The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette has an editorial on the Supreme Court’s recent abortion decision. The court upheld a law that prohibits doctors from administering an intact dilation and extraction procedure to women, even where the procedure is medically necessary. The court wasn’t comfortable with all that medical-scientific mumbo jumbo and, so, decided to label the procedure “partial birth abortion.” More disturbing than the court’s favoring the language of propaganda over the language of science was Justice Kennedy’s rationale:
In his majority opinion, Kennedy argued that banning the procedure was good for women because it would protect them from terminating their pregnancies by a method they might not fully understand in advance and that they might come to regret later.
Talk about your nanny-states. “Oh poor, sweet women and doctors. You really don’t know what’s best for you. Trust us. We’re the government, and we’re here to help.” Never mind how necessary the decision might be.
Update Some good points in a New York Times op ed contribution.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s majority opinion patronized such women’s ability to make the sad and difficult decisions that late-term abortion often entails.
But let’s not exaggerate what this ruling means. The Carhart decision is an extremely limited upholding of the federal ban, one that promises to affect very few abortion providers and only a tiny percentage of their patients. The most recent and reliable national statistics, from the Guttmacher Institute, show that only about 30 American doctors ever use the “intact dilation and evacuation†method that has now been criminalized. Only some 2,200 of the 1.3 million abortions performed annually in the United States involve the banned procedure.
There’s a very sobering news analysis in today’s New York Times entitled ‘Anger and Alternatives to Abortion’ p. A11 by Gina kolta ( I don’t know how to make a link to it).
The Medical professionals are angry because the government is infringing on their domain and beyond that making doctors choose alternatives that may be less safe for emergency situations.If a late term pregancy has medical problems,now there are prohibited solutions. It is still permissible legally to terminate a fetus inside the womb before delivery,but not after delivery . I won’t go on,but we can imagine where this might lead,and probably will lead. My first thought it’s like some horror movie,not true life, when Doctor Mengele comes to the rescue.
Who created this monster?
The article is well-balanced,well worth a read, with many different view points,as is always the case in the NYT. I gave just one aspect.
Gina Kolata is the writer of the analysis,sorry
Here’s my two cents on this.I’m a pro-choice type person just because I believe a person should be in charge of their own body without government intrusion whether it’s abortion or seatbelts the person should have the choice to do what they want as long as it harms no one else.I know pro-life folks will say the person is harming a unborn baby and I respect their opinion.
Next I believe it was when Roberts or Alito was getting confirmed that Bill Snider from CNN or some other anaylist said it best “if the Democrats want to change the direction of the Supreme Court and appoint Justices they better start winning Presidential elections”I agree because being a Democrat all be it a conservative one I can honestly say the Dems stink at winning the big prize.
Working class Democrats and independents are middle of the road folks and do not share the same positions as the far left who keep trying to pull the party too far left in my opinion.I know myself and several others will never be able to vote for a Democratic Presidential candidate that supports amnesty for illegal immigrants.If the Dems really care about the working poor and low wage earners they will not vote for a immigration plan that will flood the country with under educated low skilled workers which econmoist testified a while back in Washington D.C. will drive down wages for the very segment of the population the Dems say they want to help.Of course they want Hispanic votes though and this is why they want a amnesty fo the millions already here.Votes!
The Republicans are not innocent in this matter either they want cheap labor for big business.Currently all Dem presedential candidates are pro- amnesty and most of the Republicans that have a chance at winning are also with the exception of Romney.Sorry to get off subject but like many folks I speak to this is a issue believe it or not people are paying attention to.I believe in a national poll a while back illegal immigration was second only to Iraq as a issue.
I am so angry about this decision that I still cannot rationally comment on it. That old elitist white man has absolutely NO business moralizing to me about my ability to think clearly. Ass. Talk about your legislating from the bench.
I think this meme about the “far left” of the Democratic Party pulling it too hard is a myth.
This country hasn’t moved to the left since 1964. The Republicans have pulled harder and harder to the right, and the Democrats take crap for being “radically left” and “out of touch” when they don’t scramble fast enough to catch up to where the new middle is — farther to the right.
There is no “far left” of the Democratic Party. There is moderate left, centrist, and moderate right in the Democratic Party, near as I can figure.
lawgeekgurl –
When your anger subsides, I suggest you let your senators and representative know that you want the law repealed – also, you can work to elect a president who would veto such legislation.
I won’t be on your side on this, though. My own readings on the subject have left me convinced that this is much more often a matter of infanticide than it is a matter of medical necessity.
It’s hard to support a medical procedure whose potential complications include “live birth”.
I still believe there is a far left of the Democratic party and a far right of the Republican party.All the Democrats I know and my late father was a Democratic county chairman so I’ve been around a hell of a lot of Democrats do not believe in some of the same things that Democrats in New York or San Fransico believe.
Examples abortion,gay marriage,amnesty for illegal immigrants and several issues.I guess I’d be what Doug describes as a moderate right or cetrist Democrat.I believe a political party must allow for a variety of views within it.Take for example my congressman Brad Ellsworth(D) he’s pro gun,anti abortion,anti gay marriage I believe,and ran as a hard liner on illegal immigration.A issue PBS did a special on the 8th district race between he and Hostetler.
Personally I could care a less if gay people are allowed to marry,am pro-choice because people should be in charge of their own body’s not the government whether it’s a right to a abortion or wearing a seatbelt.
