TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Supreme Court bans "partial-birth" abortions
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »

Supreme Court bans "partial-birth" abortions

Very sad day for the US.

This is the first time since Roe v. Wade in the 70s that a specific anti-abortion step has been taken.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18174245/

Damn, beat me to it. I'll delete my post and bring my thoughts over here.

Gonna be some fireworks on this issue, not necessarily from this case but from the cases brought on by pro-lifers that will definitely soon follow. Evidence of this? Here's an opinion from Prof. Hadley Arkes, one of the leading voices and architects from the pro-life movement making a prediction back in October of 2006:

quote:

[I]f Roberts and Alito help simply to overturn that prior decision on partial-birth abortion, my own judgment is that the regime of Roe will have come to its end, even if Roe itself is not explicitly overruled. What the Court would be saying in effect is, "We are now in business to consider seriously, and to sustain, many plausible measures that impose real restrictions on abortion." That would invite a flood of measures enacted by the states. They might be restrictions on abortion after the point of viability, for instance, or even earlier, with the first evidence of a beating heart. Or requirements that abortionists use a method more likely to yield the child alive. Or provisions that ban abortions on a child likely to be afflicted with disabilities, such as Down syndrome. Each restriction would command the support of about 70 or 80 percent of the country, including many people who describe themselves as pro-choice. And step by step, the public would get used to these cardinal notions: that the freedom to order abortions, like any other kind of freedom, may be subject to plausible restrictions; that it is legitimate for legislatures to enact those restrictions; and that it is, in fact, possible for ordinary folk, with ordinary language, to deliberate about the grounds on which abortions could be said to be justified or unjustified. http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5360

Sorry to say, this issue isn't one of the hot buttons for me. I know there's a great deal of strong feelings from both camps, but I still maintain a bit of a fence-sitting view on it. But I think a conversation involving the merits of this decision would be good. Was the majority opinion a good one based on the merits? I'll report some of the opinions on the librul blogs that tended to disagree (to put it nicely):

First, from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg:

quote:

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, speaking out in the courtroom for the dissenters, called the ruling �an alarming decision� that refuses �to take seriously� the Court�s 1992 decisions reaffirming most of Roe v. Wade and its 2000 decision in Stenberg v. Carhart striking down a state partial-birth abortion law. Ginsburg, in a lengthy statement, said �the Court�s opinion tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. For the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception protecting a woman�s health.� http://www.scotusblog.com/movablety..._rules_att.html

Here's a quote from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which arguably is the nation's leading group of healthcare professionals for women:

quote:

The intact variant of D&E offers significant safety advantages over the non-intact method, including a reduced risk of catastrophic hemorrhage and life-threatening infection. These safety advantages are widely recognized by experts in the field of women�s health, authoritative medical texts, peer-reviewed studies, and the nation�s leading medical schools. http://www.acog.org/from_home/publi.../nr09-22-06.cfm

You can read more over at scotusblog for some interesting opinions on the decision here:

http://www.scotusblog.com/movablety..._rules_att.html

And BTW, this decision overturned a 2000 SCOTUS decision Stenberg vs. Carhart, a 5-4 decision, which said such a ban on this procedure was unconstitutional:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-830.ZS.html

Personally based on the merits, I thought this would have likely been overturned because the ban has no protections for the woman. But it seems that Stevens believed there were other options for an abortion, which are indeed true. However, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists seemed to believe otherwise, and I tend to trust their rationale based both on their knowledge, experience, and peer-reviewed process a bit more than I would a judge. Nevertheless, SCOTUS thought otherwise.

Remember one thing - if you disagree with this decision, tough shit. That's what happens when you vote (or don't even bother voting) for someone who believes differently than you do and will nominate judges that have those same differing beliefs as they do.

I hardly find this sad. My understanding of a "Partial Birth" abortion is that you're clearly dealing with a well developed fetus. I thought that, aside from the whole "my body, my choice" issue, that one of the big tipping points in the whole abortion debate was "when does life begin?". As I understand them, partial-birth abortions are advanced-stage pregnancies and are, in fact, tantamount to killing a child. While the fetus may not be able to survive outside of the mother's womb, it is unquestionable that you're talking about a live human being at this stage and are not really dealing in shades of gray of what constitutes life at that point.

So for all of the pro-abortion crowd out there that think this is a sad day, I have 2 questions: 1)have you ever had a child or actually been in a position where this decision directly impacts your life, and 2)given your reactoin to this decision, do you now unambiguously and unequivocally support the death penalty for convicted criminals?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I hardly find this sad. My understanding of a "Partial Birth" abortion is that you're clearly dealing with a well developed fetus. I thought that, aside from the whole "my body, my choice" issue, that one of the big tipping points in the whole abortion debate was "when does life begin?". As I understand them, partial-birth abortions are advanced-stage pregnancies and are, in fact, tantamount to killing a child. While the fetus may not be able to survive outside of the mother's womb, it is unquestionable that you're talking about a live human being at this stage and are not really dealing in shades of gray of what constitutes life at that point.

