Which Dems voted FOR the Partial Birth Abortion Ban?

[pandatimothy]

Just curious as I support the ban.

Thanks

Pandatim

[Kathy in Cambridge]

1. Partial-birth abortions are usually performed because

the woman's life is endangered.

My sister-in-law would have died and left five motherless kids under 7 had she not had access to this procedure.

Thanks for supporting a woman's right to live.

[pandatimothy]

2. Hey I respect your opinon and I won't get in argument with you

Can you answer my post please?

[Kathy in Cambridge]

3. Check out this link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=177372#177376

[pandatimothy]

Thank you.

[Deja Q]

5. x

x

[Deja Q]

6. Agreed. The decision is up to the doctor and the woman. NOT THE GOV'T or

some bigot politician or arrogant citizenship who'd probably turn against the ban if it affected their lives (isn't it amazing how often peoples', particularly republicans', attitudes change once the issues affect them personally?)

That's all that has to be said on the matter, the ban is wrong. And your story is exactly the reason why it is wrong.

Thank you for posting. It's the rationalism we need more of around here.

[JohnKleeb]

16. RR sorry about your sister

Well I would have voted against the ban.

[ScreamingMeemie]

4. USA today roll call...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/legislative/senate/abortion-roll-call.htm

Shame on them.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

New England Republicans Vote No

And Patrick Leahy votes YES! :wtf:

[kiahzero]

101. That's because New England Republicans are sane

Why, oh why, won't Lincoln Chafee join the Democrats?

[Judi Lynn]

114. I have to wonder if he's been threatened again

since he and Daschle were singled out for THE BIG THREAT already!





http://www.computerbytesman.com/anthrax/toaddr.htm

[Seneca]

7. Why on earth would you support the "ban"?

A ban on what? A safe medical peocedure that saves the mother's life?

It is madness, and nothing but a smokescreen for the real goal of the Republican/Religious Right - a complete reversal of Roe v. Wade and the criminalization of all abortions, at all times, for all reasons.

Please, PLEASE don't tell me you support the "ban" (the term 'partial birth' is the worst kind of semantic corruption) because you think it is a form of reckless and irresponsible birth control!

It is not done for selfish reasons, and if one is truly "pro-life". they would have voted AGAINST this putrid piece of legislative filth.

[pandatimothy]

8. Because it is rarely used and very graphic

If it is so rarely used why are you so upset about banning it?

Nobody is going to overturn Roe V Wade so don't even go there.

That is my opinion like it or leave it. Clearly folks like Daschle, Hollings and Byrd agreed with me.

[ScreamingMeemie]

11. Because I don't want it to be my daughter who suffers, or is lost

to me because of it. It is unjust to the woman and those who love her.

[Seneca]

12. read my post again

I am upset because the ban is being used as a SMOKESCREEN to outlaw abortion. Increments is their means of working towards their goal.

I will "go there" because the RR has made NO BONES about their real intentions: banning a woman's right to choose.

You begged the question quite well - if it so "rare", why has there been a 7 year effort by the GOP to get this bill passed? Why all the fuss on THEIR part to get the procedure banned? Since you support their vote for the banning, you must think it is worth the fuss.

And MANY medical procedures are "graphic", so what does THAT have to do with being a sound reason to outlaw it? Shall we ban brain surgery or liver transplants?

[Iris]

14. Perhaps, speaking as a woman,

she wouldn't want any procedure that may save her life to be banned.

[Seneca]

17. Daschle, Hollings, and Byrd

I hope they get voted out next time. Espcially Daschle, who has been little more than a toady for Bush and the GOP.

The other two are fossils kowtowing to the RR in their home base, espcially Hollings, since South Carolina is a MAJOR bastion of the RR.

They were wrong with their vote, and so are you. Like it or leave it? I don't like it, and I have no plans on leaving it be. :-)

[cally]

38. Rarely used unless it is someone you care about

A very close friend would have died and left a motherless child behind under these new rules. Yes, she wanted the prospective child but that child would have died so she chose to save her life rather than die in a lost cause.


God, I hate the self importance and ignorance of those who argue in favor of this. Late term abortions are horrible and graphic, but they save lives.

[BurtWorm]

117. "If it is so rarely used why are you so upset about banning it?"

We're talking about a banning a medical procedure that saves lives because some religious fanatics who do, in fact, want to use this and any other wedge they can muster to chip away at Roe v. Wade. I'm upset because ideology is going to win out over reality. This is pure symbolism, but it's going to kill.

[Book Lover]

138. Colostomy bags are graphic too

Shall we ban them, and have people spilling their shit everywhere?

Your reasoning is very poor. It is rare that identical twins are born conjoined, and therefore rare that we need to separate them. As anyone who has followed recent events can tell you, that too is graphic: shall we ban it? It's rare that feti develop in utero past 4 weeks when no brain will develop. When they do, shall we force a woman to stay pregnant, give birth, then watch her tiny baby die? That's not graphic?

I wonder what crystal ball you employ, that you can say with such a cavalier attitude that "Nobody is going to overturn Roe V Wade." Today's congressional action is the first step to that end, and those who wish it to be so employ the same reasoning you do.

[pandatimothy]

144. It hasn't been overturned since and it won't be overturned anytime soon

A majority of Americans support abortion but DO NOT support PB abortion.

They support it with reasonable restricitons not an all out ban.

[BurtWorm]

150. Americans support a ban on "partial birth abortions" UNLESS

they're indicated to save the life or protect the health of the mother, which is the only time late-term abortions are ever indicated. Even white evangelical protestants waver in their strong support for a ban when the "mother's health" issue is raised.

This is from a post of mine on another thread on this subject that was locked:

I made a neat little table that probably won't reproduce. You can see the data I copped following the link below. Effectively, it shows that while people clearly oppose "partial-birth abortions" across the boards, they don't want to outlaw the procedure in cases when a woman's health is endangered. A majority of only one of the control groups studied--white protestant evangelicals--thought it should be outlawed in both cases, but even with them, support for banning the procedure dropped radically (from 76 to 53 percent), and support for keeping it legal rose even more dramatically (from 12 to 43 percent). This means that banning this procedure is ultimately anti-democratic: the views of white evangelical protestants are given far greater weight than those of other groups.


http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/GoodMorningAmerica/poll030724_abortion.html

[pandatimothy]

152. I know some white evangelical protestants

Interesting....

[w4rma]

161. American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Press Release

For Release: October 3, 2003
Contact: ACOG Office of Communications
[e-mail]

Statement on So-Called "Partial Birth Abortion" Law
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

Washington, DC -- The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) continues to oppose so-called "partial birth abortion" laws, including the conference committee bill approved by the US House of Representatives yesterday and sent to the US Senate. "Partial birth abortion" is a non-medical term apparently referring to a particular abortion procedure known as intact dilatation and extraction (intact D&X, or D&X), a rare variant of a more common midterm abortion procedure know as dilatation and evacuation (D&E).

