A Joyful day for the religious right…Women beware.

[Moksha]

First. . .DOCTORS ARE AGAINST THIS LAW. The people who should be making decisions regarding women's health have strongly opposed this law. These men and women, who are far more versed in the concept of medical ethics, believe that such legislation PREVENTS THEM FROM SAVING LIVES.

The issue isn't about late-term abortions people CHOOSE to have (which is very rare). It is about abortions that are performed in order to save a mother's life.

Furthermore, the definition of "partial-birth" abortions is far from definite. So. . .I would be interested to hear WHOSE definition you read, gf. Keep in mind that the terminology was created specifically by right-wing zealots. . .there is NO medical definition of "partial birth abortions."

Depending on how you interpret the wording of the new law, it could potentially make ALL abortions illegal. In fact, the banned procedure does not exactly ban late-term abortions, but a specific kind. Did anyone think that maybe doctors choose the procedure for a reason? (They do. . .it is less dangersous than other methods of saving a woman's life).

But then again, what do they know. . .they're only doctors. . .who are they to think that they know more about health than the conservative politicians. . .

[MYOR]

This is the definition I got from womanissues.com

Partial Birth Abortion: In the partial birth abortion procedure, a physician delivers a baby to the point where only the head remains inside the womb but then punctures the back of the skull and removes the brain before completing delivery. Partial birth abortion makes up only 1% of all abortions performed.

:(

[Moksha]

Called” Partial Birth Abortion
By Rachel Allen, CA NOW Public Relations Director

Anti-choice activists are using the misleading rhetoric of so-called “partial birth abortion” as a back entrance to banning abortion all together. Despite the media’s insistence on using the phrase, just as anti-choice activists intended them to, there really is no such thing as "partial birth abortion." The majority of American’s support a woman’s right to choose an abortion, so to further their agenda, anti-choice activists and legislators lie and mislead the public by twisting language, and painting grisly pictures of a procedure that doesn't really happen. The phrase is political terminology made up by ultra-conservative, anti-abortion rights forces to gain public support for their cause. What they don't say is that restrictions already exist on late term abortion procedures, and that these procedures only happen under extreme circumstances, like when a woman's life or health is at risk. Most Americans believe that the phrase "partial-birth abortion" refers to late-term abortion. This is not true. Some explain the definition as when the fetus passes through the birth canal, which would be true of all abortions. It is also important to know that the so called “partial birth abortion” legislation does not recognize the rare cases of profoundly malformed fetuses, or catastrophic pregnancies where women need late term abortions to protect their own health. In all of so-called "partial birth abortion" legislation at state and federal levels, the wording is consistently so vague that it could be applied to abortion procedures at ANY stage of pregnancy, and includes no provisions for late term abortions where the woman’s life is at risk.



The Supreme Court said in its 2002 decision on a so called “partial birth abortion” Nebraska law, that such laws would interfere with all abortions from the twelfth week onward. In addition, the high court said the bans failed to provide exceptions for women whose health was endangered. It rejected the law for those two reasons. Bush is pushing a similar bill on the federal level that could eventually be addressed by the Supreme Court, in effect wasting the Court’s time with issues it has already addressed.



The freedom to choose when, if, and how many pregnancies to carry to term is a vital decision for women’s self-determination. Our country should trust women and their doctors to make these decisions, not politicians or other elected officials with no medical background. Women deserve the right to control our own bodies and reproduction, which is indeed the cornerstone of freedom and self-determination. As feminists and pro-choice advocates, we won’t let the radical anti-choice movement’s so-called “partial birth abortion” legislation, be the back door through which abortion is banned altogether, a move that would result in countless women dying from back alley, un-safe procedures. Access to safe and legal abortion is a woman’s right. Without the right to control our own bodies, what rights do we really have?

[Moksha]

From publiceye.com:

Late-term abortion is an uncommon medical procedure done in the third trimester. When the right uses the carefully chosen term "partial-birth abortion," it plays to the ardent emotions of both the pro- and anti-choice forces as well as to the substantial group of Americans in the "middle" who support a woman's right to choose but are vulnerable to arguments that would justify certain restrictions. The phrase "partial-birth abortion" is a political, not a medical, description of the procedure, and so it has been necessary to define it when creating legislation. Although the meaning and intent of the term have been the focus of much debate, the widespread use of the term "partial-birth abortion" in the media and by the public is an indication of the success of the right in controlling how the topic is discussed.

