Still Hating America.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I have friends who are pirates. If they happen upon this board and read fake Pirate talk they might move on instead of registering and I would find that sad. "Shiver me timbers" is how real pirates talk. "avast" is Hollywood- it's not funny and I ask you to stop using the word- it offends.

If any pirates were offended by what I wrote, I am truly and deeply sorry. I also apologize to any corsairs and privateers, to any fans of the young Barry Bonds, and to the new masters of the universe.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I thought the premise of the decision was that there were other procedures availabel and an exception where necessary to save the woman's life.

The (one) article I read said that Ginsberg was particularly concerned because the law did not have an exception to save the life of the mother. Was that wrong?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Adder
That (one) article I read said that Ginsberg was particularly concerned because the law did not have an exception to save the life of the mother. Was that wrong?

Strangely enough, my wife and I had this very conversation 12 hours ago. Life, yes. Health, no.

eta:

• Yesterday’s Gonzales v. Carhart ruling contains a provision protecting the life of the mother, but not her health. According to Doe v. Bolton, the little-known case decided on the same day as Roe, women’s "health" must be protected under any abortion ban after fetal viability. "Health" was defined as "all factors -- physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age -- relevant to the well-being of the patient." The Supreme Court eviscerated that precedent yesterday.

link

[Adder]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Correct me if I'm wrong here, although partial birth abortions are prohibited (unless the life of the mother is at risk) during the same period of gestation, a mother and her doctor can still abort -- they just have to use the dilation and extraction method, which is removing pieces of the child one by one. All remnants are vacuumed out -- the same with an early abortion. With a partial birth abortion, the doctor actually delivers the child (in breech position) -- except when the head is about to come out, the doctor stops, jams scissors into the back of the child's head and sucks its brains out -- all so that he can say the child was killed while still in the woman's body.

Link of diagram showing procedure - drawing (not real child): http://www.pathlights.com/abortion/images/Abort.gif

Since the law still allows the dilation and extraction method very late in the pregnancy term (you can still abort a fetus that is 6 months), why is everyone up in arms over banning the procedure where the baby is hanging out except for its head? In the UK and most other countries that allow abortions, the Partial Birth procedure is not done. I'm surprised the pro-choice movement is advocating so strongly to keep the procedure legal when the D&E procedure is still legal. From what I've read, D&E isn't much more of a risk to the mother than Partial Birth abortion.

Why should legality turn on the choice of procedure used? And why is Congress and not the doctor's office the right place to decide which procedure to use?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

• Yesterday’s Gonzales v. Carhart ruling contains a provision protecting the life of the mother, but not her health. According to Doe v. Bolton, the little-known case decided on the same day as Roe, women’s "health" must be protected under any abortion ban after fetal viability. "Health" was defined as "all factors -- physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age -- relevant to the well-being of the patient." The Supreme Court eviscerated that precedent yesterday.

link

• The controversial abortion procedure outlawed Wednesday by the Supreme Court is rarely performed but may offer distinct advantages over other second-trimester abortion methods, Bay Area doctors said Wednesday.
  
  The point, doctors said, is it should be up to medical professionals to decide what's safest for their patients.
  
  "There are medical situations where this procedure is necessary to protect a woman's health," said Dr. Anne Foster-Rosales, chief medical officer of Planned Parenthood Golden Gate. "This ruling tells us that women's health is no longer the priority." . . .
  
  Doctors have argued that the method is sometimes safer than the much more common dilation and evacuation procedure. With this method, the fetus is dismembered in the womb and removed in pieces. The procedure involves inserting medical instruments into the uterus multiple times, potentially increasing the risk of bleeding, infection and patient discomfort, doctors have said.
  
  A third second-trimester abortion method involves inducing labor and delivering the fetus, sometimes after it has been given a deadly injection in the womb. But it can be a lengthy and particularly emotionally draining process, and few women choose to induce labor, doctors said.
  
  There aren't many studies comparing the second-trimester abortion methods, but at least one study suggested that the banned method is marginally safer than dilation and evacuation, said Dr. Eleanor Drey, medical director of the Women's Options Center at San Francisco General Hospital.
  