In 2000, the US Supreme Court struck down a Nebraska "partial birth abortion" law in the case of Stenberg v. Carhart, ruling that the law violated the US Constitution by (1) failing to provide any exception "for the preservation of the health of the mother," and (2) being so broadly written that it could prohibit other types of abortion procedures such as D&E, thereby "unduly burdening a women's ability to choose abortion itself." The bill now before the Senate, which its supporters claim can meet any constitutional test, blatantly disregards the two-pronged test the Supreme Court carefully established in Stenberg.

As noted in a 1997 ACOG Statement of Policy, reaffirmed in 2000, and in ACOG's amicus curiae brief filed in the Stenberg case, ACOG continues to object to legislators taking any action that would supersede the medical judgment of a trained physician, in consultation with a patient, as to what is the safest and most appropriate medical procedure for that particular patient.

ACOG's Statement of Policy explains why ACOG believes such legislation to be "inappropriate, ill advised, and dangerous." The policy statement notes that although a select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which intact D&X would be the only option to protect the life or health of a woman, intact D&X "may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances, can make this decision (emphasis added)."

The Statement of Policy further reads that such legislation has the potential to outlaw other abortion techniques that are critical to the lives and health of American women. This was the second basis upon which the Supreme Court struck down the Nebraska law in the Stenberg case. The Court will invariably strike down laws that are overly broad or imprecisely drawn. Bills that frequently using terms -- such as "partial birth abortion" -- that are not recognized by the very constituency (physicians) whose conduct the law would criminalize, and that purport to address a single procedure yet describe elements of other procedures used in obstetrics and gynecology would not meet the Court's test.

In this case, the bill before the Senate fails to respect the Stenberg test because bill supporters flagrantly refuse to include an exception for the health of a woman. Instead, legislators try to circumvent the Court's requirements by issuing their own opinion to the nation's physicians and patients that such a procedure is never needed to protect a woman's health -- notwithstanding opposing opinions from the medical community.

The medical misinformation currently circulating in political discussions of abortion procedures only reinforces ACOG's position: in the individual circumstances of each particular medical case, the patient and physician -- not legislators -- are the appropriate parties to determine the best method of treatment.

# # #

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) is the national medical organization representing 45,000 members who provide health care for women.

http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/press_releases/nr10-03-03.cfm
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=569189

[Kool Kitty]

162. You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

But a woman whose life is in danger should be able to have this procedure, whether you like it or not. This is important and this is how the pugs undermine everything. It's a "death by a thousand small cuts" situation. They ban this part, they ban that part, and soon the right is gone.

[gully]

9. Howard Dean doesn't agree with you...

"The notion of "partial birth abortion" is nonsense. This is a rare procedure used only to save the life or health of the mother."
Campaign web site, DeanForAmerica.com, "On the Issues" Nov 30, 2002

[pandatimothy]

10. I support Dean on the gun jssue

That is why I support Dean mainly. There are lot of us pro-labor, pro-gun, pro-life Democrats in the hills of NC and TN.

[gully]

20. Understood... NT

[Seneca]

21. if you are "pro-life"

Then you would oppose any ban on a surgical procedure WHICH SAVES THE LIFE OF A FULLY SENTIENT HUMAN BEING, namely the mother. The baby is not sacrificed for the mother, since it would not live either if if the dilation and extraction wasn't performed.

With this procedure, it's one life saved or none. Any "pro-life" person would FAVOR keeping the procedure SAFE AND LEGAL.

[Woodstock]

28. applause!!!

[JohnKleeb]

30. exactly

Abortion should be kept safe and legal.

[Resistance Is Futile]

26. "Pro life"

An interesting term, that.

What about the life of the mother?

[pandatimothy]

34. I believe the life of the child is more important than the life of the

parents.

[MissB]

37. So you'd save the child at the expense of the mother?

.

[pandatimothy]

39. Yes

What makes the mother's life more valuable?

[MissB]

42. What makes her life less valuable?

Really, that is what you are saying. The life of an unborn fetus is far more important than that of a living, breathing human being. Why is she less valuable in you eyes?

[pandatimothy]

45. "Fetuses"are living and breathing too

What makes them more valuable? They have never taken their first breath of air outside the womb, never got to go to kidnergarten, never got to be licked by a puppy dog, never get to celebrate their birthdays, ect.

[MissB]

49. So why is the mother of less value to you?

Why is she of less value than the unborn fetus? She is, after all, the reason why the fetus exists. Why is she of less value? What is your reason?

If you feel the fetus is of more value, then it logically follows that you feel the mother is of less value? How do you arrive at that conclusion?

[pandatimothy]

50. She's not but she has experienced more life than the unborn child

So the younger, more vulnerable person should get the protection.

[ScreamingMeemie]

54. And leave a husband/SO and possibly other children to mourn the

loss of a life? How could they possibly welcome wholeheartedly this baby, how could they celebrate a birthday which is also a death anniversary?

[pandatimothy]

61. I've seen it happen

Not necessarily with abortion but believe me a new child DOES help ease the pain of a loss of a loved one.

I heard of a woman who REFUSED life saving cancer treatments because it would've killed her unborn child.

She died but her chilkd lived. Think about it.

[ScreamingMeemie]

66. The difference is, that was her decision. Let it remain her

decision. Apples and oranges.

[pandatimothy]

70. But then the child doesn't decide whether it lives or dies

That is what bothers me.

[MissB]

79. What child does get to make those decisions?

I don't agree with your position, but let's say for a moment that I do. As a parent, I have to tell you I don't let me kids make their own decisions. Why would a fetus make the decision?

[pandatimothy]

82. This deals with life or death

Someone dies in this decision.

[MissB]

86. Yes, which is exactly why it should be in the hands of the parents.

Not the hands of the state. Such a decision is heartwrenching, no matter the circumstances.

I'm a bit jaded. I've never had an abortion, but I will forever be affected by the life-story of a former congresswoman from our state, Elizabeth Furse.

Back when abortions were illegal (except when the life of the mother was threatened), she was pregnant with her third child. She wanted a large family. The baby was diagnosed with debilitating disablities, including brain damage.

In order for her to abort the child (which she and her husband- an OB- both decided to do), she ended up having to agree to a complete hysterectomy. It was the only way the hospital would allow the abortion.

So here was a fetus. The fetus was going to be severely disabled and they opted to abort. In order to abort, she had to give up her reproductive rights.

I don't want to go back to that. I don't think that is progress. It is a decision that should be made between a woman, her significant other, and her doctor.

[pandatimothy]

88. So should parents have the right to kill their two year olds? n/t

[MissB]

97. Now there is an easy question to answer.

That would be called murder.

Again, I'd have to point out that making the decision to abort is not, as you said earlier, as easy as slaughtering a chicken. Until you begin to realize that, I don't think you can possibly understand the passion of the pro-choice people. So many of us would never consider abortion personally, but we certainly wouldn't condemn a person who has made the decision. It isn't like deciding to have tea in the morning instead of coffee.

