The difference between the federal, MI, and VA partial birth abortion bans
Last April the US Supreme Court upheld the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban. Liberty Council filed two amicus briefs on my behalf in support of the ban, and I was present in the courtroom for closing arguments.
Yesterday the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down VA’s pba ban for the 2nd time, basically sneering at the US Supreme Court, which had asked it to reexamine its 1st decision in light of the Supremes’ decision.
I probably don’t need to say more than the 2 4th Circuit judges voting to strike VA’s pba ban down were Clinton appointees. The lone judge upholding it was a Bush I appointee.
But I’ll expound. What is the difference between the 2? I spoke this morning with reps from the VA Society for Human Life and the VA Family Foundation.
They said the only difference between the 2 is the federal law describes a baby as partially in the womb when the pba is started and the VA bill describes the baby as partially out of the womb when the pba is started.
From that the Clinton appointees decided an abortionist could violate the VA pba ban if starting a different abortion procedure and accidentally stumbling into a pba.
So in theory, an abortionist could be attempting a dilatation and evacuation (D&E) abortion, where s/he draws and quarters the baby en utero before removing the pieces, and somehow deliver a live baby past the navel (in a head first delivery) or up to the head (in a breech delivery) and violate the ban if then killing the baby….
In actuality, it would be easier for the abortionist at that point to terminate a mother’s pregnancy by just delivering the live baby rather than phenagling to kill him or her.
It is anticipated the VA attorney general will appeal this decision to the full 4th Circuit, which is by and large conservative, or the US Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, MI pro-lifers are trying to pass a MI pba ban. MI Right to Life’s lobbyist Ed Rivet explained its ban in an email to me this morning:
Our law parallels the federal law almost verbatim…. Our MI ACLU even testified in committee that the language of our pending bill is not vulnerable to a constitutional challenge because it parallels the federal law so closely.
We don’t have any stricter penalties under our version, but having the state law means that 83 county prosecutors and our state attorney general would all have authority to bring a case, and not have to rely on a handful of federal district attorneys assigned to MI in order to bring enforcement.
As an interesting aside, the outcome of debate for and against this gruesome abortion procedure during the mid- to late 1990s, when legislation was introduced passed and vetoed by Clinton twice, had a huge impact on public opinion, which shifted against abortion after bumping in favor of it for several years. The abortion lobby has never recovered ground. Below see a Gallup abortion poll timeline next to an NPR pba abortion debate timeline. Click to enlarge:
As a result, abortion proponents cannot stand the term “partial birth abortion,” even though it is now both a legally and medically defined term. So they call the PBA Ban the Federal Abortion Ban. Here’s a recent example, lifted from an online interview with NARAL leaders after it endorsed Obama last week. Speaking here is Elizabeth Shipp, NARAL’s political director. Click to enlarge:
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Jill, Thank you for having the courage to print these pictures and show what abortion truly is.
phenagling – Jill did you mean finagling?
I’m sorry, but if there’s a Federal Ban in place, what’s the point of these state bans? Is there some benefit to this?
These liberal, arrogant judges are friggin monsters.
They should be dragged in front of the public square and beaten and wipped.
I just don’t understand how anyone can look at that bottom picture and feel anything other than repulsion, shock, disgust, and horror and sadness.
Jill:
Every time you post on Partial Bith Abortion, I get heart sick.
I can’t believe that civilized people would even consider this horror.
It’s acceptance by pro-aborts is evidence of their utter condemnation.
Hey Cranky Catholic.
“I’m sorry, but if there’s a Federal Ban in place, what’s the point of these state bans? Is there some benefit to this?”
I actually asked my dad this same question a few months ago (he was a lawyer, now a magistrate) and here is his response (he’s responding to an article I sent him, hence when he quotes from the article)
“The books are full of duplicative laws on the state and federal levels.
Selling heroin violates federal law as well as state law, and you can be
prosecuted under both. Partial birth abortion is illegal under federal law,
but that doesn’t stop a state from passing a law saying the same thing, so
that the state can prosecute in circumstances where the Feds don’t want to.
A Democratic President will probably not enforce the federal law very
vigorously, if at all. As the article says:
“Abortion opponents say the measure is needed so state and local authorities
can prosecute doctors who perform the procedure and send a message that
Michigan opposes the method.”
Also, if the Democrats win both the Presidency and Congress, they can repeal
the federal ban. What Congress gives, it can take away. So the Michigan
people want to have their own law.”
I hope that makes sense.
One of the unmentioned aspects of the intact D&X (Partial Birth Abortion) was it’s use as a means of fetal farming – live organ harvesting. Only possible if you had the right “touch”.
Completely barbaric.
The photo Jill is displaying from Operation Rescue shows what often happened during the procedure, and was relayed in SCOTUS testimony – (#05-1382 p.16) – you end up with a 99% chance of dismemberment. (Thus making the D&X, in practice, a D&E).
Come now abortion-choicers, let’s discuss the mechanics of ripping a baby apart and whether thats’ morally wrong.
Janet, thanks.
Chris, “phenagle” is an accepted spelling: http://www.slangsite.com/slang/P.html
Cranky, Bobby’s right. Federal laws generally provide civil penalties; state laws generally provide criminal penalties. And as MIRTL stated, a state law on top of a federal law provides more manpower to prosecute.
I am heartsick.
The PC’s will be here. Not to worry. They will change the subject and yap about a woman’s right to choose…
That is very sad..why anyone would fight FOR this is beyond me.
Jasper @ 11:00AM
No – that only eventually leads to cruelty.
Ok. Makes sense now. Reminds me of bankrobbers. Once they’re found guilty by the state it’s… whoa, whoa, whoa… here come the feds! It’s they’re turn, now.
I just don’t understand how on this earth anyone can ever condone this type of murder. How could any mother knowing how this procedure is performed ever consent to their baby being torn apart and murdered.
The poor baby in the photo is obviously
way beyond the point of gestion where it is known that babies feel pain.