  "That's one of the things that is disappointing about the decision. The Supreme Court reviewed the best medical evidence and they disregarded it," said Drey, who was among several doctors who testified in cases leading up Wednesday's decision. "The goal of the intact procedures is to decrease the possibility of any kind of damage to the uterus."
  
  Most second-trimester abortions occur over a two- to three-day period, starting with an office visit during which dilators are inserted into the cervix so it can be opened slowly overnight. If the fetus is to be removed without labor, the woman returns to the office the next day, when she is administered local or general anesthesia while the abortion is completed. A third day may be necessary if complications arise.
  
  Second-trimester abortions are far more expensive than first-trimester abortions, usually costing more than $1,000, although they are covered by most insurance carriers.
  
  None of the procedures for a second-trimester abortion is pleasant, and doctors on Wednesday were reluctant to discuss details of the different methods. The point of the Supreme Court's ruling, they said, wasn't in the details of the procedure, but in the government taking away physicians' ability to make the best medical decisions for their patients.

SF Chronicle

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Abortion's like gun control. Those who want it will always get it. Although, I would agree that women who have the least means will likely be dissuaded if additional hurdles are added.

I'm not supporter of the partial birth thing, but I'm very much against allowing the other forms that remain legal to be free and easily accessed (I'd even fund that with massive government money [happily paid through a tax increase on my income bracket]).

The "conservatives" who see this as a means to further restrict other forms of abortion are no conservatives at all. They're just finding new ways to create a million new poor and destitute mouths for the govt teat every year. We should pay for abortions and the pill for every American who wants it, and incentivize with cash those who cannot afford their issue to utilize borth control.

My silver lining: I'm chairing an event for Planned Parenthood later on this year. I suspect that getting donations and selling tickets for it will not be difficult.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop [list]The controversial abortion procedure outlawed Wednesday by the Supreme Court

I am in support of abotion rights, but I wonder how much of this sort reporting is ignorance and how much is intentionally trying to massage the SF mob.

[Replaced_Texan]

Search engine by zip code for donations to the primary races. Mitt Romney seems to be doing well around here.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Which is to say that I've seen it suggested that you'll set a lot more regulation of abortion now, with the practical effect of making it more difficult -- nay, impossible -- to get an abortion as a practical matter.

And they'll have ammunition:

• Respect for human life finds an ultimate expression in the bond of love the mother has for her child. The Act recognizes this reality as well. Whether to have an abortion requires a difficult and painful moral decision. Casey, supra, at 852-853 (opinion of the Court). While we find no reliable data to measure the phenomenon, it seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained. See Brief for Sandra Cano et al. as Amici Curiae in No. 05-380, pp. 22-24. Severe depression and loss of esteem can follow. See ibid.
  
  In a decision so fraught with emotional consequence some doctors may prefer not to disclose precise details of the means that will be used, confining themselves to the required statement of risks the procedure entails. From one standpoint this ought not to be surprising. Any number of patients facing imminent surgical procedures would prefer not to hear all details, lest the usual anxiety preceding invasive medical procedures become the more intense. This is likely the case with the abortion procedures here in issue. See, e.g., Nat. Abortion Federation, 330 F. Supp. 2d, at 466, n. 22 ("Most of [the plaintiffs'] experts acknowledged that they do not describe to their patients what [the D&E and intact D&E] procedures entail in clear and precise terms"); see also id., at 479.
  
  It is, however, precisely this lack of information concerning the way in which the fetus will be killed that is of legitimate concern to the State. Casey, supra, at 873 (plurality opinion) ("States are free to enact laws to provide a reasonable framework for a woman to make a decision that has such profound and lasting meaning"). The State has an interest in ensuring so grave a choice is well informed. It is self-evident that a mother who comes to regret her choice to abort must struggle with grief more anguished and sorrow more profound when she learns, only after the event, what she once did not know: that she allowed a doctor to pierce the skull and vacuum the fast-developing brain of her unborn child, a child assuming the human form.
  
