Partial Birth Abortion Banned today

[sox4lifeinPA]

look out below

[southsider2k5]

I know the whole slippery slope arguement, and personally I think it is mostly hot air, but how can anyone think this is something that should be done. You are inducing birth, cracking a baby's head open, sucking their brains out, and then throwing out the fetus. Where is the need for this proceedure?

[sox4lifeinPA]

I know the whole slippery slope arguement, and personally I think it is mostly hot air, but how can anyone think this is something that should be done.  You are inducing birth, cracking a baby's head open, sucking their brains out, and then throwing out the fetus.  Where is the need for this proceedure?

I remember BridgeportJoe saying something about this. I think the majority of these surgeries were only done in cases of emergency. I usually trust his facts, so I don't know.

 

regardless, it seems like an extremely barbaric way of infanticide...

[southsider2k5]

I remember BridgeportJoe saying something about this. I think the majority of these surgeries were only done in cases of emergency. I usually trust his facts, so I don't know. 

 

regardless, it seems like an extremely barbaric way of infanticide...

A mother's life is an arguement I can listen to. Slippery slope is BS.

[Queen Prawn]

I remember BridgeportJoe saying something about this. I think the majority of these surgeries were only done in cases of emergency. I usually trust his facts, so I don't know. 

 

regardless, it seems like an extremely barbaric way of infanticide...

There is one reason I don't understand how this could be true (please understand that I am not saying that I don't believe it is true, I just don't understand how it is true). The baby is induced breech (sp?) to perform this operation. My sister's baby was in breech and the doctor performed an emrgency 'C' because he said (and this is directly from the doctor) that breech positions jeopardize the mother's life and thusly if he can avoid having one of his patients give birth this way, he will.

[mreye]

A great injustice to mankind finally reversed.

 

This passed once during Clinton's years and he vetoed it. The veto was overidden by the House, but missed by 2 votes in the Senate. Two Dems that voted "no" claim to be Catholic. One was Carol Mosely Braun. The country as a whole is very much against this procedure, and many contribute this vote to her failing to win re-election. But, alas, she's going to be our next President.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

A great injustice to mankind finally reversed.

 

This passed once during Clinton's years and he vetoed it. The veto was overidden by the House, but missed by 2 votes in the Senate. Two Dems that voted "no" claim to be Catholic. One was Carol Mosely Braun. The country as a whole is very much against this procedure, and many contribute this vote to her failing to win re-election. But, alas, she's going to be our next President.

I'm with ya 100%. Hearing about how this is done just makes me sick.

[Queen Prawn]

I'm with ya 100%.  Hearing about how this is done just makes me sick.

Try going to a website that deals with it that has pictures (I went to a pro and a con website). :puke

[cwsox]

this is an unconstitutional law - has been declared twice so already and will be so again

 

The Supreme Court has ruled twice that the law is unconstitutional if it does not incluide exceptions for the life of the mother. The response in this law was to include a series of "findings" that Congress does not think the life of the mother is an important issue.

 

This is a medical procedure. All medical procedures are gruesome. Perhaps we should post pictures of what happens when a bullet goes through a body and then ban all firearms? No because that is unconstitutional? Exactly the point.

 

The term "partial birth abortion" is a made up public relations name anyway for campaign purposes.

 

And this bill is like its predecessors, so incredibly broad in its language - because it is a malicious bill - that on its language is so overly broad that a number of medical procedures are under this thing illegal - but that is the intent, to undo a woman's right to make decisions, this bill is to fit a particicular religious dogma in a campaign season. And no wonder judges are already holding it unconstitutional, as the Supreme Court will, again.

 

A woman should have all rights to make all medical decisions necessary between herself, her doctor, and her God if she has one - and our country allows the option of not having a god. That Congress and Bush are playing politics by governmental intrusion by passing lwegislation that intrudes on people's private medical decisions shows how far the so-called conservatives have strayed from conservatism - they are just activists of the worst kind trying to make decisions int he private life of everyone. The true conservative position was always that medicial decisions are between an individual and a doctor, not a matter of state meddling.

 

Of course, when was this passed? Bush is sagiing int he polls, the economy is going south, and the presidiential election is almost exactly a year away. Time to whip out the old emotionalism of this bill, as unconstitutional is it is, and wave it around for drumming up some money and poll numbers.

 

There are medical circumstances, especially in the second trimester but sometimes in the third, when what will be a non-viable or malformed fetus that will, if not removed, kill the woman. Where does the government get off on interfering in this private tragedy?

 

I pray - and as clergy I work very hard - for every woman to have the right to make decisions for her own health and life.