[Moksha]

"The bill does NOT ban only one procedure.* "Partial-birth" is a political, not a medical, term.* The bill's language is deliberately vague, banning safe and common procedures used throughout pregnancy.



The bill is NOT a "late-term" abortion ban.* It would ban abortions throughout pregnancy.*



The bill is NOT constitutional.* In 2000, the Supreme Court found Nebraska's so-called "partial-birth" abortion ban unconstitutional in Stenberg v. Carhart.* This bill contains the same flaws as the Nebraska legislation.



These bans are NOT supported by the public.* Three states (Washington, Colorado, and Maine) have considered these bans by referendum.* Voters in all three states rejected such bans.*



These bans are NOT supported by the medical community.* Contrary to repeated anti-choice claims, the American Medical Association does NOT support this legislation.* Furthermore, respected health organizations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Medical Women's Association, the American Nurses Association and the American Public Health Association oppose these bans."

[Moksha]

MOST IMPORTANTLY, here is what the EXPERTS on the topic have to say.

From The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) site:

Statement on So-Called "Partial Birth Abortion" Laws By The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists


The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) continues to oppose state or federal legislation known as so-called "partial birth abortion" bans. "Partial birth abortion" is a non-medical term apparently referring to a particular abortion procedure known as intact dilatation and extraction (intact D&X, or D&X), a rare variant of a more common midterm abortion procedure know as dilatation and evacuation (D&E).

In June 2000, the US Supreme Court struck down a Nebraska "partial birth abortion" law in the case of Stenberg v. Carhart, ruling that the law violated the US Constitution by (1) failing to provide any exception "for the preservation of the health of the mother," and (2) being so broadly written that it could prohibit other types of abortion procedures such as D&E, thereby "unduly burdening a women's ability to choose abortion itself."

As stated in a 1997 Statement of Policy issued by ACOG's Executive Board, and in ACOG's amicus curiae brief filed in the Stenberg case, ACOG continues to find it disturbing that legislators would take any action that would supersede the medical judgment of a trained physician, in consultation with a patient, as to what is the safest and most appropriate medical procedure for that particular patient.

ACOG's 1997 Statement of Policy affirmed that position and explained why ACOG believes such legislation to be "inappropriate, ill advised, and dangerous." The policy statement noted that although a select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which intact D&X would be the only option to protect the life or health of a woman, intact D&X "may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances, can make this decision."

The Statement of Policy further reads that such legislation has the potential to outlaw other abortion techniques that are critical to the lives and health of American women. This was the second basis upon which the Supreme Court struck down the Nebraska law in the Stenberg case. Such "partial birth" laws are invariably overly broad or imprecisely drawn, frequently using terms — such as "partial birth abortion" — that are not recognized by the very constituency (physicians) whose conduct the law would criminalize. They purport to address a single procedure, yet describe elements of other procedures used in obstetrics and gynecology. Thus, even when legislators add an exception to a so-called "partial birth abortion" ban that includes protecting a woman's health, the ban may fail to have the necessary specificity to avoid encroaching on other safe and constitutionally protected medical procedures. For this reason, the ban would fail the two-part test outlined by the Supreme Court in the Stenberg decision.

The misinformation currently circulating in political discussions of abortion procedures only reinforces ACOG's position: in the individual circumstances of each particular medical case, the patient and physician — not legislators — are the appropriate parties to determine the best method of treatment.

[Moksha]

Repeat for emphasis:

Doctors say:

in the individual circumstances of each particular medical case, the patient and physician — not legislators — are the appropriate parties to determine the best method of treatment.

[Moksha]

From womensenews.org:

artial-Birth' Abortion Term Puzzles Many Doctors

Run Date: 07/28/03

By Suzanne Batchelor
WeNews correspondent


Doctors are divided about the medical implications of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, now in final revision in Congress. While some say it refers to one procedure, others think vague wording will inhibit doctors from performing any abortions.






(WOMENSENEWS)--"Go ask your doctor." That would be the predictable advice for lay people wondering exactly which surgical procedures could be outlawed by the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, now undergoing final revision work in Congress.


Those who do ask their doctors, however, are apt to find that their physicians don't necessarily understand the clinical implications of the about-to-be-passed law either. Many doctors and medical organizations say they assume it applies to just one procedure rarely used late in the second-trimester, known as intact dilatation and extraction or intact D and X. However, they also say that since the language of the act is not specific, it could be interpreted as criminalizing all abortions.