[pandatimothy]

99. HA! But two year olds CANNOT make decisions for themselves

just like an unborn child in the womb.

Where is the difference, friend?

[MissB]

106. The difference

The difference is that the two year old is alive. It has been through the amazing and wonderful birthing process and came out breathing, capable of living without being inside it's mother. To kill it would be considered murder.

The fetus, however, cannot survive outside the womb until a certain point. If a woman is having an abortion in the second or third trimester, I assume that there is something wrong developmentally with the fetus. I do not automatically assume that the mother is choosing abortion out of convenience. The fetus is incapable of making the decision of whether or not it should be aborted. That is the parent's decision. Not your decision. Not my decision. Not the state's decision.

Unless you are arguing that the two year old cannot make the decision to be murdered themselves- then I think you are so far off track that I've lost you completely. I'm saying it is the parent who must make the decision, not the fetus.

[pandatimothy]

110. But the fetus is a child just like a two year old

You are basically saying the "fetus" is a parasite.

[MissB]

112. A fetus is not a two-year old child.

Is a fetus a child because it has arms, legs and a head? Is that your reasoning?

A fetus cannot live outside of the womb until a certain point (28-32 weeks, possibly earlier).

I don't know whether you are a woman or a man. If you are a woman, and you've given birth, you'd know that a fetus is not unlike a parasite. They depend on their host (the mother) for life until they are able to live on their own.

As a mother, I don't have any problem looking at my kids and thinking of them as former parasites. Not exactly my word of choice, but it isn't something I'd pooh-pooh as untrue.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

113. No, the fetus is NOT a child just like a two year old

A two year old has independence outside the womb. A fetus is completely dependent on the nourishment within the womb.

There is also the likelihood that a pregnancy will end naturally. If a two year old dies-after you have loved, nurtured and gotten to watch the child develop personality-it is way more of a tragedy than a miscarriage.

[pandatimothy]

116. It is still a child

A 2 year old is still depeddent on it's parents for nourishment too. I damn sure didn't fix myself a bowl of spaghetti at two years.

[MissB]

119. There was a two year old recently that survived

on dried pasta for over a week. Amazing child, really.

I don't know where you are going with this. Do you?

Who is still a child? The two year old?

[Kathy in Cambridge]

120. Does the fetus talk back to you?

Sing you songs? Interact with its siblings? Sing the alphabet? Draw you pictures?

How in the HELL can you compare a fetus to a two year old? Whatever you're smoking, I'd love some to escape from the rational, earthbound reality in which I live.

[pandatimothy]

121. Does a mute kid?

How about a child in a vegitative coma? What about a kid born without arms, can't give you a hug or draw pictures?

[MissB]

126. Luckily children are not born

Mute, in a coma, and without arms. Mostly, that is.

I don't see where you are proving that a fetus is just like a two year old child.

I can't wait to see the proof. I'll have to check back in the morning. My "parasites" need to be tucked into bed.

[pandatimothy]

129. That is right

Some of them are aborted before they see the light at the end of the birth canal.

[diamondsoul]

155. A 2 year old, heck even a newborn is "dependant on"

ANY competant care-taker, thank you very much. A 2 year old, or even a newborn is not living inside of my body, taking it's sustenance from the nutrients I ingest to meet my own body's needs and putting my life and health at risk from it.

Now that's not to say pregnancy isn't worth it to a great many women. Obviously it is or there wouldn't be any children born, BUT don't confuse biological dependance with social dependance and call it even, please. They are two completely different situations.

There is absolutely NO other condition that can be adequately compared with fetal development/pregnancy with a single POSSIBLE exception- that of conjoined twins. Would you force two conjoined twins to die because you wouldn't approve them being separated so that one could live?

[Book Lover]

142. Again, illogical

Something must first be alive in order to die.

Look, you don't like icky bloody biological things, fine. Don't have an abortion when you get pregnant. And pray you are never in this situation: you just may find that you like living your life.

[pandatimothy]

143. A fetus is ALIVE

Geez look at an ultrasound.

[Book Lover]

158. I have - but I also have medical training

Geez yourself, lady.

[redqueen]

192. Pardon me but I just have to ask...

I have relatives and who are nurses who refuse to assist in performing this procedure. Have you any acquaintances in your medical job that similarly refuse to assist? Or if doctors, that refuse to perform them?

[smirkymonkey]

188. Why anyone is even bothering to respond to your..

lame-ass reasoning is beyond me. There is no point in debating someone with such a distorted view of life and death.

I smell a freeper.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

189. No critical thinking skills

hallmark of a fweepah.

[Kool Kitty]

163. She made the choice to not have life-saving cancer treatments.

It was her CHOICE. Think about it.

[Tommy_Douglas]

182. There is not a sane human being...

That would allow their wife or mother to die so that an unborn child could live. Simply crazy.

[MissB]

56. I don't think you've thought this through very well

No offense intended, of course. It's just rather odd to say that an older person should move out of the way for a fetus.

Ever see Logan's Run?

[Woodstock]

60. Women as baby making machines owned by the state

is the next step

[bicentennial_baby]

65. The Handmaid's Tale: Live in 2005!

:scared:

[pandatimothy]

73. Whatever

If that is what you think is going to happen, so be it.

I don't believe that.

[pandatimothy]

67. No

If I may ask what it is about?

Thanks

[MissB]

75. Short version:

Old people are pushed out of the way for younger people.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

83. Exactly, MissB!

Cart them off to nursing homes to hide them, deny them access to inexpensive medications and surgeries to prolong their life.

And to top it off, favor the life of a fetus-who may or may not live beyond infancy-over the life of its mother, who could be contributing important ideas, discoveries, and moral examples to the world already.

I wonder if the Fetus champion believes we should take care of these children once they are born. Should we fund school lunches? After-school programs? And all the other social programs that benefit the poor children in this country?

[Woodstock]

57. a fetus is not a person

nor is it a citizen of the United States

but don't worry, Bush and Daschle are working hard at changing all that for you - things are going exactly your way, just give it a few years

[Kathy in Cambridge]

63. What if the mother has a bunch of other little ones?

Like my sister-in-law, with a husband who had Hodgkin's disease and five kids under seven? She should have died to save her child?

It's not that simple. And to treat a woman as simply a vessel to give birth is disgusting and archaic. We may as well time travel to the Middle Ages.

[fortyfeetunder]

146. Here is a question for ya

I am not going to debate PBA with you...but do you know who is the biggest abortionist we have ever known? This individual will outlast you and the Senate.

[arwalden]

53. My Swimmers Haven't Been Able To Do That Either...

... nobody is fighting for my boys. I'm outraged!

-- Allen

[MissB]

58. LOL!

Thanks for the laugh.

