06-11-2003 04:44									#61
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I don't care about coat hangers. If you break the law, you take risks. The women who do that crap presumptively make the decision to have it done. I have no sympathy for people who kill their own children for any reason but the preservation of their own lives. Death for convenience must end.

	06-11-2003 04:51									#62
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Oh yeah . Im sure the women who have to go through this rare, traumatic procedure are doing it as a flippant matter of convenience. They probably pencil it in between Shiatsu and their manicure.

	06-11-2003 04:59									#63
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Jac:
The anti-choice people consider the termination of anything that's in the womb (whether a bicellular zygote or a 9 months old fetus) to be murder.
Edit: this means that any abortion, and not only the one that has been just banned, is eveil in their eyes.

	06-11-2003 05:04									#64
	Increase Your PM Length

How is that an emergency C-section is suddenly viewed as a benign procedure?

I've seen several. Ain't nothing benign about them.

	06-11-2003 05:44									#65
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Sava, or anyone else, I would be inclined to listen to you if you could explain how killing a baby at this point in its delivery could save the life of a mother? How could the birth of a dead infant be any different than the birth of a live infant under these circumstances?

	06-11-2003 05:58									#66
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by rah Even as a pro-choice proponent, I'm pleased that a law that will prohibit .... in which a fetus is partly delivered before being killed, usually by having its skull punctured.... has been signed. WHATEVER THEY CALL IT. I don't see it as slipping down the slope. I see it as prohibiting an inhumane form of abortion.

Given that it's a rare late term procedure, and the women having it as a therapeutic abortion procedure literally had months to decide to have legal abortions by other means, I have absolutely no problem outlawing this procedure on ethical grounds.

	06-11-2003 06:05									#67
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Jac de Molay What if she doesn't want a c-section? So you wanna force a woman to undergo C-section in second and third trimester, thus putting her life at risk from surgical complication? It always amazes me the lengths to which people go to tell someone what should be done with their body.

If the fetus is viable, then Roe v. Wade clearly establishes that the state has an independent protective interest in the fetus' life and well being. Not to the point where it can order a procedure which would likely kill the mother, however, neither can the fetus be ignored.

quote: Yeah, you go right ahead and show us how partial-birth abortions, which number ~2000 a year, have destroyed thousands of lives.

Considering that this procedure is generally performed on viable fetuses, and that the killing of the fetus is done with it's head exposed, the simple fact that it's ~2000 a year establishes "thousands" of lives destroyed, using the existing criteria of Roe v. Wade.

quote: And the decision goes just beyond life-saving situations, What if the women is on chemo? What if the fetus is severely damaged because of assault? And once and for all QUIT CALLING IT PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION

So it has a different technical name. If I refer to "car" instead of "automobile" I'm fairly sure we can be clear we're talking about the same thing.

	06-11-2003 06:42									#68
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I'm just pumped that Nebraska has a federal judge. Wasn't aware of that until now.

	06-11-2003 06:46									#69
	Re: Dubya signs anti-abortion bill Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Sava 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

It is also a sad day because serial killer Gary Leon Ridgway was caught, putting us one step closer to living in a police state.

	06-11-2003 07:39									#70
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by SpencerH As has been stated, the problem is that health is defined so broadly by the supremes to make any law including an out for health reasons unusable.

This is not correct, nor is it appropriate to blame SCOTUS. The term "health" itself, without qualification, is inherently vague, and there have been a litany of disability, insurance, worker's comp and other cases involving the use of the term, the great majority of which are reflected in "Words and Phrases." Words and Phrases is recognized as the definitive guide to decisional law construction and interpretation of words and phrases for which the terms themselves have been the subject of litigation. SCOTUS, like every other court, uses Words and Phrases as an authoritative source, as well as other existing decisional law.

There is nothing preventing Congress, or a state legislature, from giving a specific statutory definition of health, or any other term, for the purposes of the specific statute they wish to pass. The failure, deliberate or otherwise, is legislative, not judicial.

	06-11-2003 07:40									#71
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten I'm just pumped that Nebraska has a federal judge. Wasn't aware of that until now.

Every state has a few. And actually, it was a Federal judge in Nebraska who first defined an Indian as a human being for legal purposes in the United States, back in 1879.

	06-11-2003 08:10									#72
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui All they had to do was to make an exception for mother's health and restrict the ban to after viability (ie, third trimester) and they would have been good to go (ie, Constitutional).

I am going on record as to actually agree with Imran.