 

 

(Ever notice how the anti-choice crowd is never around when it comes to supporting children already born? Lets suggest raising everyone's taxes to support full medical and dental coverage for all children - all children - including the children of undocumented "illegal" aliens - and see how they scream about socialism and that its too expensive. Not willing to support what they claim by backing it up in their lives, not at all. The so-called right-to-life ends with birth with this crowd. When Right to Life puts forward and works for fully funded full medical, housing, education, and food and clothing support for every child already born - regardless of anything else including a child's citizenship status - for every child - every child - then I will not think they are the flaming Taliban hypccrites that they are right now.

 

Even notice how that same crowd never makes an issue of their church denomination's teachings on the death penalty, or war, or capitalism for that matter? Very selective pick and choose.)

[IlliniBob72]

this is an unconstitutional law - has been declared twice so already and will be so again

 

The Supreme Court has ruled twice that the law is unconstitutional if it does not incluide exceptions for the life of the mother.  The response in this law was to include a series of "findings" that Congress does not think the life of the mother is an important issue.

 

This is a medical procedure.  All medical procedures are gruesome.  Perhaps we should post pictures of what happens when a bullet goes through a body and then ban all firearms?  No because that is unconstitutional?  Exactly the point.

 

The term "partial birth abortion" is a made up public relations name anyway for campaign purposes.

 

And this bill is like its predecessors, so incredibly broad in its language - because it is a malicious bill - that on its language is so overly broad that a number of medical procedures are under this thing illegal - but that is the intent, to undo a woman's right to make decisions, this bill is to fit a particicular religious dogma in a campaign season.  And no wonder judges are already holding it unconstitutional, as the Supreme Court will, again. 

 

A woman should have all rights to make all medical decisions necessary between herself, her doctor, and her God if she has one - and our country allows the option of not having a god. That Congress and Bush are playing politics by governmental intrusion  by passing lwegislation that intrudes on people's private medical decisions shows how far the so-called conservatives have strayed from conservatism - they are just activists of the worst kind trying to make decisions int he private life of everyone. The true conservative position was always that medicial decisions are between an individual and a doctor, not a matter of state meddling.

 

Of course, when was this passed?  Bush is sagiing int he polls, the economy is going south, and  the presidiential election is almost exactly a year away.  Time to whip out the old emotionalism of this bill, as unconstitutional is it is, and wave it around for drumming up some money and poll numbers.

 

There are medical circumstances, especially in the second trimester but sometimes in the third, when what will be a non-viable or malformed fetus that will, if not removed, kill the woman.  Where does the government get off on interfering in this private tragedy?

 

I pray - and as clergy I work very hard - for every woman to have the right to make decisions for her own health and life.

 

 

(Ever notice how the anti-choice crowd is never around when it comes to supporting children already born?  Lets suggest raising everyone's taxes to support full medical and dental coverage for all children - all children - including the children of undocumented "illegal" aliens -  and see how they scream about socialism and that its too expensive.  Not willing to support what they claim by backing it up in their lives, not at all.  The so-called right-to-life ends with birth with this crowd.  When Right to Life puts forward and works for fully funded full medical, housing, education, and food and clothing support for every child already born - regardless of anything else including a child's citizenship status - for every child - every child - then I will not think they are the flaming Taliban hypccrites that they are right now.

 

Even notice how that same crowd never makes an issue of their church denomination's teachings on the death penalty, or war, or capitalism for that matter?  Very selective pick and choose.)

I'm sorry, but I can't take this post seriously. There is absolutely no reason that can justify crushing an infant's head and sucking out it's brains. None. And "Partial Birth Abortion" is exactly what it is. If anything, the term is too sterile. Infant Head Crushing would be more accurate. The only reason for not delivering the baby entirely out of the mother is that once that happens it is no longer "abortion" but infanticide.

 

A friend of mine needed to have her son induced in the second trimester due to extremely high blood pressure. Rather than crush the baby's head, they actually saved him and he is now over a year old and living a happy life. If the baby cannot be saved, so be it, but no need to murder the poor child.

 

Bush signed this law for help in the polls? Please. The nation has wanted this law for years and years and has been in the works for a long time. I suppose he should not do the right thing because he is hurting in the polls and it may look like politics? No.

[Flash Tizzle]

I'm sorry, but I can't take this post seriously. There is absolutely no reason that can justify crushing an infant's head and sucking out it's brains. None.

Call me naive but I didnt know this was the process to abort a phetus. Never thought about the actual process; honestly assumed that abortions were made by a lethal injection.

