Quantcast

Partial Birth Abortion!

Makeuptalk.com - Makeup forums and reviews

Help Support Makeuptalk.com - Makeup forums and reviews:

Joined
Oct 22, 2003
Messages
22,667
Reaction score
441
Location
Huntington Beach, CA
How can anyone think that Partial Birth Abortion is OK. SHEESH!


Judge Stops Partial-Birth Abortion Ban



Aug 26, 6:43 PM (ET)

By LARRY NEUMEISTER



(AP) Judge Richard Casey sits for a portrait with his dog, Barney, in this April 8, 2004 file photo, in...Full Image




NEW YORK (AP) - A federal judge declared the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional Thursday in the second such ruling in three months - even though he called the procedure "gruesome, brutal, barbaric and uncivilized."

U.S. District Judge Richard C. Casey - one of three federal judges across the country to hear simultaneous challenges to the law earlier this year - faulted the ban for not containing an exception to protect a woman's health, something the Supreme Court has made clear is required in laws prohibiting particular types of abortion.

The law, signed last November, banned a procedure known to doctors as intact dilation and extraction and called partial-birth abortion by abortion foes. The fetus is partially removed from the womb, and the skull is punctured or crushed.

Louise Melling, director of the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project, said her group was thrilled by the ruling.


if ((typeof tag336_2) == 'function') {tag336_2();}
"We can only hope as we have decision after decision after decision striking these bans, saying they endanger women's health, that the legislatures will finally stop," she said.
On June 1, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton in San Francisco also found the law unconstitutional, saying it violates a woman's right to choose an abortion. A judge in Lincoln, Neb., has yet to rule. The three judges suspended the ban while they held the trials.

The three verdicts are almost certain to be appealed to the Supreme Court.

"We are in the process of the appeal of these issues now, which tells you exactly what we're doing and where we're going," Attorney General John Ashcroft said Thursday.

The government has already appealed the San Francisco ruling, said Monica Goodling, a Justice Department spokeswoman.

The ban, which President Clinton twice vetoed, was seen by abortion rights activists as a fundamental departure from the Supreme Court's 1973 precedent in Roe v. Wade. But the Bush administration has argued that the procedure is cruel and unnecessary and causes pain to the fetus.

At trials earlier this year, doctors testified that of 1.3 million abortions performed annually, the law would affect about 130,000, almost all in the second trimester. Some observers suggest the number would be much lower - 2,200 to 5,000.

In his ruling, Casey said that there is evidence that the procedure can have safety advantages for women. He said the Supreme Court had made it clear that "this gruesome procedure may be outlawed only if there exists a medical consensus that there is no circumstance in which any women could potentially benefit from it."

At another point, Casey wrote that testimony put before himself and Congress showed the outlawed abortion technique to be a "gruesome, brutal, barbaric and uncivilized medical procedure."

Casey, who was appointed to the bench by President Clinton in 1997, was considered by some observers to be the best legal hope for the law's supporters.

"We were on pins and needles on this one," said Gloria Feldt, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "The judge was very aggressive in his questioning and very transparent in his articulation of his personal views on the matter. Fortunately, he chose to uphold the law."

Look at these statemtents!!

During a hearing earlier this year, Casey repeatedly asked doctors whether they tell pregnant women prior before an abortion that they will rip the fetus apart and that it might feel pain.

"Did you tell them you were sucking the brains out of the same baby they desired to hold?" the judge asked Dr. Carolyn Westhoff, who performs or supervises hundreds of abortions a year in Manhattan. At another point, Casey, who is blind, asked Westhoff whether a mother can detect in advance whether a baby will be born blind. "Not that I'm aware of," Westhoff answered.


 
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
1,124
Reaction score
0
Originally Posted by Tony(admin) How can anyone think that Partial Birth Abortion is OK. SHEESH!

Judge Stops Partial-Birth Abortion Ban



Aug 26, 6:43 PM (ET)

By LARRY NEUMEISTER

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=1 width=210 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD align=middle><TABLE borderColor=#cbcbcd cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=1 width=150 border=1><TBODY><TR><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR align=middle><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD>(AP) Judge Richard Casey sits for a portrait with his dog, Barney, in this April 8, 2004 file photo, in...

Full Image</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

NEW YORK (AP) - A federal judge declared the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional Thursday in the second such ruling in three months - even though he called the procedure "gruesome, brutal, barbaric and uncivilized."