Yes, I am sure we will hear from the Pcers that “the mother’s life must have been in danger”
or the “the baby must have been diagnosed with a fetal abornormality incompatible with life” or “the baby was probably already dead in the womb”or “this isn’t a real abortion photo”.
These points are moot. This baby suffered a horendous terrible disprespectful death.
They should show that baby to it’s mother so she can see the “choice” she made.
CC : You’re good. Maybe you should put a copyright on your work?
Cranky Catholic:
Can you post that powerful photo where it can be copied for purposes of e-mailing?
And I would edit the caption to say, “Partial Birth Abortion safeguards the health of pregnant women” as I am afraid that some won’t make the connection.
CC/Hisman,
I was just looking to see if it came up under an image search… I too would like to see this spread around. It would need to be sent with his record tho…
How about it CC?
CC
And I’d put it on the picture of him in front of the cross…kill more birds!
Yes CC,
You are very good!!
“It would need to be sent with his record tho…”
mk, What does that mean?
janet,
I mean that just showing the picture without showing how Obama voted would leave the picture open to ridicule. People might not know about him and the born alive infant act or his stance on abortion.
Does that make sense? So if I was going to send an email with the picture, I’d want some text to show what he stands for preferably in his own words.
Why do we have legislatures and people’s representatives when any law passed by the representatives of the people can be overturned on the whim of judges?
The arrogance and power of these judges is appalling and frightening. Why don’t we just dispense with these powerless legislatures, since the people are too stupid to know what’s best for them, and let the judges rule supreme?
mk: Yes, of course that makes sense. Text would need to accompany the photo.
I thought maybe you were referring to copyrighting. I wonder if there are any liability issues to be concerned with when using a “doctored or “Photoshopped” picture?
Mary:1:14: Those are GOOD questions!
Ummm…I’m actually waiting for the pro-aborts to post something DEFENDING this horrible procedure…
Any takers??
why do we have to defend this procedure. If it is medically necessary, then it’s necessary. If it’s not, there’s no reason to do it.
Do you see what I mean? DO YOU SEE WHAT I MEAN???
Jill posted this around 10am her time, it’s almost 1:30pm and the only posters so far are the PL’s. Never fails.
Sandy, the foxes will show up at some point and own up to your comments. My favorite was “Whether you like it or not, it’s legal.”
That same poster even mumbled something about how most of those late-term abortions are for health reasons (mom’s or babies), yet FAILED to show the research to back that up.
I’m still waiting…
Sorry, Hal, you beat me to it.
One of the unmentioned aspects of the intact D&X (Partial Birth Abortion) was it’s use as a means of fetal farming – live organ harvesting. Only possible if you had the right “touch”.
Completely barbaric.
The photo Jill is displaying from Operation Rescue shows what often happened during the procedure, and was relayed in SCOTUS testimony – (#05-1382 p.16) – you end up with a 99% chance of dismemberment. (Thus making the D&X, in practice, a D&E).
Come now abortion-choicers, let’s discuss the mechanics of ripping a baby apart and whether thats’ morally wrong.
Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 21, 2008 11:41 AM
…………………………
What method of removal of a dead/non viable fetus do you find morally acceptable? Do you consider it moral to risk the health and future reproductive ablities of a woman to pander to your squeamishness?
Bobbie,
I have a question for your dad. Say that D&X procedures become illegal in Michigan. A woman in Michigan goes into labor. The fetus is hydrocephalic with a head the size of a basketball. Say the woman has one of the many conditions rendering c-section lethal and she dies attempting to give birth to this fetus Would the government be liable for her death as there is a procedure known to medicine that could have saved her life?
They now can drain the water from a baby’s head in utero…
Bismarck:
They could care less about the baby.
What they are trying to terminate is the responsibility that comes with a new life and the sacrifice involved. A baby represents to pro-aborts an interference in their lives. They become so blinded, they can even resort to this horrific procedure to preserve that right. If partial birth abortion does not reveal the true face of abortion nothing will.
Even the German populace became numb to the horror of the death camps.
Remember, abortion has never been about women’s rights. It has always been about power. Pro-abort woman simply want to be able to deny their God-given responsibilities.
Is it any surprise to you that many of the feminists out their are lesbians? I mean, what better way to shove your nose up at God then to become a homosexual?
And Hal, it is so, so, so lame to say that this procedure should ever be justifiable for the health of the mother. Besides, a real woman would be willing to risk and give up her own life for that of her child. I find that many pro-aborts would find that concept absolutely foreign.
“For he who seeks to save his own life will lose it”.
Sorry. I will not go off topic!!
Sally:1:36: What method of removal of a dead/non viable fetus do you find morally acceptable? Do you consider it moral to risk the health and future reproductive ablities of a woman to pander to your squeamishness?
Let’s worry about this baby before worrying about future reproduction abilities. We can’t foresee the future. She may not have any other pregnancies in her future.
Sally, 1:43PM
Exactly what conditions make a c-section lethal?
Also with modern technology and prenatal care, this condition should be detected and the patient under close medical supervision long before it gets to this point, likely in a risk maternal health unit. Also, as Carla points out the head can be drained and this was done for years prior to now when necessary to get the baby delivered.
Sally 1:36P
The fetus wasn’t dead until it was killed in the process of the PBA. If removal is essential to save the life of the mother, either through c-section or induction, she need only go to the nearest hospital equipped to meet her needs.
“Is it any surprise to you that many of the feminists out their are lesbians? I mean, what better way to shove your nose up at God then to become a homosexual?”
If there was a God, I think there would be hundrends of things He’d be more offended about then a couple of lesbians falling in love.
Another thing Sally, the hospital will do whatever it is able to do to preserve her health and reproductive capacity, as well as her life.
Cranky,
How about photoshoping that picture with a quote from Michelle Obama’s letter on Jill’s earlier thread (the one that she dividied into two? The “Lay Off My Wife” one)
Cranky Catholic, great job.
