<p>Regardless of anyone’s position on abortion and partial-birth abortion, this part of the Supreme Court’s decision, quoted from The New York Times today, has me extraordinarily upset:</p>
<p>“Justice Kennedy said that banning the procedure was in fact good for women, protecting them again terminating their pregnancies by a method they might not fully understand in advance and would come to regret later.”</p>
<p>When did Justice Kennedy decide that All Women need this type of protection?</p>
<p>Justice Ginsberg took him to task for this. But do you think he really gets it?</p>
<p>Eh…if America feels all right justifying any type of abortion, they might as well allow this one, too. It’s the same principle, just a bit more gruesome.</p>
<p>You know, I really doubt anyone looks forward to having an abortion. There should be choice. As you folks point out, they can always choose life. But there should be a choice for the woman.</p>
<p>Was watching a news segment on this tonight, and it truly strikes fear in my heart when I see that there is not even an exception for the health of the mother. Only for the LIFE of the mother. The health of the pregnant mother is a subject which should be dealt with strictly between a woman and her doctor, and what decision she makes should NOT be legislated for her. Period.</p>
<p>The more I ponder this decision, the more unnerved I become. With this ruling, the court has established that the life of the unborn child is worth more than the health of the mother. What’s to prevent a subsequent case from being decided such that consideration for the life of the baby supercedes consideration for the LIFE of the mother? This is <em>very</em> dangerous territory, particularly considering that different religions may view this puzzling ethical decision in very different ways.</p>
<p>Two of my pregnancies involved PIH (what used to be termed preeclampsia or toxemia). One of them was with my last baby. At the time, I had five children at home ranging in age from 2-10. We never, at <em>any</em> point during our lives, had anyone who could/would step in for us should something happen to either my dh or me–no extended family within several states (not that they’d have done it if they had been next door ) So, why on EARTH should the COURT be the one to decide that my health is irrelevant and secondary to my unborn baby? In fact, my health was quite relevant, and one certainly doesn’t have to have five young children to make that so.</p>
<p>Where the choice argument gets bogged down is in black and white ethical interpretation. Pro-life = “good” thing. Pro-choice = “bad” thing. What some fail to realize is that in REAL LIFE, there is seldom that distinct a line between good/ethical and bad/not ethical. Sometimes, the choices are between “bad,” “worse,” and “worst.” There is no “good” involved.</p>
<p>Therefore, this very difficult and life altering decision should rest only with those whose lives will be affected by it. It should NOT be the Supreme Court’s decision how crucial my physical or mental health is or is not to me, to my husband, and to my six children. </p>
<p>This slope is more slippery than I can even fathom, and to call this decision disconcerting is a vast understatement.</p>
There are certain types of disorders which may not be detected in an unborn baby until later in a pregnancy. Some of these disorders are incompatible with life or would so severely affect the quality of life of the baby that parents angonizingly opt for termination at a point in the pregnancy when methods used in earlier terminations would not be possible. </p>
<p>Also, there are the issues around the health/life of the mother, such as severe PIH which can put the mother at serious risk for seizures/stroke/death. Partial birth abortion is <em>not</em> a procedure that one would opt for out of convenience, nor is it a procedure offered by many doctors. In fact, Dr. George Tiller of Wichita, KS is the <em>only</em> doctor in this entire region that offers this particular procedure for those in need, and his clinic has been the site of violence/protests/death threats, etc. for a long time now as women who cannot find anyone to help them flock here to Dr. Tiller from out of state.</p>
<p>“When did Justice Kennedy decide that All Women need this type of protection? Justice Ginsberg took him to task for this. But do you think he really gets it?”</p>
<p>This is one aspect of the decision that left me shocked and worried. The result, the vote split, etc. were all expected. But I really thought that Justice Kenendy knew better than to embrace the argument that women are a bunch of helpless airheads who need to GOVERNMENT to step in and protect them from their own decisions, since they are incapable of resolving moral dilemmas on their own. To put it mildly, that’s not a conservative position. It’s a big-government, anti-individualist position. It’s also condescending sexist BS.</p>
<p>“Was this particular procedure <em>ever</em> shown to be an elective one? I thought it was used in cases of non-viable or dangerous pregnancies.”</p>
<p>I have never heard of it being offered as an elective procedure. Most states ban elective abortion at that stage of pregnancy, anyway, regardless of the technique used.</p>
<p>I really wish the media would stop using the term “partial birth abortion” in reporting on the issue. That is not the correct medical term for the procedure and was coined by those opposed to it. I believe the medical term is “intact D & E” or “intact dilation and evacuation.”</p>
<p>berurah, I’m not a nurse, although one of my sisters is a labor and delivery RN. Can you tell me how partial birth abortion is any less dangerous than pre-term delivery? I honestly can’t see how delivering a baby up to the head and then crushing and evacuating the skull is any less dangerous to the mother than completing the delivery and giving that child a chance at life.</p>
