Bush signs the so-called "Partial Birth Abortion Ban". This picture says it all about the anti-abortion folks - old white man trying to tell woman what to do with their bodies.
I support a woman's right to choose, but I don't support partial birth abortions unless they are absolutely necessary. If a woman wants to get an abortion, fine, but don't wait 5 1/2 months or more to get one. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (HR 1833) would prohibit performance of a partial-birth abortion, except in cases in which the procedure is necessary to save the life of a mother. I agree with this.
It does not except cases in which the health of the mother is at risk. This is a provision necessary to pass constitutional muster, and the Republicans know this. They purposely passed a bill that can't stand up. Hypocrites.
They did this on purpose, just like the do not call registry. Anyone who has an election to worry about can blame it on the big bad Supreme Court.
Cynical politics at it's best! If I was anti-abortion I would be very very pissed off at Bush and the Republicans right now. Can someone give us the background on why they choose not to include the health of a mother provision? Did they exclude it so they could get more votes from moderates who know it would be tossed?
Don't know but the same bill was sent to clinton twice and vetoed because that provision wasn't included.
I'm guessing they did it so they can appear "tough on abortion" to please their constituancy. Let's face it, a huge percentage of the anti-abortion movement doesn't want to see an exception for the mother's health. Abortion is abortion, in their eyes. At least now they can say "I voted for the toughest anti-abortion bill possible, vote for me when I come up for reelection!"
Because the Reps prefer ugly political confrontation over actually ending unnecessary procedures. This bill will fail, and they know that full well. But bending others to their will is more important to them than the values they claim to hold so dear. Hypocrites. But you already knew that.
So, today it is "hypocrite". It usually is "stupid". Could you guys send me a memo, so I can know what talking points to use? Thanks.
Ahh, you see now I read something that said it would protect the mother. Now that I've read this I disagree with the bill in its entirety, I think they should have included the provision.
My guess is that they didn't include the health of the mother as a reason because putting in such a provision would make the thing totally redundant, since that is the rationale used to justify a partial-birth abortion right now. The 'health of the mother' can include anxiety. The life of the mother is a little higher standard. I'm skeptical that it is a lock that this will be thrown out. Have the supremes telegraphed their inclination on this?
It could be the insurance lobby, right? I mean, they pay for Viagra but drag their feet for women's birth control. They would hate to be forced to pay for abortions, abortions that are needed to save the mother in this case. It could lead to complications and more cost to them, thus less profits. Hey, it wouldn't be the first time the insurance companies told doctors or legislatures what to do. $$Cha-ching$$
Oh, come now. That's just a clever way of saying that "partial-birth abortions" could continue to be used as a sort of birth control, when that hasn't been the case so far and when there's no evidence that that would be the case in the future. The only reason why "partial-birth abortion" is currently used is because the health of the mother is in serious risk. It's a pretty traumatic procedure for the mother and is never used because the mother decided seven months after conception that she doesn't want to be a mother.
So a bunch of younger (white?) men are calling the older men hypocrites? I've posted this before, but the toughest of pro-life proponents take the life of the mother into consideration. No pro-life person will condemn a woman for terminating a tubal pregnancy, for example. But we get into a very grey area with the late-term abortions. First, you have scientists who want the brain tissue & umbilical cords for research (especially for Alzheimer's & Parkinson's disease) - and the baby would have to be at least 5 or 6 months in utero. Michael J. Fox is one of the bigger proponents of these experiments, having Parkinson's. My dad was offered fetal tissue on an experimental basis, but refused it when he heard where it came from. The second is the question of fetal surgery. Babies who are at risk or have a health problem are now being operated on as early as 5 months in utero - IF they are wanted children. Where does one draw the line? If that's just a fetus, why have the costly in utero operation? If it's a baby, why can it be dumped or used for research purposes - having the brain tissue sucked out while the baby's heart is still beating? It sets a whole new moral precident, and as I see it, a very dangerous one.
And I'd argue that even the most ardent pro-choicers would agree to ban this procedure in all circumstances other than this. But the above exception was not included in the legislation which is why it will ultimately be struck down, something those who introduced it knew.
will somebody get poor manny a tissue? as noted before, they have obviously signed it with this specific language (or lack of) to look tough on the issue and acquire a mudslinging point when it gets knocked down, the old image bait & switch - i expect no less than ploys like this from these SOG's but frankly, i am sickened that they would choose to implement such a ruse on an issue like this - sick, selfish f***s the lot of 'em