Justice Alito And My Gallbladder
Your Honor, what do you think of my gallbladder? Should I get it removed? Maybe mount it on a little wooden base (after having it bronzed?...or do you think bronzing is kind of tacky?)
I only ask because you and some of your fellow Supremes have taken it upon yourself to make medical decisions for a whole lot of American women. Linda Greenhouse writes for The New York Times about the Supreme Court reversal, backing of the ban on partial-birth abortion:
In describing the federal law’s justifications, Justice Kennedy said that banning the procedure was in fact good for women, protecting them against terminating their pregnancies by a method they might not fully understand in advance and would come to regret later.
Hey, Justice Kennedy, perhaps if Justice Alito is too busy, you could weigh in on a few of my medical questions. You don't do dermatology, do you? Knee surgery? Rotate tires?
Slate's Dahlia Lithwick puts Justice Kennedy's condescension into perspective:
Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion is less about the scope of abortion regulation than an announcement of an astonishing new test: Hereinafter, on the morally and legally thorny question of abortion, the proposed rule should be weighed against the gauzy sensitivities of that iconic literary creature: the Inconstant Female.Kennedy invokes The Woman Who Changed Her Mind not once, but twice today. His opinion is a love song to all women who regret their abortions after the fact, and it is in the service of these women that he justifies upholding the ban. Today's holding is a strange reworking of Taming of the Shrew, with Kennedy playing an all-knowing Baptista to a nation of fickle Biancas.
...His opinion blossoms from the premise that if all women were as sensitive as he is about the fundamental awfulness of this procedure, they'd all refuse to undergo it. Since they aren't, he'll decide for them.
Aww, gee thanks...that's so sweet. About this suspicious mole I have...
And from what I understand, those justices who voted to uphold the ban also based the decision on Congress' decision that this procedure is never medically necessary. Gah. You've got it right, Amy. Medical decisions need to be left to patients and doctors.
deja pseu at April 19, 2007 6:02 AM
Shitty law from bad premises, but that happens all the time.
And still:
> Medical decisions need to be
> left to patients and doctors
This is about more than individual health care. Everyone who thinks we should provide clinics and prenatal care for the poor implicitly concedes that society has an important interest in the next generation. A pregnant woman isn't a child playing with a classroom light switch moments before Teacher walks in and settles everyone down, and the taxpayer ain't the teacher.
Meanwhile, Wiki says PBAs are .17% of the abortions in the United States.
Lithwick has always been annoying.
Crid at April 19, 2007 6:25 AM
Also, I hate the name "Dahlia"
Crid at April 19, 2007 6:26 AM
Amy, get you knee pads out because 'every knee shall bow'. Thanks to George Bush and his fellow Republican inquisitors, we now have 5, count 'em 5, Catholic Supreme Court justices in charge of our nation's highest court. This ruling is only the beginning, I afraid.
Bill Henry at April 19, 2007 7:06 AM
Gee, those justices are so smart, and us woman are just so stupid! We need to be protected from ourselves!
Using their infinite wisdom, and obvious understanding of medicine, the next step is legislating that cancer is life and should be allowed to flourish. In their minds, the parasite is always more important than the host, so if people have to die for cancer to flourish, who are we to tamper with what God has decided? Curing cancer is just another way man is showing his arrogance.
Chrissy at April 19, 2007 7:52 AM
I'm always fascinated at how conservatives who want "small government" have no problem extending said government to including the inner workings of the female mind and body.
Amy at April 19, 2007 8:25 AM
I'm always fascinated at how liberals who want "compassionate government" have no problem demanding said government exclude the inner workings of the female mind and body.
(Har! That was fun!)
Crid at April 19, 2007 8:37 AM
And nonsensical.
deja pseu at April 19, 2007 8:55 AM
Oh, show a little leg. Do you think society has any say in a woman's abortion?
Crid at April 19, 2007 9:03 AM
I would never have an abortion, but I also see no need to judge women who have, or to make laws making it illegal. Perhaps if more women like me, who would not have abortions spoke out in favor of those who have had abortions/or who would have abortions the pro-life ppl would have a harder time with their agenda. An abortion is a very private issue.
PurplePen at April 19, 2007 9:24 AM
Since when is allowing women to or not to commit murder the same as taken it upon yourself to make medical decisions for a whole lot of American women?
I just don’t see how aborting someone’s life is a women’s health issue. They are delivering these babies, well delivering them dead after they are killed on the way out.. It stands to reason then that these women could have delivered these babies alive. What is the health issue here? Can someone tell me?
Rusty Wilson at April 19, 2007 9:35 AM
Rusty- I'll leave the broader abortion debate for a minute and point out what doctors have said about the specific procedure that has been banned. It wasn't abortion in general, you know. I have read that this procedure is rarely used, but is used most often to save the life or health of the woman. The ban did not include a provision taking life or health into account. So if your sister/wife/daughter had a dangerous pregnancy that was likely to kill or seriously injure her health, perhaps even destroy her fertility, and that fact was not discovered until it was too late in the pregnancy for an ordinary abortion, too bad for her. The fetus may not even live, but the woman still must suffer the consequences, even if fatal. Sounds like the fetus is more important than the person. This doesn't just affect the heartless babykillers it also affects women who are trying to have families and have pregnancies go wrong.
christina at April 19, 2007 9:50 AM
Its a bit of a stretch to equate a gall bladder to a child close to birth. If that is your belief, that there is no difference between the two ,then you have some mental/intellectual issues to overcome.
This procedure is murder and society says if you have engaged in procreative behavior then you have a responsibility to finish the job you have begun.
It is your responsibility to not have sex if you do not want the consequences of such action.
Stop blaming everyone for your problems and see the world as it is.
william jonas at April 19, 2007 9:53 AM
Rusty, do you think every woman who's had an abortion should be in prison for murder?
Crid at April 19, 2007 9:57 AM
Oh, show a little leg. Do you think society has any say in a woman's abortion?
None whatsoever.
deja pseu at April 19, 2007 9:58 AM
> None whatsoever.
