It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NY Judge Rules 2003 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional - A Fed Judge Agrees

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 02:43 PM
link   
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was found unconstitutional by U.S. District Judge Richard C. Casey. The issue is that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act does not allow for any exceptions to allow abortion when a woman's health is at risk.

Partial-Birth abortion occurs in the second trimester of pregnancy, and involves the removal of brains from the fetus, who is partially delivered.

President Bush has vowed to challenge anyone who does not uphold the ban, originally inacted in 2003.
 



www.cnn.com
NEW YORK (AP) -- In a highly anticipated ruling, a federal judge found the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional Thursday because it does not include a health exception.

U.S. District Judge Richard C. Casey in Manhattan said the Supreme Court has made it clear that a law that prohibits the performance of a particular abortion procedure must include an exception to preserve a woman's life and health.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


While abortion issues are continuously debated, what is at stake here is the woman's right to remain healthy (and in some cases alive) during the course of a pregnancy. While using the term "partial birth abortion" sounds horrific, a medically common term of "intact dilation and evacuation" is also used, and may be more appropriately named.

Should women have to sacrifice their own health for the sake of a fetus? If the mother herself is at risk, wouldn't that also place the fetus at risk by default? In any other situation, would we require an individual to put themselves at risk for the sake of another? We do not *require* persons to donate organs such as kidneys when another person needs them to survive because it oversteps the persons individual right to decide what they do with their body and their health.

I am NOT asking about abortion for birth control, but abortion when the life and/or health of the mother is at stake.

Related News Links:
news.findlaw.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Late Term Abortion Ban Declared Unconstitutional
Bush's partial birth abortion ban shot down by California Supreme Court Judge.


[edit on 8-9-2004 by RedBalloon]




posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 02:54 PM
link   
This should help women across this country to make decisions about their health and their unborn child health.

A women that is at risk of dying if her pregnancy reach full term should be able to decide what is best, a child without mother or another tried to a healthy pregnancy. These controversies are so stupid they tend not to have any regards to women and women bodies at all.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedBalloon
Should women have to sacrifice their own health for the sake of a fetus? If the mother herself is at risk, wouldn't that also place the fetus at risk by default? In any other situation, would we require an individual to put themselves at risk for the sake of another? We do not *require* persons to donate organs such as kidneys when another person needs them to survive because it oversteps the persons individual right to decide what they do with their body and their health.



Oh, I know I'm gonna regret this


First, no, the mother being at risk does not necc. dictate whether the child lives or dies.

You are right, in any other situtation (not a mother and child) we do not "require" individuals to risk their own lives for another.

On the other hand, in the case of a mother and child (which is months away from being the case) how many mothers do you know that wouldn't even question giving their lives for their child. The only difference is that most don't see a fetus as a child, a difference of perception that is quite disagreed upon, but only in reality a matter of weeks or months as the case may be from being the situation.

That being said, 2nd trimester babies are viable A LOT these days. How many woman have been horrified to have their wanted babies born at this stage and often times today with the miracles of modern technology see their dreams come true. On top of that, there are plenty of woman (who do see a fetus as their child the minute it has been conceived) that are told they are in jeopardy if they carry to term, and the doctors were wrong. But they wanted a child so badly, they went through with it anyway. They might have had a rough time, but they lived and their children lived. Forget the abortion issue, haven't any of you known of cases where the Dr. said no chance and they were wrong?

Partial birth abortion is not a d & c. The child is partially delivered alive and has their brains sucked out. Let's at least be honest about this - it's nasty.

Finally, what I really don't understand is how could this even be so common that it is such a HUGE issue? There are not enough voters in this situation for any politican to worry about. So ultimately it is not about these infrequent cases where the mothers life may be in jeopardy for this to have national platform. This goes MUCH deeper. So could we stop kidding ourselves about that too?



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Relentless
On the other hand, in the case of a mother and child (which is months away from being the case) how many mothers do you know that wouldn't even question giving their lives for their child. The only difference is that most don't see a fetus as a child, a difference of perception that is quite disagreed upon, but only in reality a matter of weeks or months as the case may be from being the situation.


Relentless, you make excellent points, and I agree that most mothers would give their lives, but it is their choice to make, I guess. personally, I don't think I could do it, but the issue has become more than how many would make such a decision, its about the Government's right to decide that for someone, and take away the option to do what you need to with your body when it's health is at risk.