But I won't delude myself with wishful thinking that abortion protesters will stop with this. Elok's own comments bear this out.

	06-11-2003 08:34									#73
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Damn straight. BTW, what's this "constitutional" BS? The constitution and its amendments say nothing at all about abortion, or anything that could be even remotely construed as implying abortion rights. Yes, I know, Roe v. Wade, but if that had absolutely no constitutional background, which it doesn't appear to, it was merely an abuse of power.

	06-11-2003 08:42									#74
	Suffering from ads?

Personally, I think that a fetus has zero rights. I'm utterly unmoved by any emotional sentiment in this regard.

I'm all for a womens right to chose. At any point.

	06-11-2003 08:51									#75
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Jac de Molay What if she doesn't want a c-section? So you wanna force a woman to undergo C-section in second and third trimester, thus putting her life at risk from surgical complication? It always amazes me the lengths to which people go to tell someone what should be done with their body.

Obviously, if she's having an abortion, she needs someone to tell her what to do, she has no ****ing clue.

quote: Yeah, you go right ahead and show us how partial-birth abortions, which number ~2000 a year, have destroyed thousands of lives.

2000 qualifies as 1000's doesn't it?

quote: And the decision goes just beyond life-saving situations, What if the women is on chemo? What if the fetus is severely damaged because of assault?

You mean like Metzenbaums jammed into their skull?

quote: And once and for all QUIT CALLING IT PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION

The baby is partially out isn't it?

ACK!

	06-11-2003 09:04									#76
	Got spare money?

quote: And actually, it was a Federal judge in Nebraska who first defined an Indian as a human being for legal purposes in the United States, back in 1879.

We are a bastion for human rights.

BTW, I can't believe it took until 1879...

	06-11-2003 09:18									#77
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Elok Damn straight. BTW, what's this "constitutional" BS? The constitution and its amendments say nothing at all about abortion, or anything that could be even remotely construed as implying abortion rights. Yes, I know, Roe v. Wade, but if that had absolutely no constitutional background, which it doesn't appear to, it was merely an abuse of power.

I agree completely.

Maybe MtG can shed some light on the logic (or the lack thereof) of the Supreme Court?

	06-11-2003 09:44									#78
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Unfortunetly this law, as signed is unconstitutional, there is no doubt. First it makes no exception for the woman's health. Second, it may be too broad. It doesn't only apply to D&X or D&E after viability, but may also extend pre-viability. Sava is correct that Stenberg v. Carhart makes this law unconstitution, when it is basically the EXACT SAME LAW... geez, dumb Congress. All they had to do was to make an exception for mother's health and restrict the ban to after viability (ie, third trimester) and they would have been good to go (ie, Constitutional).

There's another constitutional issue everyone seems to be missing. Remember the Lopez case striking down the Violence Against Women Act? The Supremes said that, even though a problem may be nationwide, that fact alone doesn't give Congress the power to pass laws regulating it. Health and Safety is the province of the State unless it directly impacts on interstate commerce.

The Late-Term Abortion Act could be seens as a Violence Against Fetuses Act, having the same federalism problems as the Violence Against Women Act.

	06-11-2003 09:47									#79
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Elok Damn straight. BTW, what's this "constitutional" BS? The constitution and its amendments say nothing at all about abortion, or anything that could be even remotely construed as implying abortion rights. Yes, I know, Roe v. Wade, but if that had absolutely no constitutional background, which it doesn't appear to, it was merely an abuse of power.

On the other hand, nothing in the Constitution gives the government the right to dictate to individuals what medical procedures that person can or cannot have.

	06-11-2003 11:11									#80
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten quote: And actually, it was a Federal judge in Nebraska who first defined an Indian as a human being for legal purposes in the United States, back in 1879. We are a bastion for human rights. BTW, I can't believe it took until 1879...

That's okay. Women weren't persons under Canadian law until the 1930s, as I recall...

	06-11-2003 11:13									#81
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Ahh, the good old days.

	06-11-2003 11:33									#82
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Remember the Lopez case striking down the Violence Against Women Act? The Supremes said that, even though a problem may be nationwide, that fact alone doesn't give Congress the power to pass laws regulating it. Health and Safety is the province of the State unless it directly impacts on interstate commerce.

