Supreme Court bans PBA

[derrida]

Lots to talk about here. First off, Justice Kennedy has started to refer to a fetus as a "baby" and medical professionals as "abortion doctors."

Now, in a case referenced by the court, stenberg v. carhart, the district court ruled that where medical consensus cannot be found for the neccessity of the procedure, the default rule is to favor the judgement of the woman and her physicians. In this case, Kennedy says that the deferment is made to the judgement of the legislature.

The other reversal is on previous cases which said that in order to avoid violation of due process, there must be an exemption for the health of the mother. Here, "health" only extends up to the point where the mother is going to die.

In this case, kennedy wrote that in light of uncertainty about the necessity of the procedure, the abortion could be limited because of the state's legitimate interest in preserving life. he justifies a default decision against choice by taking note of "the intense bond of love between a mother and her child," and the great regret of mothers who have abortions, including "loss of self-esteem and depression." Ginsburg had written in prior decisions about the role of paternalist, patriarchal conceptions of women and motherhood in limiting a woman's right to choose and rips into Kennedy for bringing up some of those nuggets.

Temporary relief to all the sluts out there, though, because this really doesn't change anything, as IDX is usually performed in cases of hydrocephaly or ectopic pregnancy where the baby will not fit through the hip girdle without drainage or the mother is bleeding to death. Also since there is a narrow legislative definition of pba in which the fetus has to emerge from the vagina to a certain degree before they snuff it they might not have actually banned the procedure they intended to. The issue really is that the court made a couple of significant revesals over prior law.

[kahljorn]

probably when they realized their lives are boring and uneventful

[theapportioner]

It amazes me how supposedly brilliant people like these Justices can hold such sexist, ass-backwards opinions. "Loss of self-esteem and depression"? Mon dieu.

As I understand this case, the ruling was over whether it's within the power of government to ban the IDX procedure, and didn't really make a ruling on late-term abortions generally. (In my opinion whether or not this particular procedure should be used is a matter for the community of physicians to decide, not the government). Nor did it address Roe v. Wade or the Planned Parenthood case. Nevertheless Justice Kennedy's comments are revealing and deeply troubling.

[theapportioner]

Besides, Justice Kennedy did uphold Roe v. Wade in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision.

Nevertheless, assuming no liberal/moderate Justices retire or die beforehand, 2008 is a critical year.

[kahljorn]

i dont think losing a bit of self-esteem and being a little depressed is a good reason to ban the procedure. It's only natural that a decent minded woman would feel a little bit of regret, but to ban it because of depression and self-esteem makes it seem like it ruins their lives and they can never be normal people again. "OMG IJUST HATE MYSELF FOR WHAT IVE DUN GOD WILL NEVAH FORGIVE ME" i don't think anybody thinks like that. "IM SUCH AN UGLY BABY KILLAH WHAS WRONg WIT MEEEEE" that either.
Most likely it's like, "Cry cry cry, i wish i wouldt have had to have done that but then there would be a giant head falling out of my vagina right now that id have to pay for and i have no money and that jerk of a father is too much of a jerk to help oh well"

[KevinTheOmnivore]

You frighten me sometimes, kahl.

On a technical point, the Supreme Court didn't ban anything. They simply upheld the Constitutionality of a law passed by Congress against a "practice" overwhelmingly rejected by most Americans.

As for how "ass backwards" our Supreme Court is--I think we should be careful about dismissing the Court for the sake of the whims of popular medicine. In the early 20th Century, a healthy portion of the medical community, and over 3/4 of the states, thought eugenic policies like criminal sterilizations made sense. Despite its popular usage, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected these procedures in 1942, dismissing their constitutionality.

Your real gripe here should be with Congress (including the hypocritical Democrats who voted for the PBA ban and then cried about this decision). And derrida, I think you make a fair point towards the tail end here. I think most folks have a different understanding of what this procedure actually is...I mean, who wants to crush a baby's skull on the way out? It sounds absolutely barbaric, or as Moynihan put it, it's like "infanticide." But to my understnading, it isn't really that simple, and yes, Congress limited the flexibility of abortion doctors () to keep the procedures as non-invasive as possible. But perhaps our I-Mockery residents could elaborate more on that.

[theapportioner]

My "ass-backwardness" comment isn't directed at SCOTUS decision itself, but Justice Kennedy's fatuous and obsolete comments on mother-child relationship, which IMO are abhorrent and irrelevant to the decision.

