IslandMix - Soca, Reggae, Zouk and Caribbean Entertainment

I know abortion is a very touchy subject, but I happened to notice this article the other day in the New York Times. This article discusses that a particular form of abortion, one that occurs in the last two trimesters of a pregnancy, could be banned ( the President has yet to sign the bill). I'm interested on hearing different opinions on this. Do you think that the banning of this form of abortion could lead to overturning Roe v Wade?


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/05/po...rint&position=

June 5, 2003
House Bans an Abortion Method
By ROBIN TONER


WASHINGTON, June 4 — The House overwhelmingly approved legislation tonight to outlaw what abortion opponents call partial birth abortion, putting the anti-abortion movement on the brink of a major victory.

While differences must still be ironed out with the Senate, which passed the bill in March, both sides agree that the legislation will soon be headed to President Bush, who has repeatedly promised to sign it.

Today's 282-to-139 vote comes after eight years of struggle. Congress twice passed similar bills in the Clinton administration, but President Clinton vetoed each one. The Supreme Court dealt the anti-abortion movement another serious blow on the same issue three years ago, ruling that several similar state bans on the abortion procedure were unconstitutional.

But this year, anti-abortion leaders found themselves with Republican allies in control of the House, the Senate and the White House, and moved quickly to pass such a ban again.

"We have lived in denial of the violence of abortion for far too long," said Representative Christopher H. Smith, Republican of New Jersey. "Today, we can stop some of this violence against children."

The Bush administration declared today that the ban was "both morally imperative and constitutionally permissible."

The measure applies to a type of abortion used to terminate pregnancies in the second and third trimester. The procedure, which is medically known as intact dilation and extraction, is rarely used, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit research group.

Abortion opponents contend that the procedure typically involves delivering the lower part of the fetus's body, puncturing and collapsing its head while still inside the woman's body, and the delivery of a dead, but largely intact fetus. They call the procedure barbaric.

Supporters of abortion rights counter that the procedure is so ill-defined that the proposed law could end up criminalizing many kinds of abortions that are medically necessary.

Several abortion rights groups, including the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the National Abortion Federation and the American Civil Liberties Union Reproductive Freedom Project, said they would immediately file suit to block the legislation once the president signed it.

They asserted it infringed on a woman's right to choose an abortion, under the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, and was just as unconstitutional as the state ban rejected by the Supreme Court three years ago.

Kate Michelman, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said, "This is a broad, unconstitutional bill that sacrifices women's health and future fertility on the altar of extreme right-wing ideology."

But Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, said, "Two-thirds of Congress, 70 percent of the public and four Supreme Court Justices say there is no constitutional right to deliver most of a living baby and then puncture her head with a scissors."

"We hope that by the time this ban reaches the Supreme Court, at least five justices will be willing to reject such extremism," Mr. Johnson said.

The vote today underscored the new clout of the anti-abortion movement, and it came at a time of rising political anxiety as both sides prepare for the possibility of a Supreme Court vacancy this summer.

Today's outcome was widely expected, but the debate still had moments of intense emotion. Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Republican of Florida, called the procedure "gruesome and "a grave attack against human dignity and justice."

On the other side, Representative Louise M. Slaughter, Democrat of New York, declared: "The Congress of the United States has never — ever — outlawed a medical procedure. What in the name of God are we doing here? And what is next?"

Abortion rights groups and many doctors assert that the legislation passed tonight could affect several procedures that are sometimes necessary to preserve the health and fertility of the woman.

They also said such procedures were sometimes a wrenchingly painful choice for a woman who wants to carry a pregnancy to term but discovers that her fetus has severe abnormalities.

"As terrible as it may be to imagine, things can go wrong in the later stages of a pregnancy," said Representative Lynn Woolsey, Democrat of California.

But opponents of abortion argued that most of this type of abortions were performed to end healthy pregnancies in healthy mothers. Representative Steve Chabot, Republican of Ohio and the chief sponsor of the ban, described the procedure as "truly a national tragedy," and argued that it was "never embraced by the mainstream medical community."

The measure was opposed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which said that doctors and patients, not legislators, "are the appropriate parties to determine the best method of treatment."

It was also opposed by the American Medical Association, which said it did not support the use of the procedure at issue but had a "long-standing policy opposing legislation that would criminalize medical practice or procedure."

Under the bill, doctors who performed such abortions would be subject to fines and up to two years imprisonment.

The measure was supported by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and many social conservative groups like the Family Research Council.

Tonight's vote on final passage came after an amendment was defeated that would have outlawed abortions after viability unless necessary to avert "serious adverse health consequences" to the woman. The vote was 133 to 287. Opponents of abortion said it would have opened a huge loophole in the law.

The House overwhelmingly passed a similar abortion ban last year, but the Senate, then under Democratic control, never brought it to the floor for a vote. When Democrats lost their Senate majority last fall, the last political impediment to the abortion ban's becoming law was removed.

Three months ago, the Senate, under new Republican leadership, passed the ban by a vote of 64 to 33. The Senate, however, also approved a nonbinding resolution expressing support for Roe v. Wade, which is not in the House version passed tonight.

Abortion rights groups said they were confident that the bill passed tonight would fail to meet the standards set out by the Supreme Court. In that 5-to-4 decision, the court ruled that a similar state ban was unconstitutional because it was too vague and failed to include an exception to allow the procedure if it was deemed necessary to protect the health of the woman.

But the sponsors of the ban said they had tried to address the court's concerns and defined the procedure more narrowly. The law defines it as the partial delivery of 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 a breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother;" followed by the performance of "an overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus."

Opponents of abortion have long resisted adding a "health exception," arguing it would become a huge loophole allowing such abortions for vague reasons of mental health. They asserted that the new bill answers the Supreme Court's objections by making a legislative finding that such abortions are never medically necessary.

The opponents also argue that the issue of this type of abortion highlights the extremism of the Supreme Court's view of abortion rights, one that they say is far out of step with the views of most Americans.

Groups opposing the proposed ban argue that it is just the first stage in a steady assault on abortion rights.

wow...you're right Kipani...very controversial topic.....and very hard to make a concrete decision on for me at least.....Republicans have been trying to overthrow roe vs wade for a long time now. with a majority in the house, etc, they may very well succeed. while abortion is defintely a question of morality, I'd have to support pro-choice on this one.

Ultimately, the woman carrying the baby is the one to have to raise the child for 18+ years. Anti-abortion lobbyists are not. Although abortion should not be used as birth control, what is the lesser or two evils.....a woman giving birth to an unwanted child and abandoning him/her, or worse, keeping the child and abusing it? or, an abortion?

Late term abortions I would think/hope are generally performed when serious medical complications occur. Again, its not an easy choice to make but i think about it in this type of scenario....consider being faced with giving birth to a child, seriously deformed, requiring constant medicial care......in the amount of $20,000 or $30,000 a month! you can't afford it...what do you do???? hell if i know what you do, but it should be up to the mother to have the options....

I am definitely pro-choice, but at the same time I think there should be a line drawn. In the second, and certainly in the 3rd trimester there is already a fetus.

However, I would still say that its a moral line that needs to be drawn. Who is anyone person to make judgement on another?

I agree with SJ that there is the issue of the lesser of two evils. I've been in hospitals where there are babies born addicted to crack, heroine, cocaine, and are given away to be raised by the state until they're 18. They get transferred from foster home to foster home, which in the long run is being paid for by the taxpayers.

Tough decision...

I am Pro-choice . I have never had an abortion, but I would imagine that it´s not a pleasant experience and something women do for sport. Just what is it that Anti-abortionists lobby against? I don´t understand.