Good luck out there. Be sure and let us know how it goes for you.
Crid at April 19, 2007 10:05 AM
(It's a lot of work to be in the Center for this one)
Crid at April 19, 2007 10:06 AM
It's funny how many of the same folks who are 2nd ammendment absolutists are often the ones who won't recognize women's sovereignty over their own bodies.
Hypothetical: a man has a child who has two failing kidneys. A kidney transplant will save the child, and the father is the only donor match. Can he be forced to give up a kidney to save his child? Not now, because our legal and medical systems recognize his bodily sovereignty.
deja pseu at April 19, 2007 10:29 AM
No Amy, it's CONGRESS who is making decisions about your body. The Supreme Court's job isn't to make decisions like that, it's to decide if the laws are constitutional.
Congress didn't have to pass this law, but Congress did. The Supreme Court is not a 'backup Congress,' it was just pretending to be one for a few decades. Those days are moving away. Focus on Congress.
Andrew Berman at April 19, 2007 10:30 AM
Well, I don't want to be the gloomy gus, but Roe v Wade will be overturned within the next few decades. That is an inevitability based on the different numbers of childbirths between evangelicals conservatives and progressives. The GOP is replenishing their voter base with having more kids than the Democrats. Unless you have faith that the majority of the kids will reject their parents' politics.
If Roe v Wade is overturn by a future Supreme Court. It doesn't mean abortions will be illegal all over the USA. The issue will go back to the individual states. Some states will maintain abortions as legal. While the other states will outright ban them or regulate them to the point of being a rare phenomenon.
Before the Roe v Wade decision... 39 out of the 50 states had the medical abortion procedure legal.
Joe at April 19, 2007 10:32 AM
William and Rusty,
You would impose your values on others at their expense and you've chosen the most obvious, convenient target possible. I admire your defense of unborn children, but until every human child is born into a life of promise to a mother who actually wants that child, your agenda is suboptimal. Go clothe and feed a few thousand third world orphans.
Food, alcohol and tobacco are probably the 3 most deadly things people put in their mouths, but they'll not soon be curtailed by our government, which is more interested in creating the illusion of public service by pandering to knee-jerk values than creating rational public policy, an example of which is the end of the unnecessary, expensive and ineffective drug war.
Dave at April 19, 2007 10:34 AM
> our legal and medical systems
> recognize his bodily sovereignty.
What's your point? What's it got to do with abortion?
Crid at April 19, 2007 10:49 AM
I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse, but it's women who get pregnant, and women who bear (no pun intended) the physical and medical consequences of pregnancy.
deja pseu at April 19, 2007 10:55 AM
Children as consequences. I love it!
Setting up that kid for a lovely childhood, aren't we? And these are usually the same people who deplore welfare. Ha!
Christina at April 19, 2007 11:04 AM
I can't understand how one can logically come to the conclusion that LTA is in any way equivalent to a man chosing to donate a kidney to a dying child. You are not talking about a kidney, a gaul bladder, or some PART of a functioning body that without it will continue to function. Take it for what it is, and LTA is destroying a perfectly viable LIFE. That is not a "Part" of the Female body.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against abortion rights- a woman has to make her own peace with decisions she makes, and there are obvious circumstances that I could see it being a necessary proceedure, but don't try to equivocate it to the "it's my body" or place a fetus as just an appendix or other possible nusance issue. You are talking about a Human life. You need to recognize it for what it is, and that is terminating a life, not removing an otherwise trivial part of the body that can be done without.
To do otherwise cheapens the decision, and cheapens our value on life, and this is a decision that needs to be evaluated by BOTH responsible parties if at all possible, and should not be watered down to an outpatient proceedure like a root canal.
Just my 2 cents.
kotter at April 19, 2007 11:11 AM
I find all of this a bit odd. If society has decided to permit abortion, why are the details so important? Either it's OK to abort or it's not; how the abortion is accomplished doesn't seem to be relevant. Apparently, this particular abortion procedure was used very infrequently and there are alternatives to its use (though these alternatives are not always as safe for the mother); making a law to outlaw it won't decrease the number of abortions at all. This law and the Supreme Court's decision don't make sense, except as an incremental step toward outlawing abortion entirely.
I agree with Joe - that Roe is in real danger of being overturned in the near future, and with the present law, the precedent is set that Congress can govern abortion procedures. I can see choice becoming far more narrowly defined in the future.
Joe's point about evangelicals and conservatives reproducing much faster than progressives is right on, at least in my experience. In my group of friends (who fall in the educated, liberal or libertarian urban demo), most of whom are in their middle 30's, only 3 couples have kids. At this rate, there's going to be a lot fewer people like us in the future.
Tangentially-related recommendation: see the movie Jesus Camp. It's really well done and isn't condescending - the pastor who is the focus of the film is clearly an excellent teacher, and the children are bright and articulate. The evangelical movement clearly has a strong agenda, is organized, and is bringing up it's children with the explicit goal of advancing their agenda. A useful look at a culture that's pretty foreign to most of us denizens of coastal urban areas.
justin case at April 19, 2007 11:14 AM
(Rusty, do you think every woman who's had an abortion should be in prison for murder?) No, I don’t think woman who's had an abortion should be in prison for murder. No I don’t think abortion should be banned, just limited to the first four months of pregnancy. Hopefully we can come up with fool proof birth control in the future. Then we can ban this barbaric procedure forever.
(It is used most often to save the life or health of the woman.) How please? The baby is still delivered. Wouldn’t there be a c section if the women life was in danger from having a child?
(You would impose your values on others at their expense and you've chosen the most obvious, convenient target possible.) Well is that what you thought when they banned slavery? Why can’t the women just kill her newborn? There isn’t any difference. So you are saying not allowing someone to kill their child is imposing my values on them?
Rusty Wilson at April 19, 2007 11:22 AM
> the physical and medical
> consequences of pregnancy.
There are fiscal, sociological and moral consequences that all of us share. If you're going to claim full authority over membership in society, others are not going to be patient with you when you demand help paying your dues.
