Kennedy (who wrote the main dissent in the last case striking down such laws) wrote the majority opinion. Scalia and Thomas had a one-paragraph concurrence stating that Casey should be overruled. Ginsburg wrote the dissent.
The fact that Alito and Roberts did not join the concurrence doesn't tell us anything. Both Scalia and Thomas are on official record - in opinions dealing with the issue when it was necessary for deciding the actual issue - as wanting to overrule Casey; it would be unusual for a justice not on record in that way to give their opinion outside the context of what is needed to decide the case. Roberts is especially wary of doing that.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Boy, I sure hope that the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade. The resulting social backlash would be poetic and we'd have riots and fire and stuff, a kind of revolutionary spectacle that my generation has -- as of yet -- been denied.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't believe there would be rioting. I believe there would be a lot of anger, followed shortly by a massive rush to call state legislators and a rush to the polls.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a better excuse to riot than the outcome of sporting events. Lots of people could get a new TV out of the decision.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't believe there would be rioting. I believe there would be a lot of anger, followed shortly by a massive rush to call state legislators and a rush to the polls.
I predict fire. Fire is central to my prediction! Maybe just a little bit of it, but fire.
Oh, and the Republican party will get hosed, but that's less entertaining than the riots.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Boy, I sure hope that the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade. The resulting social backlash would be poetic and we'd have riots and fire and stuff, a kind of revolutionary spectacle that my generation has -- as of yet -- been denied.
What are you basing this on? Only half of Americans support Roe's position with respect to first trimester abortions; fewer support its position for later abortions. Beyond that, more than half the population - probably much more - will live in states that will allow abortion even after Roe is overturned.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for the decision, concurrence, and dissent link, Dag. I spent a fair while mulling over this ban a couple of years ago when I read an in-depth article about it, and it's very interesting to read the justices' assessments of the issues I grappled with in thinking about it.
Added: In what context do you think Roe might come before the Court again? In a way that could get it overturned, I mean.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:In what context do you think Roe might come before the Court again? In a way that could get it overturned, I mean.
Technically, it won't be Roe being overturned, but Casey, which supplanted and partially overturned Roe, creating the undue burden test.
Possibly a state will pass a ban for the explicit purpose of testing it. The other alternative will be a series of restrictions that force the court to evaluate undue burden repeatedly. Something similar happened with Plessy - the Court spent a couple of decades ruling that particular separate educational facilities for black people were not equal. This demonstrated the futility of Plessy's holding and laid the groundwork for Brown.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:What are you basing this on? Only half of Americans support Roe's position with respect to first trimester abortions; fewer support its position for later abortions.
Only about 22% of people believe that abortion should not be allowed. Even granting that most governors would not feasably be able to survive an attempt to ban abortion across the board (i.e. even in situations involving a dire medical threat to the mother), an overturning of roe v. wade would create a seismic backlash by people who would feel profoundly effected by the move.
And, given that 62% of people want Roe v. Wade to remain (compared to 29% in favor of overturning it, according to Pew), it would be a wonderful recipe for the party behind the overturning to be demonized: Largely unsupported, largely disliked, and profoundly impacting enough to stir a good, healthy majority of people to action, outrage, and higher turnout at polls.
Furthermore, Here's some select passages from The Atlantic's essay "The Day After Roe" which illustrate some other potential calamities!
quote:A dozen state abortion bans might not dramatically change the national abortion rate, but they would dramatically change state and national politics. After Roe, women with disposable incomes would still be able to travel to have an abortion. Poor women, on the other hand, might be forced to seek abortions from illegal local providers. If television footage began to show arrests of illegal abortion doctors, the political framework for the abortion debate would almost certainly be transformed. “With Roe on the books, the focus of the abortion debate has tended to be on issues like partial-birth abortion, which is a huge political winner for Republicans,” says Michael Klarman of the University of Virginia, a scholar of the Court and public opinion. “If you take Roe off the books, the focus will be on poor women in a handful of states trying to get illegal abortions, and these highly salient examples are going to benefit the other side.”