Originally posted by Relentless
That being said, 2nd trimester babies are viable A LOT these days. How many woman have been horrified to have their wanted babies born at this stage and often times today with the miracles of modern technology see their dreams come true.


Again, an excellent point, but that miracle comes at a very high price financially. Personally, I would do everything I could to pay for it, and I also have health insurance, but many people don't, and these women may not have a way to make those miracles happen. They may not be willing to take the risk. Perhaps their health has already compromised the fetus severely and eliminated the chance for a normal healthy child.


Originally posted by Relentless
On top of that, there are plenty of woman (who do see a fetus as their child the minute it has been conceived)......Forget the abortion issue, haven't any of you known of cases where the Dr. said no chance and they were wrong?


Yes, many believe they have a child at conception, and they may be right. It's tragic to lose a child or a fetus or both. In some cases, it may be the best choice.


Originally posted by Relentless
Partial birth abortion is not a d & c. The child is partially delivered alive and has their brains sucked out. Let's at least be honest about this - it's nasty.


Yep - you're right again. It is nasty, but it's done, and thats how it's done with the technology we have now. A lot of things in medicine are nasty and shocking. A lot of things are sad, and a lot of things are tragic. I'm not trying to suggest partial-birth abortions are trivial.


Originally posted by Relentless
Finally, what I really don't understand is how could this even be so common that it is such a HUGE issue?


It's about rights. It's not about the numbers, which are thankfully low.It's about being able to do what you can for your own health, and being able to make that choice.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Wow Redballoon? Are we actually having a civil intelligent discussion on THIS topic? How refreshing!


You also make good points!

I hope this thread actually continues with this atmosphere. The usual debates are so biased they are useless, I look forward to this one developing in a different direction. It would be a great contribution to the issue.



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Relentless
I hope this thread actually continues with this atmosphere. The usual debates are so biased they are useless, I look forward to this one developing in a different direction. It would be a great contribution to the issue.


Yep, It would be nice to see more threads continue this way. Unfortunately, it usually takes an extreme statement or offensive bit to pop up for some people to reply. The joy of debate isn't around much anymore - things devolve into mud slinging and personal attacks. This site is full of very well spoken and intelligent people, however, so it's much better than most of the junk I find on local boards and rants-n-raves sites.



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 07:53 PM
link   
here we go. i have 2 children...a 3 year old and an 11 month old. i had MAJOR problems birthing both of them. came close to death twice. recently, my crappy birth control messed up(no tubal for me...i was bleeding too bad) and i became pregnant again. on my OB's prompting i had an abortion(i'm not ashamed). although not a partial-birth, still an abortion. had i not, there was a great chance both i and my child would have died. my decision was made purely on the fact that i have 2 kids to raise and I NEED to be here. partial birth abortion should be REGULATED because in some cases, a healthy fetus can surivive outside the womb at that time. however there ARE some cases where a partial birth is necessary to save a life. if a fetus(wish i could find the news clipping on this) has no chance of survival outside the womb, the mother should have a right to save her own life in order to have more children. that's my opinion.



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 07:54 PM
link   
oh....forgot...the ban is unconstitutional, i feel, because it violates a person's right to save their own life.



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 07:58 PM
link   
We certainly need to maintain the right of an MD to deliver a baby leaving the head in the vagina while he pierces the base of the skull of the child and sucks his brain out. Clearly, this procedure is more beneficial to the mother's health than giving an otherwise viable child a chance at life.


www.nrlc.org...

www.abortioninfo.net...

www.partial-birth.com...

[edit on 04/9/2 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by psychosgirl recently, ... i became pregnant again. on my OB's prompting i had an abortion(i'm not ashamed). although not a partial-birth, still an abortion. had i not, there was a great chance both i and my child would have died. ... partial birth abortion should be REGULATED because in some cases, a healthy fetus can surivive outside the womb at that time.


Regulation is probably needed for this kind of proceedure - I agree. Your situation sounded like a tough one, and while you're not ashamed (nor should you be), it was probably a difficult decision, and one that was painful for your whole family. I'm sorry you or anyone would have to go through that. I can't even begin to imagine having to make such a decision myself, but I'm glad that the restrictions on the proceedures are being lifted to allow for womens' health to also be a consideration.

