Lograh (lograh) wrote,


the term `partial-birth abortion' means an abortion in which the person performing the abortion vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus.

I'm sorry, folks, call be intolerant, but that just sounds damn gross.. I can't imagine a situation where this would be safer for the mother than actually delivering the child. Especially when you consider that this still counts as a vaginal birth. They first induce labor before the baby/mother are ready for it, then pause the proceedings to kill the baby, then continue labor to get the dead baby fully out.

Some people have said that this goes against Roe v. Wade. I don't see that. In fact, from what I can tell of the court decision in Roe v. Wade, the court only protected a woman's right to get an abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy. to quote:
(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.

(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.

(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 it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

So, in passing this bill, I don't see any contradiction to the Roe/Wade decision. I see people decrying this ban as an "invasion of privacy". Well, guess what, again to quote the court:

The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy.

Now, yes, court decisions have defined some right to privacy, but in the case of abortion the Roe/Wade decision made it very clear that you only have a right to privacy up till the end of the first trimester. Anything you want to do after that can be legislated (within reason) by the State.

Some interesting reading for anyone with an opinion on this topic (as I think most people are):
here is the bill in question's site. To read the bill itself click on "text of legislation" and then click the link for version number 5, that's the one that is being sent to the president for signing.
here is a copy of the court decision in Roe v. Wade. It's not on the official Supreme Court's website becasue I couldn't find it there (I tell ya, the Supreme Court has one of the most unhelpful websites I've ever visited).

  • quickie // linktastic

    This person wrote an article that was picked up by the New York Times about alternative assistive animals. Here's the article, and it's pretty…

  • two things // linktastic

    For those who don't regularly follow Gaiman's journal, or haven't seen it in other places, here's a useful post. summary: Gaiman is reading his new…

  • impressions // iComplain

    So, after spending all Friday morning in line, I got to spend all weekend playing with teh shiny. Here are some thoughts, some applicable to any old…

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic
    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.