Partial Birth Abortions Banned

bad kitty

naughty feline
Joined
Apr 7, 2002
Posts
12,574
WOOOOHOOOO The Senate passed it and it is expectedd to pass the House as well. This country is finally looking up.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80993,00.html

Senate Bans 'Partial Birth' Abortions
Thursday, March 13, 2003

WASHINGTON — After three days of emotional debate on the constitutionality of limiting a woman's right to an abortion, the Senate overwhelmingly approved a ban Thursday on a late-term procedure that abortion opponents called "barbaric."

The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 received a 64-33 vote. It now heads to the Republican-led House, which passed the ban last year before it was stopped in the then-controlled Democratic Senate.

House Republicans said they expect to pass the bill by Easter. President Bush has said he would sign the bill if it reaches his desk.

"Partial-birth abortion is an abhorrent procedure that offends human dignity, and I commend the Senate for passing legislation to ban it," Bush said in a prepared statement. "Today's action is an important step toward building a culture of life in America."

But Thursday's vote showed that several Democrats also oppose the procedure, which consists of partially delivering a fetus in the 20th and 26th week, then puncturing the brain cavity. In the event of a breech delivery, partial birth would mean "any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother."

The bill makes it illegal for doctors to commit the "overt act" of killing the partially delivered fetus unless the mother suffers from a pre-existing condition that would amount to a full-term pregnancy endangering her life.

"This is a great day for humanity. I am delighted to see us taking the step to eliminate this practice that some of our colleagues in the past have called the closest thing to infanticide," said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan.

"It will become law this year," he said.

But not everyone believes that the late-term procedure should be banned, and some accused the bill's Republican sponsors of trying to roll back the clock on Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court case that made it legal for a woman to seek an abortion.

"This bill is unconstitutional," argued Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., citing the lack of an exemption in cases where the mother develops a life-threatening condition as the result of pregnancy.

The debate over partial birth abortion has been brewing since Republicans took control of the House in 1995.

Twice, the Congress passed a partial birth abortion ban, but former President Clinton vetoed it. In 2000, the Supreme Court derailed efforts to pass a ban when it invalidated a Nebraska state law that closely resembled the measure moving through the House and Senate.

Abortion rights advocates scored one victory on Wednesday when the Senate voted 52-46 in support of Roe v. Wade.

It was the first referendum on the 30-year-old ruling since the new Congress convened in January, and nine of the 11 newcomers to the Senate signaled opposition to the ruling.

That was a nonbinding vote, and on the legislative skirmishes that counted, abortion foes were in command.

On Wednesday, a critical test of the bill's future success came when lawmakers voted 60-38 to ban exceptions in the case of risk of "grievous injury" to the health of the mother. Critics of the measure said the amendment rendered the prohibition all but meaningless.

"It doesn't ban abortion, which is what some people want. And it doesn't get the government out of the picture, which is what some other people want," said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who sponsored the substitute. "Instead, it tries to draw a line, a good faith line of where we will allow abortions in late-term pregnancies."

After that failed, lawmakers also rejected by a 56-42 vote a call to have the bill rewritten in committee to address "constitutional issues raised by the Supreme Court" in a 2000 ruling.

Later in the day, in a final triumph for abortion foes, the Senate rejected a second attempt to substitute a ban on abortions after the fetus is viable outside the mother. That proposal included exceptions for the life and health of the mother, and failed, 60-35.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.
 
This is bad news.

Having worked in the "abortion business," I'm familiar with the rhetoric and lies surrounding this procedure, which have been propagated by the conservative media and others. Bad, bad news.
 
What wonderful news.

How sad that it took legislation to prevent it from happening.
 
Olivianna said:
This is bad news.

Having worked in the "abortion business," I'm familiar with the rhetoric and lies surrounding this procedure, which have been propagated by the conservative media and others. Bad, bad news.


Could you explain more fully?
 
Hrmm....

While I do not support the idea of abortion in general, I do believe that it's necessary in some circumstances.

The fact that this bill does not allow for women who develop serious, life-threatening complications to abort the pregnancy is bad juju.
 
This is such bad news..'partial birth abortion' is a non-medical term that the Chrstian Nazis made up to describe how doctors remove (mostly)severely malformed or otherwise unviable fetuses from a woman. This is a first step in bannning all abortions, for religious reasons of course.

Lets ban religion instead, ok?
 
Johnny Mayberry said:
This is such bad news..'partial birth abortion' is a non-medical term that the Chrstian Nazis made up to describe how doctors remove (mostly)severely malformed or otherwise unviable fetuses from a woman. This is a first step in bannning all abortions, for religious reasons of course.

Lets ban religion instead, ok?

This is absolutely true (though I would refrain from referring to them as "Christian Nazis).

Click here for a necessary perspective:
The History of "Partial-Birth Abortion"
 
Ugh.

Could you have been ANY more inflammatory? "Christian Nazis." You're gonna make the Christians go all apeshit for no reason.

Apeshit Christians can be scary. Remember the Crusades? Well, of course you don't. You weren't around then.

But trust me, they were bad.
 
bad kitty said:
WOOOOHOOOO The Senate passed it and it is expectedd to pass the House as well. This country is finally looking up.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80993,00.html
"Partial-birth abortion is an abhorrent procedure that offends human dignity, and I commend the Senate for passing legislation to ban it," Bush said in a prepared statement. "Today's action is an important step toward building a culture of life in America."