Is that too metaphorical? Everybody get it? Yes? Great. Thanks, I'm here all week.
Crid at April 19, 2007 11:25 AM
LTA is destroying a perfectly viable LIFE
But that's the point, it's usually NOT viable. Read first hand accounts from people who have had to terminate pregnancies during the second trimester. These are a small number of total abortions performed to begin with, and in a majority of cases are done either because of abnormalities in the fetus or because the pregnancy is endangering the mother's life or health in some way.
deja pseu at April 19, 2007 11:26 AM
As far as the baby's concerned, it's as much murder in the second trimester as the first, no? So why no hard time for the killer?
Crid at April 19, 2007 11:26 AM
As far as the fiscal consequences... abortion is cheaper than welfare. Just saying.
Christina at April 19, 2007 11:27 AM
"Gee, those justices are so smart, and us woman are just so stupid! We need to be protected from ourselves!"
You know what "stupid woman", the law was passed by Congress, including a vote from Harry Reid. If they had not passed the law, there would not be a case for the smart justices to decide.
If Congress passed a law explicitly legalize partial birth abortion, the smart justices will uphold that too. What the smart justices are saying banning the procedure is not unconstitutional, neither is un-banning it. Those who don't like the decision need to lobby Congress not ridiculing the smart justices whom Pelosi said were gods when they decided Kelos.
A question for the "stupid woman": What takes you so long to kill your baby? There are 12 weeks to make the decision. Why wait 12 weeks to kill it? The baby isn't dead after regular procedures, you have to kill it by inserting a sharp instrument into it's tiny brain stem. The justices are not protecting you from yourselves, they are trying to protect the little human who may survive out of your womb, but you choose to kill it.
ic at April 19, 2007 11:34 AM
As far as the baby's concerned, it's as much murder in the second trimester as the first, no? So why no hard time for the killer?
Exactly. As I wrote above, it makes no sense to differentiate between trimesters or abortion procedures.
justin case at April 19, 2007 11:36 AM
ic - maybe you should read all of the comments and not just the ones you like. The reasons for this particular abortion have been commented on, above. Try again.
Christina at April 19, 2007 11:38 AM
A question for the "stupid woman": What takes you so long to kill your baby?
If abortion is the same as killing a baby, why does it matter when someone does it?
justin case at April 19, 2007 11:40 AM
Rusty- C-sections are dangerous themselves. The risk I was talking about was not actual delivery in most cases, but in carrying a child to term.
Christina at April 19, 2007 11:41 AM
Personally, in my 20s, I had an abortion two weeks after I was pregnant -- I wanted the thing out as soon as possible. Did I kill a person? Well, how many tiny cell scrapings do you count among your friends?
As far as this procedure goes, my understanding from reading I did a while back is that it's rare, and done when a woman can't deliver a live fetus vaginally without it endangering her life or when the baby is goiing be born with some torture and death-inducing disease.
Congress, the Senate, and the Supreme Court should keep their fingers out of our vaginas, thanks.
Amy Alkon at April 19, 2007 11:41 AM
Rusty- C-sections are dangerous themselves. The risk I was talking about was not actual delivery in most cases, but in carrying a child to term. Well then Christina, why do they partially deliver the baby, smash its head in the womb and then finish the delivery if the risk is carrying the child to term? We all know babies survive out side the womb at eight months, err seven months err six months...err never mind. What was your point again Christina?
Rusty Wilson at April 19, 2007 11:47 AM
Amy, that is not what we are talking about and you know it. This is about late term partial birth abortions. Not aborting a zygote.
Rusty Wilson at April 19, 2007 11:50 AM
Rusty- Your response was nonsensical, but I'm going to try to explain it one more time.
Carrying a child is dangerous even in a healthy pregnancy. All sorts of complications can arise.
Can you honestly say that medical problems resulting from pregnancy, endangering the life or health of a woman can not or do not happen?
Christina at April 19, 2007 12:07 PM
This is about late term partial birth abortions.
First of all, there's no such procedure (but it's a bit of clever renaming on the anti-choice crowd's part).
Not aborting a zygote.
Where's the moral difference?
justin case at April 19, 2007 12:10 PM
Exactly, Justin.
Also, NARAL and other pro-choice groups fell for the oldest trick in politics during the LTA debate. They lost the compassionate stance to the anti-abortion side by allowing pro-lifers to describe the grim details of the LTA procedures to the general public. What are people going to remember the rate of the procedure or the details? What issue is going to create a sudden emotional impact? The numbers or the details of the medical procedure??? A vast majority of voters react more to emotional appeals during elections than the finer details of policy and laws.
Once the LTA debate began years ago... the pro-choice side should have sacrificed the procedure based on the grim details and the almost nonexistent rate of it being preformed. Pro-choice groups need to focus on maintaining Roe v Wade by regaining the compassionate stance. How do they do this? By changing their message and tactics.
First, change the message of 'Abortion on Demand' no matter what. Talk about a world with fewer and fewer abortions until the procedures is nonexistent through more advances in birth control products. Second, is the access to these birth control products that center on a less traumatic procedure of removing an unwanted pregnancy from the woman. Pro-life groups are mostly in favor of banning certain birth control products like the Morning After pill. Pro-choice groups need to make the anti-abortion side less compassionate by forcing women into the role of mothers and living a life in poverty. Religious nut jobs halting research and education in preventing unwanted pregnancies. These are just a few suggestions.
Whichever side maintains the compassionate stance is going to win the long-term debate.
Joe at April 19, 2007 12:15 PM
Joe, we love you, but you are wickedly optimistic. There's compassion and goodwill on each side! They aren't stances.
Crid at April 19, 2007 12:20 PM
Joe, sounds like you're talking about the Clinton "Safe, legal and rare" approach. Senator Clinton gave a speech articulating the points you made a while ago, and not surprisingly was attacked by the pro-choicers for it. It is, though, an approach that seems right, and something that most people who aren't extremists (i.e., not the sorts of people who want to ban birth control) would support. Of course, the sloganeering wouldn't be easy... chanting "abortion is murder" or "my body, my business" is much easier than "reduce abortion through effective and widely-available contraception and education, but keep abortion available to women."
