From the people who lather up over government intrusion into private lives, and caution Real Americans against a socialist takeover of health care, we have the following proposed and actual regulations addressing abortion:
Changing course after an unwelcome national uproar, the Virginia Senate adopted a revised bill on Tuesday that still requires doctors to perform an ultrasound on women before they have an abortion, but also says that women cannot be forced to have an invasive vaginal ultrasound.
Opponents referred to the original bill as “state rape.”
Virginia would become the eighth state to require that women have ultrasounds before abortions and also be “offered” descriptions of the fetus. Anti-abortion advocates hope these mandates will persuade some women not to go through with an abortion, but many doctors and advocates for abortion rights describe them as an intrusive violation of doctor-patient relations.
This tells me that Virginia legislators believe they are better positioned and more qualified to prescribe treatments and procedures for pregnant women than those women’s physicians. For many years, they were very protective of their tobacco industry, too, so you know their concern is primarily for the health and well being of the citizenry.
In Alabama….the existing bill mandates that the screen must face the pregnant woman and requires use of the scanning method that provides the clearest image — which would mean vaginal ultrasounds in most cases…. The bill would contain some of the country’s strongest pre-abortion mandates…. it would require the ultrasound screen to face the woman while the doctor narrates the images…… Doctors who do not follow the prescribed routines could face felony charges and could be sued by the potential father and grandparents.
So we not only have the state telling physicians what method to use, we have legislators specifying the position of the screen during examination, and dictating the very sentences a physician must use. Amazingly, the bill is known as the “Right To Know and See Act.” Maybe clinics should offer patients optional blindfolds and earplugs.
The choice is between vaginal ultrasounds, which involve placing a probe inside the body, or the more familiar abdominal procedure, done externally…. [T]he bills under active consideration in several states, including Pennsylvania and Mississippi, require detailed fetal images that would in practice require many patients to have vaginal ultrasounds.
Actually, the choice is precisely what’s missing here, and that would be the choice of the patient to take care of her very personal self and business unmolested by state governments.
In Mississippi, a bill working its way through committee requires an ultrasound that provides an image of high quality, which cannot be achieved with abdominal procedures in the initial months of pregnancy. The woman must be offered a chance to see the image and hear the fetal heartbeat. She cannot avoid hearing a description of the sonogram unless, among other things, she is a victim of sexual assault or incest or the fetus is medically compromised.
The exceptions noted confirm that this isn’t really about the fetus and human life, but control over women. The exceptions themselves might be considered reasonable if the law to which they are exceptions made any sense, but it doesn’t.
The Pennsylvania legislature is considering a law [that] would require vaginal probes in many cases, display of the scanning screen to the patient and a printout of the image for inclusion in the patient’s medical records. It would also impose a 24-hour waiting period between ultrasound and abortion that critics say would be a burden for some women….Labeled the Women’s Right to Know Act, the bill is opposed by the Pennsylvania Medical Society and other medical groups.
Not to be outdone, the Florida legislature intends to introduce a bill requiring not only the vaginal probe, an HD screen facing the patient, and a script describing the fetus to be read by the physician, but also a 10- minute power-point presentation with biblical images and music performed by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.
In California, talks are underway to have all probes and subsequent procedures both streamed live and filmed, mandating attendance by the patient, family, neighbors, co-workers, and the parking lot valets.
In Kentucky and Arkansas, bills requiring women seeking abortion to attend a month of Sunday morning 2-hour lectures on the sanctity of human life as portrayed in the bible from state-appointed clergymen prior to submitting to mandated vaginal probes in front of an Imax screen set up in each state’s Capitol.
Why not? This has nothing to do with health care anyway. In fact, it’s the opposite. And we can trust these people: they value the autonomy of the individual in a free society, and have nothing but the deepest respect for the sanctity and dignity of human life.
Obalesque 
Crap, this is spreading like Christianity. Would Jesus approve? Don’t it. Your turn Neil, you sanctimonious assbag.
CORRECTION: “Don’t it”…Should read, “Don’t think so.”
I don’t there’s any doubt that Jesus would approve efforts to uphold the sanctity of human life, and save unborn children from a horrible, painful demise. What don’t you understand about “A soul is a soul”?