Hal,
“Is it any surprise to you that many of the feminists out their are lesbians? I mean, what better way to shove your nose up at God then to become a homosexual?”
Where did that come from? Did I miss something?
hal,
Ahhhh, never mind…I found it.
Is it any surprise to you that many of the feminists out their are lesbians? I mean, what better way to shove your nose up at God then to become a homosexual?
And, just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse…
Sally @ 1:36 PM
Sally – Go. Learn. Be educated about this.
PBA is not about removal of a dead child – but a living child. Go read the SCOTUS PBA testimony. The abortionists have a problem killing the child cleanly beforehand because they need to administer a lethal dose to the heart – often they miss.
There are no moral objections to removal of a naturally dead child. Even so, at this stage, it may be better for the mother to pass the body naturally.
Don’t play the viability game with me either. The overwhelming majority aren’t the hard cases, so that doesn’t wash.
Justice Breyer also showed his complete medical ignorance (in fact complete ignorance of the case which requires 2-3 days of dilation) in talking about getting the fetus out of there to save a woman’s life in 5 or 10 minutes using a D&X. Clueless.
A life exception is in the law. Congress is not playing doctor.
Do you have any idea of the amount of force required to remove a body of that size from a woman? Do you know what that does to a cervix – to the ovaries, or the internal risks it presents to the woman?
Even the PPA lawyer makes the case that it would be healthier and safer to deliver and dispatch the child outside the womb than to go through muscular contortions at such high risk.
Born Alive Infant Protection Act guards against that perversion – which is outright infanticide.
Reading Ginsberg’s cold comments in Gonzales vs PPA hit me so hard, I’ve pretty much dedicated my life to fighting the abortion industry.
Sally @ 1:43 PM
Like I said, a life exception for the mother is in the law. Your case fails. Additionally, it fails morally because it is better to save the life of one than to lose two. (Not everyone agrees with this moral position, but it is ethically sound.)
Hey Chris.
“Like I said, a life exception for the mother is in the law. Your case fails. Additionally, it fails morally because it is better to save the life of one than to lose two. (Not everyone agrees with this moral position, but it is ethically sound.)”
I noticed this is what Beckwith says in his book, and it wasn’t clear to me if he was talking about double effect or direct abortion. Do you think he means (and do you mean) the principle of double effect? Or do you think he’s talking about a direct abortion? I guess more importantly is how do you see it? If there is a life-of-the-mother issue, do you see direct abortion as an option? Thanks, God love you.
Is it any surprise to you that many of the feminists out their are lesbians? I mean, what better way to shove your nose up at God then to become a homosexual?
Wow. Just…wow. I happen to think that God would approve of a kind, generous person who also happened to be gay than a judgemental, hateful person who thinks quoting scripture makes him or her a “Christian.”
Do you have any idea of the amount of force required to remove a body of that size from a woman? Do you know what that does to a cervix – to the ovaries, or the internal risks it presents to the woman?
Chris, I’m interested in what you’re saying. You sound like you know what you’re talking about. What I’m wondering is, how does the removal of the body affects the ovaries? It seems like they wouldn’t be affected at all, but I haven’t studied anatomy beyond high school.
Thanks!
Bobby – the way I’ve always seen it is via the principle of double effect, and that’s how I understand Beckwith. He’s worked with Greg Koukl at Stand to Reason and Scott Klusendorf, and they describe it in that sense.
Ectopic pregnancies, once discovered, generally call for immediate action because the mother most likely would die. Medical abortions are used in these cases to try to flush the embryo out of the tube.
Life of mother and direct abortion is really tricky. Preclampsia or placenta previa are two often cited conditions, but they can be closely monitored/managed. A doctor’s duty is to both patients – but in the face of deteriorating conditions they need to make the call.
Morally, this takes it out of the realm of elective – meaning it’s not a “choice” per se. And the doctor, operating under the principle of double effect meets his ethical obligations.
These cases aren’t what abortion legislation or Roe is about. Never were. It’s simply disingenuous for people to say or argue that such cases are about “choice”.
I’m not indifferent to some hard cases where a child’s condition may be deteriorating and a mother wants to spare her family “misery”. In these cases, some want the choice to abort, but morally, it’s unjustified because the mother’s life is not in immediate danger. None of us are spared the tragedy of death, and while it’s painful, one’s life can also provide great meaning and healing for many others.
Bethany and Blessing have shown us that.
“If it is medically necessary, then it’s necessary. If it’s not, there’s no reason to do it. ”
———————————–
Medically necessary, Hal? If the abortionists pulls out the baby (a mere few inches..not even a foot)…the baby would have been out.
The mom’s alive and the baby’s alive in less than 10 seconds work(assuming the head doesn’t get stuck like what happened to my son).
What kind of medical necessity are you talking about?
Chris,
“These cases aren’t what abortion legislation or Roe is about. Never were. It’s simply disingenuous for people to say or argue that such cases are about “choice”.”
Right. I want to discuss this with you pro-lifer to pro-lifer.
“Ectopic pregnancies, once discovered, generally call for immediate action because the mother most likely would die. Medical abortions are used in these cases to try to flush the embryo out of the tube.”
OK, could you expound on what you mean by “flush out”? So here’s my understanding. That in the case of ectopic pregnancy, under the principle of double effect, it is morally permissible to remove the fallopian tube in order save the life of the mother. This, unfortunately, results in the death of the embryo, but the death of the embryo was neither an ends nor a means to the saving of the mother’s life. When you say “flush out” I think of the drug methotrexate which works to essentially starve the embryo, and hence DIRECTLY causes the death of the embryo as a means to saving the life of the mother, which to me seems immoral because it is the death of the embryo which is the means to your end.
What do you think?
Actually, wait a sec, Chris. When you say flush out, do you mean a salpingostomy? Because I would argue that that is morally permissible.