quote:The current abortion drama in South Dakota provides the best predictor of what might happen if a handful of other states try to resurrect old abortion bans, or pass new ones, that fail to include exceptions for rape, incest, and serious threats to a woman’s health. In March, South Dakota became the first state since Roe was decided to pass a law that bans all abortions except when a woman’s life is seriously threatened. The law, which contains no other exceptions, was opposed by many national pro-life organizations, which contended that it went too far. And their misgivings proved to be prescient. As soon as the ink was dry on the South Dakota law, a backlash started to develop. A group called Focus South Dakota began collecting signatures for a recall referendum that seeks to place the abortion ban on the ballot in November, giving the citizens of the state an opportunity to repeal it. That group’s own statewide polls, at least, suggest that the recall referendum has a good chance of succeeding. In its survey of registered South Dakota voters, taken a week after the abortion ban passed, 57 percent said they would vote to repeal the ban, and 33 percent said they would vote to uphold it. According to Jim Robinson, who conducted the poll for Focus South Dakota, these results are entirely consistent with the responses of South Dakota voters over the past two decades. “The number of voters who say abortion shouldn’t be legal under any circumstances has stayed pretty much the same for years, at about 15 percent,” Robinson told me. “You can add another 20 percent who think there should only be an exception for the life of the mother. We’ve known for some time that this sort of ban would be opposed in the state two to one, which is pretty much the same as the national numbers. But because one party is in control here, you have an extreme minority who came to dominate the legislature and drank their own Kool-Aid.”
Since the South Dakota ban passed, the approval rating of the governor, Mike Rounds, has dropped by 12 percentage points, and several state legislators have announced their intention to switch parties from Republican to Democrat. Legislators who voted for the ban, including a few Democrats, already face primary challenges from abortion moderates. Robert Burns, a political-science professor at South Dakota State University, thinks the backlash against the South Dakota law could precipitate a political realignment in the state, helping Democrats in state senate elections as well as influencing the gubernatorial and congressional elections. Burns suggests that Republican pro-choice voters, who had been willing to support pro-life legislators as long as the disagreement seemed symbolic, may desert the party. And if South Dakota–style bans on abortion were imposed in other states, the evidence is that they would be equally unpopular. Polls taken in March by organizations ranging from Pew to Fox News produced similar findings: by about a 59 to 36 percent margin, voters oppose a South Dakota–style ban in their own state. And 62 percent in the Fox News poll said that they supported the right to choose if the pregnancy “risks the mother’s mental health.”
The day after Roe v. Wade falls, members of the pro-life movement will face a choice: Will they heed the lessons of South Dakota and include at least a physical-health exception in any abortion law, or will they doom themselves to political defeat? This choice could split the movement in two, and legislatures in some pro-life states might prefer principled failure to pragmatic accommodation.
quote:the overturning of Roe would put pro-life legislators in an agonizing position: many are inalterably opposed to including an exception for threats to women’s health; they argue that these exceptions have been broadly interpreted by doctors and courts in the past to include psychological as well as physical health, in effect subverting the bans and making abortions available throughout pregnancy. “People in the pro-life movement are opposed to health exceptions in any form,” the pro-life scholar Paul Linton told me. “On the other hand, people will have to consider whether a narrow physical health exception might be a political necessity.” If any of these states now pondering extreme bills did, in fact, pass broad bans without a health exception, they should expect voter insurrections similar to the one now taking shape in South Dakota.
quote:But the moment that voters in swing states began to think that their own right to choose early-term abortions was threatened, state politics could tip decisively in the pro-choice direction. In Virginia, for example, after the U.S. Supreme Court, in 1989, handed down Webster, a decision that suggested Roe v. Wade was within one vote of falling, voters in the next election chose as governor a Democrat, Doug Wilder, because he was pro-choice. In the aftermath of Roe, there might be even more dramatic backlashes in battleground states like Pennsylvania and Ohio, especially if their state legislatures passed more conservative restrictions than the political center supports.