As for “sanctimonious,” you are the one who calls himself “A Perfect Christian.” As a Christian myself, I know that none of us are perfect. We are all sinners who know that we must pray daily for strength and forgiveness. I pray for these brave legislators, these misguided women, and the unborn children whose lives are in jeopardy. I will pray for you as well, but you’re going to hell.
C’mon…a horrible, painful demise? Really, have you done tests, heard screams, etc.
Facts must be checked.
Christ, I’m been sent to Hell by you so many times I’m getting to like it.
These proposed regulations are outrageous, barbaric, unjust, and condescending. The Inquisition has arisen.
I agree. Tell that to Neil. Oh, you just did.
I don’t agree with you often, “Squathole,” but on this issue I think you are exactly right. This has nothing to do with “protecting the unborn,” but is all about punishing women, condemning what is mistakenly regarded as a promiscuous lifestyle and a breakdown of traditional values. It’s a return to an unenlightened time in our history and culture, and another opportunity for men to exert domination over women.
I’m confident in the wisdom and judgment of the members of the Virginia state legislature, and that at the end of the day they will do what’s best for the citizens of the commonwealth.
I don’t care how many little bastards we force women to bear as long as we don’t have to feed, house, educate or otherwise provide welfare for them. Once they are forced to be born they are no longer society’s problem and they should suffer a life of deprivation for their sin(s) as a loving God intended.
We must pass more laws forcing women to give birth and keep the government out of our lives!
I imagine if it were up to you you’d let the poor children of Africa stave, be raped and sold into slavery.
Where is American Foreign Aid where it’s needed?
Jesus must be weeping.
Don’t have ’em if you can’t feed ’em, fuck ’em or force ’em.
American Foreign Aid will start as soon as the Chinese approve the loan(s).
Weeping?!
I just saw Jesus Rodriguez and he’s fine with it. Says to tell them Jesus loves them.
We must pass more laws forcing women to give birth and keep the government out of our lives!
This is as perfectly incoherent a thought as I’ve read since “Keep your government hands out of my Medicare.” Sure hope you were joking, but either way, thanks for the laugh.
That’s the kind of illogic that has made America what it is today!
Jesus love you but, not in a gay way.
Oh my you silly person. Jesus DOES LOVE ME IN THE “BIBLICAL WAY”
We call it “Our Special Communion”
Gotta go for my Preparation H treatment. “J Boy” is cumming to dinner.
Winks and kissies.
AGF
I just spoke with Jesus…, Jesus Rodriguez and he said he wouldn’t touch your bony, White ass for love nor money.
The first ten words of the first amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”
@Drake Skinner: Yes but while religion may lurk behind the curtain here, that’s not what these laws are all about despite the rash of religious idiots chiming in on this thread and elsewhere. This is about puritanical social conservatism and a backwards view on the place of women in contemporary society. If you want the best demonstration of this, read Rush Limbarf’s outburst from yesterday.
PS Do you really skin ducks?
The first ten words of the first amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”
Also means Congress (all government) should not impede religion.
Pingback: Exposing Myself | Obalesque
Remember partial birth abortion? This procedure allowed doctors to kill babies on the operating table that had exited the birth canal intact despite every effort to end their lives in utero. Barack Obama was one of the strongest supporters of this form of infanticide which subsequently was declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Now so-called “ethicists” from Oxford University have published an article in The Journal of Medical Ethics advocating what they describe as “after birth abortion.” Partial birth abortion allowed the murder of babies during parturition. After birth abortion goes even beyond that. Parents would be allowed to have their newborn babies euthanized at their discretion because supposedly they are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life.” The authors conclude that “what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.” Of course, they would especially like to see babies with Down’s Syndrome and other congenital disabilities euthanized, calling such births “an unbearable burden” on families and society.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html
Oh my. Where to begin?
First, let’s be clear that the term “partial birth abortion” is not a medical term, but one concocted by anti-abortion activists to mis-describe “Intact D&X Surgery,” or late-term abortion.
Next, let’s also be clear that while Intact D&X Surgery is gruesome and unnerving, it is not performed outside the birth canal or body cavity of the patient,
The procedure was not “declared unconstitutional” by the Supreme Court. In the 5-4 Gonzales decision, the Court upheld an act of Congress that prohibited the procedure, reversing three separate Appeals Court decisions.
As for Obama, he wasn’t even in Congress at the time the law was debated, so referring to him as “one of the strongest supporters” is absurd. But not dramatically more so than any of your other biased and exaggerated statements.
