[Sabertooth]

Any doctor who performs a PBA will have a lot of explaining to do and will likely end up in jail if he can't prove it was necessary, which would be nearly impossible to do.

No, not really. Not as I understand this legislation.

What this bill does is define which PBAs are legal, and which ones aren't. PBAs are illegal if the baby is fully crowned, or if, in a breech delivery, the navel is visible. Furthermore, those PBAs that are illegal are defined as such only if they were intentionally illegal.

So, a woman walks into an abortion mill intending to have a legal PBA. She goes into a room with a doctor and nurse who intend to perform a legal PBA. Some time later, all three emerge from the room and the woman's pregnancy has been aborted.

Did a crime take place?

How would you know?

[Mo1]

So, a woman walks into an abortion mill intending to have a legal PBA. She goes into a room with a doctor and nurse who intend to perform a legal PBA. Some time later, all three emerge from the room and the woman's pregnancy has been aborted.

I give up .. this issue has been discuss over and over. You obviously don't like the answers that I and many others have given

Fine .. let's just throw the whole damn bill out and forget about it. Why bother trying to make any steps in the right directions because it won't stop all abortions

And if I sound flip, I am

[honeygrl]

The ban says:

`(a) 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.

This is their definition of PBA:

`(1) the term `partial-birth abortion' means an abortion in which--

`(A) the person performing the abortion deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head- first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and

`(B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus; and

What is defined above is banned, unless it is done to save a mother's life. Congress found and declared that it's never medically necessary:

The Congress finds and declares the following: (1) A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion--an abortion in which a physician delivers an unborn child's body until only the head remains inside the womb, punctures the back of the child's skull with a Sharp instrument, and sucks the child's brains out before completing delivery of the dead infant--is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited.

It also says the father, if married to the mother, mother, or grandparents may file a civil suit against the person who performed the PBA and basically milk them for all they are worth.

Did you read the text of the ban or just what the article highlighted?

[Deb]

Geez!!! At some point it comes down to a woman and her soul. All the legislation in the world is not going to stop someone dedicated to killing her child.

I cannot believe these threads can trail into the horizon with your side claiming the Republicans aren't conservative enough...they're trojan horses...they're really socialists. blah bah blah.

THEY ARE DOING SOMNETHING!!! THEY ARE DOING ALL THEY CAN AT THIS MINUTE!!!

If they could do more there is no doubt THEY WOULD!!! What would the Democrats do?? Look at what they've done for that answer.

But then they are relentless. I've never seen a malcontent at DU. They take every crumb and rejoice. Step by step they have destroyed our culture, educational system and faith in God. How in the Hell can people like you gamble with our future by constantly attempting to tear down the only defense against this Godless army we have?? It's always the same group and I am sick to death of all of you. Sabertooth, yeah, right. How come you only bite the people attempting to do something?

[omegatoo]

Dear Saber,
Imagine a bill that says you may perform amputations but you may not use a saw.
This is that bill.

It is not possible to perform late term abortions by the usual methods without violating this law, so every late term abortion will be suspect. Nearly all of these are feet-first, because the head being the biggest part of the baby is not usually the first thing to come out. The baby naturally slips out to at least the waist. At that point, the belly button may still be inside the mother, but the head and shoulders are still in the womb, and the abortionist can't reach the head to kill the baby. Once the shoulders are out, the belly button WILL be out. So in order for an abortionist to perform a late term abortion by the usual methods, he will have to violate this law.

This does not say that there can't be other methods, but this is the most "convenient", "safest", "quickest", and "most reliable". Which is why it is done. Any of the other methods pose more risks and expose the abortionist to more lawsuits from complications. This law will stop a lot of late-term abortions.

I can also see pro-life nurses now being willing to work in these places again since they might actually catch someone doing something illegal. Until this law, there was no point, because nothing they saw would be reportable.

O2

[Scenic Sounds]

Did a crime take place?

How would you know?

Those are excellent questions, ST.

Should this law be enacted, there will unquestionably be those who sometimes intentionally and occasionally inadvertantly cross the lines it draws. That's true of most laws, of course, but you are correct to point out that this particular law would govern events to which there are often few witnesses. I also think, though, that the good point you are making can be easily exaggerated. I honestly believe that most folks do make a sincere effort to conduct themselves in accordance with laws of which they are aware, particularly if they (like the abortion provider) are going to be confronted with repeated exposure to the risk of discovery if they make a habit of purposely evading the law.

Compromise is usually uncomfortable, but I think that this proposed law should be supported if it is all that is reasonably achievable at this point and if it can be fairly said that it will prevent any of the abortions that you wish to prevent. Under such circumstances, particularly where issues of life and death are in the balance, a little something is usually better than nothing at all.