quote:As the state electoral maps were thrown into chaos, Congress would come under increasing pressure to intervene. In the late 1960s, as Bill Stuntz of Harvard Law School notes, national opinion shifted after sensationalistic articles appeared in Newsweek and The Saturday Evening Post exaggerating, by at least a factor of ten, the number of deaths from botched illegal abortions. A year or two after Roe, a similarly galvanizing television image might mobilize women in swing states to take to the streets on behalf of the right to choose. “If a young woman who is raped gets pregnant and goes to a downscale abortion provider and dies from the infection, that becomes a huge story,” says Stuntz.
It’s hard to know precisely how soon after the fall of Roe a story about a botched abortion might capture the national imagination. But the moment pro-choice and swing voters perceived that their own right to choose was threatened, there would be increasingly urgent demands for a federal bill protecting the early-term choice that two-thirds of the country supports. If congressional Republicans failed to respond, or insisted on trying to ban early-term abortions instead, their intransigence could set in motion a national backlash that would make the response to Roe v. Wade itself look tame.
quote: Given the tepid national support for a near or total ban, even among Republicans (only a narrow majority of whom believe that abortion should be illegal in most or all cases), the party leadership understands that an extreme federal ban has the potential to split the Republican coalition at the seams. “Many moderates within the Republican Party, and even some conservatives, bought into the pro-life position when there was no threat Roe would actually be overturned,” says Marshall Wittmann of the Democratic Leadership Council. “I think there are a lot of Republican moderate women and men—especially exurban and suburban women—who would be very queasy about this issue. GOP leaders would fear that they couldn’t hold the coalition together if abortion rights were truly threatened.”
Conservative justices overturn Roe.
Conservative states start cracking down on abortion.
Galvanized citizenry, with great disfavor for this court of action, are propelled to the polls in large numbers.
Shifts see themselves enacted on state and federal levels, and Democrats solidify power.
Freedom of Choice act re-enters congress, and if the Republicans attempt to filibuster it (assuming they haven't cracked down the middle over the issue) they marginalize themselves for decades to come. The overturning of Roe v. Wade puts the abortion debate at the forefront in a way which leaves the G.O.P. with potentially everything to lose.
Meanwhile, riots in streets, etc etc.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And, given that 62% of people want Roe v. Wade to remain (compared to 29% in favor of overturning it, according to Pew), it would be a wonderful recipie for the party behind the overturning to be demonized: Largely unsupported, largely disliked, and profoundly impacting enough to stir a good, healthy majority of people to action, outrage, and higher turnout at polls.
According to Harris, only 49% support Roe's rule for first trimester abortions (compared to 47% who oppose it).
quote:Conservative justices overturn Roe.
Conservative states start cracking down on abortion.
Galvanized citizenry, with great disfavor for this court of action, are propelled to the polls in large numbers.
Shifts see themselves enacted on state and federal levels, and Democrats solidify power.
Freedom of Choice act re-enters congress, and if the Republicans attempt to filibuster it (assuming they haven't cracked down the middle over the issue) they marginalize themselves for decades to come. The overturning of Roe v. Wade puts the abortion debate at the forefront in a way which leaves the G.O.P. with potentially everything to lose.
Meanwhile, riots in streets, etc etc.
It's a nice fantasy. The article is very loose with facts. For example, "In Virginia, for example, after the U.S. Supreme Court, in 1989, handed down Webster, a decision that suggested Roe v. Wade was within one vote of falling, voters in the next election chose as governor a Democrat, Doug Wilder, because he was pro-choice." I was involved in that campaign peripherally and followed it very closely, and this statement vastly oversimplifies a very complex campaign.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder what a pro-choice Democrat might say if I suggested they weren't really concerned with protecting the rights of women, but were doing it for purely political purposes.
