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"

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...

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.

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.  

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.

response 12 of 142:

Oct 3 03:17 UTC 2003

Actually, men do have uteruses.  They just don't use them.

response 14 of 142:

Oct 3 04:17 UTC 2003

klg it passed with such a majority because there's an election next year
and a lot of congressmen, particularly in conservative southern states,
don't want it being an issue in their re-election.  Do not look at the
vote totals as some indication of true and deep support.  

response 16 of 142:

Oct 3 06:00 UTC 2003

You're not moving to Canada.  If you were pissed off enough to do that, 
you'd do something useful instead and mount a campaign to educate and 
motivate people who value their rights to go to the polls and boot the 
fascists out of office.

response 18 of 142:

Oct 3 12:47 UTC 2003

Re #16: I know at least one person I actually do expect to move to
Canada.  He feels that it's essentially a lost cause, and that he's
spent enough of his life trying to push back against the country's drift
to the right.  He sees little hope for substantial improvement in his
lifetime.  Time to cut his losses and leave.

I have to admit I can understand that reasoning.

response 20 of 142:

Oct 3 16:38 UTC 2003

I think it's going to be a long time before the Zapatistas have enough control
over Mexico to forge into Texas.

Personally, I'm looking to the Free State Project as a model.  While I object
to several of the points of their philosophy, their goal is realistic and
their reasoning sound.  Basically, they say, "This country is too obsessed
with big government, both on the left and on the right, and getting even 1%
of the vote in a national election for a Libertarian (or even libertarian)
candidate is obviously ludicrous.  Therefore, let's get
together--literally--and concentrate our influence in one state, where we have
a realistic chance of effecting some of the changes we want."  They've got
5400 people signed up and committed to moving to New Hampshire within 5 years,
where those people are going to fight tooth and nail for change at the state
and local level.

I love their methods, but I still think they're aiming big.  I think a city
is a good level to start at--it's an easy level to effect change at, even if
you're still bound by state and national laws, and getting some change to
happen is necessary for keeping morale up and for showing people what you're
really about.  So, michaela, get yerself some likeminded people and figure
out what you can do about it other than throwing up your hands and moving to
Canada.

Meanwhile, watch for my name on the ballot for A2 City Council sometime in
the next few years. :)

response 24 of 142:

Oct 3 17:18 UTC 2003

"dark old days" - what histrionics.