The Washington-based American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which represents 90 percent of U.S. board-certified obstetrician-gynecologists, opposes the ban, as does the Chicago-based American Medical Association, which represents 297,000 U.S. physicians in all specialties. Some smaller physician groups, such as the Holland, Michigan-based Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, favor the act.


The Senate passed the ban in mid-March by a 64-33 vote, and the House passed it in early June by 282-139. The chambers face a hurdle in reconciling their two versions. While the Senate added a nonbinding amendment supporting the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade 1973 decision legalizing abortion, the bill's lead House sponsors adamantly oppose including that language.


Doctors Subject to Fines, Imprisonment


According to the act, "any physician who . . . knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."


Dr. Paul D. Blumenthal, an obstetrician-gynecologist at Baltimore's Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center and professor at its Medical University, predicts that, if the act is made into law, some doctors would refuse to provide any second-trimester abortions under the threat of new criminal prosecution and civil liability.


One focus of medical objection to the act is its lack of precision about the issue of "viability," or when a fetus could survive outside the womb. For many, viability is the boundary point, reached in the third trimester or very late in the second, when a fetus is considered fully human.


In a statement, the American Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says it "has never supported post-viability abortions except for the constitutionally-protected exception of saving the life or health of a woman" and that it continues to oppose state or federal legislation known as "partial-birth abortion bans." The group says that descriptions of "partial-birth abortion," in this act and in previous legislation, "are vague and do not delineate a specific procedure recognized in the medical literature." The American Medical Association says it refuses to use the term.


Obstetrician-gynecologist Dr. Katharine O'Connell of New York's Columbia Presbyterian Hospital says it is not possible to say what the law does or does not ban because the language is too vague.


"There's no such thing as a 'partial birth abortion,'" says O'Connell, a member of the New York-based advocacy group Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health. "Right from the start the name has been coined to confuse the public," she says. "There's no such thing in the medical textbooks, it's purely a political term."


'Bright Line' in Act Called Blurry


O'Connell challenges the act's assertion that the ban "will draw a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide." Says O'Connell: "The line between personhood, between a fetus and a person, is the line of viability . . . Nothing is changed with this law regarding that line."


Except when they are needed to save the health or life of a woman, abortions of a viable fetus are already illegal in most states. It is therefore widely assumed that the ban is moving in on abortions performed in the second trimester, or roughly the 12th through 24th week of pregnancy, when the fetus is not yet viable.


The proposed law itself defines partial-birth abortion--or those to be banned--as "an abortion in which (A) the person performing the abortion deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, 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 for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and (B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus . . ."


Other language in the act--"partial-birth abortions involve the killing of a child that is in the process, in fact mere inches away from, becoming a 'person'"--leads some to believe "birth" is being redefined as any fetus leaving the vagina at any time, which could apply to all abortions.


Intact D and X Most Closely Described


Minneapolis obstetrician Dr. Steve Calvin says that the act describes and bans intact D and X, a procedure he says is not necessary because other options exist. One of 600 members of the Physicians' Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth, a Washington, D.C.-based volunteer group formed to promote the ban and similar laws. Calvin says doctors' views of the new ban would likely match their views on abortion generally. Doctors who oppose abortion, he says, will largely be in favor of the act.


Intact dilation and extraction, or intact D and X, is most often performed after the 19th week, when the fetus, while not yet viable, is strong enough to stay "intact" or in one piece. The fetus is pulled from the uterus as far as possible and the fetal head, which has grown too large to pass through the dilated cervix, is decompressed or partly crushed to permit vaginal delivery of an intact fetus.


Another second-trimester procedure that might--or might not--be banned by the act is dilation and evacuation, or D and E. As with intact D and X, the cervix is dilated and the fetus is pulled out through the vagina. The D and E is usually performed earlier than a D and X--or before the 19th week--and forceps are used to grasp the fetus. Being less developed, the fetus tends to come apart when grasped and exits the uterus in pieces, not intact. (Because it is done earlier--and more physicians have been trained in it--the D and E is much more common.)


A third procedure is induced labor, in which medications (in heavier doses than at full-term pregnancy) cause a labor process that propels the fetus out of the uterus. The 19th or 20th week is the earliest time labor can be induced.