[Seneca]

125. using emotions I see

This is of course, a characteristic akin to demagoguery on your part. The law doesn't conform to YOUR world view, so you seek to impose your world view on the law. Your prejudices about life outweigh what science, the law, and logic dictate. Of those three, the law serves its function best to protect the women of our republic from the emotional flaccidity of your views and their accompanying prejudices. Logic dictates that you have neither a sound nor a valid premise. It is non-existent for all intents and purposes. Science also lays your argument to waste, but waste not want not. ;-)

You cannot offer anything for a rebuttal other than "A child's life is more valuable than an adult's because I say so!" Fuzzy images of kindergarten, puppy dogs, and other Hallmarky things are just raw appeals to emotions, and mawkishly condescending to our intelligence, and starkly ignorant of the Constitution. Using your premise as a model, the baby can grow up to be a crack dealer or a serial killer too. But that would be equally disingenuous of me to appeal to the darker emotions forming the flip side of your argument. Your argument has no opposition because it is facile and demagogic. It rebuts itself, by its own internal flaw.

The law says otherwise when it comes to the value of life. A fetus doesn't have equal rights to postpartum human beings. If your allies wish to make it so in Congress, they will lose, ACLU and our Constitution willing. ;-)

[pandatimothy]

133. 17 Democrats are my allies

and I'm proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with Zell Miller and company.

[Seneca]

139. they are equally wrong

I don't know where you are going with the partisan angle, but it fails miserably too. I don't value the vote of a Democrat any more than a Republican if they vote against upholding the laws of our land. They are both equally squalid, especially that hack Miller. :-)

[pandatimothy]

140. I respect your opinon n/t

[Woodstock]

164. no they are not - sorry to burst your bubble

read the truth below in my answer to one of your other 17 senators are your pals remarks

[Jason600]

184. what is the difference?

What is the difference between a mother's life being saved and a baby's? One side argues the mother appears to be more valuable, and the other says the baby hasnt experienced as much and so, the baby should get the chance. I am pro-life because no matter how you cut it, argue it, slice it, etc.., a fetus is alive. ALIVE! It can not be argued. We know what a fetus is so saying it is the same as any other thing that we can have fixed or corrected does not hold true, its all BS. Lets talk about womens rights. Women should have the same rights as anyone else, no greater, no less. Does anyone have the right to end a life when it is incovenient? I lost my job and am going through a divorse so, I guess my children are inconvenient right now. The absence of things such as seeing the baby, listening to the baby cry or make noises, touching the baby to feel it's skin, does not make the baby less of a baby. This argument will never be finished because some people see the unborn baby as a fetus, not s real baby so it would not be murder. Others see that at the point of conception, a baby is formed, which is to say a life. I believe a woman has the right to make choices for her own body, unfortunately, it complicates things when another body is inside of her. So, she is making decisions for two bodys instead of one. None of the arguments supporting pro-choice hold water for me except one. Do I have the right to make a decision for another person? I feel that in the event that the woman's life is in danger, she should be able to make the choice as far as the question of she will live or die is at stake. That would be a personal question they would have to ask themselves, which they hold more valuable, themselves or the baby. Other circumstances could come into play such as if she has other children, who would look after them, this I also understand, the lesser of two evils. I work with people who use abortion as birth control and trips to have the procedure are pretty much quarterly. This makes me ill. I am torn on this because of the reasons I have said. But, here is a chink in my argument that I see. If I am against abortion, then that would mean that I am against several forms of birth control because some of them, very much act in the same way as an abortion. Where does that leave me, not sure. All I can say is that I see an unborn baby as what it is, a baby, who can not speak for itself. Tell me where I'm wrong, if I am.
Jason

[Kathy in Cambridge]

185. Exaggeration

"I work with people who use abortion as birth control and trips to have the procedure are pretty much quarterly."

How do you know they have abortions on a quarterly basis? They share this intimate fact with you?

"But, here is a chink in my argument that I see. If I am against abortion, then that would mean that I am against several forms of birth control because some of them, very much act in the same way as an abortion."

So, how do you propose to take care of unwanted, abandoned, abused children? Do you support funding for healthcare for pregnant women? Do you support funding for after-school and healthcare for these children?

The problem with arguments like yours is that often the proponents care more about the POTENTIAL FOR LIFE inside the woman than the child once it is born. These same people often support the death penalty for these kids once they have grown up in poverty with little access to basic needs and no hope for the future. They also care more about the rights of gunowners than the rights of 53% of the population (women).

The hypocrisy makes me want to :puke:

[ScreamingMeemie]

43. Her other children, her husband, her parents...the people who

love her. Those who know her. It's that simple. I have to say I love the children I HAVE more than one that "might be"

[smirkymonkey]

187. Pardon me...

but your reasoning is illogical (as a self proclaimed "pro-lifer") and your value system is - frankly - F***ED UP!!

[cally]

40. Are you serious?

You favor the life of a child over the life of the mother?? Not quality of life, but life?? So women are just vessels for the baby. What about the children left behind??

That is just warped values.

[pandatimothy]

46. Then my values are "warped"

Sorry but my values are MY values.

[Resistance Is Futile]

69. Charming

As I said, you'd rather women to die of curable medical complications than get treatment that offends your 'values.' This is little different than Shrub gloating over signing death warrants.

Just charming.

[RetroLounge]

77. Then please remove your Dean avatar.

you embarrass me as a pro-choice Dean supporter.

Dean is Pro-Choice. and the only reason the NRA gave him a good rating is he did NOTHING topiss them off.

Looks like you have more than one thing to think thru.

[pandatimothy]

84. Dean's tent not big enough? n/t

[Resistance Is Futile]

93. The liberal/progressive tent is not big enough

The liberal/progressive tent is not big enough for people who value ideology over human life.

[pandatimothy]

98. Gee how tolerant n/t

[RetroLounge]

179. It's as big as can be. Just move over a bit.

I just don't want you and your cave-man views standing next to me.

[cally]

105. Yes, they are your values

but please do not have sex or practice very safe birth control. Don't put those values onto a woman who is pregnant. My experience is a close friend chose to have a second child. Very much wanted and her first child was too. She found out that she would die if she carried it to term. The child she carried would die within the first two months. So your values are that she should carry to term and die, give birth to a child that will die in a month or two, and leave a husband and child behind mourning her. Those are not my values and I am proud to support late term abortion in these types of circumstances.

[Seneca]

130. and YOUR values are diddlysquat

Thankfully, the framers devised a nation of laws, and not people and their tyrannical prejudices.

[pandatimothy]

134. So are yours then

Why bother to have any?

FREE FOR ALL!

[Seneca]

137. not the case

I have values, you have values, and they are and should be held dearly.