But aren't there other legal procedures that at present are still legal that does almost the exact same thing to the fetus at this late stage? If memory serves, we've got a doctor here in Kansas (Dr. George Tiller) that performs late-term abortions. What differentiates this partial birth procedure from any other legal late-term procedure? Because if there really isn't a difference in terms of actual fetus abortion between what is legal and this procedure, why was this one deemed illegal and not the other late-term procedures?

Again I'm not really into answering the deeper questions about this issue such as the "when does life begin" question you asked, at least not yet. I'm just trying to get down the legal merits of the case itself.

Where's Occ? He's usually on top of these SCOTUS decisions. Someone page him.

quote:

So for all of the pro-abortion crowd out there that think this is a sad day, I have 2 questions: 1)have you ever had a child or actually been in a position where this decision directly impacts your life, and 2)given your reactoin to this decision, do you now unambiguously and unequivocally support the death penalty for convicted criminals?

Well I don't really consider myself in that crowd, but I'll answer anyway:

1. Nope. Still no buns in the oven (which honestly is best for both of us right now - school's killing us both psychologically and financially!).

2. Not a death-penalty supporter myself, but I see where you're going with it. The problem with that argument, however, assumes that pro-choicers would believe as you do - that the fetus is a human being. I don't know at what point they believe the fetus is considered a human being or not. Me personally, I hate the thought of a late-term abortion unless the life of the mother is at stake. If you're already at that point in time, just have the fucking baby and give it up for adoption. If you're thinking about abortion at that late stage, then obviously you're not thinking about anything else but your own well-being, especially not the well-being of the baby. So give the baby to someone who will take care of their well-being.

So I wouldn't mind a restriction on the 3rd term myself, but the problem I see is that pro-lifers will certainly not stop there. The goal of pro-lifers is not to attack Roe v Wade head on, but rather to slowly chip it away to nothing. And I think we're beginning to see those effects now, whether or not someone agrees with it.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Me personally, I hate the thought of a late-term abortion unless the life of the mother is at stake.

I completely agree and think that is the clear, primary extenuating circumstance. At that point, I place all decision making power in the hands of the doctor and the family. Fuck the government in that case--they're not going to make that decision for me under those horrible circumstances. Christ, my wife still has about 7 weeks to go but I can see feet and elbows sticking out of her stomach while the little one moves around. There is just no way at this point that I would even entertain the thought of the thought of terminating the pregnancy, unless my wife's life were seriously in danger. Even then it would be a very difficult and unsettling decision.

quote:

So I wouldn't mind a restriction on the 3rd term myself, but the problem I see is that pro-lifers will certainly not stop there. The goal of pro-lifers is not to attack Roe v Wade head on, but rather to slowly chip it away to nothing. And I think we're beginning to see those effects now, whether or not someone agrees with it.

Good points indeed sir. I like you today. Time to dig into my burrito.

This decision does not entirely surprise me, but what it does remind me of is an episode of BookTV from CSPAN last week in which Fmr. Senator Bill Bradley was talking about a myriad of topics relating to our current political system (in whole a very interesting show about how broken and disconnected from reality both partys are).


He said (I am paraphrasing) "The thing about abortion is this: The vast majority of americans are troubled by abortion, but they think it should be legal. The problem lies in the fact that those that steer the Republican party platform do not agree that it should be legal, and those that steer the Democrat party platform are not troubled."

One of the most poignant commentaries on the subject I have heard from someone in politics. Oddly enough, it is a sentiment that I heard echoed in slightly different language by Guiliani with regards to his own position on abortion last week.



MrS

I've "chilled" a bit as far as my stance goes on abortion, although I still have issues when it is used as a means of contraception. We talk about taking responsibility for your actions, and consensual sex falls into that category in my opinion.

Anyway, a little perspective. Late term, partial-birth abortions are fairly rare. Of the almost 900,000 abortions each year in the US, only about 1.5% occur after the 20th week. Also, of all abortions, less than 0.5% are due to medical complications of allowing the mother to continue to term. That being said however, if the mother's life does come into jeopardy, I don't know how any court ruling could stop a life-preserving abortion. I'd have to see the exact law, but a doctor allowing a mother, and more than likely a fetus to die because of not performing an abortion seems ridiculous.