Some anti-choice advocates find both the D and E and intact D and X objectionable because a physician destroys a "living" fetus. They prefer the more passive approach of induced labor, in which the fetus dies, but indirectly, whether from leaving the uterus or from whatever fatal defect may cause it to die during pregnancy, at birth or soon after. Critics of induced labor, however, say studies show it presents a greater risk of harmful complications for the woman than do the "surgical" procedures.


Ban Criticized for Restricting Medical Choice


Many doctors oppose the ban because they expect it to restrict the choices of patients and doctors when a pregnancy runs into trouble in the second trimester. O'Connell says this is the time--because of ultrasound tests or amniocentesis tests normally given at 18 to 20 weeks of pregnancy--when fatal birth defects are usually found. She says she sees one or two fatal defects each week in her practice.


Knowing a fetus will die during pregnancy or a short time after birth means parents must make crucial decisions based on all options described by the physician, including terminating the pregnancy or allowing the fatal flaw to take its course, with the fetus dying during pregnancy, at birth or soon after.


O'Connell says that while some women choose to let a fetal flaw to take its course, many women decide otherwise.


"These are horrendous times for anyone," she says, referring to parents faced with a fetal defect. "But it's not always when the fetus has a problem. We have mothers with heart disease or cancer or problems where they can't continue the pregnancy without severe risk to their health. This law has no option for the health of the mother."


Blumenthal, the Johns Hopkins obstetrician and gynecologist, agrees that the second trimester is often a crucial time when fetal problems are discovered.


"Absolutely it takes into the second trimester to find some of these conditions," he says. In a June statement on the physicians' Web site Medscape, Blumenthal describes skeletal dysplasia, a fatal fetal condition resulting in "the birth of infants who are destined to die within the first few minutes to hours of life and whose only experience of life is that of suffocation as they gasp in an attempt to breathe."


If a couple decides to terminate such a pregnancy, he wrote, it is his duty to terminate it "using the safest, most effective procedure." The act, however, would restrict his and his patients' options both before and during surgery, he says.


Suzanne Batchelor has written on health and medicine for Medscape, CBS Healthwatch and the Texas Medical Association's "Healthline Texas," and for the national science series "Earth and Sky."

[mhd]

Originally posted by MYOR:
This is the definition I got from womanissues.com

Partial Birth Abortion: In the partial birth abortion procedure, a physician delivers a baby to the point where only the head remains inside the womb but then punctures the back of the skull and removes the brain before completing delivery. Partial birth abortion makes up only 1% of all abortions performed.

:(

once the skull is punctured the brain is suctioned out, collapsing the skull. why is the head left in the womb while this is done? wouldn't it be easier to just deliver the fetus and drop it on the floor, head first?

[MYOR]

Originally posted by mhd:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MYOR:
This is the definition I got from womanissues.com

Partial Birth Abortion: In the partial birth abortion procedure, a physician delivers a baby to the point where only the head remains inside the womb but then punctures the back of the skull and removes the brain before completing delivery. Partial birth abortion makes up only 1% of all abortions performed.

:(

once the skull is punctured the brain is suctioned out, collapsing the skull. why is the head left in the womb while this is done? wouldn't it be easier to just deliver the fetus and drop it on the floor, head first? </font>[/QUOTE]Cuz then that would be giving birth and killing the baby.. :(

[mhd]

Originally posted by MYOR:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mhd:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MYOR:
This is the definition I got from womanissues.com

Partial Birth Abortion: In the partial birth abortion procedure, a physician delivers a baby to the point where only the head remains inside the womb but then punctures the back of the skull and removes the brain before completing delivery. Partial birth abortion makes up only 1% of all abortions performed.

:(

once the skull is punctured the brain is suctioned out, collapsing the skull. why is the head left in the womb while this is done? wouldn't it be easier to just deliver the fetus and drop it on the floor, head first? </font>[/QUOTE]Cuz then that would be giving birth and killing the baby.. :( </font>[/QUOTE]why don't they just inject the fetus/baby/nonentity in the butt while its sticking halfway out of the womb with cyanide? is there some value to the sucked out brain? what do they do with that anyway? come to think of it, don't babies come out headfirst?

[Bold Soul]

I'll ask this again.

When does existence begin?

[liL Ray]

Originally posted by Danny Gardner:
I'll ask this again.

When does existence begin?

I think eileen sums this up very well...for me existance starts when the baby is born....