You mean Morrison. Lopez dealt with anti-gun school zones. Though both dealt with the same principle. Anyway, Morrison was a different beast. It was an anti-rape law, basically justified by saying that rape leads to less travel by women. That was their commerical justificiation. You got the ruling incorrect, however. The SCOTUS NEVER said it must 'directly' impact interstate commerce (or else a whole bevy of laws would have been struck down by that precedent). The SCOTUS merely said that a Congressional law invoking commerce clause power must have something to do with commerce. Rape and violence by private individuals against other private individuals outside a commercial context didn't.

Abortion, on the other hand, deals with hospitals or clinics, ie, commerical activities. It usually isn't something done by private individuals to each other outside the commercial sphere (in fact it is a part of commerce). Therefore, I think a partial birth ban would survive Constitutional challenge under the commerce clause.

	06-11-2003 11:42									#83
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: What if she doesn't want a c-section? So you wanna force a woman to undergo C-section in second and third trimester, thus putting her life at risk from surgical complication? It always amazes me the lengths to which people go to tell someone what should be done with their body.

Seems reasonable to me that people have the right to do what they want with their own bodies.

How many eyes does a pregnant woman have? Four or two?

quote: Yeah, you go right ahead and show us how partial-birth abortions, which number ~2000 a year, have destroyed thousands of lives.

According to the Alan Guttmacher report in 2000:

1.5% abortions in the U.S. done at 21 weeks or later (19,650 total)

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

quote: And the decision goes just beyond life-saving situations, What if the women is on chemo? What if the fetus is severely damaged because of assault?

So because the child is severely damaged, we ought to kill the child?

Chemotherapy's a better question. I think women ought to have the option to postpone chemo in lieu of other less invasive treatments during pregnancy. They should never have to choose between the life of their child and proper medical care.

	06-11-2003 15:27									#84
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat Every state has a few. And actually, it was a Federal judge in Nebraska who first defined an Indian as a human being for legal purposes in the United States, back in 1879.

MtG, do you have cite for this case? What you the case decided is so bizzare as to be discombobulating.

	06-11-2003 16:18									#85
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I wish someone would post the exact statute. The stories I've read do not confine the ban to "late term." It seems to apply to any pregnancy 14 weeks or longer. This is the earliest borderline for "state" "regulation" permitted under Roe v. Wade.

This is a total ban with no exceptions for health. Now I fully understand such an unrestricted ban during the "late term." But this statute is not limited to "late term" according to the story. I would think "late term" would be on the the order of 36 weeks or so.

If this statute passes constitutional muster, I believe a total ban on abortions from 14 weeks on would pass constitutional muster. This statute is indeed a major step toward a total ban of abortions by the Federal Government from the second trimester on. (I also think there is a significant Federal Power issue here as well.)

We need to look at the statute.

	06-11-2003 17:04									#86
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat There is nothing preventing Congress, or a state legislature, from giving a specific statutory definition of health, or any other term, for the purposes of the specific statute they wish to pass. The failure, deliberate or otherwise, is legislative, not judicial.

All I can say is that the undefined (or perhaps court defined) use of 'health' by the courts, including the supremes, since Roe V Wade was the reasoning given on the floor of the senate for why such a clause ccould not be included in the law.

	06-11-2003 17:50									#87
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I just shake my head at any law established that flies counter to the advice of the expert organisation whose members actually deal with the issue.

If such a procedure is resorted to for good medical reasons (as some reported news here suggests), then banning it is endangering the woman in some abortion procedures. If my morals are given the choice between endangering the woman for a less shocking-sounding procedure or going the way where the woman's health is less risked I will choose the woman's wellbeing every time.

	06-11-2003 18:15									#88
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by rah Even as a pro-choice proponent, I'm pleased that a law that will prohibit .... in which a fetus is partly delivered before being killed, usually by having its skull punctured.... has been signed. WHATEVER THEY CALL IT. I don't see it as slipping down the slope. I see it as prohibiting an inhumane form of abortion.

This is the most disturbing crap I've heard in a week. What an immensly terrible procedure.

	06-11-2003 18:21									#89
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Zkribbler On the other hand, nothing in the Constitution gives the government the right to dictate to individuals what medical procedures that person can or cannot have.

And it doesn't tell us explicitly that we can't rape howler monkeys either, but that isn't a constitutional right! Honestly...

	07-11-2003 02:34									#90
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I've been clicking around the internet about an hour now and I still cannot find a copy of the statute as passed. Any help would be appreciated.

However, I am struck by the disingenuousness of this statute. There is nothing, in my view, that distinguishes the killing a fetus partially born from killing it in the womb if that fetus is viable.