While I doubt you are so dull-witted that you fail to grasp the true intent and meaning of the essay in the Journal of Medical Ethics, just to be sure allow me to point out that the authors do not advocate infanticide or offer outlandish claims regarding the human and civil rights of neonatals, but rather make the anti-abortion comparison to suggest abortion is morally and medically identical to euthanizing newborns. It is neither a novel nor insightful argument, and contributes quite little to the debate. The packaging is impressive, however, especially appealing to unsophisticated readers easily excited by bright lights and shiny things. Or in this case, smoke and mirrors.
@Camiel Toe: That says it all. Thank you. The writer of that comment is so far off on so many statements it appears his capacity for reason is either clouded by his hatred for women, or blinded by rigid ideology. Or both.
my dad told me many times he wanted to have me aborted but my mom wouldn’t go for it which is one reason they broke apart something i used to let bother me a whole lot to the point of a suicide attempt now and then but the drugs helped although even now its not unusual for me to think to myself how me and the world both would be a whole lot happier if i’d been aborted the way dad wanted
Partial birth abortion is not the same as late term abortion, though one does not exclude the other and both are equally reprehensible as is anybody’s advocacy of either. Partial birth abortion refers to the state of parturition at which the baby is killed, not in the womb, but after it has entered the birth canal, as it is exiting the birth canal or when it has partially emerged from the birth canal. Late term abortion is one that is undertaken in the third trimester by whatever means.
By upholding the congressional ban on partial birth abortion, the Supreme Court in effect prohibited its practice in the United States. If there were a constitutional “right” to partial birth abortion, it would have struck down the ban. It did not. By affirming the ban and its penalties, the Court recognized en passant the inconstitutionality of partial birth abortion. No dissent from that decision, btw, pretended that partial birth abortion does not exist, as you claim.
You are disingenuous to say that Barack Obama “was not in Congress when the law [i.e. ban on partial birth abortion] was debated.” Obama was a U.S. senator at the time. He chose not to attend the debates just as he chose to be “missing in action” when the vote was taken on the ban. That was the politically expedient thing to do at a time when he was running for president. In 1997, however, Obama voted in the Illinois Senate against SB230, a bill banning partial birth abortion. Again, in 2000, be voted against a bill banning state funding for partial birth abortion. And in 2001, “Obama was the only Illinois senator who rose to speak against a bill that would have protected babies who survived late term labor-induced abortion. Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to be a person who had a right to live, then the law would ‘forbid abortions to take place.’ Obama further explained the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not allow somebody to kill a child, so if the law deemed a child who survived a late-term labor-induced abortion had a right to live, ‘then this would be an anti-abortion statute.'” Better to kill any baby on the operating table that survived an abortion than endanger in any way the sacrosanct right of abortion.
The arguments used for “after birth” abortion are identical to those used for prenatal abortion, so I am not surprised that you cannot bring yourself to condemn any variant of infanticide.
CHAPTER 74 — PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS
“Sec.”1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited
§1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited”Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the date of enactment of this chapter.”
Without addressing other issues debated here, please note the language above from the Partial Birth Abortion act which presents the exception to the blanket prohibition of the so-called partial birth abortion. I point this out only to stop the misuse of the term “unconstitutional” (I assume “inconstitutional” is a typo) as applied to the act itself, or the practice it addresses. Not only is the practice NOT “unconstitutional,” it is allowable.
As a lawyer, I find this all an appalling intrusion of privacy by an over-reaching government that has no place is the discussion between a woman and her physician. Nevertheless, this is the law until it is discarded and replaced.
All right, one more clarification:
In 1997, Obama voted “present” on two bills (HB 382 and SB 230) that would have prohibited a procedure often referred to as partial birth abortion. He also voted “present” on SB 71, which lowered the first offense of carrying a concealed weapon from a felony to a misdemeanor and raised the penalty of subsequent offenses. Source:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/the_everpresent_obama.html
Under Illinois procedures, that’s closer to a No than a Yes, which is one reason several (not all) pro-choice organizations preferred Hillary Clinton for president. You’ll find a more detailed if not clearer description of his entire record on abortion generally here: http://www.issues2000.org/social/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm Generally, as US Senator and President, he’s been supportive of, but not overly enthusiastic about, the pro-choice positions..