Anonymous @ 3:31 PM
D&E’s and D&X take place using foreceps among other instruments, with the intent to roll or turn the child. Around 16 weeks fetal bones calcify, so attempts to roll the fetus will dislocate or snap bones. The older the fetus, the larger the bones, the greater the possibility of compound fractures which pose puncture risks to uterine walls that may have thinned due to growth. Dislocation at joints can also occur. The limbs are actually grabbed because trying to grab the body is difficult due to the narrow constriction through the cervical opening.
Imagine trying to turn a 5-6 pound raw chicken inside a balloon using extended tongs, with vital organs all around, and oh yes-you’re blindfolded with an occasional peek at an ultrasound monitor. (And you have to translate your hand movements with what you see on screen.)
Dilation and Curretage (D&C) and repeated suction aspiration at later gestational ages can cause scarring which can lead to blockage of the fallopian tubes and contribute to ectopic pregnancies.
In some cases, use of methotrexate or misoprostol (Cytotec) can thin the uterine wall radically and contribute to puncture problems. At later stages Cytotec can cause uterine rupture – that’s coming from the warning label from Pfizer – the drugs maker.
I would imagine most abortionists don’t want women to attempt self-induced medical abortions, then come in if they fail, because that requires a higher level of diagnostic exam and greater risk because of the side-effects.
Sally —
The following is the text of a letter from the American Medical Association dated March 19, 1997
Dear Senator Santorum:
The American Medical Association (AMA) is writing to support HR 1122, “The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997, as amended. Although our general policy is to oppose legislation criminalizing medical practice or procedure, the AMA has supported such legislation where the procedure was narrowly defined and not medically indicated. HR 117.7 now meets both those tests.
Our support of this legislation is based on three specific principles. First, the bill would allow a legitimate exception where the life of the mother was endangered, thereby preserving the physician’s judgment to take any medically necessary steps to save the life of the mother. Second, the bill would clearly define the prohibited procedure so that it is clear on the face of the legislation what act is to be banned. Finally, the bill would give any accused physician the right to have his or her conduct reviewed by the State Medical Board before a criminal trial commenced In this manner. The bill would provide a formal role for valuable medical peer determination in any enforcement proceeding.
The AMA believes that with these changes, physicians will be on notice as in the exact nature of the prohibited conduct.
Thank you for the opportunity to work with you towards restricting a procedure we all agree is not good medicine.
Sincerely,
P. John Seward, MD
Chris,
Did you mean uterus, not ovaries? Because that totally makes sense and goes along with your explaination. Or am I still confused?
Bobby – right – the morally correct method is to use laproscopic surgery – a salpingostomy to remove the embryo and yes – an irrigatoris used to flush the embryo clear.
It gets really hard to discuss these kinds of abortions without going into detail – they are technically hospital/surgical suite surgery – albeit outpatient, but still dangerous. (When the abdominal cavity is breeched – all sorts of complications can occur!)
I had someone upset with me one time when I called it a surgical abortion (which it is a kind of…) because D&C’s D&E’s and D&X’s are considered “surgical” abortions. Oh well.
Ah, very good Chris. Thanks, makes perfect sense.
Anonymous @ 4:35 PM
Do you know what that does to a cervix – to the ovaries, or the internal risks it presents to the woman.
Actually, both uterus and ovaries are at risk, as well as any internal organs in the proximity, to punctures, tearing or inadvertent pulls and pressures. The last thing you want is a broken body part making it’s way down the fallopian tube in the process of doing something else.
Due to wide dilation, and general invasiveness of the procedure, the cervix may be torn or weakened. The risk for infection increases.
Ah – upon rereading my sentence it does appear I was implying that damage always happened. Sorry – that’s not what I meant. The original context was the exposure of vital organs to essentially violent chaotic force in trying to remove the child.
The preview feature is broken and usually I don’t catch such errors when they scroll outside the miniature edit box. (Yes – it can be resized, but it’s a pain!)
Sorry to be so graphic.
Does this answer your questions?
It does, yes. I guess I was just confused because you specifically mentioned the cervix and the ovaries, and being the literal person that I am, thought you meant those were the only parts, or the parts most likely, to be damaged.
And since when I picture the female reproductive organs, i always think of the ovaries as kind of far away from the uterus, floating along at the end of the fallopian tubes, that I was a little surprised to see that they could also be at risk for damage during a procedure like that.
Thanks for clarifying!
Chris, please detail your medical training and licensing as a physician to give medical opinions.
They now can drain the water from a baby’s head in utero…
Posted by: Carla at May 21, 2008 1:48 PM
…………………………………..
If detected at a time and stage when it might do some good.
If not, a D&X may be the best choice of removal.
Such decisions should be left to medical professionals rather than lawyers.
Sally:1:36: What method of removal of a dead/non viable fetus do you find morally acceptable? Do you consider it moral to risk the health and future reproductive ablities of a woman to pander to your squeamishness?
Let’s worry about this baby before worrying about future reproduction abilities. We can’t foresee the future. She may not have any other pregnancies in her future.
Posted by: Janet at May 21, 2008 2:02 PM
……………………………………………….
If following what I am saying, you will see that there will be no baby in this instance. What is there to worry over a dead/non viable fetus? We are talking about a wanted pregnancy here. You are quite flippant over the reproductive health of a woman that would obviously like to have a child.
Sally, 1:43PM
Exactly what conditions make a c-section lethal?
Also with modern technology and prenatal care, this condition should be detected and the patient under close medical supervision long before it gets to this point, likely in a risk maternal health unit. Also, as Carla points out the head can be drained and this was done for years prior to now when necessary to get the baby delivered.
Sally 1:36P
The fetus wasn’t dead until it was killed in the process of the PBA. If removal is essential to save the life of the mother, either through c-section or induction, she need only go to the nearest hospital equipped to meet her needs.
Posted by: Mary at May 21, 2008 2:06 PM
…………………………………………..
What fetus wasn’t dead before an abortion? The one in the picture? I see no facts supporting such an assertion.