U.S. District Judge Richard C. Casey - one of three federal judges across the country to hear simultaneous challenges to the law earlier this year - faulted the ban for not containing an exception to protect a woman's health, something the Supreme Court has made clear is required in laws prohibiting particular types of abortion.

The law, signed last November, banned a procedure known to doctors as intact dilation and extraction and called partial-birth abortion by abortion foes. The fetus is partially removed from the womb, and the skull is punctured or crushed.

Louise Melling, director of the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project, said her group was thrilled by the ruling.

<TABLE cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=0 align=left border=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD align=middle><SCRIPT language=javascript>if ((typeof tag336_2) == 'function') {tag336_2();} </SCRIPT></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>"We can only hope as we have decision after decision after decision striking these bans, saying they endanger women's health, that the legislatures will finally stop," she said.

On June 1, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton in San Francisco also found the law unconstitutional, saying it violates a woman's right to choose an abortion. A judge in Lincoln, Neb., has yet to rule. The three judges suspended the ban while they held the trials.

The three verdicts are almost certain to be appealed to the Supreme Court.

"We are in the process of the appeal of these issues now, which tells you exactly what we're doing and where we're going," Attorney General John Ashcroft said Thursday.

The government has already appealed the San Francisco ruling, said Monica Goodling, a Justice Department spokeswoman.

The ban, which President Clinton twice vetoed, was seen by abortion rights activists as a fundamental departure from the Supreme Court's 1973 precedent in Roe v. Wade. But the Bush administration has argued that the procedure is cruel and unnecessary and causes pain to the fetus.

At trials earlier this year, doctors testified that of 1.3 million abortions performed annually, the law would affect about 130,000, almost all in the second trimester. Some observers suggest the number would be much lower - 2,200 to 5,000.

In his ruling, Casey said that there is evidence that the procedure can have safety advantages for women. He said the Supreme Court had made it clear that "this gruesome procedure may be outlawed only if there exists a medical consensus that there is no circumstance in which any women could potentially benefit from it."

At another point, Casey wrote that testimony put before himself and Congress showed the outlawed abortion technique to be a "gruesome, brutal, barbaric and uncivilized medical procedure."

Casey, who was appointed to the bench by President Clinton in 1997, was considered by some observers to be the best legal hope for the law's supporters.

"We were on pins and needles on this one," said Gloria Feldt, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "The judge was very aggressive in his questioning and very transparent in his articulation of his personal views on the matter. Fortunately, he chose to uphold the law."

Look at these statemtents!!

During a hearing earlier this year, Casey repeatedly asked doctors whether they tell pregnant women prior before an abortion that they will rip the fetus apart and that it might feel pain.

"Did you tell them you were sucking the brains out of the same baby they desired to hold?" the judge asked Dr. Carolyn Westhoff, who performs or supervises hundreds of abortions a year in Manhattan. At another point, Casey, who is blind, asked Westhoff whether a mother can detect in advance whether a baby will be born blind. "Not that I'm aware of," Westhoff answered.

Gawd..that makes my skin crawl..I can't believe this was even a issue that needed banning..I don't know how anyone with a soul or conscience could do that to their own flesh& blood..I'm totally Pro choice to a certain extent..Anything past 4 months gestation to me is a baby and I consider that murder
 
Joined
Oct 22, 2003
Messages
22,667
Reaction score
441
Location
Huntington Beach, CA
Yeah, I agree. Even though I am a staunch conservative, I can see when abortion could be warranted in certain cases.(rape, mom/baby threatened) Usually the religious right are the ones who don't agree at all with abortion but I am different in my feelings. TY Ali for repsponding





Originally Posted by allisong

Gawd..that makes my skin crawl..I can't believe this was even a issue that needed banning..I don't know how anyone with a soul or conscience could do that to their own flesh& blood..I'm totally Pro choice to a certain extent..Anything past 4 months gestation to me is a baby and I consider that murder



 
Joined
Jun 17, 2004
Messages
1,184
Reaction score
0
im not entirely sure how i feel about this. on one hand, the mother might as well just have the baby and put it up for adoption if the pregnancy is that far along. on the other hand, i feel that any rulings to further limit abortion would "open the door" to chipping away at the right to abortion. partial birth abortion is already illegal in my state, (indiana) with a "maternal life" clause. also, indiana will not contribute state money to fund it. in the entire northern half of indiana, there is only one clinic that provides abortions. the doctor travels to clinics in the tri state area, as he is the only one who is willing to provide them. the local clinic gets regular bomb threats.