As far as compassion goes, Crid is right. The pro-choice perspective already focuses on compassion for people; the anti-choice perspective focuses on compassion for potential people. They build their campaigns around these things. The reason things are where they are today is that the anti-choice people are simply much more organized (churches really help), extreme in their tactics, and have been better at getting their supporters elected. Compassion doesn't have much to do with that.
justin case at April 19, 2007 12:46 PM
Christina,
Your response was nonsensical, but I'm going to try to explain it one more time.
Partial birth abortion is birth so what ever risks and complications that might exist in a normal pregnancy still exist in a partial birth abortion.
Please list an example were a partial birth abortion saves a woman.
Rusty Wilson at April 19, 2007 1:11 PM
Justin,
There is no procedure as partial birth abortion? Wow
Rusty Wilson at April 19, 2007 1:14 PM
The phrase partial birth abortion is an oxymoron.
Do you just make this up as you write, Rusty?
Donna B. at April 19, 2007 1:16 PM
Crid and Justin:
I'm talking about political impressions and the motivations of the individual groups.
Individual pro-lifers and pro-choicers views are meaningless in the long term. The endless debating of political poetics and philosophical insights on the debate does not matter. Who are the politicians going to listen too? Especially, US Senators who may approve or disapprove the POTUS's next S.C. nominee?
Whichever side has the most positive or compassionate outlook with the highest supporting poll numbers will decide on how a Senator is going to vote on the next nominee. That's D.C.
Remember how Bill Clinton stole the debate from Gingrich’s 104th Congress? Who took the blame from the shutting down of the US government over budgetary differences? Remember W.H. Press Spokesman Mike McCurry’s statement on how the GOP Congress will let seniors whither and die on the vines? Who won the compassionate stance between the W.H. and Congress? Well, your answers may matter on your personal political affiliations, but the national poll numbers supported Clinton’s views.
Crid do most politicians sound wickedly optimistic? How the message is viewed by the public is the main concern. The details can come later or get lost with next controversial issue. I recommend reading any of the current Presidential nominees’ various political books. Full of feel good messages, but lacking in details on how to implement these particular ideas into reality.
Joe at April 19, 2007 1:18 PM
Donna,
No, it is all written down for me. Wow, you are so much smarter than the law professors at The Volokh Conspiracy. Some topics there; FEDERALISM AND PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION:
Rusty Wilson at April 19, 2007 1:28 PM
There is no procedure as partial birth abortion? Wow
Nope. The procedure is "intact dilation and extraction" or IDX. The phrase "partial birth abortion" is a slogan chosen by anti-choice advocates to help create a negative perception in people's minds.
Partial birth abortion is birth so what ever risks and complications that might exist in a normal pregnancy still exist in a partial birth abortion.
Ya got any facts for that? Cause I do:
- IDX does not involve inducing labor (hence not like a normal birth).
- Does not involve abdominal surgery (like a c-section birth).
- Ends the pregnancy, thereby sparing the body from the stress of late-stage pregnancy and risk for gestational diabetes, and other problems that can develop as a result.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_dilation_and_extraction
In short, you're wrong. The risks of this procedure are not the same as in the case of a full-term delivery.
justin case at April 19, 2007 1:28 PM
Here's what I want to have happened:
1. Roe v Wade is overturned.
2. A wave of clarity and righteousness sweeps through the nation; abortion is legalized by a wide margin in both houses, as Americans of all ages, colors and backgrounds see it for the great source of sadness that it is, taking affirmative, immediate and productive steps to drastically reduce its incidence in the present day and evermore.
Let's hold our breath!
Crid at April 19, 2007 1:32 PM
Well, Wiki says the phrase was made up by a R extremist politician from Florida, and that the correct term is "partial truth abortion." Hee!
But I like your idea that if it's written in a BLOG, it must be TRUE, Rusty!
Donna B. at April 19, 2007 1:45 PM
Point 1 will most likely happen whether we like it or not.
It will also create a whole new set of legal quesitons. If abortion is legal in one state and illegal in another... what will happen to a young woman living in banned state travels to another state to have an abortion? I'm sure certain state legislatures will pass laws attempting to forbid this likely scenario.
Joe at April 19, 2007 1:51 PM
You're such a victim, Amy. Maybe if you and millions of other women made a choice to have a child or not, on the front end, rather than the back end, you wouldn't always putting you destiny in the hands of the men you so resent.
What you really want, no, demand is the right not to choose and then....oops rechoose.
And they whine like 13 year olds when some limits are set.
Webutante at April 19, 2007 1:52 PM
Crid,
Do we all get to hold hands and sing Kumbaya first?
justin case at April 19, 2007 1:53 PM
Yep. The comes s'mores, and the snipe hunt, then it's goodnight campers.
Crid at April 19, 2007 1:56 PM
Uh, wasn't the decision mostly for the life of the partially-born child? Isn't it a little late in partial birth situations for the mother to decide the live baby is not good for her?
j at April 19, 2007 1:56 PM
Donna,
Well, partial truth abortion is what you have been writing here. So maybe that is the best term for you to use.
Rusty Wilson at April 19, 2007 2:04 PM
What you really want, no, demand is the right not to choose and then....oops rechoose.
So in your perfect world, birth control never fails? Women never get raped?
deja pseu at April 19, 2007 2:16 PM
AA, you wrote:
"... you and some of your fellow Supremes have taken it upon yourself to make medical decisions for a whole lot of American women."
WRONG.
the scotus did not make a law yesterday.
they did not ban anything yesterday.
they made no medical decisions for anyone.
they upheld a ban passed by the congress and signed into law by the potus.
that's how all constitutionally viable law is made.
democracy is a process.
it does not guarantee results everyone likes all the time.
reliapundit at April 19, 2007 2:17 PM
Women never suffer health or life threatening complications from pregnancy? Fetuses never are discovered to have congenital defects that would result in their deaths or severe disabilities?
deja pseu at April 19, 2007 2:18 PM
Rusty is confronted with some facts and resorts to sniping. Hmmm... didn't see that coming.