There are a variety of conditions that make invasive surgery lethal. Do some research.
Induced how Mary? Are you referring to an alternative abortion procedure? Induced labor where the woman’s body is chemically forced into labor? And for what? To make the removal of a dead/non viable fetus prettier for you to look at?
As I replied to Carla, hydrocephaly is not always treatable with ‘draining’ even when it is detected at a time that it would have any benefit.
Sally @ 1:43 PM
Like I said, a life exception for the mother is in the law. Your case fails. Additionally, it fails morally because it is better to save the life of one than to lose two. (Not everyone agrees with this moral position, but it is ethically sound.)
Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 21, 2008 3:03 PM
………………………………………….
Isn’t it a health exception Chris? And you didn’t answer my question. What form of abortion do you find moral? Or do you not find terminating a pregnancy under any condition to be moral. Just curious. Morals seem to vary to a great degree on this issue.
Anonymous @ 6:16 PM
You think I’m providing a medical “opinion” over the Internet – are you serious? In a comments thread?!!! (Do you even know what a medical “opinion” is?) And who would be the “patient” I was dispensing medical advice to?
Apparently you don’t have enough courage to use your real name.
So were the Supreme Court Justices practicing medicine when they discussed the issue?
If I said you were insane – would that count as a medical “opinion” too?
And you didn’t answer my question.
This isn’t a deposition. How ’bout you answer mine?
Sally, if you couldn’t follow my description to Bobby regarding the principle of double effect and you have an antagonistic attitude towards me, then it’s not worth my time answering you.
You had great confusion re: morality when it came to fornication and pregnancy. A lot of that was your own presuppositions about what was sinful and what wasn’t.
I don’t mind answering sincere questions, but treat me as a fool and I’ll return the favor.
Sally – if you’re talking about your question regarding the removal of a naturally dead child from the body of a mother: whichever way the physician believes is the safest and most effective way.
I have no problem conceding that a D&C, D&X or D&E is used for such purposes, and with the child being dead, using such procedures is not morally wrong. Some may take issue re: respect, but medically such removal is not unethical.
It is when these procedures are used as a single method to kill the living human being as part of the removal process – then they are morally wrong. (Or if used in a two stage process where the child is directly killed in-utero, then removed – they are immoral.)
All other aspects of this issue I addressed in my response at 2:58 PM.
Good night.
Sally said If following what I am saying, you will see that there will be no baby in this instance. What is there to worry over a dead/non viable fetus?
Do you understand that non viable doesn’t mean dead? Therefore, “not dead” means a baby exists. A baby whose life we do need to worry about.
See Chris’s posts for more clarification if needed.
Hey, Chris, I was the anonymous poster who asked the questions about the ovaries, etc. earlier. I wanted to let you know I was not the anon. poster that asked for proof of your medical training.
Hi Sally,
Hydrocephaly is not cured by placing a shunt in a baby’s brain to drain the water. I have worked with children with this condition and all have had mental challenges.
Chris A “Jasper @ 11:00AM
No – that only eventually leads to cruelty.”
Chris, I not talking about torture for the Judges, just a good-ole-fashioned butt kickin. Maybe they’d think twice next time.
Sorry, I’ve just had it with these Judges legislating from the bench.
And you didn’t answer my question.
This isn’t a deposition. How ’bout you answer mine?
Sally, if you couldn’t follow my description to Bobby regarding the principle of double effect and you have an antagonistic attitude towards me, then it’s not worth my time answering you.
You had great confusion re: morality when it came to fornication and pregnancy. A lot of that was your own presuppositions about what was sinful and what wasn’t.
I don’t mind answering sincere questions, but treat me as a fool and I’ll return the favor.
Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 21, 2008 7:25 PM
……………………………………………….
Chris,
Thank you for answering my question.
Your position is that laws should be made for hypothetical situations based on philosophical constructs that suit your particular philosophical views. Your only interest in the subject of abortion is an opportunity to demonstrate your esoteric religious beliefs. Am I correct?
I have a keen interest in the motivation behind the anti choice stance. I speak plainly about what I think. If you find this antagonistic or makes you feel foolish, you might consult your philosophical beliefs as to why blatant honesty might make you feel so insecure.
I am a real person that is effected by any proposed law you might support and have every right to question your vocal support of any such proposed legal impositions.
Don’t you just hate that?
Elizabeth:
There you go again….
Regarding the lesbian/feminism link, here you go and right from the horses mouth:
http://www.queerbychoice.com/lesfemlinks.html
Sorry, I’ve just had it with these Judges legislating from the bench.
Posted by: Jasper at May 21, 2008 9:29 PM
Jasper, kicking is too kind. I would poke a hole in the base of their skull and suck their brains out.
Sally:
You desribe Christainity as esoteric? I’m laughing on the floor.
It’s so simple even a child can understand it. Given too it’s so infinite a genius can study it and never have enough midnite oil to comprehend all.
Christ was born, Christ died, Christ rose, Christ will come again.
You know what’s esoteric? It’s the assumption that abortion is morally right. I mean you must know something we pro-lifers don’t.
Good try though.
For those who are truly interested in studying the flawed logic behind Partial Birth Abortion (PBA) here is some useful information starting with:
PART 1: Questions to ask re: Partial Birth Abortion (FYI: These did not come from me. I copied them from another prolifer)
1. If a woman’s life is really endangered by the pregnancy, why would any doctor reject the option of an emergency c-section, which ends the pregnancy within the hour, in favor of an extraction abortion, which takes three days?
2. If the shoulders — which are the widest part of the baby — are delivered already, why is it necessary to stab the baby in the head and vacuum his brain out?
3. If the baby is going to die anyway, why not approach the problem with pain management? Why stop in the middle of the delivery to stab her in the head?
4. If the baby might not die anyway, shouldn’t we give him a chance? Shouldn’t we see if he’s really as sick as we think he is?
What’s going on here? Good question. The answers aren’t pretty.