This is what worries me the most...

We have a man using his power to further his religious agenda, legislating morality in his own image. I am not a Christian and I find this ethnocentrism dangerous. Whose "culture" is he building?

A true "culture of life" respects all life. Why is capital punishment legal if life is precious? Why are there children living below the poverty level in one of the richest countries on the planet? Why is so little money allocated to schools? Let's not even mention the thousands of young men and women being deployed for the upcoming war... Whose life is precious? There is a hue and cry for the fetus. But once it emerges we lose interest and if he does things we don't approve of, we kill it later.
 
Well, if I had just said 'Christians', that would have been unfair to the 'normal' ones. I swear, if America wasn't so prosperous, the Religious Wrong would just morph into the Taliban. They don't respect right or wrong, all they care about is winning, at any cost, the control of this country.
 
Re: Ugh.

Stormfang said:
Could you have been ANY more inflammatory? "Christian Nazis." You're gonna make the Christians go all apeshit for no reason.

Apeshit Christians can be scary. Remember the Crusades? Well, of course you don't. You weren't around then.

But trust me, they were bad.

Crusade?
Didn't some guy named George use that term ?
I suppose the best way to fight a jihad is with a crusade. It's a matter of semantics.
 
There is a difference...

While I agree that we should pay more attention to the issues we have here at home, and try to do better by our own children, I disagree that destroying what is essentially an unborn child should be equated to executing a murderer or a traitor.

Nor can it be equated to a soldier dying in combat.

Yes, the conservative Right is pushing this issue mostly on their religious views. But just because they are approaching it from that standpoint, does it mean they are wrong?

This is one instance in which I agree with Christians: abortions should not be used as a means of birth control. They should be life-saving operations for those mothers that face serious complications. I'm still on the fence about women who have been raped... if you ban abortions except for the above two cases, you're going to have a LOT of false accusations of rape by fucked up women who don't care about ruining someone else's life just to keep from having to change their own.
 
Johnny Mayberry said:
Well, if I had just said 'Christians', that would have been unfair to the 'normal' ones. I swear, if America wasn't so prosperous, the Religious Wrong would just morph into the Taliban. They don't respect right or wrong, all they care about is winning, at any cost, the control of this country.
So they should be silenced and not be allowed to express their opinion in the same way you can?
 
VA's legisleture already passed a bill similar to this but the gov will almost definetly veto it.
 
brokenbrainwave said:
So they should be silenced and not be allowed to express their opinion in the same way you can?

Absolutely not

But when legislation silences my opinion, invalidate it, I take issue.
 
brokenbrainwave said:
So they should be silenced and not be allowed to express their opinion in the same way you can?

Nope, let them talk all they like...but they shouldn't be allowed to control the actions of the entire country. I would personally prefer to see every Bible in this country treated like pornography: kept away from impressionable children who might be scarred by it. However, I don't have the right to do it.
They shouldn't have the right to put their religious feelings into law.
 
A bit confused over what this means " partial birth abortion"

If an girl has goine say over 20 weeks - and then needs an abortion - for whatever reason - the ony way to do it is through birth - is that what it means.

I know if someone has a still birth - the baby has to be actually induced - and the woman has to experience birth pain- which must be awful under the circumstances .

Is that what this means ?

no abortion that actually has to induce birth has a means
 
just pet said:
Absolutely not

But when legislation silences my opinion, invalidate it, I take issue.
I figured this was where you'd stand (and rightfully so) on the issue, but you were not the one that said "Lets ban religion instead, ok?"

Your answer was based upon reason and rational thought provoking thinking.

His was based upon hatred only serving to prove the other sides point.
 
just pet said:
Absolutely not

But when legislation silences my opinion, invalidate it, I take issue.
Legislation always invalidates someone's opinion, because there is no issue on the planet that isn't opposed by at least one person.

Next time, vote a little more carefully.
 
Re: There is a difference...

Stormfang said:
This is one instance in which I agree with Christians: abortions should not be used as a means of birth control. They should be life-saving operations for those mothers that face serious complications. I'm still on the fence about women who have been raped... if you ban abortions except for the above two cases, you're going to have a LOT of false accusations of rape by fucked up women who don't care about ruining someone else's life just to keep from having to change their own.

Then you have not even read this bill or the article because there is no provision for making the abortions legal in order to save the mothers life.

No matter what the circumstances the abortion is illegal. The bill is stupid and is another example of why the republicans will always shoot themselves in the foot because of the Chirsitian right.
 
Stormfang said:
Legislation always invalidates someone's opinion, because there is no issue on the planet that isn't opposed by at least one person.

Next time, vote a little more carefully.

I did
But he won anyway
 
Johnny Mayberry said:
Nope, let them talk all they like...but they shouldn't be allowed to control the actions of the entire country. I would personally prefer to see every Bible in this country treated like pornography: kept away from impressionable children who might be scarred by it. However, I don't have the right to do it.
They shouldn't have the right to put their religious feelings into law.
in this country, the majority rules. Things are put to test and vote. Politcians will as a rule vote whatever their constituents say in order to be re-elected.

Right or wrong, the vast majority of the nation wants this passed.
 
Back
Top