Christina at April 19, 2007 2:31 PM
it does not guarantee results everyone likes all the time.
And when people are unhappy with a result, they're likely to start by discussing that. Just like when people are happy with a result.
they made no medical decisions for anyone.
Not true. In the majority opinion, Justice Kennedy used the terms "preference" and "mere convenience" to describe judgments of doctors. The court also made judgments as to whether the law adequately protects a woman's health (sorta), because Kennedy didn't want to have to overrule Sternberg. These seem like medical judgments.
justin case at April 19, 2007 2:38 PM
Isn't it a little late in partial birth situations for the mother to decide the live baby is not good for her?
No. Why should it be? Circumstances affecting her decision can't change over time?
justin case at April 19, 2007 2:40 PM
Christina,
Rusty is confronted with some sniping and resorts to sniping. What are the facts that I have been confronted with? I will ask you again for just one fact. Please list an example were a partial birth abortion saves a woman.
Hmmm... didn't see that coming. Kind of like that pregnancy huh Christian?
Rusty Wilson at April 19, 2007 2:54 PM
Rusty trombone,
Dilation and extraction appears to be the safest option when the mother is suffering from severe preeclampsia (pregnancy induced high blood pressure which can kill or cause sever harm to the mother).
Go here and read the first comment for an example.
And while you're doing it, I'm sure you'll be figuring out how to explain it away.
justin case at April 19, 2007 3:16 PM
You're such a victim, Amy. Maybe if you and millions of other women made a choice to have a child or not, on the front end, rather than the back end, you wouldn't always putting you destiny in the hands of the men you so resent.
Accidents happen, asswad.
Who says I resent men? I dislike people who make assumptions about me - you, for example - but men in general I'm very fond of. A good deal of my column is devoted to debunking prejudice and injustice against men. If I "resent" men, more men should hope for more "resentful" women just like me!
Amy Alkon at April 19, 2007 3:19 PM
Justin,
Why thank you for your snarkism. At least you try to talk in facts;
What is the treatment for preeclampsia?
If you have preeclampsia, delivery of the baby is the best way to protect both you and your baby. This isn't always possible, because it may be too early for the baby to live outside of the womb.
If delivery isn't possible because it's too early in your pregnancy, steps can be taken to manage the preeclampsia until the baby can be delivered. These steps include making your blood pressure drop, with bed-rest or medicines, and keeping a close eye on you and your baby. In some cases, hospitalization may be necessary.
One way to control high blood pressure when you're not pregnant is to cut the amount of salt you eat. This isn't a good idea if you have high blood pressure during pregnancy. Your body needs salt to keep up the flow of fluid in your body, so you need a normal intake of salt. Your doctor will tell you how much salt to eat each day and how much water you should drink each day.
Your doctor might tell you to take aspirin or extra calcium to prevent preeclampsia. Your doctor might also tell you to lie on your left side while you are resting. This will improve blood flow and take weight off your large blood vessels. Many doctors give magnesium sulfate to their patients during labor and for a few days afterward to help prevent eclampsia. Talk to your doctor about these things.
Return to top
If my doctor decides to deliver the baby early, will I have to have a cesarean section?
This is up to your doctor and you. A cesarean section (an operation to deliver the baby) is more likely if your health or your baby's health is in danger. If things aren't this serious, your doctor may use medicine (such as oxytocin) to start your labor, and you can deliver your baby through a vaginal delivery.
Or we could try this;
1. Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps.
2. The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal.
3. The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head.
4. The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole.
5. The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed.
Sounds like we are still delivering something, but I am sure you will straighten me out.
Rusty Wilson at April 19, 2007 3:28 PM
Amy,
How about a compromise? You give us male abortion. Here is how it works;
We could just declare an abortion even if the mother has the child. Then we would no longer be responsible for the child. Nothing zip nada. I mean Accidents happen, OK?
Rusty Wilson at April 19, 2007 3:34 PM
Fewer than 1% of abortions are performed using the so-called "partial birth" technique because of the rare circumstances that recommend the procedure: when a late term (end of the second, or third trimester) pregnancy fetus has been identified as having a terminal, or life-threatening and painfully debilitating condition, AND delivering the dead or dying fetus would threaten the life or health of the mother.
My understanding is that it is illegal to use this technique to abort a viable and healthy third trimester pregnancy, as Roe v. Wade has stated that the state's interests weigh more strongly against women's right to privacy when the fetus can be independently viable outside the womb - i.e., a 7 or 8 month fetus that is premature.
Eight months into her fourth pregnancy, my mother found out that the fetus had died. Although she was now a candidate for a "partial birth abortion” she chose to give birth to her dead daughter. I would not force that experience on anyone. I am grateful that when faced with one of life's worst choices, my mother at least chose freely.
This same woman nearly hemorrhaged to death one week after giving birth to me, her first born. Giving birth had already threatened her life once; giving birth was the last thing she could share with the fourth fetus she carried. The few women who are candidates for this procedure choose from among a few equally heartbreaking options.
Really, women do not decide after the sixth month and the baby shower that they've just changed their minds yet would like to experience some, but not all, of the birthing experience. And if you are going to accuse a woman of being lazy and selfish, please use consistent rationale and assume she would choose the easiest abortion method under the circumstances - which would not be "partial birth."
Michelle at April 19, 2007 3:38 PM
I know you are but what am I? Ok, now that we have that out of the way, back to business.
I don't have access to medical records. Do you? I haven't found anything to disprove it. I haven't found anything to prove it. It is not a procedure that can be easily studied like drug trials. You can't ethically induce illness in women to see what happens. Congress are not medical experts, and they are the ones that decided it isn't necessary. Some doctors believe it is medically necessary, some do not. Get a worldwide consensus of MEDICAL experts to tell us that it isn't, and then we won't have to argue that particular point.