I think there's a word for that sort of accusation.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Galvanized citizenry, with great disfavor for this court of action, are propelled to the polls in large numbers.
Why would a majority of citizens be galvanized sufficiently all over, Samp?
They wouldn't? There would just be some galvanized citizenry, and that's created by a change in a many-decade status quo.
The act would be hyped up as a terrible, traumatic, terrifying 'assault on their rights' or somesuch and they would probably respond in kind. A lot of people studying the potential impact of such an overturning have agreed that the move would thrust the issue to center stage in a way that would greatly benefit the side that courts the majority demographic that want to keep Roe in place.
It stands to unify one side, and divide the other.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, it wouldn't come down to just one side, it would be fifty different groups. Also, please note my use of the word 'sufficient'.
One group galvanizing often has a way of galvanizing the other group. Furthermore, the "majority demographic" you're citing appears to be questionable at best, and certainly not overwhelming.
And finally, unless that "majority demographic" exists in sufficient numbers to take over the House of Representatives, it's just not gonna happen.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is an assumption here that the population is overwhelmingly in favor of the status quo. But most of the public want some restrictions on abortion, which is not status quo. They don't want a total ban either, but that is not on the table.
There is also an assumption that if people are allowed to vote on issues they care about that it leads to rioting. I do not find a reason to believe this. Rioting happens more when people feel helpless.
--
But let us consider what has actually happened. One abortion procedure if you want to call it that, infanticide if you like, and a particularly brutal procedure, is now banned. To the degree that the media does not discuss details, nothing will happen -- abortion is still legal up to birth. To the degree that they do discuss the details, they tell the public, "Vote Democrat if you want a right to poke a hole in a baby's head as it's being born." This will not help their case.
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:According to Harris, only 49% support Roe's rule for first trimester abortions (compared to 47% who oppose it).
When you delve into specifics, about 60% of people hover in support of elective abortions, and the number varies based on the reasoning behind abortions. It's always a majority, though.
Also the most pertinent number figure in this issue is whether or not the populace supports Roe. What percentage wants to keep it? What percentage wants to see it overturned? Whenever this figure is looked at, the result is very clear: an overwhelming majority of Americans want to keep it.
quote:It's a nice fantasy. The article is very loose with facts.
The article is actually just cut into cursory sections. But anyway, you dismiss my musings of possibility as fantasy; go on, let's test it. I know that you are greatly disinclined to believe my position, but I am not emotionally invested in the issue either way and know that it's impossible to expect abortion to become illegal in this country. The question is, is it not very very possible that an overturning of Roe is a potential political disaster that some will commit to in spite of the minimal benefit and undesirable fallout?
If you aren't willing to consider the possibility that such an event could turn greatly sour for the party that's been questing for it for decades, sure, you're welcome to it. I obviously think that turmoil and potential political disaster lurk in the potential aftermath. It could very well be the requirement for setting in motion a Freedom of Choice act or a constitutional amendment to protect abortion rights.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But let us consider what has actually happened. One abortion procedure if you want to call it that, infanticide if you like, and a particularly brutal procedure, is now banned. To the degree that the media does not discuss details, nothing will happen -- abortion is still legal up to birth. To the degree that they do discuss the details, they tell the public, "Vote Democrat if you want a right to poke a hole in a baby's head as it's being born." This will not help their case.
Aha but it's not being 'born!'
Because they kind of . ... stop it, just short of it technically being born.
And this makes it magically legal and not infantacide when they hoover out the not-baby's brain.
Yyeah, good riddance to the practice.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How on Earth would we get a constitutional amendment specifically protecting abortion rights? That's a hard thing to do for issues much less divisive than abortion.
quote:The question is, is it not very very possible that an overturning of Roe is a potential political disaster that some will commit to in spite of the minimal benefit and undesirable fallout?