But they have NOTHING to do with the law. You should read a few law books, perhaps retake a civics course at a secular school. :-)

[pandatimothy]

141. Accusing me of being a fundamentalist? n/t

[Seneca]

151. no

But I have no doubt you use Judeo-Christian theology and its more rigid doctrines as the basis of your value system, ESPECIALLY in this argument about the ban. That is your fair and free right, but the law is secular, and your values will run into a brick wall. This conflict is the root of what is called by conservatives "the culture wars". Abortion is one of the fronts it is fought on. The law MUST be secular in order to protect EVERYONE'S rights.

But there are many degrees of belief, and I do not think you are necessarily a fundamentalist. One can be very conservative and not be doctrinaire or dogmatic, although they are compatible traits with conservative values. But no, if I wanted to call you a fundamentalist or a conservative, I would do so. I always prefer the direct approach.

I have no idea what or who you are, but I think you are seriously in error with your reasoning in opposing the ban, and on other matters that have arisen in this thread.

[pandatimothy]

153. Well we are just going to disagree. n/t

[RetroLounge]

72. How can you be pro-life and let the mother die?

Oh yeah, YOU CAN'T!

One more; Are you for or against the Death penalty?

[smirkymonkey]

186. Let me get this straight....

You are pro-gun and pro-life?? I never really understood that position, since the primary use (or effect of using) of a gun is to kill.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tedoll78]

15. Note a few things..

"All persons born and naturalized.."
- 14th Amendment, US Constitution

A fetus is not yet legally born, and it is not naturalized; thus, it is not protected by this country's laws.

Secondly, most (if not all) of these procedures are done to save the life of the mother. This bill, if I recall correctly, has no lifesaving provisions for the mother. By this basis alone, it will be struck-down by the federal courts. Bank on it.

Cheers!

[pandatimothy]

18. I wouldn't bank on it but

would you support a ban with health excpetions for the mother?

[Woodstock]

22. there was no need for this bill

It's playing into the hands of the Republicans.

This was POLITICAL.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

29. As A Catholic, I OPPOSE the ban

and the fundamentalist assholes who hate women so much that they'd rather see mother AND child die as a result of this ban. Sickens me...

[lovedems]

32. me too! n/t

[pandatimothy]

35. BS

Where I come from most Dems are pro-life.

[cally]

44. Oh, I'm pro-life

but not in the way you mean. I think women have the right to life

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MissB]

62. If you really think that the decision to have an abortion

is as easy as slaughtering a chicken, you have a great deal to learn about the subject.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

71. Where I come from, Most Catholics are PRO-CHOICE

And, as I recall, the Northeast corridor has the densest population of Catholics in the country.

[bicentennial_baby]

74. Yep

And our Senators in MA both voted NO!

[pandatimothy]

76. I don't live in the NE

I live right near the NC/TN border.

[JohnKleeb]

78. Same here

:hi: pro choice and Catholic. Yes you are right.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

80. It's the fundies that are anti-life

and pro-death.

They want to stop access to medical procedures that could save a human being.

They support state-sanctioned murder through the death penalty.

The hypocrisy is truly disgusting...

[JohnKleeb]

89. True

Youre right about that and Catholics tend to show personal pro life but they think its none of the governments business.

[Yupster]

169. Now Rose

Catholics are no more or less dense in one part of the country as another. They are each smart according to their own educations and interests. :silly:

[Cloud]

36. I agree totally

Can someone explain the ban to me? Was there an exception for the health of the mother?

I am pro-choice. I believe if a woman should make the decision to have an abortion the first 3 months is enough. The partial birth abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother. I would have voted for the ban only if it had a part in there for if the health of the mother is at risk.

I remember once a partial birth abortion ban was passed through congress but Clinton vetoed it saying there was no part that protected the health of the mother.

But I agree this is a smokescreen to chip away a woman's right to choose. First they go for the partial birth abortion ban, what next?

Well, at least if it is banned they can no longer play the partial birth abortion is a gruesome medical procedure card.

[Woodstock]

52. Roe v. Wade was sufficient - it restricted late term abortions

"In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court divided the nine months of pregnancy into three stages called trimesters. It ruled that a state cannot regulate abortions in the first trimester, except for requiring that the doctor be licensed by the state. The court ruled that during the second trimester, the state may prevent a woman from having an abortion, but only to protect the woman's health. It ruled that in the third trimester, the state may prohibit abortions entirely, except when an abortion is needed to save the woman's life."

This move today was 100% politics and 100% aimed at banning abortion altogether.

[tedoll78]

24. Nope.

Such a ban is unconstitutional. If you don't like it, seek to amend the constitution. A strict/conservative reading of this amendment reveals the language of the 14th to be very plain and clear, and it gives no exceptions for the anti-abortion argument. If I were anti-abortion, I wouldn't be relying on judges to write such an exception from the bench (i think it's called "judicial activism"?) anytime soon.

[pandatimothy]

41. So is banning guns but they do it all the time n/t

[tedoll78]

48. Hmm..

that's very lovely and all (and I might even agree with you on guns), but it doesn't exactly provide a cogent counter-argument to the topic at hand.

[pandatimothy]

51. I know but it makes me sick that people like Boxer, et al

won't protect my second amendment rights but will support abortion rights 100%.

Do I see a double standard? Yes.

[tedoll78]

64. Personally,

I think you have a point on the gun issue.

[Seneca]

132. don't want to get off topic

But no one in the U.S. Senate, past or present, has ever opposed Second Amendment rights. Ever. The NRA demogogues that issue beyond reproach for their great financial benefit, and those of small arms merchants and manufacturers.

Show me legislation where any senator has infringed on the people's right to bear arms in order to secure our liberties through a militia (key words in that amendment: "well-regulated", via Congress btw), and I will show you my pet fetus, Sparky. :-)

I also find it a BIT curious that you criticize Boxer for not defending gun rights, and decry her vote to support a HUMAN RIGHT, which is backed up in R v W by the 14th and 9th Amendments.

A civics note: Amendments are not less valid just because they come later in ratification order.

The curious part is that you defend Dean because of his gun stance, although he vociferously opposed the ban. Since you seem to value the non-existent right of a fetus to be stillborn at the expense of a mother's life at least as much as you lend credence to the non-existent threat for people to bear arms in a militia, you are trying to have it both ways. By supporting Dean, you are looking the other way on the surgical ban - a view you otherwise seem uncompromising on with everyone else in this thread.

You have had earned no credibility in this entire argument in all facets, and I withdraw as the winner in our debate by default per my use of logic, facts, and the LAW as my guiding principles.

[pandatimothy]

135. NFA 1934, GCA 1968, MGB 1986 and AWB 1994

Ahem.

[Seneca]

145. none of them seek to invalidate the 2nd amendment

Not one.

You see, the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate the militia. The 2nd Amendment states that the said regulation ("well-regulated militia") concerns the people's right to bear arms vis-a-vis this (again) well-regulated militia.

