PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION BAN - THE BETRAYAL IS NOW COMPLETE [BARF ALERT - ANTI-GOP PROPAGANDA]

NewsWithViews.com ^ | May 9, 2003 | By David Brownlow

[Sabertooth]

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

Honestly, I didn't see where you gave an answer. Unless the culprits turn themselves in, how is this bill enforced?

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

Read my comments on this thread; I've not suggested throwing this bill out. My questions have been with regard to how much good this bill actually does.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

There's no link to the article, but on the page I linked, this appears as one of the accomplishments of the Bush Administration:

January 31, 2002 Bush Administration Classifies Developing Fetus as Unborn Child - Reported By Associated Press

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Honestly, I didn't see where you gave an answer. Unless the culprits turn themselves in, how is this bill enforced?

The same way any law is enforced. Sometimes people get away with breaking the law - but obviously the illegality of the procedure would discourage a fair number of doctors who might do it otherwise. What's wrong with that?

[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?

[Sabertooth]

Your post simply recapitulates the backdrop for my question to you.

The legislation establishes under what circumstances a PBA is legal, and under what circumstances it isn't. It also extablishes penalties for breaking the statute. All well and good, we agree on that. I'm just trying to get a handle on the practical application of this law, and how it will be enforced, fair enough?

Now, again, my question...

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?

[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

[Deb]

(Whew!) Thanks. I knew someone would save me.

[Sabertooth]

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.

Let's set aside trojan horses, shall we? Let's also set aside the "your side" guilt-by-association remarks along with them.

Look at this thread, or any other on PBA and/or this legislation. Have I said anything critical of any Republican in this regard?

All I've tried to do here is get a handle on the practical application of this legislation. Is that somehow out of bounds?

[NittanyLion]

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;

Is it possible to abort the child during a delivery but before the "entire fetal head" is outside the body of the mother? I honestly don't know, and I'm trying to get a handle on whether this could be a loophole.

[Sabertooth]

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.

Thanks, and that's at least a reasonable position. And you may well be right that it will prevent some number of late-term abortions.

Even if all that's true, however, I think it's instructive to look for whatever loopholes or shortcomings there might be in this legislation, not necessarily to castigate various politicians, but more importantly, to understand where the next steps need to be taken.

It would be a mistake (would it not?) to consider a partial victory to be a total one, and engender complacency.

[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.

[Sabertooth]

Is it possible to abort the child during a delivery but before the "entire fetal head" is outside the body of the mother?

Yes, though it appears that at the current state of the abortionsts art, there is considerably more risk to the egg-donor.

[honeygrl]

I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens. ]

Just curious though.. How would you suggest that ANY law against abortion be enforced? If they can't enforce this law, how could they enforce an out and out ban on all abortion?

I honestly don't know how abortion doctors work but I know my OB was required to answer to the hospital's board of physicians (or something like that, can't remember what he called them) when babies were born with complications around the delivery. He wanted to induce labor early but told me that if he induced before 39wks he had to answer to them as to why he did it and give them reasons why or his hospital priviledges could be revoked. That meant I had to wait until 39wks before he could do it. Maybe abortion doctors need some sort of board they answer to detailing what procedures they do and how they are done? Also, how do they get rid of the baby when the abortion is complete? Wouldn't that be evidence against them? Don't you think that pro-life activists will also be breathing down the abortion dr's throats for a while as well? No law is 100% enforceable. It's a step in the right direction though.

[Deb]

Oh...PPPPPUUUULLLLEEEEEEEEZZZZZEEEE!!!

Your nobility is scaring the animals.

I have yet to see you and your little crowd avoid any anti-Bush, anti-GOP, uncle bill induced pile-on.

The "practical application" of the PBA ban is a start. Including the Democrat ammendment re-affirming Roe vs. Wade so the bill would stand a chance against a filabuster is politics. It's a game the Republicans hate, but they have to play.

I believe that if GW, Santorum and the rest of the GOP congressmen could wave their hands, abortion, illegal immigration, welfare, the department of education, the ACLU and lots of other abominations would be no more.

They can't.

The bad guys control information to the masses and they know every trick in the Senate, so the good guys are contrained to play the game and get what they can. If you can't recognize that, how did you get this far in life? Trustfund?

Funny how your searches for those "practical applications" always take the same form.

[NittanyLion]

Thanks for the info - I don't have time to wade through the entire thread right now. Interesting...

[Sabertooth]

Oh...PPPPPUUUULLLLEEEEEEEEZZZZZEEEE!!!
Your nobility is scaring the animals.

I have yet to see you and your little crowd avoid any anti-Bush, anti-GOP, uncle bill induced pile-on.

Translation:

Since I couldn't find a post to support my claim of mind-reading, I'll try again, with nothing more than sarcasm.

[honeygrl]

Is it possible to abort the child during a delivery but before the "entire fetal head" is outside the body of the mother?

I'm not sure but it seems like it would seriously endanger the mother if they did that. The procedure that I've read is most commonly used is what this bans though. It's a first step. I hope the next step wil be the 2nd trimester D&C abortions. I'm pretty sure if they tried the D&C abortions late term, the bone would cause injury to the mother. I read somewhere recently of that happening to one lady who died from the procedure.

[honeygrl]

"Even if all that's true, however, I think it's instructive to look for whatever loopholes or shortcomings there might be in this legislation, not necessarily to castigate various politicians, but more importantly, to understand where the next steps need to be taken. "

I completely agree with you.

[Sabertooth]

Cool. Cheers.

[Sabertooth]

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.

Usually, and it looks to be that way in this case.

That said, I think the Democrats had a lot more to lose from a high-profile, bare-knuckled fight over infanticide and PBA than did the GOP.