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: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 11:13 PM
link   
I am pro-life. I believe that an unborn child has just as much right to live as the mother that is carrying it. Strangely enough I just had a debate with my sister on this very subject. She thought she was pro-choice. She's not. She doesn't believe that abortion should be used as a birth control, when in fact 95% of abortions are done as a means of birth control


The overwhelming majority of all abortions, (95%), are done as a means of birth control.U.S. Abortion Statistics, U.S. State abortion statistics, by Race, by Age, Worldwide abortion statistics, teen abortion statistics



Only 1% are performed because of rape or incest
1% because of fetal abnormalities
3% due to the mother's health problems

Since 1973 there have been at least 40,000,000 abortions.
abortiontv.com




posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by BleysI appreciate your feelings on this issue, but if anyone can show me a medical necessity for this procedure - I would support it.


No one can provide justification because there simply is none. There is evidence that he procedure damages the cervix to the extent that future pregancies are jeopardized.

Show me a medical necessity and I might support the procedure, but none exists.



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
There is evidence that he procedure damages the cervix to the extent that future pregancies are jeopardized.


Got a link we can check out?



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Question...

Are the mothers being told by the doctor to have it done due to some kind of problem? What is the scenario leading to a woman feeling she must have a partial birth abortion in order to live? Initiated by the woman or by the doctor? I'm asking only because I have absolutely no knowledge of this part of the abortion issue at large.

"It's about making women unaccountable for their sexual activity...."

As a side note, I take issue with that statement as it completely leaves out the accountability of the males involved. Don't make it a female issue. It's a life and death humanity issue. Education is more effective than judgement.



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedBalloonGot a link we can check out?


Try these links.



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Yet another Federal judge rules the ban on abortion unconstitutional.

www.cnn.com...

An interesting addition that addresses points in earlier posts on this thread:
"Kopf said his ruling did not apply in cases where the fetus is viable -- or able to survive outside the womb. One doctor testified during the trial that medical advances have made it possible to deliver a viable fetus as early as 23 weeks, or late in the second trimester, through Caesarean section."

"According to responsible medical opinion, there are times when the banned procedure is medically necessary to preserve the health of a woman and a respectful reading of the congressional record proves that point," Kopf wrote. "No reasonable and unbiased person could come to a different conclusion."

This new decision also addresses how health could be in jeopardy - still no actual examples of when health would be in jeopardy requiring the procedure.



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by deeprivergal
I am pro-life. I believe that an unborn child has just as much right to live as the mother that is carrying it. Strangely enough I just had a debate with my sister on this very subject. She thought she was pro-choice. She's not. She doesn't believe that abortion should be used as a birth control, when in fact 95% of abortions are done as a means of birth control


The overwhelming majority of all abortions, (95%), are done as a means of birth control.U.S. Abortion Statistics, U.S. State abortion statistics, by Race, by Age, Worldwide abortion statistics, teen abortion statistics



Only 1% are performed because of rape or incest
1% because of fetal abnormalities
3% due to the mother's health problems

Since 1973 there have been at least 40,000,000 abortions.
abortiontv.com


Of course, it's birth control!!! Kind of the whole point. A woman's control of her body. Her reproductive sovereignty. Not my opinion on it. Not yours. And definitely not Grady's though I appreciate this admission from him:


Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
This debate is not about facts. It's about making women unaccountable for their sexual activity--the right to "veto" a life.


Sounds like it's about punishing sinners when he says it, huh? Punished with forced motherhood. How singularly honest of him and representative of the abolitionists real intent here.

And Bleys I appreciate your wanting to see evidence that this private medical procedure (the ban on which was just ruled unconstitutional) is "medically necessary," but when were women required to prove they need birth control to save their life in order to have the right to it? It's all birth control. All of it. Whether it's rape, incest or just dumb luck with a broken condom makes no difference to the honest abolitionists, why should it matter to us (pro-choice people)? They are against abortions, all of them. Not one procedure versus another. That's dishonest framing of the debate. I may not like a certain type of abortion procedure required at 91 days as opposed to a less invasive one at 60, but I support all kinds equally. I'm pro-choice.

And the efforts to ban one type over another are disingenuous emotional pandering of a slippery slope nature NOT INTENDED to just ban some access, but move closer to banning all reproductive rights. Red Balloon accurately attempted to use the proper terminology for the procedure, co-opted by opponents that invent oxymorons like "partial birth" or "unborn child" or "silent scream" and infuse the debate with pornographic obsession over the bloody details as if common wart removal so described wouldn't be just as offensive. The illogical personification effort is pervasive, as in what would you think if your Mother aborted you?
I assure you I wouldn't care one bit. Save the fetal poetry for someone who cares.


Bah. It really is just fine if some want to interpret the Constitution as not allowing any form of birth control. The Pope would approve, as our sexist Founding Father's might as well. But it's also just fine for others (like me) to support all forms of abortion and reproductive sovereignty and interpret the Constitution as applying to real people, not potential ones. I support Presidents and Supreme Court appointments with my view, others may choose another path. But in the end, it will be all or nothing.



