thank god i wasn't there!

Judge: Bush Abortion Ban Unconstitutional

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040601/D82UEQC00.html

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - In a ruling with coast-to-coast effect, a federal judge declared the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional Tuesday, saying it infringes on a woman's right to choose.

U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton's ruling came in one of three lawsuits challenging the legislation President Bush signed last year.

She agreed with abortion rights activists that a woman's right to choose is paramount, and that is therefore "irrelevant" whether a fetus suffers pain, as abortion foes contend.

"The act poses an undue burden on a woman's right to choose an abortion," the judge wrote.

=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=

"a woman's right to choose is paramount, and that is therefore "irrelevant" whether a fetus suffers pain"

i think ill write this down for future refferance:

U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton, Calif


edit: did a little more reasearch and it seems myway's article is not exactly a beacon of truth...although not really far off base.

it seems her exact words were:

"This court concludes that the act is unconstitutional because it poses an undue burden on a woman's ability to choose a second trimester abortion; is unconstitutionally vague; and requires a health exception," Judge Hamilton wrote in her ruling.

...

"As a physician, this procedure is shameful," said Senate Majority leader Bill Frist, describing it as "outside of the bounds of the practice of medicine".

"I'm very disappointed in the decision today, and I think that ultimately that decision will be overturned."

The law, signed last November, banned so-called "partial-birth abortions", which usually take place during the fifth or sixth month of pregnancy.

The procedure involves the extraction of the body of the foetus into the vagina before the contents of the skull are suctioned and the intact foetus is removed from the woman's body.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3768331.stm

Noite that the ban was only passed on lies, they claimed taht there is never a medical reason for a second trimester abortion, the truth is some rare but major complications can occure in the second trymester of a pregnancy that can kill the mother if an abortion is not preformed. Now there are a few methods for second trimester abortions but this is the safe method.

bballad, that ban had provisions to save a mother in case of complications. That has always been the case, even when abortions we not legal in the country. Not sure where you are coming from. So it comes to a constitutional right to choose to kill something that is cabable of being born at that stage? The ban was not passed on lies and I would wager you never even read the bill.

when does anyones 'right to choose', not just woman's go beyond reason.

caring for my elderly parents is really inconvient right now, what with my career and all...traditional child/parent relationships just don't fit into a modern world and the cost of keeping them alive is just too prohibitive.

we're talking about something that is moving on its own. well... before they crush its skull and suck its brain out anyway. in many cases these children can survive outside the womb given proper medical care...much like the elderly can survive given proper medical care. wouldn't you think that a fetus capable of maintaining life without the bitch err...mother (and probably better off for it) should be considered a life. its using a legal technicality that this murder is allowed. if its alive when its seperated from the pig they are required to give it care but if they kill it first....hey!

let me ask you this, if a child is born premature is it not considered human and entitled to all the care we can give it. now you say because a child has the misfortune of being attached to a woman instead of a resperator it has no rights? it's not human? are these properties inherited from the mother? doesn't it seem strange that those that support this practice call themselves "liberal thinkers"?

actualy road look into the ban, part of the problem with it is there is no medical provision, the big lie used to get this one passed is that there is never a medical reason for a scond trimester abortion...personaly i think late pregnancy/second/third trimest abortions should not be allowed except for medical nacesities. I am guessing you havent read the bill as the amendment to the bill that added medical exemptions was never passed.

Tebold, month 5 and 6 premies do not normaly live, if they do survive there are very high odds of massive complications after months of intensive care...month 5 are normaly not considered viable and a five mont hpremee is useualy considered something of a merical if they survive...thats what we are talking about here month 5 and 6, this is long beofre a baby could survive outside of their mother.

Bballad this is long but I hope you and others may read it. Your argument is because 5 to 6 month old premature kids have a risk of death that crushing their skull is the alternative? wow.

I am PRO choice, but if the baby stands a chance, as many do live, then the procedure should be birth no death, even if the chances are 50/50 or worse. The alternative is 100 percent death. If medical procedure must be performed I say yank it out. Hell the baby could have comprehension at that time. It can come out and breathe and look at you. I know they need a machine but it's possible and you can see thousands survive those early deliveries each year. At worse they have under developed lungs that grow outside the womb.

The big lie is the puppet masters on the choice side that manipulate people into believing what they wish. I have looked at the bill for 10 years almost. The thing was introduced in 1995! Veto by Clinton Twice and approved by congress in a pretty big margin. Wasn't even close, do you know what the vote was bballad? 64-34 on the senate and 281 to 142 in the house! I have all the names, Kerry voted NO if anyone cares. Now onto the "lie" - the lie is VERY specific, and I bet no one has read it. Just a blog interpretation of some fanatic:

BILL

Quote:

---

Public Law
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...=f:publ105.108

---

There is a ****ed up reason it's called "Partial Birth" the head is taken out. If the head is out to kill it, why not just bring the shoulders out and give it a chance. That's crazy in my mind. The fetus is killed outside the womb. In fact the bill defines partial birth abortions very precisely. If the head is removed, you can’t kill it. Imagine pulling a babies head out of the womb all the way to the neck and puncturing it’s skull and killing it before removing the body. How can one define that as a medical procedure to improve the health of a woman? Your pulling it out anyway, that is BS. All you are doing it terminating it’s life before pulling it out in the exact same way you would if there was a problem with the pregnancy or the woman’s health. From the law, definition of what can’t be terminated:

“ …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;”

The baby is hanging half way out, yes there is a medical procedure that would just jump up at that point and place the mother at some health risk. Yeah, OK. But to try and appease those far minded people this line was added, note this is not a bill this is the LAW on the books. For instance a doctor can defend his decision if the doctor thinks she will die if the baby is delivered. Is this the lie? A doctor would have to go to a medical board each time the baby is killed and explain why he thought she would die as an alternative.

