these are good sites to get a start on if you want to research about it....they are good in that they don't have photos and such...remember, i wish these all had simple answers, but the brain is extremely complex and can sadly be put together quite wrong....g
Did someone say something about Partial Birth with no health exceptions?
While I enjoy all the discussion about late terms pregnancies with severe defects and all I wasn't aware that anyone here was against a health exception.
<strong>Did someone say something about Partial Birth with no health exceptions?
While I enjoy all the discussion about late terms pregnancies with severe defects and all I wasn't aware that anyone here was against a health exception.
Nick</strong><hr></blockquote>That's what the entire fight is (was) about. Clinton wanted an exception for health. And not even just health, because people said that could be interpreted too broadly. His bill was phrased "serious health" consequences or something to that effect. One of the issues was whether the woman would be able to have children again. The Republicans' bill made an exception only for the life of the mother. The bill was passed, Clinton vetoed it because it didn't have the "serious health consequences" exception, and they just missed the veto override by a few votes.
This is the reason I think the pro-life groups were being dishonest and political with this issue. They could have had a bill that outlawed at least some of the "partial-birth abortions" but they decided to use it as a political issue instead by forcing Clinton to veto the bill. They defeated amendments that said things like "exception for very severe disabling health consequences" and such.
<strong>That's what the entire fight is (was) about. Clinton wanted an exception for health. And not even just health, because people said that could be interpreted too broadly. His bill was phrased "serious health" consequences or something to that effect. One of the issues was whether the woman would be able to have children again. The Republicans' bill made an exception only for the life of the mother. The bill was passed, Clinton vetoed it because it didn't have the "serious health consequences" exception, and they just missed the veto override by a few votes.
This is the reason I think the pro-life groups were being dishonest and political with this issue. They could have had a bill that outlawed at least some of the "partial-birth abortions" but they decided to use it as a political issue instead by forcing Clinton to veto the bill. They defeated amendments that said things like "exception for very severe disabling health consequences" and such.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think that is because serious health has been enlarged to include not just physical health but also mental health. So theoretically "mental anguish" would be enough to prompt a third term partial birth abortion.
But just so we aren't stuck debating the intents of others, I wouldn't be against an exception that would protect the mother's life and risk of serious physical health problems.
i don't know about every state, but most limit fetal terminations after 20 weeks to severe fetal anomalies and extreme threat to mothers life....so you can't just decide you don't want the baby when you are 21 weeks or later....that is why most fetal testing is done around 16 to 18 weeks...we get the best fetal imaging at 22 to 26 weeks (IMHO), but then it is too late to terminate a pregnancy unless the prognosis is truely grim....
ps...did you see the latest research that abortion rates are dropping...they say it is due to education and birth control...so keep fighting the good fight...educate your children, talk to them, love and support them and abortion will become truely rare....which, for this pro-choice dad, would be a wonderful thing....g
mental health exemptions are mostly for suicidal moms and heavily medicated "insane" preggers....and then "partial birth" is not used..."parial birth" is purely for babies with heads too big to deliver naturally...if you want to make it a law that "partial birth" is only used on huge headed fetuses, fine by me, i think that is only people getting them anyway...women terminating a pregnancy in the 3rd trimester for health reasons other than abnormally large headed babies can do it naturally...i won't go into how that is done as all 3rd trimester terminations are unpleasent...
once again, people legally getting 3rd trimester abortions are almost universally hating every moment of it...they want to have a child and it hurts them terribly to have to do what they are doing...please try to remember that if you want to add to their grief...
outlawing "partial birth" abortions will not decrease the number of abortions at all...education, contraception and love will....outlawing abortion will not end abortions....education, contraception and love will....g
Comments
<a href="http://www.neonatology.org/syllabus/holoprosencephaly.html"; target="_blank">holoprosencephaly site</a>
<a href="http://cpmcnet.columbia.edu/dept/nsg/PNS/Hydrocephalus.html"; target="_blank">hydrocephalus site</a>
While I enjoy all the discussion about late terms pregnancies with severe defects and all I wasn't aware that anyone here was against a health exception.
Nick
<strong>Did someone say something about Partial Birth with no health exceptions?
While I enjoy all the discussion about late terms pregnancies with severe defects and all I wasn't aware that anyone here was against a health exception.
Nick</strong><hr></blockquote>That's what the entire fight is (was) about. Clinton wanted an exception for health. And not even just health, because people said that could be interpreted too broadly. His bill was phrased "serious health" consequences or something to that effect. One of the issues was whether the woman would be able to have children again. The Republicans' bill made an exception only for the life of the mother. The bill was passed, Clinton vetoed it because it didn't have the "serious health consequences" exception, and they just missed the veto override by a few votes.
This is the reason I think the pro-life groups were being dishonest and political with this issue. They could have had a bill that outlawed at least some of the "partial-birth abortions" but they decided to use it as a political issue instead by forcing Clinton to veto the bill. They defeated amendments that said things like "exception for very severe disabling health consequences" and such.
<strong>That's what the entire fight is (was) about. Clinton wanted an exception for health. And not even just health, because people said that could be interpreted too broadly. His bill was phrased "serious health" consequences or something to that effect. One of the issues was whether the woman would be able to have children again. The Republicans' bill made an exception only for the life of the mother. The bill was passed, Clinton vetoed it because it didn't have the "serious health consequences" exception, and they just missed the veto override by a few votes.
This is the reason I think the pro-life groups were being dishonest and political with this issue. They could have had a bill that outlawed at least some of the "partial-birth abortions" but they decided to use it as a political issue instead by forcing Clinton to veto the bill. They defeated amendments that said things like "exception for very severe disabling health consequences" and such.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think that is because serious health has been enlarged to include not just physical health but also mental health. So theoretically "mental anguish" would be enough to prompt a third term partial birth abortion.
But just so we aren't stuck debating the intents of others, I wouldn't be against an exception that would protect the mother's life and risk of serious physical health problems.
Nick
ps...did you see the latest research that abortion rates are dropping...they say it is due to education and birth control...so keep fighting the good fight...educate your children, talk to them, love and support them and abortion will become truely rare....which, for this pro-choice dad, would be a wonderful thing....g
once again, people legally getting 3rd trimester abortions are almost universally hating every moment of it...they want to have a child and it hurts them terribly to have to do what they are doing...please try to remember that if you want to add to their grief...
outlawing "partial birth" abortions will not decrease the number of abortions at all...education, contraception and love will....outlawing abortion will not end abortions....education, contraception and love will....g
[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>