[edit on 8-9-2004 by RANT]



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Rant, I want you to sit down......

I agree completley with you on this one. The ProLife Terrorist have gotten way way way out of controll. As a former clinic escort Ive seen the kind people that are out there protesting and its scary.

We had a large organized protest in San Jose about 15 years ago. Operation Rescue was going to MD's and nurses homes and protesting in front of them. We set up counter protests and follwed them home and protested at thier homes. It was alot of fun. The started throwing bags of blood at us. We had a mole and were prepared. We tossed coat hangers in thier direction. It looked like the mass arrow launch in braveheart.


The cops made us stop, but not before a nun slapped me! God that was fun


Sorry i had to reminese



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 05:59 PM
link   
A nun slapped you?
That does sound like fun.


I'm not saying people shouldn't protest or express themselves, and I really appreciate the humor you guys injected in the counter protest
but nobody just expressing an honest opinion on this is a "horrible person" one way or the other (though I agree the pro-lifers can get a little scary if not outright homicidal).

Though I do think some opinions are a little less honest and forthcoming with intent than others. And it crosses the line (Constitutionally for me) when people want to impose their opinion and morality on others.



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 06:08 PM
link   
I believe a women uterus and what it goes inside of it is not the business of politicians religious organization or anybody else but the women business and if a man is around to place and opinion so beat it.

I will like anybody else to stay away from my uterus and the business that goes in there.

Thank you very much. I don't tell you what to do with your uterus and I will not appreciate anybody including men to tell me what to do with mine.

And my opinions are my business and not body else.



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
Though I do think some opinions are a little less honest and forthcoming with intent than others. And it crosses the line (Constitutionally for me) when people want to impose their opinion and morality on others.


Thats really the key issue with me as well. People will have thier opinons esp on this issue. Religion plays a huge part in this, at least in the states. The Pope as well. I cannot reconsile how they can oppose abortion yet allow millions to die from AIDS because condoms are a sin


Forget Iraq, we need regime change at the Vatican.....



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 06:13 PM
link   
This country is very well know for getting into each others business and how to regulate what goes on with people specially women.


if a woman does not want an abortion she has the choice if she wants one then nobody should tell her what to do.



[edit on 8-9-2004 by marg6043]



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
if a woman does not want an abortion she has the choice if she wants one then nobody should tell her what to do.


Well put. The government has no business regulating a womans uterus. Period. How would the ProLife crowd feel if I regulated thier ability to go to church?



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
And Bleys I appreciate your wanting to see evidence that this private medical procedure (the ban on which was just ruled unconstitutional) is "medically necessary," but when were women required to prove they need birth control to save their life in order to have the right to it? It's all birth control. All of it. Whether it's rape, incest or just dumb luck with a broken condom makes no difference to the honest abolitionists, why should it matter to us (pro-choice people)? They are against abortions, all of them. Not one procedure versus another. That's dishonest framing of the debate. I may not like a certain type of abortion procedure required at 91 days as opposed to a less invasive one at 60, but I support all kinds equally. I'm pro-choice.


Dishonest framing of the debate - Seems to be a tactic used by the left as much as the right.

I find it interesting that those in support of this procedure claimed that a medical exception was a moral imperative. I am simple trying to ascertain what that medical necessity was. I have yet to find it.


The majority of Americans believe that abortion in the first trimester is a right and not open for discussion. But we also believe that abortion in the second and third trimesters becomes more of a grey area due to fetal development.

Interestingly enough, this was addressed in the Roe v Wade decision itself:



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

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

For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.


It is clear that SCOTUS decision only guarantees the right to an "on-demand" or "birth control" abortion during the first trimester. Let me say that again - the absolute right to an on demand abortion is only assured during the first trimester.

SCOTUS stated that after the first trimester the abortion decision should be left to the States, but that any law restricting abortion must provide for abortions that preserve the life of the mother.

So my request for additional information is valid because if Planned Parenthood can't produce a medical necessity then their argument does not meet the burden in Roe v Wade.



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Bleys,

I agree with you in that, but now due to the stance of this administration on the issues of women some stupid fanatics are denying women of prescription birth control pills and after morning pills.

That tells you how control this fanatics on religious bases wants to handle women in this country.

Are we going to become third class citizens and submit or should we fight for our rights as women.

I don't see anybody regulating men reproducting organs.

[edit on 8-9-2004 by marg6043]



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Oh I agree with you Bleys the original ruling by SCOTUS in Roe v Wade does raise questions. IMO it muddied the issue and did us all a disservice.

As I understand it, the "trimester" deliniation and ruling was an invention found in the opinion of one judge...and serves as the basis for most opinions on the issue today. But the fact remains it was an arbitrary "compromise" to appease both sides of the issue and satisify public opinion with no basis in any Constitutional merit.

Polls are great, but hardly ideological... and I'd sooner expatriate than leave Constitutional interpretation up to popular vote.