“A defendant accused of an offense under this section may seek a hearing before the State Medical Board on whether the physician's
conduct was necessary to save the life of the mother whose life was
endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.”

If it is so dangerous why is the baby this far? Perhaps complications come up, there is an out – always was. Hell the woman can’t even be held accountable and prosecuted, she is in the clear, always was.

“ A woman upon whom a partial-birth abortion is performed may
not be prosecuted under this section, for a conspiracy to violate this
section, or for an offense under section 2, 3, or 4 of this title based
on a violation of this section.”

This infringes on a woman’s constitutional right? Phooey. What the bill says and I see as truth is, there is no evidence that performing the operation is safer than delivery in fact it’s clear to me that dragging it half way out and crushing it’s skull is a higher risk procedure than delivery. It complicates things and takes much more time, how is that less a risk? That makes sense to me. There is a lot of good case law that the really makes one think hard about this. I could continue examples as necessary and time permits.

FINALLY THE BIG LIE! Please note the DOES NOT APPLY section?

“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. <<NOTE: Effective date.>> This subsection takes effect 1 day after the enactment.”

Ok I may have sounded a little tight here, but doesn’t it make sense? To take in the full disclosure of what this is and the alternative?

//Edit Ack, AO sees some text in the law URL as a smiley. Paste it for the Actual Law that was passed and written.

This is a very emotive subject.

Why is it that in a country that allows a person to carry a gun and use it in self defence. The subject of killing an un born fetus is such a big thing.

I would guess that more people are killed by gunshot wounds in the US than unborn babes are aborted.

jinxy, I don't think so

(AGI) (CDC)
1973 744,600 615,831
1974 898,600 763,476
1975 1,034,200 854,853
1976 1,179,300 988,267
1977 1,316,700 1,079,430
1978 1,409,600 1,157,776
1979 1,497,700 1,251,921
1980 1,553,900 1,297,606
1981 1,577,300 1,300,760
1982 1,573,900 1,303,980
1983 1,575,000 1,268,987
1984 1,577,200 1,333,521
1985 1,588,600 1,328,570
1986 1,574,000 1,328,112
1987 1,559,100 1,353,671
1988 1,590,800 1,371,285
1989 1,566,900 1,396,658
1990 1,608,600 1,429,577
1991 1,556,500 1,388,937
1992 1,528,900 1.359,145
1993 1,500,000 1,330,414
1994 1,431,000 1,267,415
1995 1,363,690 1,210,883
1996 1,365,730 1,221,585
1997 1,365,730 (NRLC estimate)
1998 1,365,730 (NRLC estimate.)
1999 1,365,730 (CIRTL estimate.)

* 40 MILLION ABORTIONS SINCE 1973
* 4,000 each day
http://www.abortiontv.com/AbortionStatistics.htm


By Jonathan Dube
Guns kill.They kill 34,000 Americans every year
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/u...ns_damage.html

And what does using a gun to defend oneself have to do with killing a defensless baby?

Hmm comparison of killing somone who is trying to kill you first, and pulling a baby out of the womb and killing it on the table is the same. Bullshit my friend. The emotion in the subject is my anger at america's lack of will to face reality, vs force fed propaganda. ;)

Road, a major compliation like pre- eclampsea(sp?) apperas in the later trimester, it can cause stroke and hartattacks in the mother, late term miscarrages ect. My sister had this she was in the hospital on bed rest starting month four, she got lucky and made it to month 6 when the chlied was viable, my neice was amezingly premeture, he nural system didn't fully form and so she will never be able t owalk...as i said we got lucky there was no brain damage and she can see/hear/use her hands and arms....that was month 6.

In month 5 even with the fetuses head outside of the morther it dosn't have a fighting chance, the brain hasn't fully devloped, the lungs haven't fully devloped, the nurvious system hasn't devloped it would take a merical for the baby to survive, and if it did you would have a kid with major physical and mental handycaps. your other option for at second trimester abortion is to put a device in the mother that breaks up the kid inside of the womb, a good perecntage of the time (i think around 25%) this becaumes a partial birht abortion and it has a much higher chance for complications.

How does this law effect that situation, the mother is in obious danger.

This law protects her safety. If the baby is killed in the womb this law DOES NOT apply bballad. Read the law, the head must be removed, or the trunk up to the naval. I say if the head is taken out, take it all the way out and see what happens. Other than that it's a tool of convenience outside the safety of the mother.