Originally posted by eileen:


so to me, it's really simple. as long as the fetus is living off MY body and can't survive on it's own.....

for me existance starts when the baby is born....at least the government think so...try getting food stamps and a s.s. number for the unborn....corporate world think so too...try buying life insurance on the fetus, even if you know what sex the child will be.....all this talk about existance begin at conception or this month or that month is hogwash and made for the religious zealots to get the few who are wavering to go along with part of their fight...kind of a "divide and conquer" game plan.

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by Danny Gardner:
I'll ask this again.

When does existence begin?

I think the question is actually mute Danny.

Consider this:

One’s tonsils are full of living cells, one’s lungs, liver, kidneys, living organs. They are removed by doctors on an everyday basis and with little or no objection except for those religious freaks that don’t believe in medical intervention.

When considering the embryo/fetus those opposing abortion say but the difference is this entity can actually grow into a living human being, unlike other things like a kidney.

But now that doesn’t work now and in the future. How does this issue get dealt with when any living cell from a human body can be used to clone or create another human being?

By the pro-lifers argument, isn’t any cell that gets destroyed that could create life murder?

Isn’t in funny that the same people who are against abortion for the claim that it prevents life also against cloning, insemination and other new technological ways of creating humans?

The problem is that a potential is not an actual, a fetus is not human and thus, has no rights based on the properties that a human possesses that gives them those rights.

The third trimester is a different stage though, and perhaps ‘some’ regulation should be considered. But even in that case, the laws governing such a regulation should be based on the medical communities input, not the religious right.

[Moksha]

Originally posted by mhd:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MYOR:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mhd:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MYOR:
This is the definition I got from womanissues.com

Partial Birth Abortion: In the partial birth abortion procedure, a physician delivers a baby to the point where only the head remains inside the womb but then punctures the back of the skull and removes the brain before completing delivery. Partial birth abortion makes up only 1% of all abortions performed.

:(

once the skull is punctured the brain is suctioned out, collapsing the skull. why is the head left in the womb while this is done? wouldn't it be easier to just deliver the fetus and drop it on the floor, head first? </font>[/QUOTE]Cuz then that would be giving birth and killing the baby.. :( </font>[/QUOTE]why don't they just inject the fetus/baby/nonentity in the butt while its sticking halfway out of the womb with cyanide? is there some value to the sucked out brain? what do they do with that anyway? come to think of it, don't babies come out headfirst? </font>[/QUOTE]I'm sure years of medical training and history are where we'll find the answers to those questions. When medical procedures are condensed and simplified into lay-people's language and put in a context that does not include the many intracacies of a woman's health, it might not always sound pretty. (most surgical procedures sound pretty horrific, really) Until my knowledge of reproductive health and surgical procedures is better than that of the OB/GYNs, I'll trust their opinion.

[liL Ray]

[quote]Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:

The third trimester is a different stage though, and perhaps ‘some’ regulation should be considered. But even in that case, the laws governing such a regulation should be based on the medical communities input, not the religious right.

you may have a point here, but I respectfully disagree...this would be a loophole that you could drive 10 big MACK trucks through....it's all about choice....when you start to let the government step in and regulate ones body, where will they draw the line?....I'm am not from the camp of 'choice sometime'!

[Moksha]

Originally posted by Danny Gardner:
I'll ask this again.

When does existence begin?

Well before you are pregnant.

Maybe a better question on this occasion is: who's life is more important, a grown woman, or an unborn fetus?

In the larger context of abortion as a whole, I think the answer is totally dependent upon an individual's personal beliefs. That is why people who believe it starts at conception (personal belief) should NOT have abortions. And people that believe that it begins at birth (personal belief) should have the right.

[MYOR]

Originally posted by Orion : Konbit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Danny Gardner:
I'll ask this again.

When does existence begin?

Well before you are pregnant.

Maybe a better question on this occasion is: who's life is more important, a grown woman, or an unborn fetus?

In the larger context of abortion as a whole, I think the answer is totally dependent upon an individual's personal beliefs. That is why people who believe it starts at conception (personal belief) should NOT have abortions. And people that believe that it begins at birth (personal belief) should have the right. </font>[/QUOTE]In the end its the woman that has to deal with their choice. I for myself could not have an abortion.. but I don't have the RIGHT to tell others what to do with their body.. I'm sadden by woman that use this as a measure of birth control.. or have one to spite their mate.. but again, in the end, it will be there demons they will have to deal with...

