Well...when I make the point that there should be wiggle room in the legislation to allow for PBA's in case of a medical emergency threatening the mother's life, the argument is that such cases are few, and very far between, or even non-existent.
When I point out that the ONLY PBA permitted by this bill is when the mother's life is in danger, you call it a mile wide loophole...which is it then?
How can you call it a mile wide loophole when the ONLY circumstance under which the procedure is allowed is statistically non-existent?
As has been pointed out to you on this very thread, there are no medical emergencies that would spare the life of the mother provided a PBA is available.
Moreover, do you honestly believe that a mother that cared for her unborn child wouldn't foresake her own life for her child? I don't.
Luis, this is limpwristed legislation that does nothing to further the cause of life and advances the rhetoric of life while comfortably advancing death with a caveat to Roe V Wade as well. Not something to be proud of in the least.
If you want to advance an agenda make the agenda clear and succinct. This is neither.
It takes 3 DAYS to perform a partial birth abortion. Obviously, someone with an emergency medical condition doesn't have three days to resolve it. The only point in doing a PBA is to deliver a dead baby.
As for loopholes, the leading third trimester abortionist, "Tiller the Killer," isn't worried about that: LINK