You know, when you use a phrase such as "minimal benefit", it calls into question other phrases you use such as "not emotionally invested".
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: They wouldn't? There would just be some galvanized citizenry, and that's created by a change in a many-decade status quo.
I won't pretend that I follow political discussions or even actively participate in the democratic process. In fact, I'm the stereotypical early-20s apathetic citizen. However, I would fall into this group of "galvanized citizenry" should Roe be overturned. I don't know that I'd riot per se, but I would certainly be compelled to act. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be the only one, either.
Just my thoughts. Carry on with your discussion.
Posts: 3932 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Qaz: One abortion procedure if you want to call it that, infanticide if you like, and a particularly brutal procedure, is now banned.
I don't think it's significantly more or less brutal than the more common alternative, where the fetus is torn apart and removed in pieces (D&E versus intact D&E).
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Similarly, I know many pro-life people who don't let the issue affect their voting behavior or cause become active politically, because the Court has kept this issue out of the democratic process for a generation now. If they thought their vote could affect abortion laws, they would act.
That's a far cry from a split of the Republican party and rioting in the streets, though.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Qaz: But let us consider what has actually happened. One abortion procedure if you want to call it that, infanticide if you like, and a particularly brutal procedure, is now banned. To the degree that the media does not discuss details, nothing will happen -- abortion is still legal up to birth.
Dag can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure Roe allows states to pass restrictions on second and third trimester abortion.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think it's significantly more or less brutal than the more common alternative, where the fetus is torn apart and removed in pieces (D&E versus intact D&E).
I agree.
It does, however, illustrate the absurdity of the concept that 20 inches in physical location makes a difference with respect to the morality of killing another person.
And make no mistake, in at least some of these, we're speaking of beings that are undeniably persons. At 23 weeks, chance of survival is at least 1 in 10. 3 weeks later, it's 8 in 10.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Far Cry is a great song. Listen to it at Rush.com. [edit] That was in reference to Dags previous post.
I can't see rioting in the streets, but I also don't see RvW being overturned anytime in the near future. This event today is not particularly devisive. Even Sam can see how atrocious the act is.
I have a question, though. What kind of medical dangers might the mother be exposed to by giving birth that is negated or greatly reduced by a partial birth abortion? Because that seems to be major point of contention in Ginsberg's dissent.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pretty sure you're right dkw, Alabama has a late-term abortion ban. I'm not sure how many weeks it is, I'll have to check.
Edit: Alabama's is a "post-viability" ban, and the determination of viability is apparently up to the attending physician, since it can vary depending on the pregnancy.
[ April 18, 2007, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: Belle ]
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You know, when you use a phrase such as "minimal benefit", it calls into question other phrases you use such as "not emotionally invested".
It's benefit within the framework of someone who wants to stop abortions. Overturning it would stop some abortions -- maybe not many, but some. From this perspective, it's easily a benefit.
What I deal in is interest in whether such an act would really end up being only a net benefit to the other side, the pro-choice advocates. This whole thing I'm talking about with the galvanizing and the other colorful words is trying to underscore the fact that overturning Roe changes everything, and in such a way as to show that it's not a victory if the pro-life side cannot escape its toll against them.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I'm pretty sure Roe allows states to pass restrictions on second and third trimester abortion."
It does. But it leaves an out for medical reasons.
(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.
(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.
(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure Roe allows states to pass restrictions on second and third trimester abortion.
Roe allowed restrictions, but required allowing abortion up until birth in cases where the mother's health is jeopardized. A companion case, Doe v. Bolton, stated that the attending physician's judgment that the abortion was protective of the emotional and psychological health of the mother was sufficient to meet this requirement, creating a situation where it was effectively impossible to restrict 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions.