 
Joined
Dec 14, 2003
Messages
713
Reaction score
2
If I read an article on this correctly the reason they are opposing the ban is because they want certain wording ammended. The main reason they voted against it is because if a female is raped, a victim incest or her health is in danger they would not be able to obtain an abortion if that is their choice.
 
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
1,124
Reaction score
0
Originally Posted by Tinydancer If I read an article on this correctly the reason they are opposing the ban is because they want certain wording ammended. The main reason they voted against it is because if a female is raped, a victim incest or her health is in danger they would not be able to obtain an abortion if that is their choice. What I don't understand is Why do they have to wait so long to where this is an issue..There's a 3month window in which this can be done safely and without being barbaric IMO..If you're going to wait any longer then I think they should just go ahead and have the baby and put it up for adoption
 
Joined
Oct 22, 2003
Messages
22,667
Reaction score
441
Location
Huntington Beach, CA
Exactly! WHy the hell would someone wait so long? It's the ol' "sweep it under the run" syndrome. Or if they are hugely fat, you cannot even tell they are preggers.





Originally Posted by allisong

What I don't understand is Why do they have to wait so long to where this is an issue..There's a 3month window in which this can be done safely and without being barbaric IMO..If you're going to wait any longer then I think they should just go ahead and have the baby and put it up for adoption



 
Joined
Dec 14, 2003
Messages
713
Reaction score
2
I agree Allison, completly! But, how can we truly say why this is done. I am a Mother myself and when I look in my son's eyes I see an Angel. What these poor women must go through to have to make that decision. I simply don't believe that people who do this are doing so as a form of birth control but out of a disperate situation. jmo Originally Posted by allisong What I don't understand is Why do they have to wait so long to where this is an issue..There's a 3month window in which this can be done safely and without being barbaric IMO..If you're going to wait any longer then I think they should just go ahead and have the baby and put it up for adoption
 
Joined
May 28, 2004
Messages
1,649
Reaction score
0
I read the same thing.

I don't agree with partial birth abortions, but under very select, medically sound reasons the procedure should be available as a choice. As with Halo's response, I also don't wish to see any further erosion of a woman's right to choose but this situation is pushing the limits of what is and is not humane.

One a side note, some women may continue to have menstrual cycles in their 1st trimester. This is not common, but these women may make up a small portion the ranks of those considering abortions in the 2nd trimester. I know one woman personally who found out she was pregnant in the beginning of her 2nd trimester. She was still having her periods and it was her doctor that discovered the pregnancy through bloodwork. Also, a 1st trimester pregnancy is not too obvious on women who have normal builds. I'm not saying these women should be the exception in the partial birth abortion case, but just to inform you that not all women find out they're pregnant in their 3rd to 6th week of pregnancy.


Originally Posted by Tinydancer If I read an article on this correctly the reason they are opposing the ban is because they want certain wording ammended. The main reason they voted against it is because if a female is raped, a victim incest or her health is in danger they would not be able to obtain an abortion if that is their choice.
 
Joined
Oct 22, 2003
Messages
22,667
Reaction score
441
Location
Huntington Beach, CA
Yeah, but you have to admit, this is NOT the norm.






Originally Posted by KittySkyfish

I read the same thing. One a side note, some women may continue to have menstrual cycles in their 1st trimester. This is not common, but these women may make up a small portion the ranks of those considering abortions in the 2nd trimester. I know one woman personally who found out she was pregnant in the beginning of her 2nd trimester. She was still having her periods and it was her doctor that discovered the pregnancy through bloodwork. Also, a 1st trimester pregnancy is not too obvious on women who have normal builds. I'm not saying these women should be the exception in the partial birth abortion case, but just to inform you that not all women find out they're pregnant in their 3rd to 6th week of pregnancy.






 
Joined
May 28, 2004
Messages
1,649
Reaction score
0
And that is why the United States of America a representative constitutional republic, Tony. The Constitution protects those that are not among the majority.



Originally Posted by Tony(admin) Yeah, but you have to admit, this is NOT the norm.
 
