response 25 of 142:

Oct 3 18:50 UTC 2003

Backing up a ways:  As I understand it, this bill (and Michigan's bill) 
is almost identical to a Nebraska bill that was tossed by the USSupreme 
Court a couple of years ago in that it doesn't include a "health of the 
mother" exception.  The bill tries to skate this constitutional 
roadblock by declaring that "partial-birth" abortions are never 
medically necessary and that, in fact, "A ban on the partial -birth 
abortion procedure will therefore advance the health interests 
of pregnant women seeking to terminate a pregnancy."

I find this strategy of simply declaring it so to be of rather dubious 
value (much like GWB's attempt to end the war in Iraq by simply 
declaring it over).  I'm guessing that abortion opponents are hoping 
that the Supreme Court will add another anti-Roe judge by the time this 
case works its way up the line, and that this law can be the vehicle to 
end the whole deal.

And, as an aside, while this bill specifies that a woman who has a PBA 
will not be prosecuted under this law, it does allow the woman's husband 
to sue her in civil court (or her parents, if she was not 18 years old 
at the time of the abortion) if he did not consent to the abortion. 

response 27 of 142:

Oct 3 21:16 UTC 2003

(Hmm... I kinda like New Hampshire.  I may have to move there to oppose the
FSP.  Why can't they pick on someone I don't particularly care about?  Utah
would be nice.  Or maybe Puerto Rico.  Or Guam.  Either of them would make
a good 51st state.)

response 29 of 142:

Oct 4 00:58 UTC 2003

resp:10 I get so tired of that endless dogmatic crap: "this great 
nation of ours" or "let's make America great again" paraphrased any 
number of ways and the moralism implied in it, i.e., only a certain 
way will accomplish it.  Gaaahh.

Couple of comparisons:  I'm religious, but I don't support shoving it 
down other people's throats... about the same way I support 
environmentalism but deplore eco-terrorism.  (The ends don't justify 
the means, baby.)

response 31 of 142:

Oct 4 03:17 UTC 2003

I find it terribly amusing that the proponents of this act
think they can avoid having to take anyone's health under
consideration in the law by saying that said procedure is
never necessary to protect health.

This is tantamount to Congress awarding itself a collective MD,
without bothering to go to school or even study.  It would be
hilarious if it wasn't so serious.

It would be nice if all laws had to state their rationale and
could be challenged and thrown out if the rationale could be
proven wrong.  We've got so many misconceived laws on the books
that it would be great to have a mechanism to discard them
without having to move the legislature to reverse itself.

response 33 of 142:

Oct 4 04:55 UTC 2003

Re #30: bru wants the big picture: the big picture is that not he nor
anyone else has an absolute right to control the lives of women.

response 35 of 142:

Oct 4 07:44 UTC 2003

The notion that abortion is muder is predicated on a BELIEF that is not 
universal.  Making any laws which proscribe any abortion practices is 
tantamount to the state dictating morality based on one belief system in 
direct opposition to another.  That is exactly what the founders were 
trying to prevent with the establishment clause.

By the way, the same is true of laws which prevent Native Americans from 
using peyote in traditional rituals.

response 37 of 142:

Oct 4 16:59 UTC 2003

People who have been raped are not likely to wait 6 months to abort.  Some
late abortions are because the mother's health is threatened by the pregnancy,
and some because of genetic testing which is done late in pregnancy to detect
genetic defects.  As Jim understands things, it is safer for the woman to wait
and have an induced labor (premature) at some point, rather than an earlier
in utero abortion.

response 39 of 142:

Oct 4 20:11 UTC 2003

So is killing in war or in self defense also "murder"? "Murder" is
entirely a legal construct, and means what you want it to mean, if
"murder" and "killing" are not synonymus. Sure, abortion is killing - of
living tissue at least - but that doesn't make it "murder" unless it is
categorically outlawed. But it is categorically permitted by the
Constitution, so it is only killing, not "murder".

Women must have the right to have time to decide to kill their own fetuses
at least up to some appropriate time or under appropriate circumstances,
or they do not have the social freedom ensured by our Constitution.

response 41 of 142:

Oct 4 23:30 UTC 2003

where did you get the idea that killing someone who is out to kill you is
murder?

When that baby comes out with a knife in his hand, talk to me about self
defense.

Now, if the doctor does decide that the life of the baby is indeed a threat
to the mother with no other option, then he should be allowed to remove the
child from the womb.

But doe that necessarily requirea a D & C or partial birth abortion?

response 43 of 142:

Oct 5 00:12 UTC 2003

(Incidentally, there's some confusion over what procedures "partial 
birth abortion bans" actually cover.  "Partial birth abortion" isn't a 
medical term; it was invented by anti-abortion groups for PR purposes.)

response 45 of 142:

Oct 5 05:07 UTC 2003

Actually, given that Bruce's side is winning this war, I appreciate that
he's not gloating about it.

response 47 of 142:

Oct 5 06:33 UTC 2003

stop it, you guys are upsetting bruce.

response 49 of 142:

Oct 5 13:43 UTC 2003

does it require a D & C or is it just the cheap way out?