[edit on 2-9-2004 by RedBalloon]



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 08:03 PM
link   
yes, we certainly do. especially if the baby a)has no chance and B)if the mother is in danger of dying, and C)if she has other children to care for. and as for the disgusting graphic pics the right-to-lifers are displaying publicly...for my young ones to have nightmares from....i hope you don't show up in my neighborhood. sorry.....i just think hipocrites...who want to censor everything....who then go out and show bloody graphic pictures to toddlers are DISGUSTING. sorry everyone for my heated rant.



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 08:08 PM
link   
I am a pro-choicer, always will be. But I have such a difficult time with late term abortions. The baby is delivered, except for the head, why not continue with the delivery and save the fetus?

I've been trying to find a medical circumstance when this procedure is appropriate -as opposed to delivery.

Can anyone help me out here?



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 08:13 PM
link   
Bleys:

I'm just guessing here, but perhaps when the mothers health is in danger of the delivery itself such as placenta rupturing, or some sort of other physical reason why a child can't be delivered normally. Perhaps it's a situation where the mother's life is at stake, as well as a fetus with a compromised chance for survival due to severe birth defects which the mothers condition might compound. Could be that the mother is not in a position to afford care for a preemie or intensive efforts to save the baby, and is in danger herself.

Would be tragic, but interesting to find some more examples of when this proceedure was the best option.



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by BleysI've been trying to find a medical circumstance when this procedure is appropriate -as opposed to delivery.


Read this:

www.house.gov...

I can not find a single instance of a circumstance under which a this procedure, regardless of what is called, benefits the health of the mother.



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 09:07 PM
link   
well of course a die-hard pro-lifer wouldn't be able to find an instance. i'm still looking for a REALLY good one. they do exist!



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by psychosgirl
well of course a die-hard pro-lifer wouldn't be able to find an instance. i'm still looking for a REALLY good one. they do exist!


You're so quick to label me. Why bother with the facts. Just make up an instance. This debate is not about facts. It's about making women unaccountable for their sexual activity--the right to "veto" a life.

So go ahead and make up a medical necessity for a D&X, because your not going to find one. Proponents of the procedure have had the opportunity to present evidence to Congress that the procedure is medically necessary, but have chosen not to on the grounds that abortion patients' rights to privacy would be jeopardized, even though all identifying information would have been excised from the medical documents.

The real reason they have declined to provide evidence is because the medical literature is devoid of evidence that it is ever necessary to deliver a child, except for his head, so that it will be legal to suck out his brain.


[edit on 04/9/2 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 10:00 PM
link   
this ISN'T about the details of abortion......is it UNCONSTITUTIONAL to BAN a MEDICAL procedure?????????????? YES!!!!!



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by psychosgirl
this ISN'T about the details of abortion......is it UNCONSTITUTIONAL to BAN a MEDICAL procedure?????????????? YES!!!!!


Not necessarily, that's what these hearings were supposed to determine - is it a medical procedure or is it an abortion? But the organizations refused to provide the medical records. Why these things couldn't be blacked out is beyond me - god know the feds do it enough.

This goes to the heart of why I asked the question. I honestly believe that abortion rights is not and all or nothing issue - I think we need to keep an open dialogue and discuss the issues, this one in particular.

I'll be doing some research on the Appeals and Federal court sites in an attempt to find actual testimony about the medical necessity for the procedure. If I find anything - I'll post it here.



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 10:21 PM
link   
Question: Are there times when you donít remove the fetus intact?

Carhart: Yes, sir.

Question: Can you tell me about that, when that occurs?

Carhart: That occurs when the tissue fragments, or frequently when you rupture the membranes, an arm will spontaneously prolapse through the oz. I think most...statistically the most common presentation, we talk about the forehead or the skull being first. We talked about the feet being first, but I think in probably the great majority of terminations, itís what they world call a transverse lie, so really youíre looking at a side profile of a curved fetus. When the patient...the uterus is already starting to contract and they are starting to miscarry, when you rupture the waters, usually something prolapses through the uterine, through the cervical os, not always, but very often an extremity will.

Question: What do you do then?

Carhart: My normal course would be to dismember that extremity and then go back and try to take the fetus out either foot or skull first, whatever end I can get to first.

Question: How do you go about dismembering that extremity?