Part 2 next post
For those who are truly interested in studying the flawed logic behind Partial Birth Abortion (PBA) here is some useful information starting with:
PART 1: Questions to ask re: Partial Birth Abortion (FYI: These did not come from me. I copied them from another prolifer)
1. If a woman’s life is really endangered by the pregnancy, why would any doctor reject the option of an emergency c-section, which ends the pregnancy within the hour, in favor of an extraction abortion, which takes three days?
2. If the shoulders — which are the widest part of the baby — are delivered already, why is it necessary to stab the baby in the head and vacuum his brain out?
3. If the baby is going to die anyway, why not approach the problem with pain management? Why stop in the middle of the delivery to stab her in the head?
4. If the baby might not die anyway, shouldn’t we give him a chance? Shouldn’t we see if he’s really as sick as we think he is?
Part 2 next post
sorry for the double post!
Part 2-HERE IS SOME INFO ON THE LIE THAT LATE ABORTIONS ARE ALMOST ALWAYS DONE FOR HEALTH REASONS OR SEVERE FETAL ABNORMALITY:
MEDICAL GROUPS CONFIRM THAT PBA NEVER MEDICALLY NECESSARY-
In May, 1997, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (then H.R. 1122) was endorsed by the AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION. In a letter to Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), AMA Executive Vice President P. John Seward, M.D., wrote,
Part 3-Testimony from abortionists themselves refute the lie that PBA done for health reasons, etc:
Here is what Ron Fitzsimmons, head of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers said:
“When you’re a doctor who does these abortions and the leaders of your movement appear before Congress and go on network news and say these procedures are done in only the most tragic of circumstances, how do you think it makes you feel? You know they’re primarily done on healthy women and healthy fetuses, and it makes you feel like a dirty little abortionist with a dirty little secret.”Source: American Medical News, Abortion rights leader urges end to “half truths”
Here
Jasper @ 9:27 PM
truthseeker @ 1:09 AM
So instead of kicking judges butts or resorting to violence what’s possible that would reign them in?
Kris, excellent posts at 3:15, 3:17, and 3:27!
Way to go, Kris.
Kris – if abortion-choicers were intellectually honest we wouldn’t be having the debate to begin with!
When it comes to elective abortion, the abortion industry feeds off of the fallen human condition, despair and the concealment of moral wrongs.
Thanks for the info – unfortunately, like the photographs, abortion-choicers will choose to believe their own opinions instead of desiring truth.
“So instead of kicking judges butts or resorting to violence what’s possible that would reign them in?”
Nothing else is possible Chris. If one can look at those pictures of killed babies and still rule like those judges did, there is no hope, and no amount of intellectual masterbation will change their minds.
Sally, 6:50pm
If the fetus was indeed dead an induction could be used to provide for a more natural expulsion from the body. Neither prospect is pleasant for the woman certainly, but a natural induction can be far less traumatic and better preserve a woman’s reproductive capacity, especially in a more advanced pregnancy. Also, if absolutely necessary to save a woman’s life, a PBA or D&X can be done. What’s the issue here?
Uh Sally, YOU do your research. You haven’t told me what conditions would make a C-section lethal.
Concerning hydrocephaly, at one time the only way to get a hydrocephalic baby born was by draining the head at delivery. Thankfully we have made great advances in diagnosis, technology, and surgery since then. I have seen one such situation where an undiagnosed hydrocephalic baby with a greatly enlarged head had to be delivered by c-section, and this was a good 20 or so years ago. Her condition was not diagnosed prenatally, an unlikely occurence in this day and age.
if PBA is “not good medicine,” why don’t the medical associations stop it? I’m a bit uncomfortable with Congress telling doctors how to practice medicine, but if “A select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman” then I suppose doctors could just stop doing it. Can’t this decision be left to doctors and their patients?
I don’t know anyone who had a “partial birth abortion,” but I’d like to hear the circumstances in which someone decided to do this. Did she believe it was necessary, did her doctor agree, were there alternatives? I find it very hard to believe someone would go through 8 months of pregnancy and suddenly just decide they don’t want a baby anymore. I’m sure there’s more to it.
Hal,
In 1987, the Alan Guttmacher Institute collected questionnaires from 1,900 women in the United States who came to clinics to have abortions. Of the 1,900 questioned, 420 had been pregnant for 16 or more weeks. These 420 women were asked to choose among a list of reasons why they had not obtained the abortions earlier in their pregnancies. The results were as follows:[3]
* 71% Woman didn’t recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
* 48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
* 33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
* 24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
* 8% Woman waited for her relationship to change
* 8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
* 6% Something changed after woman became pregnant
* 6% Woman didn’t know timing is important
* 5% Woman didn’t know she could get an abortion
* 2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
* 11% Other
but if “A select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman” then I suppose doctors could just stop doing it
Of course they “could”, but not all doctors are motivated by a love for a patient as much as they are for the love of money.
Did she believe it was necessary, did her doctor agree, were there alternatives?
Hal, of course there were alternatives. Giving birth to a living baby instead of a dead one, for example.
Hal,
How can they stop it, its legal. Abortion advocates fight to keep what is “not good medicine” legal.
Kris points out in his/her posts that most of these are done for convenience. How did women survive before PBA if this is such a life saving procedure was so necessary? Simple, it wasn’t and is not now necessary. There have always been far more humane and safer methods to handle a health and/or life threatening situation and the woman had only to go to the nearest hospital equipped to handle her needs.
Sally 6:50PM
I do in fact know of a case several years ago where a pregnant woman’s health, future reproductive capacity, and possibly her life were endangered by severe fetal and placental anomalies that made a full term normal delivery impossible and a full term c-section potentially very dangerous.
At 5 months she was induced in the alternative you call chemically forcing a woman into labor. Actually it was with pitocin. Of course this was very traumatic to the woman, and the staff as well, who, even though the baby was born alive, suffered such anomolies that they could do no more than make him/her comfortable. It was impossible to determine the sex.