An interesting read, although I haven't checked the source, is a listing of the motivation behind abortion. Like I said, when used as a means of contraceptive or for "convenience" reasons, I have a problem. The small amount of the time when it is for health reasons, or in the case of rape or incest, although I'd prefer it no to happen, I am more understanding.

Anyway...

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/pol.../abreasons.html

I am on the fence with this one as well. Partial Birth Abortions are very rare......
But if this leads to an attack on Roe V. Wade latter by the Religious Right, then all gloves come off......

^^ The two posts above this one merely indicate how attitudes have gradually shifted to the right in this country, no matter which camp you belong to.

It's the same with religion. In the 60s, it was unthinkable for a US president to end his speeches with "God bless America", but due to an imperceptible shift it became more commonplace in the 80s and mandatory in the 90s.

The neo-con religious revolution in American society has completely changed the milestones of what it means to be a liberal or conservative. The whole nation is now decidedly right of center, but many people don't realize it because they've forgotten what used to raise their eyebrows before.

do not feed the Xtians!

quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd ^^ The two posts above this one merely indicate how attitudes have gradually shifted to the right in this country, no matter which camp you belong to. It's the same with religion. In the 60s, it was unthinkable for a US president to end his speeches with "God bless America", but due to an imperceptible shift it became more commonplace in the 80s and mandatory in the 90s. The neo-con religious revolution in American society has completely changed the milestones of what it means to be a liberal or conservative. The whole nation is now decidedly right of center, but many people don't realize it because they've forgotten what used to raise their eyebrows before.

If you're referring to me, I've actually moved more "left." I used to be fairly hardcore pro-choice, but I've lightened up as far as that goes.

quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd ^^ The two posts above this one merely indicate how attitudes have gradually shifted to the right in this country, no matter which camp you belong to. It's the same with religion. In the 60s, it was unthinkable for a US president to end his speeches with "God bless America", but due to an imperceptible shift it became more commonplace in the 80s and mandatory in the 90s. The neo-con religious revolution in American society has completely changed the milestones of what it means to be a liberal or conservative. The whole nation is now decidedly right of center, but many people don't realize it because they've forgotten what used to raise their eyebrows before.

I hear what you're saying, but according to the vast majority of polls (to which you can check at www.pollingreport.com), you're incorrect with your assessment on abortion. The majority still wants Roe v Wade upheld, still tends to be pro-choice, BUT does not mind holding restrictions on abortion.

Now, what I think you're actually assessing is the majority of the Republican party, which has decisively acrued the religious groups into their camp. You can take that for whatever it's worth, but in that time frame that you've mentioned (at least since 1980), we've had 3 Republican presidents totalling 18 of the past 27 years, a majority Republican Congressional takeover in 1994 that finally ended 13 years later (not counting the little hiccup in 2003-2004), and a conservative-leaning SCOTUS on top of it all. Throw in a few Faux News and AM radio friendlies along with a well-built, well-oiled Republican Media machine that took over 3 decades to get up and running with endless funds and countless think tanks pipelined into media and governmental outlets, and you've got yourself one seriously powerful influential voice. And that voice just happens to have the majority of religious folks riding along (which by and large are Christian).

That's what you're really up against, not the neocons which BTW are not truly affiliated with any religious philosophy other than perhaps a little Israeli Zionism. By and large they are wholly separate from the religious boys, but OTOH they utilize them (and vice versa) for their means to an end.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I hear what you're saying, but according to the vast majority of polls (to which you can check at www.pollingreport.com), you're incorrect with your assessment on abortion. The majority still wants Roe v Wade upheld, still tends to be pro-choice, BUT does not mind holding restrictions on abortion.

I disagree with your assessment.

I wasn't the one who coined the phrase "chipping away at abortion rights". The fact that this phrase is mentioned ubiquitously by both pro- and anti-abortion activists means that there is something to "chip away at". This contradicts your statement that most Americans have some well-defined boundaries of what will or won't change.

Why is it that the smallest change in abortion laws has the pro-choice lobby up in arms? Maybe because they have reason to be concerned? I can't imagine such a small reform having a thunderous reaction in, say, Germany, where people are a lot more confident about the overall status of this issue.

First, I'd like to say that contrary to what you believe, I've actually softened my stance on abortion over the years. It used to be that I believed abortion in almost all of its forms (except rape, incest, life in danger, etc.) should be completely banned. Now, I still don't agree with it, especially like I said when it comes to it being used as a contraceptive device, but I'm not going to fight for its abolishment.

It appears to me that there are instances, like now, where abortion comes to the forefront because of these "blips" on the court radar, but I really don't see this "chipping away" of abortion rights that you're talking about. Perhaps you could give a chronology of how this has been occurring over the last years?

