What do you think of the Supreme Court decision?

Question

I'll give my two cents on one opinion:

The LA Times predictably condemns yesterday's Supreme Court decision as "unconscionable."

What's truly unconscionable is that the newspaper would oppose a reasonable piece of legislation that both outlaws a barbaric procedure which is never medically necessary and which was also supported by 70% of Americans at the time of its passage.

In the Times' world, apparently, the Supreme Court solons are supposed to tell us that it's unconstitutional to prohibit plunging scissors into the base of a baby's neck in order to kill it. Hey, that's "choice," at least as the Times sees it.

Extremism at its finest . . .

To Cynical: Partial-birth abortions are performed thousands of times annually on healthy babies of healthy mothers. In 1997, Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers (1997), estimated that the method was used 3,000 to 5,000 times annually. “In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along, Fitzsimmons said.” (The New York Times, Feb. 26, 1997, p. A11.) (See clippings at www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/index.html, in the late 1996 and early 1997 archive.) In January 2003, even the Alan Guttmacher Institute – an affiliate of Planned Parenthood – published a survey of abortion providers that estimated that 2,200 abortions were performed by the method in the year 2000. While that figure is surely low (see www.nrlc.org/press_releases_new/release011503.html), it is more than triple the number that AGI estimated in its most recent previous survey (for 1996).

In January 1997, the PBS program Media Matters showed that in 1995-96, the news media largely swallowed a pro-abortion “party line” that partial-birth abortions are performed rarely and only in extreme medical circumstances -- claims later discredited. (See www.pbs.org/wnet/mediamatters99/transcript2.html)

• The Physicians’ Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth (PHACT) -- a group of over 600 physician-specialists (mostly in obstetrics, perinatology, and related disciplines) -- has spoken out to dispute claims that some women need partial-birth abortions to avoid serious physical injury. PHACT said: “We, and many other doctors across the United States, regularly treat women whose unborn children suffer these and other serious conditions. Never is the partial-birth procedure medically indicated. Rather, such infants are regularly and safely delivered live, vaginally, with no threat to the mother's health or fertility.” In September, 1996, former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop and other PHACT members said that “partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect a mother's health or her future fertility. On the contrary, this procedure can pose a significant threat to both.”

In May, 1997, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (then H.R. 1122) was endorsed by the American Medical Association. In a letter to Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), AMA Executive Vice President P. John Seward, M.D., wrote, “Thank you for the opportunity to work with you towards restricting a procedure we all agree is not good medicine.”

Dan, maybe we could find the gene that puts people at risk to being a sociopath, so that we could abort them. Which is it - just mothers get to choose what life is trash, or that it's okay because these kids will grow up to be a burden on society?

Answer 1

It is a predictable reaction. The same liberal media here in Chicago was happy to show video of goose feeding to support the embarassaing city fois gras ban that the world laughed at. Now, they endlessly show the lunatic Cho's videos from V-Tech, allowing him just what he wanted. At the same time, existing videos of partial birth abortion is hidden from public view. Too gory. Indeed! But, isn't it all! Why so selective???

It is telling to compare how the media works to guide public opinion on certain things consistent with the liberal agenda and minimize the horror of others.

Answer 2

Some states have already banned it. Most women do this procedure to save their life which is what pro-lifers support. They support late term abortions and all abortions to save the woman's life. Isn't that murder too? Choosing one life for another? I'm against late term abortions because it harms the woman but I'm pro-choice for the first trimester. Only 10% of Americans support late term abortions and of 1.6 million abortions done each year, 600 of those are late term. I think this case was a waste of time is still allowed to save the woman's life. I don't see much difference now than I did before. This will only benefit the GOP candidates not the fetuses whose "mothers" chose their own life instead of theirs. Don't you condenm that too? Or do you call that choice or pro-life? This case is moronic.

Edit- Do you support late term abortion on unhealthy fetuses? If you do then are you any better than the women who got tired of being pregnant at 6 months? The fetus will die either way. Answer me that.

Answer 3

Regardless of what you think of partial birth abortion...

This is one of the first steps toward the total theocracy sought by the "Moral" Majority, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, and all the new, politically motivated "Evangelical Associations" (based on their own theology, of course).