Are you disputing that this particular procedure is never medically necessary, or that no abortions are?
You insisted that the procedure is the same as birth. Justin disputed that, with facts. You didn't respond to him.
You thank Justin for his "snarkism". Ha!
Christina at April 19, 2007 4:19 PM
Okay, for facts on abortion, I recommend the Guttmacher Institute web site. Their "statement of accuracy" (a link on the bottom right of the site) discusses the method of data collection, interpretation, peer review, etc.
The site offers information on abortion policies by state, as well as data on who gets abortions (in the US, 1/3 of women by the age of 45), abortion by procedure (including partial birth) and more.
My final soap box for the evening: The only way to end abortion is to end the demand for abortion. Making abortion illegal is antithetical to this goal, because if a "zero abortion rate" is how you know you've met your goal, then you can't afford to drive women underground and lose your ability to count how many abortions are still being performed.
Michelle at April 19, 2007 4:23 PM
correction: a "zero rate" of abortion
Michelle at April 19, 2007 4:25 PM
Also, Justin said severe preeclampsia. Preeclampsia can exist without being severe, and without necessitating abortion. Just because in some cases it can be treated, doesn't mean it can in all. You can swallow some water and not drown. Does that mean that drowning is impossible? That's the kind of logic you're using.
Christina at April 19, 2007 4:35 PM
Rusty,
Sometimes with preeclampsia, luckily fairly rarely, even following all the Doctor's orders, even after being medicated and hospitalized, things continue to go downhill - rapidly. Then the choice is to take the baby, if it's viable, to abort if it's not, or to let baby AND mother die. If the Doctors decide the IDX method is safest for the seriously ill woman, I'd like THEM to be able to make that choice.
Webutante said:
"You're such a victim, Amy."
Seriously, do you read Amy's columns/blog? I don't agree with Amy on every single issue, but I admire the Hell out of the fact that she never lets herself be a "victim". You don't know how Amy ended up pregnant from her comment above, but you're more than willing to judge her. Maybe she was raped, maybe her birth control failed, as even the best do, or maybe she was lucky enough to have an orgy with the Chippendales and forgot to bring enough condoms. It's really none of our business, and certainly not the government's. She dealt with it how SHE thought best, which is the opposite of being a victim.
Kimberly at April 19, 2007 4:35 PM
. Then we would no longer be responsible for the child.
Rusty, you might read my work. I think a child that is the product of, say, a one-night stand at a bar should be the mother's responsibility. It's a woman's body that gets pregnant -- she should either be prepared to have an abortion or care for the child solely if she gets pregnant from a one-night stand, etc., or if the man makes it clear that he does not want a child.
Amy Alkon at April 19, 2007 4:36 PM
Michelle,
I am sorry for your mother. I agree with you that her case should fall under an acception.
However, your understanding is that it is illegal to use this technique to abort a viable and healthy third trimester pregnancy is/was wrong.
The partial birth abortion has been performed legally in the United States for years. It is neither a "rare" procedure, nor is it done only for babies who are severely deformed or dying. It is, essentially, a variant of the even more common and equally gruesome Dilation and Evacuation (D&E) procedure.
By the way here is the official definition, regardless of what Winka says;
The definition of partial-birth abortion in H.R. 1833 is "an abortion in which the person performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus and completing the delivery." A number of physicians were involved in the drafting of this language to ensure that it is medically accurate and does not encompass any other form of abortion or legitimate medical procedure.
How Many Partial-Birth Abortions Are Performed?
* There is no way to know the exact number of partial-birth abortions that are performed yearly. The National Abortion Federation says that two doctors, McMahon and Haskell, perform about 450 between them each year. Both of these abortionists energetically advocate the method. Dr. Haskell presented a "how to" paper to National Abortion Federation members in 1992, and Dr. McMahon is the director of abortion training at a major teaching hospital.
* The National Abortion Federation also admits that the partial-birth abortion method is probably used at times by other practitioners, and the American Medical News reported in 1993 that "a handful of other doctors" employed the method.
In 1992, Dr. Martin Haskell presented his paper on this procedure at a Risk Management Seminar of the National Abortion Federation. He personally claims to have done over 700 himself (Interview with Dr. Martin Haskell, AMA News, 1993), and points out that some 80% are "purely elective." In a personal conversation with Fr. Frank Pavone, Dr. Haskell explained that "elective" does not mean that the woman chooses the procedure because of a medical necessity, but rather chooses it because she wants an abortion. He admitted to Fr. Frank that there does not seem to be any medical reason for this procedure. There are in fact absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered in this country which require a partially delivered human fetus to be destroyed to preserve the life or health of the mother (Dr. Pamela Smith, Senate Hearing Record, p.82: Partial Birth Abortion Ban Medical Testimony).
In April of 2000, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Stenberg vs. Carhart decision, which was handed down in June, 2000. The Court struck down a Nebraska statute which had banned partial-birth abortion. Nebraska, as well as over two dozen other states, had banned this procedure, but the Court said the procedure should remain legal. One of the reasons given was that any proposed ban must allow the procedure "for the health of the mother." Fr. Pavone was present at the Supreme Court both for the oral arguments and on the day the decision was issued. At a press conference on the Court steps, Father asked the lead attorney from the pro-abortion side whether any evidence presented to the Court had identified even a single medical circumstance in which this procedure was the only way to preserve the mother's health. Of course, none could be cited, and the reason is that none exist.
The Court argued, furthermore, that a "health reason" for the Partial-birth abortion procedure was present if, in the judgment of the physician, it was safer than alternative procedures. One of the problems with this line of argument is that one can identify many circumstances in which it is safer for the mother to deliver the child normally than to have a partial-birth abortion. Normal delivery excludes the dangers that arise from inverting the position of the child, and from inserting surgical instruments into the birth canal. Why not argue, therefore, that "live-birth abortion" should be legal as a safer alternative to partial-birth abortion. People like Jill Stanek have exposed this practice, in which children marked for abortion are born alive and then killed. This is exactly where the logic of partial-birth abortion leads.