 

Dont understand why this needs to be done.......or why we seem to treat these babies worse then criminals who are about to be executed. (Not saying that a death row inmate should get his head bashed in and brains sucked out. Just making a note of this distinction.)

 

While on the topic, what exactly do abortion clinics do with these babies once they kill them. Seriously, Is there a garbage can they throw them in and someone comes around to pick it up.....

[sox4lifeinPA]

this is an unconstitutional law - has been declared twice so already and will be so again

 

The Supreme Court has ruled twice that the law is unconstitutional if it does not incluide exceptions for the life of the mother.  The response in this law was to include a series of "findings" that Congress does not think the life of the mother is an important issue.

 

This is a medical procedure.  All medical procedures are gruesome.  Perhaps we should post pictures of what happens when a bullet goes through a body and then ban all firearms?  No because that is unconstitutional?  Exactly the point.

 

The term "partial birth abortion" is a made up public relations name anyway for campaign purposes.

 

And this bill is like its predecessors, so incredibly broad in its language - because it is a malicious bill - that on its language is so overly broad that a number of medical procedures are under this thing illegal - but that is the intent, to undo a woman's right to make decisions, this bill is to fit a particicular religious dogma in a campaign season.  And no wonder judges are already holding it unconstitutional, as the Supreme Court will, again. 

 

A woman should have all rights to make all medical decisions necessary between herself, her doctor, and her God if she has one - and our country allows the option of not having a god. That Congress and Bush are playing politics by governmental intrusion  by passing lwegislation that intrudes on people's private medical decisions shows how far the so-called conservatives have strayed from conservatism - they are just activists of the worst kind trying to make decisions int he private life of everyone. The true conservative position was always that medicial decisions are between an individual and a doctor, not a matter of state meddling.

 

Of course, when was this passed?  Bush is sagiing int he polls, the economy is going south, and  the presidiential election is almost exactly a year away.  Time to whip out the old emotionalism of this bill, as unconstitutional is it is, and wave it around for drumming up some money and poll numbers.

 

There are medical circumstances, especially in the second trimester but sometimes in the third, when what will be a non-viable or malformed fetus that will, if not removed, kill the woman.  Where does the government get off on interfering in this private tragedy?

 

I pray - and as clergy I work very hard - for every woman to have the right to make decisions for her own health and life.

 

 

(Ever notice how the anti-choice crowd is never around when it comes to supporting children already born?  Lets suggest raising everyone's taxes to support full medical and dental coverage for all children - all children - including the children of undocumented "illegal" aliens -  and see how they scream about socialism and that its too expensive.  Not willing to support what they claim by backing it up in their lives, not at all.  The so-called right-to-life ends with birth with this crowd.  When Right to Life puts forward and works for fully funded full medical, housing, education, and food and clothing support for every child already born - regardless of anything else including a child's citizenship status - for every child - every child - then I will not think they are the flaming Taliban hypccrites that they are right now.

 

Even notice how that same crowd never makes an issue of their church denomination's teachings on the death penalty, or war, or capitalism for that matter?  Very selective pick and choose.)

so I don't get it cdub....you don't like this bill I'm guessing?

[SuperSteve]

It is an awful thing, but when do you guys consider a fetus a human? I feel all abortions are wrong.

[sox4lifeinPA]

Not saying that a death row inmate should get his head bashed in and brains sucked out. Just making a note of this distinction.)

 

I am....That Green River guy? 48 different families should take turns beating the hell out of this guy....along with all rapists and pedophiles... it scares the hell out of to even think about if that would ever happen to any girl I know.

 

 

oh, just for the record...I'd give a few minutes to find Jesus first...then beat the hell out of them.

[sox4lifeinPA]

It is an awful thing, but when do you guys consider a fetus a human? I feel all abortions are wrong.

some people believe that as soon as the heart starts beating....then it's a life.

[SuperSteve]

Not saying that a death row inmate should get his head bashed in and brains sucked out. Just making a note of this distinction.)

 

I am....That Green River guy? 48 different families should take turns beating the hell out of this guy....along with all rapists and pedophiles... it scares the hell out of to even think about if that would ever happen to any girl I know.

 

 

oh, just for the record...I'd give a few minutes to find Jesus first...then beat the hell out of them.

Rapists and pedophiles get what they deserve in prision. Ya hear often times they get the hell beat out of them for that stuff.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

some people believe that as soon as the heart starts beating....then it's a life.

thats because it is. It has a heart, and it is beating, what else could it be? Of course its life. How can you argue that its not?

 

But as for the bill, i'm glad it passed. Partial-birth abortion is extremely inhumane, and i dont see any benefit for it. The baby is inches from being out anyways, does it really matter? Maybe it does, im no doctor, but its hard to believe that those extra few inches really do matter.