However it was the method that was safest, least physically traumatic, and most likely to preserve her future reproductive capacity.
Situations like this have no nice alternatives.
Either way this young woman was devastated by this experience. The best alternative was to make this as physically non-traumatic as possible and make every effort to preserve her reproductive capacity.
By the way Sally, she didn’t have to visit Tiller or some other hack. She went to the nearest hospital where she was supported by professional and licensed staff and her family.
if PBA is “not good medicine,” why don’t the medical associations stop it? I’m a bit uncomfortable with Congress telling doctors how to practice medicine, but if “A select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman” then I suppose doctors could just stop doing it. Can’t this decision be left to doctors and their patients?
I don’t know anyone who had a “partial birth abortion,” but I’d like to hear the circumstances in which someone decided to do this. Did she believe it was necessary, did her doctor agree, were there alternatives? I find it very hard to believe someone would go through 8 months of pregnancy and suddenly just decide they don’t want a baby anymore. I’m sure there’s more to it.
Posted by: hal at May 22, 2008 10:06 AM
Excellent questions.
I have seen later term abortions done when the baby has died, using in effect the D&X method. If anyone thinks these are quicker, safer, and easier they are sadly mistaken.
They are difficult, bloody, and traumatic. I’ve sweated through a few of them. I saw one woman spend the night in intensive care after having one because of blood loss. Certainly a woman can choose this alternative and its understandable if she does, but I would not consider it easier or safer than induced labor.
Mary: 11:00: How awful ! Thank you for you insightful posts.
Mary 11:00am,
Refresh my memory: D&X, meanign the baby was taken out in pieces, right?
Wonder what the doc felt afterwards. Not to mention the mom.
Cranky, excellent photo shopping. Am posting. Can you come up with something using Obama’s cross “doing the Lord’s work” flyer?
carder – the D&X is essentially a Dilation and eXtraction – usually it’s prefaced with the word ‘intact’ to denote the intent of the abortionist. According to SCOTUS testimony, that intact fails 99% of the time. When it does, it turns into a super-sized form of Dilation and Evacuation. With a living child, it’s tantamount to utter torture.
Murder is murder! After all this dismemberment
debate, does anyone dispute the need to establish
pre-born infants are persons – worthy of legal
protection from the vultures?
Hal. Story. Again.
In a city where we used to live during the PBA debates in the 1990’s a pro-choice reporter decided to plunk herself in an abortion clinic to speak to women choosing late term abortions.
She set out to prove that these abortions were performed on women with health risks and babies who were diagnosed with fatal anomolies.
To her surprise, the late term abortions were chosen for those reasons. All were due to the mothers’ lack of care or concern of how far along they were. They were done out of convenience only as women just decided it was time to abort.
The reporter changed her position on the need for this procedure.
This story completely backs up the tesitmonies given by abortionists.
It is vile digusting horrible and evil. I just don’t understand how these quacks can hold a tiny innocent life in one hand and then so easily dispose of it for convenience with a stab to the back of the head with their other hand.
Seriously, if the baby slipped out alive and kicking by accident, it would be considered murder if they performed a stab to the head right?????
It makes no sense.
Thanks Kris and Bethany for the stats.:(
Seriously, if the baby slipped out alive and kicking by accident, it would be considered murder if they performed a stab to the head right?????
Sandy, I agree….how it is justified is beyond me!
To her surprise, the late term abortions were chosen for those reasons. All were due to the mothers’ lack of care or concern of how far along they were. They were done out of convenience only as women just decided it was time to abort.
The reporter changed her position on the need for this procedure.
This story completely backs up the tesitmonies given by abortionists.
Sandy: I’d like to read that article if you can find it. (even if it is only one clinic and a relatively small sample of women)
Hi Hal,
I just read some testimonies from women who witnessed PBA.
http://www.priestsforlife.org/testimony/brendatestimony.html
Carla, 2:32 p.m.
I just read that…and I am just in tears. Thank you for posting that.
Carder and Chris,
Sometimes names of abortion procedures are used interchangably, causing confusion.
My understanding of D&X is that is pulls the baby apart piece by piece. It may also be used in cases of fetal demise, as I have seen it done. This is to guarantee a dead baby which may not result by the use of other methods such as saline or inducton.
To all those who expressed appreciation for my earlier posts-You are very welcome! :) You inspired me to find more good stuff to share w/you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_W75zh1j2I Here is some amazing stuff on YouTube from Dr. Lile who is an OBGYN. Here is does an actual Partial Birth Abortion Demo using a doll. It is not graphic, so you don’t have to worry about watching.
He also, about 3 minutes in, addresses the lie that it is neccessary to kill the baby in a PBA in order to save the mother’s life or health.
Hope you like it.
Carder 11:33am
I know it was unpleasant for the doctor, even though the baby was dead. Unfortunately it may be the best alternative under certain circumstances, such as fetal size or if infection is setting in. Also, it just may be patient preference. We’ve had situations where patients wanted to wait for a natural expulsion but because they were developing fevers, or nature did not seem to be taking its course, the doctors went ahead with surgery. Other times the patients just want it done and over with.
As I said, there are no easy or nice options in this situation.
Hi Mary,
A couple years ago a woman at our church developed an infection while 5 months pregnant. She was absolutely going to die if she didn’t deliver. The doctors wanted to do what you are describing and she called us to pray as she did NOT think it moral to kill her child. We began to pray and received a call not long after that her water had broken on it’s own and she had delivered a baby boy who died a short time later.
She was grateful that things went the way they did as she couldn’t bring herself to “have an abortion” as she put it. Very difficult situations, for sure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZTDxdYRsBk Here is one more also from YOuTube. It is the actual testimony of a young woman (Kelly) who had a late term abortion at the infamous Dr. Tiller’s clinic.
It is heartbreaking. Also about 31/2 minutes into it Kelly says some very insightful things about “choice”.