On November 5, 2003, President George W. Bush signed into law the Partial-birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Pro-abortion forces, not having the support of the American public, challenged the law in court. Federal Courts in the 2nd, 8th, and 9th Circuits ruled the ban unconstitutional. Now, the Supreme Court has agreed to consider the case, and is reviewing the decisions of the 8th and 9th Circuit courts. Oral arguments were heard on Wednesday, November 8, 2006.
On April 18, 2007 the Supreme Court announced its decision to uphold the ban on partial-birth abortion.
Rusty Wilson at April 19, 2007 4:39 PM
Amy,
I do from time to time. I try to read you more often as of late.
I was responding to this;
Personally, in my 20s, I had an abortion two weeks after I was pregnant -- I wanted the thing out as soon as possible.
My question to you is why not give the man the same option? What if you want the baby and I don’t? I should be able to absolve my responsibility just like you did.
I appreciate your attitude; I think a child that is the product of, say, a one-night stand at a bar should be the mother's responsibility.
However we both know that most women would take the guy to court, assuming she knew who he was.
All I am saying, if that is what you believe, abortion on demand then why not be fair and give men the same option?
Rusty Wilson at April 19, 2007 4:46 PM
Kimberly,
I have never advocated allowing the mother to die. What you are talking about here is delivering the baby. Now how is killing the baby after it is 2/3 of the way out of the women safer than letting her deliver it? That is where I am confused. I just don’t see how this procedure saves someone form death.
Recap You said;
Then the choice is to take the baby, if it's viable, to abort if it's not, or to let baby AND mother die.
I said;
Partial birth abortion is just as risky as a complete delivery. So how dose it help?
Rusty Wilson at April 19, 2007 4:51 PM
Christina,
HUH?
No I looked up official sites that help women deal with this issue. I am not a doctor, although I did study biology for some time. I am a geophysicist. That is why I looked up the illness. It is easy to find. I deferred to the folks that are trying to help women with this illness.
Are you disputing that this particular procedure is never medically necessary, or that no abortions are? Yes, No
You insisted that the procedure is the same as birth. Justin disputed that, with facts. You didn't respond to him. Yes I did.
Rusty Wilson at April 19, 2007 4:57 PM
Rusty,
You asked for an example of where what you call partial-birth abortion saved a woman. It was provided for you. As far as other options, well, apparently they weren't available, since that woman deeply wanted to continue her pregnancy.
As far as anything else related to this topic, you're not going to convince anybody of anything different, nor they you. As far as I'm concerned, all pregnancy-related decisions should be between a woman and her doctor. Period. If they decide continue a pregnancy, or not, it's their decision, and whatever methods they chose should be up to them. Period. You feel that the state should come in tell doctors how best to treat their patients. That's a perspective. Not a good one in my opinion, but it's a perspective. Now go and enjoy your legislative and court victory.
justin case at April 19, 2007 5:08 PM
Hi Rusty:
“Elective procedure” sounds more like a nose job or wart removal – but if I understand correctly, it can refer to procedures such as stent insertion and tumor removal – any surgery not necessary to save your life in the present moment - but even that only refers to the health of the woman, and does not address the matter of the health of the fetus.
There's still not enough information given regarding the "elective" "partial birth" abortions to distinguish whether or not those cases involved fetuses that would be technically viable but suffer from horribly debilitating conditions such as anacephalism.
So the data created by a woman who elected to have a partial birth abortion to terminate the pregnancy of a viable 8 month fetus with anacephalism would not paint an accurate picture of the gravity (and limitations) of her choices: go through life-threatening labor, or give birth to a baby doomed to die within days and who will never be fit to be an organ donor.
In other words, saying that 450 of the abortions were elective procedures does not give enough detail about the circumstances surrounding the abortions. I want more than that before characterizing the results of the procedure a tragedy.
Michelle at April 19, 2007 5:10 PM
Ok, one more try. The illness we are speaking of can differ in severity. The severity was the issue. Sometimes it can be fixed, sometimes it can't. Analogy: Your foot is infected. You try to treat it with antibiotics, etc. If it can't be fixed, you cut it off. Obviously there are differences, but the gist of it remains the same. Sometimes it's necessary.
Intact dilation and extraction is NOT the same as birth. There is NO labor, and the woman does NOT carry to term. This is what Justin was saying. What don't you understand about that?
Amy's stance (correct me if I'm wrong) seems to be that a woman who chooses to raise a child without the mans consent should be 100% responsible for it. She does support a change in law so that this can happen. She does think that men should have the ability to absolve responsibility.
Christina at April 19, 2007 5:19 PM
Justin,
No you provided me with a user comment. I took it a face value. But after reading four or five sites, what she wrote didn’t make sense. Thank you for providing the link to the comment.
How is upholding a law that congress wrote and Harry Reed voted for a court victory? Isn’t it just a legislative one?
Anyway, I didn’t intend to change anyone’s mind. I was just looking for some sound reason for this barbaric practice of sucking a new born Childs brains out. So far I have seen two. The one that you provided, which still could be true, and the one Kimberly provided.
It was nice writing with you. See ya down the line.
Rusty Wilson at April 19, 2007 5:33 PM
. Then we would no longer be responsible for the child.
I think the law should be changed so men are not forced to pay for children they did not plan to have with a woman. It's a woman's body that gets pregnant - therefore, a woman should either not have sex or be prepared to have an abortion or give up the baby or care for it solo if she has one with, say, a one-night stand.
Amy Alkon at April 19, 2007 5:37 PM
Michelle,
My mother also had a still born problem. She had four, so I do feel your pain. She had me at seventeen. I never forgot that. When my girlfriend and I got pregnant, we were on the way out. I always thought about my moms sacrifices so I gutted up and did the right thing. I figured at the least, my child would live. It wasn’t easy, two jobs, school for us both, etcetera, but twenty five years of marriage and a masters degree later things worked out.
