|
Grex > Agora47 > #52: House passes ban on "partial birth" abortions | |
|
| Author |
Message |
richard
|
|
House passes ban on "partial birth" abortions
|
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:
|
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:
|
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:
|
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:
|
Oct 2 18:49 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 5 of 142:
|
Oct 2 21:13 UTC 2003 |
no...cute kitten art and precious moments collectibles
at the christian bookstore. mandatory .
|
michaela
|
|
response 6 of 142:
|
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:
|
Oct 2 21:59 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
richard
|
|
response 8 of 142:
|
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:
|
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:
|
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.
|