Laws against handguns are just that, laws against handguns. Not one of these laws has kept a legal gun out of the hands of a law-abiding citizen. Privately-owned handguns are not part of a well-regulated militia anyway, so those citations of yours do not concern the 2nd amendment. Congress regulates handguns via their powers to regulate commerce and public safety, not as a means of mitigating the 2nd amendment. Even if it were an attempt to curtail any part of the 2nd, keep in mind that there are exceptions to ALL rights, as the famous "yelling fire in a crowded theater" exception can be cited by first year law students expounding on the 1st amendment. Still, it is unbecoming of you to argue that any of those bills you cited mitigate the freedoms guaranteed by the 2nd amendment. Perhaps Wayne LaPierre tells you different, but I am impatient with demagogues tonight.

200 plus years of SCOTUS precedent on the 2nd amendment trumps your demagogery. ;-) Ahem.

[pandatimothy]

147. I'm not going to argue with you.

Go climb back in your fantasy land regarding the RKBA.

[arwalden]

19. You Mean The "Late Term Abortion" Ban?????

Why people insist on using the RW terms, I'll never know.

-- Allen

[Woodstock]

23. good catch

[ScreamingMeemie]

25. Thank you Allen. I think because it's forced down our throats by

every media outlet in this country. Thank you Rupert Murdoch.

Edited for grammatical error..."are" sheesh ;)

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

31. Right Up There with Christian Scientists Denying Their Children Medicine

even if they're dying.

[Resistance Is Futile]

33. Exactly

Yep. That kind of goal is not not consistant with progressive ideals in the slightest.

Reigion or other twisted ideologies do not give anyone rights to kill others.

[Q]

59. This thread is based on an irrational premise...

...that only SOME life is valuable. It's an extreme positon based on RWing talking points...not logic or common sense.

- Those like the thread author just don't seem to understand the danger in outlawing medical procedures or giving the State the right to decide for the woman and physician.

[Liberator_Rev]

55. Here's how the vote went:

from http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/legislative/senate/abortion-roll-call.htm

"The Senate voted to ban a procedure that critics call ''partial birth abortion" by a 64-34 vote. Below is the roll call for this vote. A ''yes'' vote was a vote in favor of the bill and a ''no'' vote was a vote against it. Voting ''yes'' were 17 Democrats and 47 Republicans. Voting ''no'' were 30 Democrats, 3 Republicans and 1 independent."

[IndianaGreen]

68. Evan Bayh stuck to form and voted against women's abortion rights

Where are those yahoos that like to post the voting record? How will they count this one?

[pandatimothy]

81. Good for Evan Bayh

But I can tell you he wouldn't vote for an all out ban on Roe verus Wade.

I think it should be a state issue if they go any further than the PB ban.

[IndianaGreen]

87. State issue is what we had before Roe vs. Wade

Women had to travel to New York to get abortions. Poor women got fucked!

[pandatimothy]

91. Well that is what I agree with

Besides most poor women are getting "fucked" today. There is only one abortion clinic in my neck of the woods.

[JohnKleeb]

92. IG dont forget

about back alley abortions, agh, also I think abortion is best safe and legal. If you ban it, it will still go on.

[pandatimothy]

100. Just like drugs too

That is why drugs should be legalized but abortion kills a person.

[JohnKleeb]

103. Yes but how do you wanna prevent abortion PT

Seriously, abortion has been going on since the time of the Romans. I agree you gotta keep it to a minmimal but you gotta keep it safe and legal. On drug use, hell I dont mind.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

109. Right-to-lifers would have you believe the US would become

an abortion assembly line. Statistics show that this is just not the case.

I am personally pro-life, but as a civil libertarian, I cannot justify the government interfering woth a *PERSONAL* decision by an adult with rights under the Constitution.

[pandatimothy]

111. That is where birth control, abstinence and education come in

My mom's birth control failed and she ended up having my older brother sooner than she wanted.

He doc was splitting for CA and wanted her to kill my unborn brother so he could get the $$$.

Even though my mom and dad weren't ready to have my brother they didn't kill him.

Thank God.

[MissB]

122. You are right about birth control, abstinence and education

Although I'm guessing that we'd disagree with the specifics of those.

However, the inside of your post has nothing to do with the title.

In the case of your mother, she was not being forced to have an abortion.

If your views on abortion are formed by your mother's experiences, I'd urge you to read up on the subject of abortion. Not every doctor who wants to perform an abortion is doing so to line their pockets. It's a common argument for the right wing, but it isn't anywhere close to the truth.

[pandatimothy]

123. It was meant to imply that birth control is not 100% effective but that is

NOT a reason to kill an unborn child IMHO.

[lysergik]

149. and this has what to do with the topic at hand?

Great, you have some misconception that the government should control the rights of women and tell them that they shouldn't have abortions because its wrong and unholy.

This has *NOTHING* to do with "partial birth abortion". This procedure is used to save the lives of mothers who are in grave danger, it isn't some luxury perk they decide on at the last minute. Isn't bringing a child into this world at the expense of its mother just as horrific, maybe even more so? That woman could be leaving behind an entire family of her own because some idiot lawmakers decided that she had to give her life at the expense of everyone who relys on her for support, love and comfort because the birth of her new child went horribly wrong.

Perhaps you should do some research before speaking of such topics.

[pandatimothy]

154. I think abortion is murder. period.

No research needed friend.

If you don't, fine.

[lysergik]

157. And you're uninformed. Period.

n/t

[RetroLounge]

180. Well, good things theres a political party where you fit in

you can decide which it is.

Most of us already know...

[Q]

90. RRWingers have no intention of 'banning' Roe v Wade...

...they'll just legislate it to death.

[pandatimothy]

94. Bayh ain't a right winger though n/t

[salin]

156. though some of his constituents do wonder from time to time...

including my mother who just a few hours ago commented on how often he seems to vote with Bush these days. I actually here that more and more frequently....

[diamondsoul]

168. Thank you!

I was sitting here debating whether to speak up, but then I figured since I had already broadcast his planned vote along with my opinion of it, I might as well shut up and save the flame retardant suit for another time.:evilgrin:

[Kathy in Cambridge]

85. Pandatimothy, do you believe in the death penalty?

Just curious.

[pandatimothy]

96. Sorta

I believe in lethal self defense but I think our death penatly system is a joke and doesn't work.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

104. Pro-life and pro-death are two conflicting philosophies

And the odds of you ever having to use lethal self-defense are right up there with your odds of contracting anthrax.

The media sensationalizes violent crime and instills fear in people. Why would anyone need an assault rifle? I support the Seccond Amendment but there are limits.

I respect your opinion, but I think you have to investigate the philosophical disconnect between supporting the death penalty for adults and teenagers on one hand and the life of fetus on the other.

[pandatimothy]

115. Then there should be limits on abortion too.

Nothing is stopping someone from getting an earlier abortion.