I don't like partial birth abortion either. But this asker (and many others) need to read what the procedure really is, what *doctors* say it is, not what their admittedly biased preachers are telling them it is.

Organized evangelicals who are trying to codify their own theology, force it into law, force us all to live by their dictates (and thus live under their control), and those whom they put into political office, are a far greater threat to American freedom & liberty than Saddam Hussein ever was in his wildest dreams.

APACHECAT: How can you compare the news media showing the city feeding birds or the carefully edited and cleaned up videos of the Virginia Tech massacre to showing graphic, intimate video of a woman's most private and painful moments? You have a lot of nerve, or very little brain, or both. You are certainly devoid of compassion.

Answer 4

What is disgusting is watching my good old CA senator compare the supreme court decision to the college shootings by saying 2 tragic events happened the other day. That is what is unconscionable.

Answer 5

Personally, i'm happy with it. I dont think abortion is right no matter how its done, but i also dont think im the one who should be deciding if its legal. Im not that wise. Being a liberal, this is one case where i'm glad that a court made the decision for me.

Answer 6

I think the matter of abortion should be decided by the mother. Not a bunch of old crotchety men who have long since become unable to make babies in the first place, or by a woman LONG past being able to have a baby.
Abortion is NOT a matter to be decided by any court, the Supreme Court included.

Answer 7

We live in a flawed world.

I hate the idea of having to kill someone, but hate it even more if someone like John Wayne Gacy were allowed to run free and start his killing spree again. I also hate those gang members who are so violent that they wouldn't think twice about killing someone for not passing the salt when they ask for it. We house these prisoners in a Maximum Security Jail and pray that they will never break out. Charles Manson is a famous madman who inspired a spree killing. He is as crazy as ever and if released he will build a new "family" and start another series of spree killings. Yet he is in a Michigan Prison and a portion of our taxes go to keeping him in jail, feeding and housing him, and the guards that have to hold him in prison.

Late Term Partial Birth Abortions are horrible to think about, but then how many of you can stand watching a heart transplant, or a breast implant. Most people will get sick at the idea of a doctor using bolt cutters to crack the rib cage, or of someone going into the body and pulling things out or putting things in. All that blood would make those with a hardy constitution sick. So don't just think that Late Term Partial Birth Abortions are difficult to think of, all forms are surgery are difficult to think of.

Ideally, abortion would never be needed. But, people make mistakes and things happen. If a child is not aborted then they come into this world unloved and unwanted. They have to live with that for their entire lives, and since most unwanted births happen when the male doesn't want to help take care of the child, the child will grow up in poverty. They will also probably be the subject of child abuse as the mother takes out her frustrations on the source of her problems; her child.

Those abused, as children become abusers when they become adults and carry on the trait to their children. Serial killers are a varied group of people, but almost all of them have one thing in common; sexual abuse as a child. An unwanted child has a higher chance to suffer this.

So while I hate the idea of abortion we live in a flawed world with imperfect solutions and I would rather see an abortion then the results of a unwanted child.

Finally, the baby is a parasite living off the mother, and the mother should have the right to control her own body. At some point the fetus can survive on its own, and most Late Term Partial Birth Abortions are past that point. However, if the mother is having an abortion that late, her reasons and mine are as valid as they would be for a woman taking the “Morning After Pill.”

You see a lot of Conservatives and devoutly religious folk speak out against abortion in any form. Yet none of them are willing to take responsibility for the child after it is born. They just want to force the mother to at least 16 years of hell. Adoption sounds nice, but there isn’t much of a demand for child of minority races or cocaine addicted babies. We have left behind the archaic idea of Orphanages and now have a foster system. Often these families take in the children for the money that they get from Social Services. Children in foster homes know that they are not wanted, it is rubbed into their face every day.

Finally, no provision is made for the mother’s health. Having a baby is taxing on the mother and some women can’t take it. Their bodies just can’t stand the strain, and they will be seriously compromised, even killed if they carry that child to full term.

Answer 8

Los Angeles Slimes is controlled by libs and you'll not read the word, "pro-life" on the paper.