Law School Discussion

Partial Birth Abortion Ban upheld

leostrauss

  • ****
  • 555
  • The silence of a wise man is always meaningful.
    • View Profile
Partial Birth Abortion Ban upheld
« on: April 18, 2007, 08:53:20 AM »
They won Kennedy over. Thoughts??? I think Kennedy wrote the opinion narrowly so as to avoid approaching roe or casey. . . roberts probably sees a scheme. What are your thoughts?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266724,00.html

Julie Fern

  • *****
  • 25797
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: Partial Birth Abortion Ban upheld
« Reply #1 on: April 18, 2007, 10:12:44 AM »
never wear white shoes after labor day.

Re: Partial Birth Abortion Ban upheld
« Reply #2 on: April 18, 2007, 10:33:29 AM »
Has this really been proven:

Quote
(E)  The physician credited with developingthe partial-birth abortion procedure has testified that he has never encountered a situation where a partial-birth abortion was medically necessary to achieve the desired outcome and, thus, is never medically necessary to preserve the health of a woman.

I'm not that familiar with the different abortion options--is there another medical abortion option for women this far along, in case they do need an abortion for medical reasons?

leostrauss

  • ****
  • 555
  • The silence of a wise man is always meaningful.
    • View Profile
Re: Partial Birth Abortion Ban upheld
« Reply #3 on: April 18, 2007, 10:36:28 AM »
This case distinguished (I think - I haven't gotten to read the thing yet . . . I listened to the oral argument a month ago or something) between D & E and D&X procedures. It is too gross for me to type the difference, but this case deals with the one and not the other. So, there are many options . . . also, the argument about mother's health cuts both ways if you think about it.

skeeball

  • ****
  • 2423
    • View Profile
Re: Partial Birth Abortion Ban upheld
« Reply #4 on: April 18, 2007, 10:43:18 AM »
Has this really been proven:

Quote
(E)  The physician credited with developingthe partial-birth abortion procedure has testified that he has never encountered a situation where a partial-birth abortion was medically necessary to achieve the desired outcome and, thus, is never medically necessary to preserve the health of a woman.

I'm not that familiar with the different abortion options--is there another medical abortion option for women this far along, in case they do need an abortion for medical reasons?

I think the *partial birth abortion* in question is any abortion that happens after a certain number of weeks. It's not like they're trying to stop X type of procedure that happens at 27 weeks vs. Y procedure at 27 weeks.

As to whether or not you can prove what's in the quote...if a woman gets pregnant and is physically incapable of bearing the child, she's probably going to have an abortion ASAP and not 27 weeks into the pregnancy.

The procedure in question is VERY VERY rare. It only happens when a.) the mother is really young and doesn't realize she's pregnant until the 2nd trimester b.) some kind of barrier (24 hour waiting period requirement, distance from a provider, etc.) has kept her from getting one sooner or c.) something has gone terribly wrong with the pregnancy the fetus wouldn't survive if carried to term.

This case distinguished (I think - I haven't gotten to read the thing yet . . . I listened to the oral argument a month ago or something) between D & E and D&X procedures. It is too gross for me to type the difference, but this case deals with the one and not the other. So, there are many options . . . also, the argument about mother's health cuts both ways if you think about it.

Hmm maybe you're right.

leostrauss

  • ****
  • 555
  • The silence of a wise man is always meaningful.
    • View Profile
Re: Partial Birth Abortion Ban upheld
« Reply #5 on: April 18, 2007, 11:21:23 AM »
Ok, I get it now. I'll try to explain:

There are two cases that have been ruled on today - Gonzales v Carhart (first case) and Gonzales v Planned Parenthood.

Both involve essentially the same thing . . . here's the issue in both cases:

Is the partial birth abortion ban which makes it illegal for a woman to have a D&X procedure (fetal demise past outside of the uterus) constitutional?

Casey (an earlier case) held that the mother's health matters in abortion decisions, and thus it must be allowed when the mother's life is at stake (somebody correct me where I wander). So, these current cases are important because they don't speak to this distinction (the law doesn't have an exception for health of the mother).

This law doesn't make the much more common D&E procedure illegal (fetal demise in the uterus as opposed to outside). Thus, it attacks the D&X procedure only on the grounds that it is particularly gruesome, blurs the line between abortion and infanticide, and is never medically necessary.

I hope this helps, and I hope I haven't made any glaring mistakes in my analysis . . . I am certainly not the authority here on such issues, but I very well may be the person most interested, and thus I want to hear what others think. I also want their corrections on my analysis.

skeeball

  • ****
  • 2423
    • View Profile
Re: Partial Birth Abortion Ban upheld
« Reply #6 on: April 18, 2007, 11:26:17 AM »
You could be right.

My understanding was that people were trying to stop all abortions past a certain number of weeks. But since they're actually outlined two separate kinds of procedures I'm probably wrong.

It's such a small number of procedures I don't think it means much anyway.

vercingetorix

  • ****
  • 707
  • Vive le quebec libre
    • View Profile
Re: Partial Birth Abortion Ban upheld
« Reply #7 on: April 18, 2007, 11:26:49 AM »
how anyone could justify a third trimester abortion is beyond the pale...in this case a c-section is less risky and clearly the better option (for mother and child).  you are dealing with a viable fetus at this point (although this is a self-limiting argument, as science progresses we will be able to keep even the youngest pregnancies alive exutero).  

leostrauss

  • ****
  • 555
  • The silence of a wise man is always meaningful.
    • View Profile
Re: Partial Birth Abortion Ban upheld
« Reply #8 on: April 18, 2007, 11:28:51 AM »
You could be right.

My understanding was that people were trying to stop all abortions past a certain number of weeks. But since they're actually outlined two separate kinds of procedures I'm probably wrong.

It's such a small number of procedures I don't think it means much anyway.

You're certainly right that people are trying to outlaw abortion after a certain number of weeks. Heck, they want (explicitly in Scalia and Thomas' opinions apparently) Casey and Roe overturned altogether! I think though, that if you listen to these cases (which I am doing right now for a second time, you will find that they are very specific in issue. I think that's why Kennedy was able to side with the majority - he could write a very narrow ruling that doesn't touch Roe/Casey etc.

leostrauss

  • ****
  • 555
  • The silence of a wise man is always meaningful.
    • View Profile
Re: Partial Birth Abortion Ban upheld
« Reply #9 on: April 18, 2007, 11:29:39 AM »
how anyone could justify a third trimester abortion is beyond the pale...in this case a c-section is less risky and clearly the better option (for mother and child).  you are dealing with a viable fetus at this point (although this is a self-limiting argument, as science progresses we will be able to keep even the youngest pregnancies alive exutero).  

Actually, in these cases, most of the medical record dealt with situations in which the fetus wasn't viable outside the womb. The fetus would die no matter what.