You are not logged in. Login Now
 0-10   11-35   36-60   61-85   86-110   111-135   136-142    
 
Author Message
richard
House passes ban on "partial birth" abortions Mark Unseen   Oct 2 17:41 UTC 2003

From wire reports:

House approves ban on controversial abortion procedure
Senate to take up measure
Thursday, October 2, 2003 Posted: 12:59 PM EDT (1659 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House voted Thursday to ban a type of abortion 
that for years has been at the center of the debate over a woman's 
reproductive rights. President Bush has promised to sign the bill into 
law and opponents say they will immediately challenge it in court. 

The drive to stop what opponents call partial birth abortion "will 
finally become law and the performance of this barbaric procedure will 
finally come to an end," said House Judiciary Committee Chairman James 
Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin. 

Critics said the partial birth ban, twice vetoed by President Clinton, 
was part of a larger agenda to undermine the 1973 Supreme Court 
decision supporting a woman's right to end a pregnancy. It's "an 
attempt to whittle away at a woman's constitutional right to her 
privacy and control of her body," said Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-New 
York. 

The bill, passed 281-142, could be taken up by the Senate as early as 
Friday. Bush's signature would make it the first federal law since Roe 
v. Wade in 1973 to restrict a specific abortion procedure. 

Some 30 states have varying versions of partial birth bans, and 
opponents have successfully challenged most of those laws. Most 
significantly, in 2000 the Supreme Court, on a 5-4 vote, ruled that a 
Nebraska law was unconstitutional because it did not have an exception 
for the health of the mother and was so vague as to leave unclear what 
medical practices were being prohibited. 

Clinton, in his two vetoes, also argued that there must be a health 
exception. 

Supporters of the ban, led in the House by Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, 
said the House-Senate compromise bill being considered has tightened 
the definition of the banned procedure and contains findings to prove 
that the practice is never needed to protect a woman's health. 

Partial birth is not a medically accepted term, but as defined by the 
bill it is a procedure in which the fetus is killed after 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." Doctors who perform the procedure would be 
subject to up to two years in prison. 

There's disagreement about how often such abortions are performed. 
Defenders say it is sometimes the safest way to protect the health and 
future fertility of the mother when an abortion is found to be 
necessary during the second and third trimester of a pregnancy. 

Both sides agree that the symbolic importance of the ban would be 
enormous. Anti-abortion groups say it would give momentum to other 
limitations on abortion, while abortion rights groups say the ultimate 
goal is to erode support for that 1973 decision on abortion rights, 
known as Roe v. Wade"




142 responses total.
richard
response 1 of 142: Mark Unseen   Oct 2 17:47 UTC 2003

Okay here we have another example of the right wing agenda that will 
become law because Bush is president now and will sign the bill.  
Clinton vetoed it twice, but he isn't there anymore to block it.  
Statistics would seem to indicate that this procedure is performed so 
seldomly that it hardly seems worthy of having congress pass an act to 
outlaw it. If the mother's life is in danger, what are doctors supposed 
to do?  Clearly this particular procedure is being used as a rallying 
point for the overrall agenda, which in this case is to ban abortions 
altogether.  

If we don't vote Bush out next year, we're headed back to the dark 
ages.  A republican congress will pass all sorts of right wing 
political legislation, and Bush will appoint more conservative judges 
who will not block such things from becoming law.  

happyboy
response 2 of 142: Mark Unseen   Oct 2 17:58 UTC 2003

george bush = 70's smileyface taliban.

sorry, that was a mean thing to say about our hawkish war hero
leader...oh wait...
gull
response 3 of 142: Mark Unseen   Oct 2 18:22 UTC 2003

In a similar vein, the Michigan legislature just passed a measure that
would ban this procedure by another route, by defining the moment of
birth as when any part of the baby emerges from the mother.  Gov.
Granholm is expected to veto it, and it's not clear if there are enough
votes to override the veto.
tod
response 4 of 142: Mark Unseen   Oct 2 18:49 UTC 2003

This response has been erased.

happyboy
response 5 of 142: Mark Unseen   Oct 2 21:13 UTC 2003

no...cute kitten art and precious moments collectibles
at the christian bookstore.  mandatory .
michaela
response 6 of 142: Mark Unseen   Oct 2 21:41 UTC 2003

"Partial birth" is a term coined by anti-abortionists to gain sympathy for
the fetus and call it murder. It is not a birth in any way.

If they don't put a "protect the mother's health" clause in there, I'm going
to go absolutely ballistic. Would they rather have women DIE than allow a
doctor to perform a medical procedure?

Asshats.
tod
response 7 of 142: Mark Unseen   Oct 2 21:59 UTC 2003

This response has been erased.

richard
response 8 of 142: Mark Unseen   Oct 3 00:18 UTC 2003

re #6...sarah, there isn't and won't be a clause allowing exception in cases
to "protect the mother's health"  why,  because protecting the mother's health
is 99.9% of the time the reason this procedure is even done in the first
place.  If they put that clause in the bill, there's really no point in the
bill in the first place.  This is going to become law and it will ultimately
be up to the Supreme Court to decide if it stays on the books.  
klg
response 9 of 142: Mark Unseen   Oct 3 00:47 UTC 2003

re:  "#1 (richard): Okay here we have another example of the right wing 
agenda. . . ."

Mr. richard,
Are you being serious?  Did your article not state that this bill passed 
the U. S. House of Representatives with over 280 votes??  Based upon 
any reasonable arithmetic calculation, passage of legislation by a 
margin of two to one hardly seem to qualify it as "right wing."  Much to 
the contrary, that ought to be considered mainstream.  Or this this 
another example of your left wing Democratic mathematics?
klg
bru
response 10 of 142: Mark Unseen   Oct 3 01:04 UTC 2003

I say way to go.  Lets get this passed and move on to the next right wing
political agenda item.  With any luck we will make this a great country again.
 0-10   11-35   36-60   61-85   86-110   111-135   136-142    
Response Not Possible: You are Not Logged In
 

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss