In Which I Open Myself Up To Abuse As A Heretic

[t1tdave]

Warning: This post contains a flammable political topic.

Comments

[cheetahmaster]

"As a matter of law, the majority opinion today should have focused exclusively on what has changed since the high court's 2000 decision in Stenberg v. Carhart. Stenberg struck down a Nebraska ban that was almost identical to the federal ban upheld today. That's why every court to review the ban found the federal law, passed in 2003, unconstitutional. What really changed in the intervening years was the composition of the court: Sandra Day O'Connor, who voted to strike down the ban in 2000, is gone. Samuel Alito, who votes today to uphold it, is here."
-Slate

[t1tdave]

That's true, and supports the slippery slope concerns. This is a court that will hedge on the side of their morality instead of hedging on the side of freedom. But I don't think that contradicts what I said... this ruling itself does not harm a woman's freedom to an abortion any more than a ban on leaded gasoline harms your freedom to drive around. It's not what the act does but rather what somebody else called the atmosphere it provides that's wrong with this ruling.

[cheetahmaster]

So, why are they banning this procedure? To go back to the car analogy, why ban leaded gasoline if it's not hurting my car? And really, isn't it the car's choice?

[ammitnox]

And why ban something already rarely used? What's the point, other than making it
Step 1. Illegalize D&X
Step 2. ???
Step 3. Illegalize all abortion

[ceciskittle]

So the big problem that I see does in fact lie in the wording. While you find solice in the fact that there is a medical clause in there, what strikes me is that, as you said, it also reads, it is never necessary. To me that says, we have an out to prosecute anyone who does this because it clearly states this medical procedure is never necessary, so obviously if you have done it, it wasn't for medical reasons.

And then I have weird science/technology feelings about stuff like that, that we have talked abotu before and I have partially let go, but partially not. ;-)

[t1tdave]

Yeah, but the "never necessary" part isn't law, its the opinion of those writing the law. So their belief it is never necessary isn't law, and cannot be used as evidence against them.

In theory.

IANAD

[ammitnox]

Though retrospective, the study by Chasen et al provides evidence that D&X has comparable complication rates and obstetric outcomes as that of D&E. The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) policy statement on D&X is as follows: "An intact D&X, however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with thepatient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances, can make this decision...The intervention of legislative bodies into medical decision making is inappropriate, ill advised, and dangerous."

Re: IANAD

[t1tdave]

I've heard that said, but it sounds a lot like, "Well, it could happen," where I'm hoping for, "In a case like X, which happens n% of the time, it is the safest way to go." The English government, by the way, when asked about this, said they'd be fine with it if it was medically necessary, in theory, but as far as they knew, in practice the procedure is never performed there. That says to me, in my slightly informed lay-person sort of way, that you don't have to be able to do D&X to have a sufficiently wide array of options.

Re: IANAD

[ammitnox]

Best I can tell, certain levels of hydrocephalus may require a c-section if D&X is unavailable.

Re: IANAD

[t1tdave]

Yeah, I remember one article (wikipedia?) mentioning hydrocephalus as one of the reasons to use D&X even before the 20 week mark. If nothing else works, then it leaves the questions: Would a C-section be significantly more unsafe than a D&X, and if so, would that make this a case where there is a risk to the woman's life/health that would allow for the exception in the ban?

[sailormom]

Flame, flame, flame...
Not because I have anything to say about it, but because you expected someone to do it ;)

[t1tdave]

Thanks, I don't need to sit in fevered anticipation any more. :-P

[theantichrist]

Props for standing your ground. :)

Yeah so from my reading / NPR listening, the real problem does come from the, "This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother"

Many doctors think that in some circumstances this procedure is the least risky proc do perform. It's not the ONLY way to save a woman's life, it's just, in some situations, in their opinions, the best. THAT'S the problem from where I sit.

[t1tdave]

I can see that, in theory. I just don't see anybody saying that that does happen, only that it could happen. I guess I need a relative measure of the possibility it would be the significantly safer method given the choice of methods available compared to the probability of monkeys flying out of my ass before I buy it as an argument.

[cheetahmaster]

I guess I need a relative measure of the possibility

How many? I mean, if there's no real reason to ban it in the first place, what percent will be convincing to keep it around, just in case?

[ceciskittle]

My question then lies, if it doesn't effect people because it's not used, then why does it need a ban? Was that too simple of a way to word it? Or am I completely off base with what's being said?