[Soxy]

Just to add my 2 cents...This procedure is, and always has been VERY rare. Both because of the ethical implications and because of the extreme health risks to the mother. Almost 90% (88%, according to the last class I took) of abortions are done in the first 3 months of pregnancy--as opposed to this which is in the much later stages. So, pretty much this is really a case of a lot of hype surrounding a type of abortion that no one really uses...And for one of my bio classes we had to watch an abortion procedure (early term) and it is nothing like the other one--and the woman receives a lot of counseling before she makes her choices and she is made aware of her options before she goes through the procedure. So, it's not like women just go into it and use it like crazy, at least not what I saw, and not with the new 24 hour waiting period. Just my experience from studying in the field.

[IlliniBob72]

(Ever notice how the anti-choice crowd is never around when it comes to supporting children already born?  Lets suggest raising everyone's taxes to support full medical and dental coverage for all children - all children - including the children of undocumented "illegal" aliens -  and see how they scream about socialism and that its too expensive.  Not willing to support what they claim by backing it up in their lives, not at all.  The so-called right-to-life ends with birth with this crowd.  When Right to Life puts forward and works for fully funded full medical, housing, education, and food and clothing support for every child already born - regardless of anything else including a child's citizenship status - for every child - every child - then I will not think they are the flaming Taliban hypccrites that they are right now.

I was just re-reading this post again and still find myself shaking my head in disbelief. Because I don't believe in killing unborn children, or in the case of partial birth abortion, children that have been born for all intents and purposes, I'm a hypocrite for not believing that the government should fit the bill for every single living child? I'm against killing puppies too. Am I allowed to feel that way even though I don't think Uncle Sam should pay for my dog's vet bills? There are so many governmental programs to help out people with children, for you to say such a thing is absolutely mindboggling. Public schools are free, paid for by tax dollars. Programs such as WIC help poor families feed their children. Medicaid helps the poor with their medical bills. Welfare also is a government program that helps the poor, but surely you've heard of that one. And everyone gets help from the government for their children...it's called the Child Tax Credit. No, it certainly won't make having children cost-free, but why should having children mean that you as a parent don't have to support that child? That's just insane.

 

Just as you feel I'm a hypocrite then, I can't help but be amazed at liberals who will chain themselves to a tree to keep it from being cut down, or will protest the execution of a mass murderer, but see no problem with murdering a new born baby. If that baby were a seal or a spotted owl he or she would have more of a chance of gaining the support of these "pro-choice" people

[Rex Kickass]

THe problem with this bill, in my opinion is that it is frankly too broad. To my understanding, it could potentially be interpreted as banning any 2nd trimester abortion procedure including non-partial birth abortion procedures. This could go beyond the stated intent of the law... and probably intentionally so. If the federal government wants to outlaw abortion, so be it. However, it should clearly say what its doing and not pass laws to exceed the stated goals.

[FlaSoxxJim]

THe problem with this bill, in my opinion is that it is frankly too broad. To my understanding, it could potentially be interpreted as banning any 2nd trimester abortion procedure including non-partial birth abortion procedures. This could go beyond the stated intent of the law... and probably intentionally so. If the federal government wants to outlaw abortion, so be it. However, it should clearly say what its doing and not pass laws to exceed the stated goals.

They HAVE clearly stated what they are doing -- by throwing 100s of millions of dollars at bill after bill ostensably meant to address a small fraction of abortion procedures, and in using overly broad language to do it. Does anyone believe the sponsors of this latest bill be done pursuing other anti-abortion legislation if this bill is upheld?

 

At least there are several judges who see it for what it is and have issued injunctions. The Utah judge's injunction is very narrow, only protecting the rights of 4 specific doctors AND their professional colleagues. But, in theory, those doctors can consult others nationwide via email and extend their protections to them. The judge learned the power of vague wording I guess, so good for him. The ruling from the New York judge sounds like it will be more important in the long run.

[Soxfest]

I am tired of judges protesting decisions that are passed , 1 person having that much power is very scary.

[southsider2k5]

I am tired of judges protesting decisions that are passed , 1 person having that much power is very scary.

Its called checks and balances

[FlaSoxxJim]

I am tired of judges protesting decisions that are passed , 1 person having that much power is very scary.

Checks and balances is necessary to ensure that bounds are not overstepped by any one branch of government. In this case, temporary injunctions are put in place while more substantial appeals are developed. It does make things wend their way through the courts rather slowly some times, but it is an important process nonetheless.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Its called checks and balances

We must have posted at the same time, sorry.