O am not against needed medical procedures, in fact, I believe them to be necessary. However, abortion has become birth control in this country. So you know, these statistics are covered by doctor patient privilege, so we will never have that data. Best wishes and lots of luck.
Rusty Wilson at April 19, 2007 5:42 PM
Christina,
Intact dilation and extraction is NOT the same as birth. There is NO labor, and the woman does NOT carry to term. This is what Justin was saying. What don't you understand about that
I do. I said there is not much difference between birth and partial birth abortion. What don't you understand about that?
Amy's stance (correct me if I'm wrong) seems to be that a woman who chooses to raise a child without the mans consent should be 100% responsible for it. She does support a change in law so that this can happen. She does think that men should have the ability to absolve responsibility.
Good, then she won’t oppose a mans right to chose.
Thanks for telling me what everyone else meant. See ya.
Rusty Wilson at April 19, 2007 5:45 PM
Amy,
You may be the most reasonable person I have ever communicated with. I found today enjoyable even considering the nature of the material. I will be sure to read you more often.
I’ll write again some other day.
Rusty
Rusty Wilson at April 19, 2007 5:48 PM
Rusty: Must you?
Donna B. at April 19, 2007 6:22 PM
Hey, thanks, Rusty. Do drop in again soon.
Amy Alkon at April 19, 2007 7:00 PM
So, what happens if the baby fall sout beofre the doctor can perform the abortion? Does the mother get stuck raising the now fully birthed, living child?
todler at April 19, 2007 8:09 PM
Note: I think this is a stupid law on a variety of levels, and I note that the majority SCOTUS decision is logically incoherent - they upheld the ban because it was a ban on only *one* abortion procedure among other alternatives, not on abortion itself, and yet there's mention of how the ban will supposedly stop abortions. Huh?
That having been said, the law, as passed by Congress, does in fact include a clause permitting the procedure when necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman. Various parties attempted to extend that to permitting the procedure to protect the health of a woman; they were rejected because, in places such as Europe, the "health" exception for any type of abortion is typically extended to mental health, meaning that all you need to do in order to get the procedure is convince a doctor that having a baby would drive you crazy, or the like.
To all of those talking about how this ban will save lives of fetuses that would otherwise have been "horribly" ended...no, it won't. It's banning *one* of several procedures. If you think the specific procedure is ghastly, fine, but later-term abortion, by nature, is not a simple or kind process, to say the least.
marion at April 19, 2007 8:16 PM
I'm fairly pro-choice, but this is an excellent decision. There is a huge gulf between LTA and the morning after pill or early term abortion. This involves killing a viable fetus that's only inches away from being a newborn infant. The late term fetus has detectable brain activity, has a functioning cardiovascular system and lungs, and is capable of digesting formula. In fact, according to the hard-core pro-choice people, a woman could abort a baby after her due date. It is infanticide, plain and simple.
Early term abortion destroys the fetus before these are present, and spares the woman more of the suffering of pregnancy. I have no problem with that. Just don't try and argue that LTA is the same as ETA or even remotely like removing your gallbladder.
OmegaPaladin at April 19, 2007 10:17 PM
If everyone is so worried about abortions, why aren't there more birth control options freely available? If people actually believed it was so terrible, wouldn't the most logical thing be to prevent pregnancy from happening in the first place?
As it is, the same people who have their knickers in in knot about abortion also don't like the idea of contraception being widely available. This leads me to think that it all comes right back to sex, and their attitude that sex is evil, and nobody should do it.
Here's a suggestion for the men that get judgemental about women who have had an abortion: make sure to get a vasectemy so that you never get a woman pregnant. Or at the very least, never have sex with a woman...
Chrissy at April 20, 2007 6:03 AM
"If everyone is so worried about abortions, why aren't there more birth control options freely available?"
Again, I think this is a stupid, stupid law, but how are birth control options not freely available? Do you mean "free"? Because you can get them at Planned Parenthood for little or no cost, and anyone can pick up a box of condoms at the store. Mistakes happen, and I do wish that we had more available on the market, but I don't think that's mainly the fault of the eeeeevil fundamentalists. If anything, I blame the trial lawyers for the relative lack of availability of IUDs in the U.S.
"This involves killing a viable fetus that's only inches away from being a newborn infant."
Actually, this is not-infrequently done on fetuses that 1) are not yet at the point of viability (i.e. 16-20 weeks) or 2) have such severe birth defects that they're not able to survive outside the womb. And please keep in mind that, on its face, THIS LAW DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO BAN LATE-TERM ABORTIONS. That may well be the *effects* of the decision, but on its face, it bans ONE PROCEDURE, stating that other alternative procedures exist. If the decision as written is interpreted literally, not one late-term abortion will be stopped. Certain of those abortions will be done using a different method than they would otherwise, such as injecting the fetus to stop its heart and inducing labor.
And also, while I know that swaths of people out there seem to believe that childbearing is risk-free in the 21st century, this is NOT the case. I would be happy to point you to blogs of women pregnant with much-wanted children - sometimes the result of expensive, painful fertility treatments - who had to terminate their pregnancies at, say, 20.5 weeks to save their own lives. Would banning this procedure mean that they'd have died on the table? Assuming the law is interpreted literally, no - but I'd really rather have a *doctor* who has a *medical degree* making the call of which procedure to use in that situation. Tom Coburn - passionate anti-abortion Senator, spoke of jailing doctors who perform abortions, etc. etc. - admits that he's performed abortions during the course of his OB/GYN career to save women's lives, and I note that Congress's bill, which he co-sponsored, contains a "if necessary to save the mother's life" exception. Women do still die, or come close, as the result of pregnancy. Discussing later-term abortions as though this is not the case is disingenuous.
marion at April 20, 2007 7:02 AM
Morality and the Law???? What do they have to do with each other??? This is America where WE get to decide what is right for us, right? I know I'm confused again....
many faceted at April 20, 2007 3:02 PM
Leave a comment