[lysergik]

160. You really should study up on this.

Yup, that said it. You haven't a clue, not one. This isn't a persons decision, its a medical decision because the mothers life is in GRAVE DANGER. Not because she carried a fetus for x number of weeks and just decided she didn't want to have a baby anymore. It's because she is going to die and that fetus may or may not live and if it does it won't have a mother to care for it. Let me guess, you're against social programs too?

You're way out of your league with your pro-life psycho babble, time to get informed.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

173. Sad to say, but anti-choice folks are usually the least informed

on the actual procedures, and are usually the MOST hypocritical when it comes to supporting the death penalty and other violations of individual rights-except the 2nd Amendment, of course.

She supports Dean, though, who is pro-choice. If this were such a big deal to her, maybe she'd support Bush?

[lysergik]

178. No doubt about it

You're right, they're usually the least informed about procedures, they believe the hype they hear from "pro-life" propaganda people.

Yet, even when given the chance to become educated on the subject they usually won't because somehow everyone else is wrong.

It really is a shame that more people don't tune in and get the real story before making a decision on such an important topic.

[AnnabelLee]

95. Both of my Senators voted against it

Feingold I was almost certain would never have supported taking away a woman's right to make her own health care decisions, but I was nervous about Kohl. Herb did the right thing, this time.:thumbsup:

[IndianaGreen]

102. How come Edwards missed the vote?

Even Lieberman got to vote, and he voted "No". What's Edwards excuse? This is the second key vote on an issue that Edwards misses.

[pandatimothy]

107. Not like it mattered

Maybe he was campaining?

[IndianaGreen]

108. If women's reproductive rights are not that important to Edwards

neither is his candidacy to the rest of us.

[pandatimothy]

118. I meant about the outcome n/t

[PurityOfEssence]

136. Edwards has repeatedly stated that he's against the ban

if there's no provision for the health of the mother. He said so just recently on Hardball, and I've seen him answer this question before with the same proviso and without hesitation.

He's not ducking this; he's trying to run a campaign and still be mindful of his duties and responsibility as a Senator.

It's difficult to run a campaign while holding office and he's in a real crunch time right now. Please read his platform and try to keep an open mind.

[Hippo_Tron]

124. My thoughts...

I don't see the point in banning partial birth abortions, people will still have them just in unsanitary underground clinics. Now on the other hand, other than for medical reasons I have no earthly idea why anybody would wait till the third trimester to have an abortion.

[diamondsoul]

148. "why anybody would wait till the third trimester to have an abortion."

And here you have the result of legitimizing propaganda by getting the "testimony of practicing physicians". *sigh*

No slight to you meant, Hippo. This is a common misconception among men, the uneducated about these procedures, and the willfully ignorant PL faction.

The procedures banned in this legislation are NOT performed on a properly sized, and healthy 3rd trimester fetus, because it would be a waste of time and endanger the woman. Flat out, and you can ask any OB/Gyn who isn't lobbying for the PL movement. They are not performed past week 28 in general unless the fetus is so severely malformed and undersized that it's survival is unlikely even if carried to term.

How do I know? Well, it's like this, the fetal head grows much faster than the fetal body, so for a good portion of the middle stages of pregnancy the head is larger around than the body is. The whole point of these procedures is to reduce the amount of dilation to the woman's cervix so that she has less chance of serious injury, and better chances of being able to give birth at some future time. The more dilation is needed and achieved by unnatural means, the greater the liklihood she'll suffer a weakened cervix which reduces her chances of ever having pregnancy come to term.

A normal 3rd trimester fetus has a body circumference so close to the circumference of the fetal head that the procedures are rendered useless at that late stage. Again unless the fetus is so undersized and malformed that it's survival is in question under the best of circumstances, NO SANE, CARING Physician would ever put the woman's health in that sort of danger. Even if they were greedy enough, their very career would be on the line, so that isn't even enough to get an abortion done this way in the third trimester.

This ban is nothing BUT an attack on Roe v. Wade, and only the ignorant believe otherwise.

*on edit-reminder to self-Use spell-check!

[truebrit71]

127. I do not support the ban..it is a MEDICAL decision..

..it is a BAD idea to let politicians practice medicine.

It is a decision between a woman and her doctor...

Keep your filthy hands and self-righteous laws OFF women's bodies, and OUT of doctor's offices...

If men got pregnant the right to choose would be in the Constitution...

TrueBrit

[Hippo_Tron]

128. Oh yeah I forgot to mention...

Partial birth abortion ban was most likely something Bill Frist was pressured into doing by the right wing of the GOP, who actually controls his brain. Being a doctor who has performed abortions in the past, he most likely doesn't believe in the ban but had to do what he was told to make a good impression as majority leader.

[pandatimothy]

131. Could it be that he has GENUINELY changed his postition

and become pro-life?

I don't like Repukes but I can agree with them (and 17 DEMOCRATS) on restricting PB abortion.

[Woodstock]

159. The 17 Democrats you like to bandy about

were just as wrong as all the Democrats who voted for the Iraq resolution. And they voted for this for the same reasons they voted for the war. Fear.

The Democrats let the Republicans set the agenda, as usual. The Republicans engineered a very clever and effective propaganda campaign. The end goal - abolish abortion by legislating it out of existence one bill at a time. This bill was THE cornerstone. And what did the Democrats do?

Instead of immediately & effectively putting forth a campaign that 1) Roe v. Wade sufficiently covered late term abortion restrictions & 2) this bill was clearly (a child could tell just by looking at a fraction of the wording of the bill) a political move to legislate aboriton rights completely out of existence, the Demorcrats did what they always do when they are afraid, they rolled over and played dead. They figure, if we give in on this, we'll stay in the game, but they don't realize each time they give in, it puts them closer and closer to being thrown out.

The Republicans stick together - that's what has made them strong - and you are kidding yourself if you don't think quite a number of them who voted for it think this bill is pure hogwash. Not only that, but, like our lovely Iraqi war voting Democrats, they will pay a price for it one day when their constituents find out what they were up to.

History will show this was the turning point that led to abortion being abolished, something the majority of Americans clearly do not want that to happen. Would Kerry be behind the pack if he had not voted for the Iraq war? I say no - it will cost him dearly. I still believe the Emerging Democratic Majority is around the corner - not because of what the current breed of Democrats are up to, but in spite of them, because it's the will of the people. And when it gets here, these sellouts and their Republican pals will wish they could take that vote back.

Also, you would not have seen the 17 Democrats vote for this had they not lost the Senate. The game is called POLITICS. One should not be so naive as to think it's anything but that. This bill had NOTHING to do with abortion and everyone - including the 17 Democrats - knows it but you. I wouldn't have bothered answering someone who thinks so little of women, but I couldn't help but direct your nose towards the coffee and say sniff.

[Kool Kitty]

165. Woodstock, very well put.

And the bottom line is that it is up to the people involved-woman, partner and doctor-to make this decision. NOT the legislators, NOT anyone else.

[JohnKleeb]

166. The civil libertarian view

I agree with both of you.

