 |
| |
|
|
Sava
|
 |
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001
time: 23:31
|
|
quote:
Bush to sign anti-abortion measure
Associated Press
President Bush was to hand abortion opponents a victory sought through seven years of political battle Wednesday when he signed legislation that bans some abortions. But in a likely prelude of obstacles that linger, a federal judge in Nebraska sharply questioned the constitutionality of the legislation.
THE PRESIDENT'S SIGNATURE represents an end to a legislative crusade that began when Republicans captured the House in 1995. Former President Bill Clinton twice vetoed similar bills, arguing that they lacked an exception to protect the health of the mother.
But for abortion rights advocates, Bush's action simply moves the fight over a procedure opponents call "partial birth abortion" from Congress to the courts.
The bill forbids a procedure known as intact dilation and extraction, generally performed in the second or third trimester, in which a fetus is partly delivered before being killed, usually by having its skull punctured.
Aware of its backing among the religious conservatives that make up a key part of his base of political support, the president called the bill "very important legislation that will end an abhorrent practice and continue to build a culture of life in America" when it gained final congressional approval late last month.
Despite his strong anti-abortion credentials, Bush is also mindful of the more moderate voters he cannot afford to alienate.
So last week, during a news conference with reporters, he repeated a position he offered during his 2000 campaign, saying he would not seek a total ban on abortion because public opinion had not yet shifted to support such a move.
if (window.displayApp) displayApp(trimesterabortions);
NO EXCEPTION FOR WOMAN'S HEALTH
The legislation, which is similar to a Nebraska law the Supreme Court struck down three years ago, imposes the most far-reaching limits on abortion since the high court in 1973 established a woman's right to end a pregnancy.
It prohibits doctors from committing an "overt act" designed to kill a partly delivered fetus. There is no exception to the ban if the woman's health is at risk of if the child would be born with ailments.
Supporters argue that the bill applies only to a procedure done late in pregnancy -- and relatively rarely -- and that the procedure is never necessary to protect the health of the woman.
But abortion rights groups say the law has overly broad language that could criminalize several safe and common procedures, and they fault it for not providing an exception to protect a mother's health. They also fear that the law will represent the first step in a larger campaign to eventually bar all abortions.
As a result, opponents attacked it in three separate challenges even before it became law, with lawsuits filed Friday in federal courts in San Francisco; Omaha, Neb.; and New York City. Hearings were scheduled Wednesday on all three suits' request for temporary restraining orders that would block the law from taking effect.
In Lincoln, Neb., U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf indicated Wednesday that he had substantial concerns. "It seems to me the law is highly suspect, if not a per se violation of the Constitution," he said at the outset of his hearing.
Kopf said the congressional record of the debate of the bill did not reflect "an objective" presentation of the facts.
He also said the law appeared to have a "serious vagueness problem."
Planned Parenthood sued in San Francisco on behalf of the group and women seeking the type of abortions the law would ban, while the Center for Reproductive Rights filed in Omaha on behalf of physicians. The American Civil Liberties Union sought a similar order in New York.
OPPONENTS' STRATEGIES
Also Wednesday, an abortion rights group was airing a television ad that says Bush's signature would erode doctor-patient privacy rights and could represent his first step toward overturning a woman's right to end a pregnancy. The NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation is spending nearly $500,000 to air ads in Washington, as well as Des Moines, Iowa, and Manchester, N.H., the sites of key early voting in next year's presidential contest.
And activists, organized by the National Organization for Women, were planning a protest outside the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, where Bush was to sign the bill.
"We won't stand by silently as this administration attempts to erode our rights," NOW President Kim Gandy said.
The new bill defines partial birth abortion as delivery of a fetus "until, in the case of a headfirst presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of the breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus."
Sponsors of the legislation say it is used about 2,200 times a year, principally during the 20th through 26th weeks of pregnancy.
© 2003 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
MSNBC Terms, Conditions and Privacy ©2003
|
http://www.msnbc.com/news/989539.asp?0cv=CA01
I think its a shame... ten men just got up on a podium and made a decision that should be between a woman and her doctor. This is also a step down that slippery slope because we all know that Bush and company are extremists who want all abortion banned, including rape, incest, medical necessity...
a sad day 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
bush is a religious fundamentalist. at least maybe the irish americans catholics will be happy
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sava
|
|
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001
time: 23:31
|
|
quote:
Disregarding Doctors
By P.G. Gandy
Most legislation moves through Congress without being much remarked on by those who do not consider themselves affected. While lobbyists cluster around offices after every conference, the average American goes about her daily life unperturbed.
So it appears to be with the reconciliation process between the House and Senate bills regarding a ban on specific abortion procedures. Groups like the Feminist Majority Foundation track the changes in language carefully, but the rest of us aren't paying attention. We should be.
The combination of doctors and "partial birth abortion," medically known as a dilation and extraction (D&X), makes the ban passed by the House deeply problematic.
Women do not come into a clinic saying, "I think I'll have a D&X instead of a D&E (dilation and evacuation) today." Abortion providers make that decision based on how the patient presents.
If the D&X seems less hazardous than a D&E would be, they choose the D&X because of the imperative of "do no harm" -- or, as it has been revised for surgery (due to the necessity of incisions), "do no more harm than good." If the D&E appears to be suitable, it is performed.
A woman wakes up from the anesthesia and only knows the difference if the D&E went wrong and the additional introductions of medical instruments into the woman's body, or the broken bones of the fetus, have perforated her uterus or vagina.
If this ban becomes law, it will remove medical judgment completely. The House of Representatives has decided, against the advice of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, that D&X is never medically necessary.
Of course it isn't medically necessary -- almost always, if you can do a D&X, you can do a D&E. The problem is that D&X sometimes is medically preferable, when it poses less danger to the patient than the alternative procedure does.
The other PR problem with this ban, which probably is what got the American Medical Association to oppose it, is that it puts criminal penalties on doctors who use a safer procedure if they think it is indicated. Two years of prison.
This is a mistake by the House. Had I been such a conscienceless moron as to write this legislation, I would have made the penalty the immediate and permanent revocation of the physician's medical license.
A doctor who loses his license is a disgraced person, not even a proper doctor anymore; a doctor in prison for doing his duty as a physician by providing the best treatment is a martyr, a rallying cry, a cause celebre.
But the anti-choice advocates have won the naming battle, no doubt about that, and in the process have further muddied public understanding of the procedure.
"Partial Birth" implies that the fetus being aborted by the procedure is viable, i.e. capable of being born and surviving instead of being dead shortly after removal from the uterus, when generally it is no such thing.
People who hear about D&X vs. D&E can't figure out why one procedure is being banned while the other remains legal. There is a kind of symbolic difference in that D&X has the fetus partially removed from the uterus, while D&E has it die entirely inside the woman's body.
But the fetus is no closer to a viable birth regardless of which procedure is used; the only practical difference is the woman's health. We now know where Congress's priorities are: symbolism over safety.
|
http://www.ospolitics.org/healthenv/archives/2003/09/25/disregardi.php
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is against the banning of the D&X procedure that is in question. http://www.acog.org/
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-11-2003 00:14
is more in order, assuming the bill has provisions for the LIFE of the mother (not "health," which is easily bent). The whole filthy barbarous procedure has gone on too long. If abortion in general goes down the toilet with it, good riddance.
|