And look, medicine isn't what it was sixty years ago. After an era of Nazi doctors, Tuskegee, lobotomy, and a whole host of other sorry chapters, the profession is probably more vigilant than ever when it comes to averting issues of this kind. Not to mention, it is also now highly regulated (and I consider this a good thing generally). Many physicians and people working in public health are also at the forefront when it comes to exposing cases of torture, gross disparities in access to health care and treatment, deplorable practices of greed by the pharmaceutical industry, challenging the death penalty, etc.

Do these lapses in ethics still happen? Of course. However, IMO, we should also resist a government that ignores evidence-based medicine, benchtop scientific results, and most importantly, the basic human rights and needs of the patient in pursuing these silly crusades (see medical marijuana and the drug war generally, euthanasia, contraception, and yes, abortion). People who adopt a view on these matters should also take these considerations into account.

Edit for full disclosure: I am a part of the medical profession.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

But don't every generation of doctors (or even human beings, for that matter) think that they are the most evolved and advanced of their time? I'm totally pulling a rule from the Burbank Book here, but I think it's a trap for a white man in 2007 in America to sit back and think that they are the most tolerant, intelligent, and advanced human that has ever lived. Evil and ignorance come in spears and space suits, and often have the same result.

So I'm skeptical of dismissing the Court's ruling on the grounds of modern science or medicine, and I defer to my previous point about eugenics. The Court is in fact an inherently conservative institution, so calling them such in a negative sense seems sort of silly to me.

And btw, the "I-Mockery residents" comment was directed at you, Mr. full disclosure.

[kahljorn]

What's so frightening in saying that some people who have abortions would've had bigger depression and self-esteem issues if they had the baby?

[theapportioner]

I certainly reserve quite a bit of scorn to those who passed the bill in the first place, don't get me wrong. The SCOTUS however did break with precedent here. That the bill has no exception for the health of the mother is particularly lamentable, a point that lower courts have made. But I haven't read the opinions, and legal matters aren't my expertise at all.

I mean, read this portion of the act itself. Is this what is passing for legislation these days? Italics mine.

(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 deliveryof the dead infant -- is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited

It's a total joke. Not to mention, a more common procedure that involves separating the fetus into pieces while in the uterus, isn't banned by this act.

More about the medicine/science thing later. FWIW, the AMA did endorse the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. But the AMA represents less than 1/2 of doctors, and many other medical organizations oppose the act. I personally think the AMA is a fucking joke too.

[Courage the Cowardly Dog]

The supreme court didn't ban it. they UPHELD the ban. learn the difference.


It's still kicking but the head isn't out. I really think at this point it's alive. Just cause it's got a mouth full of vag and can't scream doesn't make it not so.

Why do protesters on this decision carry signs that say women's health? This is more dangerous then ANY normal vaginal birth.

As for their depression. Which is better. "it's legs were kicking outside of me and I had it killed" or "it's up for adoption" seriously. Which would make YOU more depressed?

[Grislygus]

I was under the impression that the noggin only got drained in the event of hydrocephalus.

[Courage the Cowardly Dog]

Well I thought the draining was part of killing it. But honestly it would be easier on the mother after giving birth to the body breached, the head is the last big part and it would make it easier to collapse that way.

I still say it's obviously not healthier then a live birth and far more immoral then aborting EARLIER.

[theapportioner]

People need to ask themselves the following questions:

I. Would you allow this procedure if the life of the mother is in risk, and this procedure is the safest one for the mother? The act makes an exception for the life of the mother.

II. Would you allow this procedure if the health of the mother is in risk, and this procedure is the safest one for the mother? The act makes NO exception for the health of the mother.

If you are ok with I., you are making a judgement on the relative worth of the fetus to that of the adult. Basically, the fetus, although perhaps important in some way, is less important than the life of the mother.

If you are okay with I. but not II., you are basically saying the potential life of the fetus is worth more than the health of the mother. IMO you can't just leave it like that--explain to me why you insist this must be the case.

Moreover, the problem with being okay with I. but not II. is that there's often an ambiguity as to whether a condition threatens the health of the mother but not her life. Who should determine this? Would you want your doctor to determine this on an individual case basis, or do you want the federal government to substitute for clinical judgement? Well, do you want the government to tell you if you have cancer, or liver disease, instead of the doctor?