[diamondsoul]

167. Would you do me a small favor, please?

If you happen to run across any statements by Gen. Clark on this subject, point me to them, please. PM if it's easier. I know he's been Pro-choice for a long time, but I don't think I've ever seen or heard him take a position on the PBA propaganda.

Thanks. :-)

*and just FTR, this is not a sneaky attempt to smear Clark. I personally like him quite a bit. Just making that clear since I don't think we've posted to each other before.

[Woodstock]

174. Clark "doesn't know" - but Dean is strongly opposed

If you get something more definitive from Clark, let me know too. Dean wins a lot of points from me on this. He's strongly on our side. We KNOW what he'd do if in office. I'd like to think Clark would do the same, but who knows?

Clark:

Q: Would you sign the partial-birth abortion bill, which is about to be passed by Congress?

CLARK: I don't know whether I'd sign that bill or not. I'm not into that detail on partial-birth abortion. In general, I'm pro-life--excuse me, I'm pro-abortion rights.

Source: CNN, Crossfire Aug 1, 2003

www.issues2002.org/2004/Wesley_Clark_Abortion.htm

Dean:

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_health_reproductivefreedom

As a physician, I do not believe Congress or the President should practice medicine. Abortion is a deeply personal decision, which ought to be made between a woman and her physician. It's none of the government's business.

I have been a strong supporter of a woman’s right to reproductive freedom my entire life. I believe that the right to privacy is enshrined in the Constitution. As President, I would do everything in my power to preserve that right.

I have a different perspective on this issue than other politicians because of my medical training and my experience as a family doctor. I am proud to have served as a Board Member of Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. I understand women’s health, and I will defend the right of women to control decisions about their bodies.

One of the most outrageous attacks on a woman’s right to choose is the so-called Partial Birth Abortion bill. As a physician, I know that there is no such thing in the medical literature as “partial birth abortion.” But there are rare times when a doctor is called upon to perform a late-term abortion to save a woman’s life or protect her from injury. Yet the House of Representatives recently made it a federal crime for a doctor to perform such medically necessary procedures. That bill will chill the practice of medicine and endanger the health of countless women.

There is no epidemic of third trimester abortions in the United States; the procedure is so rare that we have not had one in Vermont in the past four years. But this bill is worded so insidiously that it would outlaw many second-term abortions, even before a fetus is viable. That is a direct challenge to the logic of Roe v. Wade and every other Supreme Court abortion decision in the last 30 years, including the recent case striking down a Nebraska law almost identical to the bill passed by the House.

Make no mistake -- Republicans in Congress want to challenge the Supreme Court. They want to turn back the clock 30 years. This bill is one more step in the right wing’s relentless campaign to deprive women of their constitutional right to reproductive freedom. President Bush may soon have an opportunity to nominate one or more members of the Supreme Court, and the legal rights of women hang in the balance.

[Kool Kitty]

177. Clark IS against the ban.

According to his site and a report on MSNBC this morning.

[RetroLounge]

181. There is no such thing as PB abortion

So why are you using Right Wing terms?

[eileen_d]

170. Baucus (D-MT) voted no

Thanks goodness that schmuck Burns (R-MT) is not my only representation.

[Q]

171. Democratic Party on Abortion

Democratic Party on Abortion

Choice is a fundamental, constitutional right

Democrats stand behind the right of every woman to choose. We believe it is a constitutional liberty. This year’s Supreme Court ruling show us that eliminating a woman’s right to choose is only one justice away. Our goal is to make abortion more rare, not more dangerous. We support contraceptive research, family planning, comprehensive family life education, and policies that support healthy childbearing. - Source: Democratic National Platform Aug 15, 2000

[Woodstock]

175. Daschle the "leader" voted against the platform

Daschle has no business being leader and then voting yeah to overturn Roe v. Wade (what this bill will lead to)

we need a new minority leader who is firmly pro-choice

or I need a new party

[JNelson6563]

172. Read your bible

In it you will find that, among one of the many litanies of laws decreed in the blood 'n' guts OT, this issue was addressed. It was declared that if a man assaulted a pregnant woman and teh fetus died but the woman lived the attacker had to pay some $$$ for his crime. If the woman died, he was guilty of murder.

Julie

[IndianaGreen]

183. The OT also said that menstruating women were "unclean"

Speak to the people of Israel, saying: If a woman conceives and bears a male child, she shall be ceremonially unclean seven days; as at the time of her menstruation, she shall be unclean. Her time of blood purification shall be thirty-three days; she shall not touch any holy thing, or come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purification are completed. If she bears a female child, she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her menstruation; her time of blood purification shall be sixty-six days.

(Lev. 12:2-5)

[CWebster]

176. Biden

Time for someone to take this garbage out to the curb.

[sangh0]

190. Someone?

Why not you, big talker? Or are you just brave online?

[redqueen]

191. Cripes

Okay, first off let me be honest. I'm not 'pro-life' since that carries the connotation of being anti-contraception (these people are nuts).

BUT, I DO oppose these procedures, except when the life of the mother is endangered, or if the health of the mother is significantly endangered. I have to add the 'significantly' because as PT pointed out, some doctors are relatively ethics-free when it comes to taking money, and could bend the definition of 'endangered health' pretty easily.


Secondly, I'd like to point out that there IS a an acception for the life of the mother in this bill!

from thomas.loc.gov, here's the text of the relevant portion:

"Sec. 1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited

`(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the date of enactment of this chapter.

`(b) As used in this section--

`(1) the term `partial-birth abortion' means an abortion in which--

`(A) the person performing the abortion deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and

`(B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus; and..."

Certainly we need to work on this language, to include more specifics, or just to define banned procedures as 'electable', or something. This bill surely doesn't provide for the health of the mother, and that's unacceptable.



Okay, that all being said, to anyone who thinks this is just never, ever done electively, you're wrong. Flat wrong.

I don't know if the doctors have to 'fudge' paperwork to do it, but I actually know a woman (used to be my roommate, and I know I'll get flamed for using this unverifiable story but what the hey, I gotta share what I experienced) who tried to get the father to marry her. When he didn't (this was in the 7th or 8th month, by this time) she sought to abort. I couldn't believe she could do it, but she said she found a doctor, in Georgia or Alabama, I believe, that would.


So let's not all get carried away OK? I genuinely think this will be worked out one way or another.

I also think that it's reprehensible for Democrats to seek to exclude people who consider themselves Democrats solely on the basis of this issue. Would you really have us all defect to the other side? That seems childish to me. There are more than a handful of Democrats who think that abortion is abhorrent and while it should be kept safe and legal in the first stages of life, that it is absolutely wrong after the fetus is viable.

Now I think I'll go out and find one of those flame-retardant suits that seem to be so necessary around here.

[redqueen]

193. Oh and just wanted to mention...

Daschle is also now supporting the bill which shields gun manufacturers from liability. The NRA is mighty pleased.

Dunno how you might feel about that. I wasn't happy.