Your body, Your choice..

[ October 22, 2003, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: MYOR ]

[jimmymack-2000]

Originally posted by liL Ray:
it's all about choice....when you start to let the government step in and regulate ones body, where will they draw the line?....I'm am not from the camp of 'choice sometime'!

Many agencies--government and otherwise--already have the right to tell you what to do with your body. Insurers, for instance, will charge you more for coverage if you are a smoker...

[liL Ray]

Originally posted by jimmymack-2000:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by liL Ray:
it's all about choice....when you start to let the government step in and regulate ones body, where will they draw the line?....I'm am not from the camp of 'choice sometime'!

Many agencies--government and otherwise--already have the right to tell you what to do with your body. Insurers, for instance, will charge you more for coverage if you are a smoker... </font>[/QUOTE]can we stick to the topic at hand and not come up with far reaching, out in left field commentary?....thanks.....

[mdpm99]

Originally posted by Orion : Konbit:
Repeat for emphasis:

Doctors say:

in the individual circumstances of each particular medical case, the patient and physician — not legislators — are the appropriate parties to determine the best method of treatment.

This is ...the bottom line.

d

[mhd]

Originally posted by david mancuso:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Orion : Konbit:
Repeat for emphasis:

Doctors say:

in the individual circumstances of each particular medical case, the patient and physician — not legislators — are the appropriate parties to determine the best method of treatment.

This is ...the bottom line.

d </font>[/QUOTE]the idealism expressed here is admirable, the reality of the practice of medicine today is far different, regardless of the health issue involved.

apparently, folks don't want congress involved, because congress can't seem to get it right, imo, there is a way to craft this legislation to ban partial birth abortions, of the brain sucking kind, only, and provide the appropriate caveats regarding women's health. it just won't work politically.
the alternative to no congressional input is to leave the issue to the states, bad idea.

further, no congressional input, would mean choice would only be available for those who could afford it.

[Moksha]

Originally posted by mhd:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by david mancuso:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Orion : Konbit:
Repeat for emphasis:

Doctors say:

in the individual circumstances of each particular medical case, the patient and physician — not legislators — are the appropriate parties to determine the best method of treatment.

This is ...the bottom line.

d </font>[/QUOTE]there is a way to craft this legislation to ban partial birth abortions, of the brain sucking kind...</font>[/QUOTE]Even if there was a law with clear wording. . .why should there be legislation that bans a medical procedure that the doctors find ethical and useful?

[Bill Blake]

Originally posted by mhd:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by david mancuso:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Orion : Konbit:
Repeat for emphasis:

Doctors say:

in the individual circumstances of each particular medical case, the patient and physician — not legislators — are the appropriate parties to determine the best method of treatment.

This is ...the bottom line.

d </font>[/QUOTE]the idealism expressed here is admirable, the reality of the practice of medicine today is far different, regardless of the health issue involved.

apparently, folks don't want congress involved, because congress can't seem to get it right, imo, there is a way to craft this legislation to ban partial birth abortions, of the brain sucking kind, only, and provide the appropriate caveats regarding women's health. it just won't work politically.
the alternative to no congressional input is to leave the issue to the states, bad idea.

further, no congressional input, would mean choice would only be available for those who could afford it. </font>[/QUOTE]Do you think the supreme court is gonna let this law fly?

[mhd]

Originally posted by Orion : Konbit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mhd:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by david mancuso:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Orion : Konbit:
Repeat for emphasis:

Doctors say:

in the individual circumstances of each particular medical case, the patient and physician — not legislators — are the appropriate parties to determine the best method of treatment.

This is ...the bottom line.

d </font>[/QUOTE]there is a way to craft this legislation to ban partial birth abortions, of the brain sucking kind...</font>[/QUOTE]Even if there was a law with clear wording. . .why should there be legislation that bans a medical procedure that the doctors find ethical and useful? </font>[/QUOTE]first, explain to me when it is ethical and useful in your own words. i described the procedure in layman's terms and everybody in this thread, except you, ignored it. i don't get how you can endorse it but can't talk about it. on its face, the procedure reaches a level of barbarism even worse than capital punishment, imo. the choice to manipulate the fetus in the womb to turn it around and leave the head in the womb is a political choice, not a medical choice. so talk to me and leave the shortcomings of the right wing out of it, and lets assume that legal abortions are not threatened