This act handicaps the physician's judgement as to whether a certain condition is potentially life-threatening and compromises the physician-patient relationship. The fact that Ob/Gyn physicians are not permitted to use a procedure that is sometimes the safest one (the alternative procedure, still legal, involves dismembering the fetus while in the uterus, instead of pulling it out intact--ask yourself what's the essential difference here?) puts them in an uncomfortable position where they either must violate the law, or violate the Hippocratic Oath.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Daily News

She is 'Roe' no more


BY NORMA McCORVEY
Posted Sunday, May 6th 2007, 4:00 AM

As the plaintiff in that infamous Supreme Court case Roe vs. Wade, my life has been inextricably tied to the abortion issue. I once told a reporter, "This issue is the only thing I live for. I live, eat, breathe, think everything about abortion."
Thirty-four years later, I am 100% pro-life.
The Supreme Court's recent decision to uphold the federal ban on partial-birth abortion is the first step in overturning Roe vs. Wade. Banning the procedure - an act of infanticide where a scissors is jammed into the base of the infant's skull, a tube inserted and its brain sucked out - is a sign the court has finally come to its senses.
The case of Roe vs. Wade (I took the pseudonym of Jane Roe to protect my identity) took three years to reach the United States Supreme Court, so I never had the abortion. In fact, I have given birth to three children, all of whom were placed for adoption.
The core of the landmark Roe vs. Wade decision is that abortions are permissible for any reason a woman chooses, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes 'viable,' that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."
It might bother some that the story of my actual conversion does not mimic the intellectual engagement of Augustine's "take and read," Pascal's wager or C.S. Lewis' famous motorcycle ride. My disposition is somewhat simple.
I became very close to the young daughter of a friend who had considered abortion and I realized that "my law" (as I once fondly referred to Roe vs. Wade) could have snuffed out the life of this amazing little girl whom I had grown quite fond of. That, to me, was unacceptable.
Abortion should be unacceptable to anyone who professes to believe in God. If people pledge allegiance to a certain religion, they must honor all the tenets of their faith; picking and choosing only the rules that are easy to follow is cowardly and serves no one.
There are 4.1 million births in the United States every year; there are 1.3 million abortions annually. Roe vs. Wade is clearly working. But preserving a woman's right to choose continues to allow many women to use abortion as birth control. It has become easy and convenient. For a country that honors life, that is wrong. It is outrageous to me that some women can attest to having several abortions. That also is wrong. And immoral. The Supreme Court is right to have taken a stand for life.
Roe vs. Wade is clearly on its way out. The justices have given me hope that future generations will no longer be victims of this gruesome act.
Still, it will be an uphill battle. In New York, for example, Gov. Spitzer has introduced a bill that would keep abortion legal in the state. While some states, like Missouri, are moving to tighten restrictions on abortion, Spitzer's proposal would decriminalize abortion and make it solely a medical issue. In announcing his push to update New York's abortion law, the governor said, "Even if the Supreme Court does not understand the law, we do. New York State will continue to be a beacon of civil rights and protection of women's rights."
Spitzer is wrong. The ban on partial-birth abortion shows the Supreme Court finally does understand what is at stake. The justices' decision is a small step. But I have hope that in the very near future the Supreme Court will take the huge step necessary to preserve life and overturn Roe vs. Wade. It is the right thing to do. And it is time.
McCorvey is an anti-abortion activist living in Texas.

[Grislygus]

Well, yeah. Hasn't she been pretty vocal about this for a while now?

[Sethomas]

I've always wondered if what I've been taught about PBA, generally from biased, religious sources, was accurate. Apparently, it is. I do deplore abortion (yet concede its moral and legal necessity when the mother's life is in question), but the realist in me has been one to favor taking a realistic stand against it. Namely, I've heard of quite Machiavellian tactics employed by agencies such as PP, but I honestly don't know how much they're used. I think it's pretty manifest that unless the life of the mother is in danger, PBA is an embarrassment and failure of modern society.

On abortion in general, I think what's necessary involves:
-Psychological profiling and counseling of the woman in question by an agent not involved directly in the procedure itself,
-A renovation of the organs market involved with abortions. Neither the performing agency nor the woman should be fiscally rewarded for the abortion by the scientific community--those samples BELONG to science, science shouldn't have to pay, to the last of my knowledge of years ago, $1200 for a fetal brain. Handling fees should be the only exchange of money between the lab and the abortion administrators.
-There should be a separation from organizations such as PP who advocate abortion and the procedure themselves. There shouldn't be "abortion clinics"... if it wants to be perceived as a typical medical procedure, it should act like one. Abortions should be performed by agencies with nothing to gain from them. Apropos to my last point, according to http://www.fumento.com/fetal.html the abortion industry nets $175 for each abortion. This is a flagrant conflict of interest, IMO.

[Perndog]

It's about time. Just last week, I saw two people kissing in the street, and I thought, "that's disgusting! The Supreme Court really must do something about this!"

[Ant10708]

completly equal to a partial birth abortion.