Again, my point isn’t pro or con, just an attempt to stay focused on the issue, which is neither Obama nor the Constitution.
Oh my poor dear man, are you still here?
No dissent from that decision, btw, pretended that partial birth abortion does not exist, as you claim.
I did not claim that. I stated that ‘partial birth abortion’ is a non-medical term. Read it again. You do understand, don’t you, that by deliberately misstating and corrupting other positions you damage your credibility rather than enhance your argument?
I hate Catholics.
Welcome back to the 15th Century and take Mary with you.
If opposing abortion signifies “hatred for women,” then what does supporting abortion signify? Love of women? How can one love women if one hates humanity?
To begin with…I HATE YOU>
Men are such pigs.
Sunt sugentes porcos…to you babe
Partial birth abortion, which you say is a “non-medical term,” is the term used in the legislation. Obviously, those who wrote the law as well as those who must abide by it understand perfectly what it means. You, obviously, do not, since you mistake it with an undifferentiated late term abortion. It is you, therefore, who deliberately (or ignorantly) misstate your own position hence corrupting it and damaging your own credibility.
Oh, I can settle that one:
(1) The term ‘partial birth abortion’ is not a medical term. The AMA will use the term “intact dilatation and extraction”(or intact D&X) to refer to a specific procedure comprised of the following elements: deliberate dilatation of the cervix, usually over a sequence of days; instrumental or manual conversion of the fetus to a footling breech; breech extraction of the body excepting the head; and partial evacuation of the intracranial contents of the fetus to effect vaginal delivery of a dead but otherwise intact fetus. This procedure is distinct from dilatation and evacuation (D&E) procedures more commonly used to induce abortion after the first trimester. Because ‘partial birth abortion’ is not a medical term it will not be used by the AMA.
Source: http://www.ama-assn.org/ad-com/polfind/Hlth-Ethics.pdf
That’s the AMA (my emphasis added) And in fact the partial birth abortion bill includes within it a definition of “partial birth abortion,” precisely because it was and is not a medical term. I hope this helps.
Esq.:
Since the passage of the partial birth ban was upheld by the Supreme Court, no such procedure has been performed in the United States by any physician, despite the exception provided for saving the life of the mother. Why? Because partial birth abortion was never used before or since to save the mother’s life. A specious clause, which signifies nothing, may well have been included in the legislation to attract more supporters. Indeed, if a mental health exception had also been included, even Barack Obama may have voted for the ban since that would have effectively nullified it. As a lawyer, you must know that there are many exceptions to specific laws, such as, for example, the exception that allows one to kill in self-defense. That, however, does not make murder constitutional (and, yes, the “u” is next to the “i” on the keyboard; how cute!).
So Barack Obama has been “supportive, but not overly enthusiastic” about his pro-abortion position? During his years in the Senate, he received a 100% rating from every pro-choice organization in the country. What more did he have to do? Abort a baby himself?
Don’t quote me puppet ideology, Tellechea, read what I linked. Obama has been a political invertebrate on many issues, and abortion was one of them all through his state tenure in Illinois. His non-vote of “Present” was his spineless attempt to ride down the middle of the road on a very divisive issue. That’s not strong advocacy. Only when he moved up to the US Senate did he start voting in such a way to appease his base.
And you really don’t grasp the concept of “constitutional” vs “unconstitutional.” It’s not the same as “legal” vs’ “illegal.” Your murder and self-defense example makes no sense whatsoever.
As for the frequency of the procedure in question since the Court’s ruling, I see that prior to the ruling it accounted for less than .2% of all abortions nationwide. That suggests to me, a political moderate who leans Republican, that this whole affair was a grandstanding gesture of little real significance, not a principled stand of humanitarian concern by civil libertarians.
C’mon Esq, baby. Don’t be so hard on yourself.
“This whole affair is a grandstanding gesture of little real significance, not a principled stand of humanitarian concern by civil libertarians.”
Remember Hun, “A HARD LAWYER IS GOOD TO FIND.”
Kisses
XOXO
ALW
“Because partial birth abortion was never used before or since to save the mother’s life.”
Do you have a shred of evidence to back up this statement?
Frank:
The Ban on Partial Birth Abortion naturally describes the act that it prohibits, as does every bill. The AMA is free to call it whatever it pleases but it is not free to continue the practice because it uses its own terminology for it. The description that you quote is instructive and explains the AMA’s use of euphemisms: as the baby is being delivered its head is cut or smashed and its brain is scooped out (that’s what “the partial evacuation of the intracranial contents of the fetus” means).