So that's my opinion on it. Nobody has to agree and Roe v Wade obviously didn't, but that doesn't end the debate by a long stretch. I support the finding of this ban unconstitutional and seek permanent correction from the highest court in the land.

If the current judges are claiming it's unconstitutional based on there being no provision to save the life of the mother, then I guess there's no provision to save the life of the mother!


If this procedure is never used to save the life of the mother (as some claim) then surely they can't be opposed to framing in that one exception can they? But they are. See the disingenuous effort here?



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 07:55 PM
link   
There are medical reasons why abortions are necessary in the second and third trimesters. While approx. 90% of all abortions are performed during the first trimester, 9% during the second trimester, and 1% during the third.

During the second trimester, it is standard for women over the age of 35 to receive an amniocenteses and in all pregnancies an ultrasound is given at 17 weeks. During these procedures, genetic defects can be detected and it can be determined whether or not the fetus will survive delivery; if the fetus will survive, only to live in pain for a short period of time; or if the baby will live with a severe birth defect or debilitating illness that will severely impact quality of life. In these cases, the decision is up to the parents and doctor to determine the best course of action. In most cases when a severe defect is detected, most pregnancies are terminated. A small percentage of couples opt to continue the pregnancy, but obviously this is a tough decision.

During the third trimester, abortions are rare and are only performed if medically necessary. These represent about 2000 abortions per year. In some cases, the life of the mother is severely at risk, usually due to diabetic coma or severe heart disease. There is also a condition called hydrocephalus, which in simple terms is "water on the brain." This occurs in about 1 in 5000 fetuses and is detected late in the second trimester. This condition can be treated, but in cases of severe hydrocephalus, the fetus will never gain consciousness and termination of the pregnancy is recommended. This is obviously very rare. There are also rare cases when delivery goes very wrong and the pregnancy must be terminated (the baby cannot be saved anyway) to save the mothers life.

The issue with banning "partial-birth abortions" is that it leaves these options unavailable for women who medically need them, potentially putting the lives of the mothers at risk and potentially subjecting families with a burden that they cannot handle. It is not our place to make these decisions for them--I certainly don't feel that it is the government's job to say that the mother should die while the baby should live or vice versa. That should be a decision made by the family that is dealing with the situation. Everyone has different beliefs and that is why choices must be available.

Also, by making these procedures illegal, doctors are caught in the middle--what would happen if a diabetic woman lapses into a coma a few weeks before she was due and the only way to save her was to abort the pregnancy? There is no time to go to court to fight the law.



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by lmgnyc
During the third trimester, abortions are rare and are only performed if medically necessary. These represent about 2000 abortions per year. In some cases, the life of the mother is severely at risk, usually due to diabetic coma or severe heart disease...There are also rare cases when delivery goes very wrong and the pregnancy must be terminated (the baby cannot be saved anyway) to save the mothers life.


Note: I left out a portion of this paragraph because it dealt with fetal issues which are not a consideration under Roe v. Wade.

Can you explain more about the diabetic coma and severe heart disease? Why is it necessary to terminate the pregnancy rather than deliver a premature or full term fetus? It would seem delivery through the birth canal and then termination would be more of a risk to the woman. Also what are the circumstances of problem deliveries?

Aside to Rant: I don't agree that Roe v Wade muddled the issue, it clarified it. It provided in no uncertain terms that a womans right to choose is undeniable during the first three months of pregnancy. After that the State may legislate as it sees fit provided they protect the womans life.

As to medical necessity - the reason the bill did not contain the exception was because PP refused to specify when it was medically necessary. With the polarization between the anti and pro forces unwilling to further define and clarify Roe v Wade - I can see a conservative court outlawing all abortions either outright or subjecting them to severe restrictions.



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Pregnancy worsens diabetes and insulin requirements change as the fetus matures, and if they are left unchecked or miscalculated, damage can be done to kidneys, the retinas & heart, as well as coma & shock (as well as blood sugars being too high, resulting in fetal malformations late in pregnancy.) Maintaining the pregnancy will continue to put demands on the mother, causing permanent damange and/or death.

Pregnancy also puts additional demands on the heart and in some, cases, women discover that they were born with a congenital heart defect when they become pregnant. Other times, women have been advised to not become pregnant because of heart disease or because their heart was repaired at birth, but become pregnant by accident or against the advice of their doctor. As the pregnancy continues, the woman will experience increased shortness of breath, fatigue, and eventually the inability to move due to the tremendously increased demands on the heart. In some cases, the pregnancy can become life-threatening and must be aborted because of the risk of heart-failure.

There are also rare situations where handling of preeclampsia goes wrong and abortion becomes necessary to protect the mother.

Again, it is important to note that treatment options vary depending on the health of the mother. Inducing labor early or a caeserian may be prescribed in some situations, but not in others. Doctors need to have these options legally available.



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 09:41 PM
link   
I'm very interested in several of the factors you noted, especially preeclampsya - do you have any links or reference material you are quoting from that I can review?

I'm still curious why, if the fetus is almost completely delivered except for the head, why it is necessary to terminate life function?

Thanks in advance.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join