  It is a reasonable inference that a necessary effect of the regulation and the knowledge it conveys will be to encourage some women to carry the infant to full term, thus reducing the absolute number of late-term abortions. The medical profession, furthermore, may find different and less shocking methods to abort the fetus in the second trimester, thereby accommodating legislative demand. The State's interest in respect for life is advanced by the dialogue that better informs the political and legal systems, the medical profession, expectant mothers, and society as a whole of the consequences that follow from a decision to elect a late-term abortion.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...0&invol=05-380

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Adder
Why should legality turn on the choice of procedure used? And why is Congress and not the doctor's office the right place to decide which procedure to use?

If you don't believe at life at conception, surely you believe at life at birth?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

• The controversial abortion procedure outlawed Wednesday by the Supreme Court is rarely performed but may offer distinct advantages over other second-trimester abortion methods, Bay Area doctors said Wednesday.
  
  The point, doctors said, is it should be up to medical professionals to decide what's safest for their patients.
  
  "There are medical situations where this procedure is necessary to protect a woman's health," said Dr. Anne Foster-Rosales, chief medical officer of Planned Parenthood Golden Gate. "This ruling tells us that women's health is no longer the priority." . . .
  
  Doctors have argued that the method is sometimes safer than the much more common dilation and evacuation procedure. With this method, the fetus is dismembered in the womb and removed in pieces. The procedure involves inserting medical instruments into the uterus multiple times, potentially increasing the risk of bleeding, infection and patient discomfort, doctors have said.
  
  A third second-trimester abortion method involves inducing labor and delivering the fetus, sometimes after it has been given a deadly injection in the womb. But it can be a lengthy and particularly emotionally draining process, and few women choose to induce labor, doctors said.
  
  There aren't many studies comparing the second-trimester abortion methods, but at least one study suggested that the banned method is marginally safer than dilation and evacuation, said Dr. Eleanor Drey, medical director of the Women's Options Center at San Francisco General Hospital.
  
  "That's one of the things that is disappointing about the decision. The Supreme Court reviewed the best medical evidence and they disregarded it," said Drey, who was among several doctors who testified in cases leading up Wednesday's decision. "The goal of the intact procedures is to decrease the possibility of any kind of damage to the uterus."
  
  Most second-trimester abortions occur over a two- to three-day period, starting with an office visit during which dilators are inserted into the cervix so it can be opened slowly overnight. If the fetus is to be removed without labor, the woman returns to the office the next day, when she is administered local or general anesthesia while the abortion is completed. A third day may be necessary if complications arise.
  
  Second-trimester abortions are far more expensive than first-trimester abortions, usually costing more than $1,000, although they are covered by most insurance carriers.
  
  None of the procedures for a second-trimester abortion is pleasant, and doctors on Wednesday were reluctant to discuss details of the different methods. The point of the Supreme Court's ruling, they said, wasn't in the details of the procedure, but in the government taking away physicians' ability to make the best medical decisions for their patients.

SF Chronicle

• None of the procedures for a second-trimester abortion is pleasant, and doctors on Wednesday were reluctant to discuss details of the different methods.

Don't you think this is a bit disingenuous?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub

• None of the procedures for a second-trimester abortion is pleasant, and doctors on Wednesday were reluctant to discuss details of the different methods.

Don't you think this is a bit disingenuous?

I don't want to hear them discuss how sperm die in a condom, either.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
If you don't believe at life at conception, surely you believe at life at birth?

Are you suggesting those are the only two options, or are you asking if Adder agrees that babies are alive?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub

• None of the procedures for a second-trimester abortion is pleasant, and doctors on Wednesday were reluctant to discuss details of the different methods.

Don't you think this is a bit disingenuous?

No. It struck me as an odd thing for a journalist to say. "The shootings are Virginia Tech were unpleasant, and students on Monday were reluctant to discuss details of the different methods." No kidding. So you go find someone who will discuss it, or you don't have a story.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Are you suggesting those are the only two options, or are you asking if Adder agrees that babies are alive?

I'm offering him an explanation for why legality may turn on the procedure used. If this has all become a line drawing exercise, then surely once a fetus has breached the line has been crossed.