I think we hear more from NOW et al. when these things happen first because it is a change that they're against, and secondly because they're riding the media coattail of what's already happened.

i think that middle-aged, ruling class white men should keep their fucking opinions off women's bodies

it is every woman's right to control her body.

I think just the opposite, but for different reasons. As far as this part of it goes if you don't want an abortion don't get one. Pregnancy concerns two people. Everyone else fighting about this issue is just wasting time and energy.

I'm all about men having more say in the process though. Obviously limiting that to the guy that planted the seed.

quote:

Originally posted by WM2 I'm all about men having more say in the process though. Obviously limiting that to the guy that planted the seed.

how do you legislate "more say"?

either you agree that you can't, or for some reason you think it appropriate for a partner to demand or prevent an abortion?

quote:

Originally posted by WM2 I'm all about men having more say in the process though. Obviously limiting that to the guy that planted the seed.

Why? Given that statistically the USA has the lowest percentage among western nations of children who grow up with both biological parents, 63%, the highest divorce rate and the highest levels of single parenting in the western world.
Men do not care and women do not care enough to bring up children in a responsible family environment and most of the time the kids end up in care of the mother. Almost always it'll be a woman that raises it, provides most of the care, most of the monetary burden and the physical risk of the pregnancy.

I honestly don't see the point in bringing kids into the world that are unwanted by people, it's downright cruel and irresponsible with the added burden to society to keep channelling taxes into support.

You do have to agree that the man is in a losing situation.

Man and woman have consensual sex, woman gets pregnant.

Situation A: Woman wants child, man doesn't. Woman has child and man is responsible for child support for the next 18+ years.

Situation B: Man wants child, woman doesn't. Woman has abortion. (Or I guess the alternative would be; woman carries child to term for the next 9 months, gives child to man.)

I know it's not quite this simple, but you could say it's 18 years of child support vs. 9 months of carrying to term. Although right now there is no option for the man.


In the end though, it's two people taking a risk. If you want to have sex and hope you won't get pregnant (even though the sole biological reason for sex is reproduction), and you do...don't act shocked. Take responsibility for it.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith I honestly don't see the point in bringing kids into the world that are unwanted by people, it's downright cruel and irresponsible with the added burden to society to keep channelling taxes into support.

Because I wouldn't hesitate to say that given the choice any kid would choose a "rough life" over being aborted. At least I would.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono You do have to agree that the man is in a losing situation. Man and woman have consensual sex, woman gets pregnant. Situation A: Woman wants child, man doesn't. Woman has child and man is responsible for child support for the next 18+ years. Situation B: Man wants child, woman doesn't. Woman has abortion. (Or I guess the alternative would be; woman carries child to term for the next 9 months, gives child to man.) I know it's not quite this simple, but you could say it's 18 years of child support vs. 9 months of carrying to term. Although right now there is no option for the man. In the end though, it's two people taking a risk. If you want to have sex and hope you won't get pregnant (even though the sole biological reason for sex is reproduction), and you do...don't act shocked. Take responsibility for it.

Bingo

You also have in option B the ability of the woman to give the child up for adoption even if the man wants to raise it.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith I honestly don't see the point in bringing kids into the world that are unwanted by people, it's downright cruel and irresponsible with the added burden to society to keep channeling taxes into support.

I completely agree.

This is one of the things that pisses me off the most about pro-lifers. They're all about keeping the kids, but they don't want to have anything to do with them after they're born. It's as if their birth is only important and after that it doesn't matter. If they're so serious about this why don't they spend their time helping the kids that are born instead of telling everyone they have to allow them to be born.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i think that middle-aged, ruling class white men should keep their fucking opinions off women's bodies it is every woman's right to control her body.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono You do have to agree that the man is in a losing situation. Man and woman have consensual sex, woman gets pregnant. Situation A: Woman wants child, man doesn't. Woman has child and man is responsible for child support for the next 18+ years. Situation B: Man wants child, woman doesn't. Woman has abortion. (Or I guess the alternative would be; woman carries child to term for the next 9 months, gives child to man.) I know it's not quite this simple, but you could say it's 18 years of child support vs. 9 months of carrying to term. Although right now there is no option for the man. In the end though, it's two people taking a risk. If you want to have sex and hope you won't get pregnant (even though the sole biological reason for sex is reproduction), and you do...don't act shocked. Take responsibility for it.

@ PKC: Who has double standars now?

That's kind of like saying "it a mans money so he doesn't have to pay for child support or any type of compensation in case of a divorce" or something along those lines. There's a reason why the term "feminazi" exist and why I became disillusioned with a good deal of second wave feminist BS anti-male propaganda.

Anyone support starting a different thread on men's rights so we don't kill this one?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.