Please pray for her. I fell horrible for what she has suffered and will suffer.
Janet,
Thank you for your kind words. These situations are very draining, no one likes them. Nerve wracking too since hemorrhage can be a very real possiblity. I can’t imagine anyone in their right mind doing them in an outpatient clinic with untrained staff like Tiller’s, who didn’t have brains enough to call 911 until they had done 40 minutes of CPR on Christen Gilbert!
In this case the poor woman desperately wanted the baby and I think her waiting for a natural expulsion, aka spontaenous abortion, was denial, a hope that the baby may be alive. The doctor had to operate because she was developing a fever and could no longer risk waiting.
Hi Carla,
Very tragic indeed. I’m thankful your friend miscarried,aka spontaneous abortion(I use that term so no one accuses me of not calling something what it is) as this very likely saved her life as well as spared her a decision she felt she could not live with. Believe me, she could have gone downhill fast if she didn’t miscarry and continued to postpone an induction or D&X. Uterine infections are nothing to fool with.
That’s an important point too Carla, your friend could get the life saving help she needed right at the nearest hospital and every effort would be made to preserve her ability to have more children.
I can imagine this is an agonizing decision for any woman to make and I’m happy for your friend that it was resolved in a manner she could best cope with.
She had a healthy little boy not too long ago. :)
Mary @ 3:17 PM
My understanding is based on the two Oral Arguments presented to the Supreme Court and what General Paul Clement said given the evidence and testimony they had collected.
As for how the terms are used in abortion practices, my best understanding is that an intact D&X can change during the procedure and becomes a D&E, based on how ‘intact’ the child is. So in my understanding it’s not an interchangeable use, as much as an initial intent, then an actual, which may or may not match. Sort of the like starting to do surgery laparoscopically, then having to switch to open.
Mary – Thanks for sharing your experiences.
Kris: Even the AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS AND GYNECOLOGISTS (ACOG), a pro-abortion organization, has issued this statement: ” A select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.”
This is misleading.
No, not “the only option,” but sometimes the best one, presenting less risk than other procedures.
ACOG was against the ban, since “The intact variant of D&E offers significant safety advantages over the non-intact method, including a reduced risk of catastrophic hemorrhage and life-threatening infection. These safety advantages are widely recognized by experts in the field of women
I’m surprised at the chart, showing from about 20% to the low 30’s of people having abortion be “legal under any circumstance.”
I would think the percentages would be lower for that. Perhaps this was “under any circumstance” to viability or to the third trimester?
Doug,
I can think of absolutely no circumstances where PBA would be medically necessary. Can you name any?
Posted by: Doug at May 22, 2008 9:08 PM
“Kris: Even the AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS AND GYNECOLOGISTS (ACOG), a pro-abortion organization, has issued this statement: ” A select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.”
This is misleading.
No, not “the only option,” but sometimes the best one, presenting less risk than other procedures.
ACOG was against the ban, since “The intact variant of D&E offers significant safety advantages over the non-intact method, including a reduced risk of catastrophic hemorrhage and life-threatening infection. These safety advantages are widely recognized by experts in the field of women
Mary and Kris,
The “never medically necessary” is also misleading, because it hinges on a feeling of “maybe the woman would live without having an abortion.” In reality, even though the certainty is less than 100% that the woman would die, some abortions have been done because of the significant chance of the woman dying.
The cases I have read about involve high blood pressure and heart disease on the woman’s part, gestational diabetes, and the position of the fetus. Sure, most of the time delivery could be induced or a C-section done, but again – they aren’t always the best option.
I don’t think the shoulders determine the advisability of the procedure. Isn’t it really the size of the head?
As far as “killing the baby,” many D & X’s (most, I would say) have been done prior to viability. Aside from the moral arguments pro or con on abortion, if it’s a given that the baby is going to die, then it makes sense to do what is safest for the woman.
As things are now, the one specific procedure is banned, yet the abortions will still take place, it’s just that the D & E will be used, sometimes presenting more danger to the woman.
If the baby is viable and there is no undue danger to the woman then I certainly agree that it can just be delivered.
Doug,
PBA is not medically necessary because other safer, more humane methods are available. How do you think women survived prior to the invention of the PBA? I have yet to have anyone tell me under what circumstances a PBA would ever be necessary. I can certainly name circumstances where a c-section or labor induction is necessary to save a woman’s life.
Whatever is medically necessary to save a woman’s life or preserve her health will be done and it can be done legally in a hospital. There is no need for the likes of Tiller or any other late term hack.
High blood pressure and heart disease are treatable disorders, as is gestational diabetes.
They will require close medical supervision and if necessary specialized care. Again there are specialists and high risk maternal health units as well as newborn intensive care units. If an induction is necessary it is far less traumatic and invasive than a PBA. C-section is also an option.
I have seen D&X done for fetal demise and they are not quick and simple, instead they are difficult, traumatic, and can be very bloody. I saw one woman end up in intensive care after heavy blood loss. I also watched another OB/GYN turn chalk white while doing one, even though the fetus was already dead.
None of the options are quick, simple, and risk free, and D&X abortion or PBA should not be viewed as such.
Mary, again, “not medically necessary” may only mean that there are other procedures available, even if they present more danger. How do I think women survived? Sometimes they didn’t. More risk is more risk.
We’ve had the D & X (or “intact D & E”) versus D & E argument lots of times. Sometimes, perhaps most often, it may not matter – I don’t know. But other times it is as ACOG says:
The intact variant of D&E offers significant safety advantages over the non-intact method, including a reduced risk of catastrophic hemorrhage and life-threatening infection.
If the risk of catastrophic hemorrhage and life-threatening infection is being reduced, then I think it’s silly to say it’s “not medically necessary.”
Their 2-front war
While pro-lifers debate whether the 2008 SD ballot initiative banning almost all abortions and the CO initiative declaring personhood from the moment of fertilization are good ideas, here is a thought from the other side. Quoting from the Communist pub…