Note that Roe is not the controlling law any more. Casey overturned the trimester framework and replaced it with the viability demarcation. Prior to viability, no undue burden (very ill-defined even 18 years later) may be placed on a right to an abortion. The limits after viability are not clear at this time, but as of now, a woman can obtain an abortion up until birth based on the doctor's agreement that it is for the mother's health - including emotional and psychological.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "And make no mistake, in at least some of these, we're speaking of beings that are undeniably persons."
Really? So something around 40-50% of the country is taking a position that is undeniably not true?
Anyone who says that a 26-week preemie is a person when in a hospital incubator but not a person when all but the head is still within the mother's body is undeniably wrong, yes. I'm very comfortable stating that.
And anyone who doesn't consider that 26-week preemie in the incubator a person is, quite simply, monstrous.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am under the impression that abortion is legal until birth. I know it was not Roe, but a later decision. If there is a law restricting abortion at this point, somebody please post a link.
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Anyone who says that a 26-week preemie is a person when in a hospital incubator but not a person when all but the head is still within the mother's body is undeniably wrong, yes. I'm very comfortable stating that."
ok. *shrug* Birth has been a huge dividing line through the course of history for a variety of reasons, and I'm fairly comfortable in beleving that it should remain so, and that anyone who doesn't think it should be a dividing line is undeniably wrong.
Guess there's no room for discussion between your 30% of the country and my 40% of the country, huh?
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think it's significantly more or less brutal than the more common alternative, where the fetus is torn apart and removed in pieces (D&E versus intact D&E).
I agree.
It does, however, illustrate the absurdity of the concept that 20 inches in physical location makes a difference with respect to the morality of killing another person.
I don't totally agree with that statement, since there's a good deal more to being fully within or outside the mother's body than "20 inches of physical location," but yes, that's more or less why I think the "Partial Birth" Abortion Ban is a political showpiece.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I kinda doubt that much of the country believes birth is a dividing line. The issue there isn't whether the fetus is a baby, but whether the danger to the mother is great enough to outweigh the right to life of the child, or whether the danger to the mother should even be a factor when discussing late-term abortion.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you suggesting that there is 40% support in the US for partial-birth abortions remaining legal, Paul?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Are you suggesting that there is 40% support in the US for partial-birth abortions remaining legal, Paul?
I don't know about numbers, but it may depend on what you mean by "birth." What happens in an intact D&E isn't a "birth" in the conventional sense of the term.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:ok. *shrug* Birth has been a huge dividing line through the course of history for a variety of reasons, and I'm fairly comfortable in beleving that it should remain so, and that anyone who doesn't think it should be a dividing line is undeniably wrong.
Well, if that's what you think, why did you raise 40-50% (numbers I'd love to see you back up, by the way) in a manner that suggested the percentage would be a reason for me to not think that? Fake incredulity is cheap.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Well, if that's what you think, why did you raise 40-50% (numbers I'd love to see you back up, by the way) in a manner that suggested the percentage would be a reason for me to not think that? "
Was making a rhetorical point in the second post.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I stopped reading after the first paragraph, Paul. Not for reasons of profanity-although it's there, FYI to people who might look at it at work or be offended by it-but because of the ridiculous slant. It's just a blog, I know.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will never forget the abortion thread where second trimester abortions were described. "Harpooning the whale" anyone?
I find the whole concept of aborting once a woman can feel her baby moving to be a violation of every maternal instinct I possess. I'd have to have a baby with no head or something to abort at that point. That women can still be blasse about it just blows my mind. It's at least a little comforting to know that most women do it early.
Personally, I wouldn't have any problems with banning abortions after the quickening. Three months ought to be enough for a woman to make up her mind as to what she wants to do or can't handle. After that, it's just another six and she can give it away. There are very few things in life you can't delay six months while you have a baby that you didn't know about in the first three. And I'm sure we can make exceptions for the ones that do pop up.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: I will never forget the abortion thread where second trimester abortions were described. "Harpooning the whale" anyone?