Carhart: Just traction and rotation, grasping the portion that you can get a hold of which would be usually somewhere up the shaft of the exposed portion of the fetus, pulling down on it through the os, using the internal os as your counter-traction and rotating to dismember the shoulder or the hip or whatever it would be. Sometimes you will get one leg and you canít get the other leg out.

Question: In that situation, are you, when you pull on the arm and remove it, is the fetus still alive?

Carhart: Yes.

Question: In that situation, are you, when you pull on the arm and remove it, is the fetus still alive?

Carhart: Yes

Question: Do you consider an arm, for example, to be a substantial portion of the fetus?

Carhart: In the way I read it, I think if I lost my arm, that would be a substantial loss to me. I think I would have to interpret it that way.

Question: And then what happens next after you remove the arm? You then try to remove the rest of the fetus?

Carhart: Then I would go back and attempt to either bring the feet down or bring the skull down, or even sometimes you bring the other arm down and remove that also and then get the feet down.

Question: At what point is the fetus...does the fetus die during that process?

Carhart: I donít really know. I know that the fetus is alive during the process most of the time because I can see fetal heartbeat on the ultrasound.

The Court: Counsel, for what itís worth, it still is unclear to me with regard to the intact D&E when fetal demise occurs.

Question: Okay, I will try to clarify that. In the procedure of an intact D&E where you would start foot first, with the situation where the fetus is presented feet first, tell me how you are able to get the feet out first.

Carhart: Under ultrasound, you can see the extremities. You know what is what. You know what the foot is, you know, what the arm is, you know, what the skull is. By grabbing the feet and pulling down on it or by grabbing a knee and pulling down on it, usually you can get one leg out, get the other leg out and bring the fetus out. I donít know where this...all the controversy about rotating the fetus comes from. I donít attempt to do that. I just attempt to bring out whatever is the proximal portion of the fetus.

Question: At the time that you bring out the feet in this example, is the fetus still alive?

Carhart: Yes.

Question: Then whatís the next step you do?

Carhart: I didnít mention it. I should. I usually attempt to grasp the cord first and divide the cord, if I can do that.

Question: What is the cord?

Carhart: The cord is the structure that transports the blood, both arterial and venous, from the fetus to the back to the fetus, and it gives the fetus its only source of oxygen, so that if you can divide the cord, the fetus will eventually die, but whether this takes five minutes or fifteen minutes and when that occurs, I donít think anyone really knows.

Question: Are there situations where you donít divide the cord?

Carhart: There are situations when I canít.

Question: What are those?

Carhart: I just canít get to the cord. Itís either high above the fetus and structures where you canít reach up that far. The instruments are only 11 inches long.

Question: Letís take the situation where you havenít divided the cord because you couldnít, and you have begun to remove a living fetus feet first. What happens next after you have gotten the feet removed?

Carhart: We remove the feet and continue with traction on the feet until the abdomen and the thorax came through the cavity. At that point, I would try ... you have to bring the shoulders down, but you can get enough of them outside, you can do this with your finger outside of the uterus, and then at that point the fetal ... the base of the fetal skull is usually in the cervical canal.

Question: What do you do next?

Carhart: And you can reach that, and thatís where you would rupture the fetal skull to some extent and aspirate the contents out.

Question: At what point in that process does fetal demise occur between initial remove...removal of the feet or legs and the crushing of the skull, or Iím sorry, the decompressing of the skull?

Carhart: Well, you know, again, this is where Iím not sure what fetal demise is. I mean, I honestly have to share your concern, your Honor. You can remove the cranial contents and the fetus will still have a heartbeat for several seconds or several minutes, so is the fetus alive? I would have to say probably, although I donít think it has any brain function, so itís brain dead at that point.

Question: So the brain death might occur when you begin suctioning out of the cranium?

Carhart: I think brain death would occur because the suctioning to remove contents is only two or three seconds, so somewhere in that period of time, obviously not when you penetrate the skull, because people get shot in the head and the donít die immediately from that, if they are going to die at all, so that probably is not sufficient to kill the fetus, but I think removing the brain contents eventually will.

Later under cross examination from the AGíS counsel, Carhart stated:

"My intent in every abortion I have ever done is to kill the fetus and terminate the pregnancy."

womensissues.about.com...



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Grady-

I appreciate your feelings on this issue, but if anyone can show me a medical necessity for this procedure - I would support it. So far no one has been able to, so I remain dubious.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join