. The necessity of this] sort of evil is what is questioned.

Duttybrew, we''re talking not just abortion here -- but late-term or partial-birth abortion. The necessity of this] sort of evil is what is questioned.

I''m not sure why abortion is worse simply because it happens partially outside the womb.

Pages