I find the whole concept of aborting once a woman can feel her baby moving to be a violation of every maternal instinct I possess. I'd have to have a baby with no head or something to abort at that point. That women can still be blasse about it just blows my mind. It's at least a little comforting to know that most women do it early.
This is why the blog linked above does give some useful information for context. (She is biased in her writing and admits it, but she is an academic who is generally very accurate in matters of fact when she posts.)
I'm exerpting it here because I think it might be useful to the thread. None of the information below has profanity. Her referenced sources are at the bottom, and I'm willing to follow up on questions about matter of fact.
I don't take this to prove anything one way or another, and I don't post it as argument. I think it is relevant and useful information, whatever decision an individual may draw from it.
[Edited to add: I quoted AvidReader because I was responding to the very honest and heartfelt expression of incredulity that a woman could do this. I am not arguing with AR, nor do I mean to imply she's wrong! I just wanted to make sure the context of why the "harpooning the whale" might be done for medical reasons. It still might well be beyond the pale for many to contemplate, but there are reasons to do it above and beyond a desire to eviscerate, or some such. That's all.]
quote:What is medically recognized:
- 90% of abortions occur in the first trimester.
- Intact dilation and extraction (also known as IDX, or sometimes just D&X) is used in approximately [0.17]% of all abortions.
- It is probable (though definitive data do not exist) that the majority of IDX procedures are performed because of fetal abnormalities.
- IDX, because it delivers a fetus whole, creates less risk of uterine perforation from bone fragments than other forms of late-term abortion.
- IDX has less risk of infection than other forms of late-term abortion, because it takes less time and requires the insertion of fewer instruments into the uterus.
- IDX (like other late-term abortion procedures) can prevent a woman who has found that her fetus is dead or not viable from having to undergo labor and delivery of a dead fetus.
- IDX can allow women whose fetuses are not viable to view and hold their dead babies after delivery.
- Most IDX procedures are performed between 20-24 weeks gestation--that is, within the second trimester, and before fetal viability. [I'd note here that our definitions of viability are in significant flux right now, and they are likely to be for some time. I'll also note that I myself distinguish between a potential right to have control over one's own body and the right to the death of what may be growing in one's body. For me, viability brings this into sharp focus, whereas it may be an incidental issue to others. --CT]
- In cases where a fetus has severe hydrocephalus (water on the brain, which can cause a fetuses head to be grotesquely enlarged), the options to a woman may be IDX or a Cesarean section--that is, a three-day outpatient procedure or major surgery, with attendant potential complications. [Note here that our own sndrake can testify that hydrocephalus in itself does not predict longterm functioning or quality of life. --CT]
- The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists explicitly opposed the ban.
...
Sources consulted:
Salon: "A Doctor's Right to Choose."
Library of Congress Congressional Research Services report 95-1101 SPR: "Abortion Procedures"
Suzanne Batchelor, "Abortion Procedures Ban Limits Endings for Doomed Pregnancies"
Planned Parenthood Federation of America: "PPA Opposes Abortion Ban Legislation"
posted
Thanks, CT. It's nice to know it's usually being done for non-icky reasons. (And the procedures where they take the baby out in pieces squick me out way worse than a quick jab.)
I can respect aborting a dead baby or one so deformed that it will only die anyway. Why risk an infection? The bit about fetal abnormalities worries me a little though. I'd like to see some studies on how abnormal we're talking.
I grew up near the Key Center, an organization for people with Down's Syndrome. They run group homes and find employment for people with Down's, and lots of them have happy, productive lives. But I remember a lady I went to church with telling me that when they discovered her son had Down's, the doctor and some of the nurses tried to talk her into aborting. That was probably back in the 70s, and I don't know how prevelant it was at the time or would be today. But I've read too many of sndrake's posts and links where people don't mind aborting babies that should have had decades of life with some assistance. I don't trust humanity to decide who would really die and who would be inconvenient.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