<p>I am pro-life, which is probably not a big surprise to anyone here. But by the stage in a pregnancy where partial birth abortion is the only option, that life is more of a baby than just a simple clump of cells. From a practical standpoint, I don’t see how giving birth to a live, pre-term infant is more dangerous than undergoing this barbaric medical procedure. Most women know they are pregnant long before this procedure is the only option. With the many options for pre-natal testing – alpha-feto protein testing, amniocentesis, CVS – problems with the fetus (including Down’s syndrome) can usually be detected during the first trimester. </p>
<p>If anyone can demonstrate a case where the mother would be permanently disabled without this procedure, I’d be interested in hearing it. There is still the option of this procedure to save the mother’s life. As I see it, there are plenty of ways to prevent pregnancy, or terminate it in the early stages. Eliminating the option of infanticide just seems civilized to me.</p>
<p>Partial birth abortion is far more descriptive than “intact dilation and extraction.” Isn’t the baby delivered up to the neck and then killed?</p>
<p>Berurah, I absolutely agree!!! What I also find disturbing is that most of the people who are making these decisions can’t even become pregnant themselves.</p>
This is true, sj, but some of the tests you’ve mentioned above are NOT conclusive (such as the AFP or the nuchal fold measurement–which you didn’t mention, but is used for Down’s screening), and amnio is not a procedure that is typically performed in the first trimester. I had two amnios, and they were done at around 16 weeks, well into the second trimester of pregnancy. <em>IF</em>, G-d forbid, I had learned from one of these procedures that my unborn child had either 1.) a condition incompatible with life, or 2.) a condition that would so devastatingly affect his quality of life that I felt AS HIS MOTHER that the best option would be termination, I would still want options open to me. </p>
<p>
PIH is a VERY serious condition specific to pregnancy that does have the potential to render the mother disabled (from stroke) or dead. Once the pregnancy is terminated, the condition disappears (though occasionally with some lingering health effects or the potential for later heath effects). My good friend of many years is a labor and delivery nurse, and she has been with women as they’ve stroked out from PIH. She has seen women die from it. Those women deserve the CHOICE as to whether or not to put their health at risk. It is simply not a choice that a court should make for them.</p>
<p>I am absolutely NO FAN of partial birth abortion (or abortion of any kind). I have six children of my own, and I have never terminated a pregnancy. But I certainly don’t feel entitled to pass judgment on others or limit their power to sustain their health statuses.</p>
<p>It would be awfully selfish of the mother to choose her own life over the baby’s, would it not? </p>
<p>And I find it interesting that you all refer to her as the mother, implying that it’s actually a baby. And nobody minds it being legal to tear an innocent baby limb from limb for the convenience of the mother. I’m not going to waste any time in this thread, it makes me sick.</p>
<p>“how partial birth abortion is any less dangerous than pre-term delivery?”</p>
<p>(Source: my sister is an OBGYN; my mother, a psychiatrist specializing in women’s reproductive health care, with an academic appointment in OBGYN.)</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Because it requires only very narrow dilation of the cervix. Inducing cervical dilation wide enough to accommodate the whole fetal skull is far riskier than dilating it the few centimeters necessary for intact D & X.</p></li>
<li><p>Because it is much faster. These abortions, while rare, commonly involve a mother experiencing a crisis of blood pressure, diabetes, or kidney failure. Eclampsia/toxemia require immediate cessation of the pregnancy, not the 24 hours that preterm labor can take (often ending in Cesarean anyway). The alternative to intact D & X is to end the pregnancy via emergency Cesarean, which carries much higher risk of complications, hysterectomy, etc.</p></li>
<li><p>If the abortion is prompted by fetal illness rather than a medical emergency, the other options are preterm labor (with attendant risk of the need for aggressive anesthesia and of C-section), C-section, and D & E (dilation and evacuation, as opposed to intact dilation and extraction or “partial birth”; D & E involves curettage of the uterus, which cuts up the fetus to permit it to pass through a less-than-fully dilated cervix, but also requires great skill to avoid puncturing the uterus). Going though labor is a serious physical stress, particularly where the woman has had previous reproductive surgery or C-sections. Name a complication: heavy bleeding requiring transfusion; infection; hysterectomy; uterine tears: ALL of these methods can carry higher maternal health risk than intact D & X. The experience of the doctor and the physical attributes of the woman can play a role in which procedure is least risky.</p></li>
</ol>
No, I don’t believe that this is a “selfish” decision whatsoever. Sometimes, carrying a dangerous pregnancy to term results in a dead MOTHER <em>and</em> BABY. </p>
<p>Also, one could make the case that it is selfish in the EXTREME to martyr yourself and leave other children motherless.</p>
<p>
I’ve not seen one reference to “convenience” on this thread. Perhaps you missed the fact that we have been discussing serious health issues.</p>
<p>I anticipate that this thread will become an argument about abortion in general, and about this method in particular. I think reasonable people can disagree about these things.</p>
<p>But in this day and age, how can any educated person (and Kennedy is educated) believe that the government knows better than I do how I might feel later??</p>
<p>Then maybe the Supreme Court shouldn’t have overturned the Texas sodemy law, since someone may have morning-after regrets.</p>
) So, why on EARTH should the COURT be the one to decide that my health is irrelevant and secondary to my unborn baby? 
In fact, my health was quite relevant, and one certainly doesn’t have to have five young children to make that so.</p>