Joined
Oct 22, 2003
Messages
22,667
Reaction score
441
Location
Huntington Beach, CA
(sorry Tony, I was distracted at home and accidentally edited your message!)

Ok, point taken....Agreed and I can respect your statement............but still. Hate to think of thousands babies being killed with scissors to the back of the head inside a mother when someone just doesn't want it because of the few who might need it like you have described up above. Everyone seems to forget the father in cases like this, where is he? Prolly a loser.....But he might want this baby and he has no choice here.(not in all cases)

Don't get me wrong, I am not a ultra complete pro-lifer, I lean way more towards right to choose...just not when it's in that stage of pregnancy. There should be a cut off date and time. But I do understand this is a touchie subject!






Originally Posted by KittySkyfish

And that is why the United States of America a representative constitutional republic, Tony. The Constitution protects those that are not among the majority.






 
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
1,124
Reaction score
0
Originally Posted by Tony(admin) Ok, point taken....Agreed and I can respect your statement............but still. Hate to think of thousands babies being killed with scissors to the back of the head inside a mother when someone just doesn't want it because of the few who might need it like you have described up above. Everyone seems to forget the father in cases like this, where is he? Prolly a loser.....But he might want this baby and he has no choice here.(not in all cases)
Don't get me wrong, I am not a ultra complete pro-lifer, I lean way more towards right to choose...just not when it's in that stage of pregnancy. There should be a cut off date and time. But I do understand this is a touchie subject!


I agree with you Tony..I'm totally Pro-Choice but there needs to be a limit..I do understand that in some rare instances exceptions need to be made though
 
Joined
May 28, 2004
Messages
1,649
Reaction score
0
From my inital post:

I'm not saying these women should be the exception in the partial birth abortion case, but just to inform you that not all women find out they're pregnant in their 3rd to 6th week of pregnancy.
My goal was to provide balance for the assumptions in this thread that all women find out about their pregancy early on. I did not imply that women who find out late should be part of the class of exceptions to the law.



Originally Posted by Tony(admin) (sorry Tony, I was distracted at home and accidentally edited your message!)
Ok, point taken....Agreed and I can respect your statement............but still. Hate to think of thousands babies being killed with scissors to the back of the head inside a mother when someone just doesn't want it because of the few who might need it like you have described up above. Everyone seems to forget the father in cases like this, where is he? Prolly a loser.....But he might want this baby and he has no choice here.(not in all cases)

Don't get me wrong, I am not a ultra complete pro-lifer, I lean way more towards right to choose...just not when it's in that stage of pregnancy. There should be a cut off date and time. But I do understand this is a touchie subject!


 
Joined
Oct 22, 2003
Messages
22,667
Reaction score
441
Location
Huntington Beach, CA
Oh yeah, I knew that.






Originally Posted by KittySkyfish

From my inital post:

I'm not saying these women should be the exception in the partial birth abortion case, but just to inform you that not all women find out they're pregnant in their 3rd to 6th week of pregnancy.
My goal was to provide balance for the assumptions in this thread that all women find out about their pregancy early on. I did not imply that women who find out late should be part of the class of exceptions to the law.



 
Joined
May 28, 2004
Messages
1,649
Reaction score
0
S'alright! Snarky Skyfish Strikes Again. I'm still needing to catch up on my sleep!



Originally Posted by Tony(admin) Oh yeah, I knew that.
 
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
297
Reaction score
0
Originally Posted by allisong Gawd..that makes my skin crawl..I can't believe this was even a issue that needed banning..I don't know how anyone with a soul or conscience could do that to their own flesh& blood..I'm totally Pro choice to a certain extent..Anything past 4 months gestation to me is a baby and I consider that murder I agree, anything past 4 months is indeed murder.
 
Joined
Jan 23, 2005
Messages
9,509
Reaction score
3
I am completely pro-choice but even to me there are limits. I do believe abortion is a woman's choice - but only up to a point. Once the baby reaches the time when it can survive out of the womb then there's no reason to kill it (if the mother's life is at risk then labour could be induced at this point). If the mother doesn't want it at that stage then I'm sorry, but it's too late - give it up for adoption.

 
Joined
Apr 17, 2005
Messages
2,831
Reaction score
0
Whew Tony, this is a touchy subject, however I must say I am with you on this.

 

Latest posts

Top