Manuel: I didn’t say anything about the process itself, I simply confirmed that the authoritative body of American medical professionals agrees that the term “partial birth abortion” is in fact NOT a medical term.This is what an earlier commenter noted, to which you took exception. That commenter was right, you are wrong.
I consider myself pro-choice, but the description of an “intact D&X” is horrific. I’m glad it’s reserved for very few occasions — my quick research shows that even before Congressional action, it was very rare: Intact D&X came to the forefront of public awareness in 1995 during a congressional debate on a bill banning the procedure. During this debate, opponents of the ban asserted that the procedure was rarely performed (approximately 450-500 per year) and only used in extreme cases when a woman’s life was at risk or the fetus had a condition incompatible with life.1-2
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/280/8/744.extract
Frank:
I never said that partial birth abortion is a medical term, just a medical practice (formerly). Partial birth abortion happens to describe accurately what it entails, which is perhaps one reason that the medical establishment officially does not use it. “Intact DE&X,” of course, means nothing, except for “intact,” which is what the baby was before it was butchered on the operating table.
Esq.:
What is illegal is never constitutional; what is constitutional is never illegal.
Tellechea: Please stop. You demonstrate your incapacity for reason, and it’s both tiring and embarrassing, if not for you, then at least for me and others. You fail to understand that most of the laws of this country address details that are neither “constitutional” nor “unconstitutional;” that category is irrelevant. It is illegal to park in front of a fire hydrant. It is not “unconstitutional.” Is that simple enough for you? I hope so, because I’m done.
Esq.:
I do not believe any longer that you are a lawyer, or if you are in fact one it is plain that you spend most of your time in traffic court. I choose not to regard your inability to refute me as somehow reflecting on my capacity to reason with you. But I will try one more time to explain things to you, using your own insipid example. Why is it illegal to park in front of a fire hydrant? Because it would endanger lives in case of fire. Shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theatre would also endanger lives. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is unconstitutional to exercise your right of free speech in such a setting. Supposing that you have a constitutional right to park wherever you want, would you be allowed, even then, to argue that you also have a constitutional right to park in front of a hydrant? The Supreme Court (even traffic court) would find that you do not. But go ahead and try anyway. It might lend some luster to your career.
Manuel: Frankly, it’s very disturbing to read this, your latest glop of babble, suggesting to me that your medication is off. However, it does illuminate your inability to understand the partial birth abortion issue properly. I started to have doubts when you wrote “Intact DE&X,” of course, means nothing, except for “intact,” which is what the baby was before it was butchered on the operating table. You have confirmed those doubts. Get help. Please.
Elemenno P:
It means nothing to a non-doctor, which is what 99+% of Americans are. Partial birth abortion, on the other hand, is very easy to understand, which is the reason that those who butcher babies on the operating table prefer not to use it.
Half, whole, partial, seriously! Better yet why don’t we just cover the rusty wire hangers from the 1900’s! How can you guys even entertain this discussion! Just one of you get raped by a black gangsta hung like a horse hiv positive crack head, get pregnant, carry for 9 months and squeeze the little bastard our your vagina, then you’ll have the right to have an opinion on a woman’s body! Get back to me on that one guys! Better yet … don’t!
Please note this is a venue for a genteel discussion of serious topics.
I’d appreciate you no longer trivializing this discourse.
Thanks you for your understanding.
Sincerely,
Adm.
In a developed country in the 21st century a doctor rarely if ever has to decide between the life of the mother and the life of her unborn baby. In such circumstances, however, even the Catholic Church recognizes that the mother’s life must take precedence. It is the other 1.2 million annual abortions, where the only danger to the pregnant woman is from the abortion itself, that concerns us.
Partial birth abortion, which is a procedure that can last from 3-7 days, was never used to save a mother’s life because nothing would be more conducive to ending it if she were in fact in mortal danger. Its sole purpose was to kill late term babies (6-9 months) that were too big to be dismembered or poisoned chemically in the womb and had to be forcibly extracted from there and beheaded in the process of exiting the birth canal. In effect, partial birth abortion involves a full delivery of a dead baby that would have been born alive except for the decision to kill it.