Also some of the stuff I’ve read about the 9-11 conspiracy theorists give me a break!I believe Rosie O’Donell spouted some of this nonsense along with saying the British were trying to get Iran to take their sailors hostage so the U.S. and Britan could go to war with Iran.This is just nonsense in my opinion.Crazy stuff like this comes from the right as well.
Like I stated earlier though a party must be able to support differing views from within it and just because I’m a Democrat doesn’t mean I have to agree with everything my party says.More times than not I vote Democrat but if there is a issue that I do not agree with the party on that I can’t overlook I’ll vote against them.
I watch FOX news and CNN because I want to hear many views on different issues. As far as opinion commentators I never miss Lou Dobbs or O’Reilly.For balance I record Paula Zahn on CNN since she and her guests while talking about race in America and other issues usually take a different view.Most of the hard news people from both networks are all good.Susanne Malveaux,Wolf Blitzer,Dana Bash,John King on CNN,Shep Smith,Bridgett Quinn,and Bill Hemmer on FOX.The two people I can’t stand however are on FOX and they are Brit Hume,and Mort Kondrake!!!
The debate about “far left” or “far right” is a little pointless, I suppose, since it all comes down to definitions. But, when I think “far left,” I tend to think more along the lines of economic issues. The Democratic Party doesn’t have a lot of Marxists these days. Quoting Mussolini, on the other hand, probably wouldn’t get you bounced from a primary race too quickly.
I dont mean seem trite ,but I’ve noticed a trend over the last 30-40 years or so,especially since 80s ( I do have a longer perspective than many)that now the opposition is always defined by the most radical possible terminology whereas ones own view is set in the moderate center,no matter what it is.The term ‘liberal’ by those not liberal is always intended as a negative, if not an insult.We no longer have ‘conservatives’ , we have ‘social -conservatives’.. the worst possible of all conservative designations. This is the result of the moralization of politics in my estimation,which has been coming about since the 80s when the stealth social conservatives started taking over local school boards.I was there so I remember the shock of others with these people always putting issues into extreme moral absolutes and it was impossible to come to compromise as had been the goal before.Now all of government is that way. Everything is in moral terminology all the time( evil vs good etc), nothing works,no one co-operates, lying skillfully is a strategy and everyone you dont like is an extremist.I remember sitting down with my family as a youngster watching Father Knows Best on our new TV set and this was the idealized reality of the time.Dumb maybe ,but see how far our culture has fallen.Im sure my political biais is showing through ,but that’s fine.
To me, (just my opinion), but it seems like polarizing words like “liberal” and “conservative” are too broad and oversimplified given the complexities of today’s world. There are no doubt things that need to be changed (hence the need for liberals) and things that need to remain the same (hence the need for conservatives). I am still trying to figure out how to vote in Kentucky’s primary coming up May 22. Since I am a registered Republican I want to vote for Anne Northup since Ernie Fletcher is so obviously an albatross. I like Jonathan Miller’s viewpoint, and if I were a registered Democrat, I would support him. If Fletcher wins the primary and Miller doesn’t make the runoff election June 26, it will be a reassessment and difficult to vote on November 6 in the general election. (From a personal standpoint I know Jonathan Miller’s running mate Irv Maze, have worked with him on several occassions and he is a person of great ingretrity, I think Miller’s being Jewish should be a non-issue). I don’t know for sure, but it would seem to be a good thing to get rid of partisan primaries, and just let folks vote nonpartisan.
I know three women who had so-called partial birth abortions. In each case, the pregnancy was planned and wanted and welcome. In each case, carrying the pregnancy to term would have killed both of them.
I eagerly await the Surpeme Copurt’s ruling that women should also, legally, carry ectopic pregnacies to term or mutual death, whichever happens first.
Roe vs. Wade is going to be thrown out in my lifetime and that prospect of legal-system dictated medecine terrifies me.
Guess I still don’t know how to type properly without making typos. Meant to say Irv Maze is a person of great integrity and have worked with him on several occasions, Irv has done among other things, made a real effort to bring in “deadbeat” dads here in Jefferson County, Ky. (Just as an aside, if anyone gets a chance next year to come to “Thunder Over Louisville” I would highly recommend it, it is a great kickoff to the Kentucky Derby Festival. Denise and I went yesterday and had a great time.
Me too. I think boys and girls that have not yet passed through a birth canal should be in charge of their own body. That would include a decision to have their spinal cord cut or their brains sucked out.
The one thing that I really don’t understand about late-term abortions is why a c-section is not attempted? Even if the child’s chances are low, wouldn’t it be better to try than to kill the child and say “Well, it would have died anyhow”? Suriviability for premature infants improves every year, and the more it is attempted the better we’ll get at it.
How many of the 3 women lemming mentioned would have (or could have) chosen that if it were offered to them? It is really the case that a c-section was not an option, or was it just that the doctor didn’t want to attempt it?
Honest questions, I just don’t understand. Nothing at all ment against those women or their doctors.
Severely hydrocephalic children who will die anyway COULD be delivered by c-section instead of abortion. But there’s no medical reason why you would want to do that. Although c-section is a fairly routine procedure, it is not without risk. In fact the maternal risks are greater with a c-section than with late-term abortion. If the goal is preserved maternal health in the face of a devastating defect in the fetus incompatible with life, there’s really no contest.
Those continue to ignore the science that a fetus is a human life in preference to gratitious assertions that it is not, and has no rights–really can’t critize anyone they might label a religious zealot on anything from sex education to teaching creationism in schools.
On the issue of the basic right to life, they prefer to insist that convenience and privacy trump all else, pursue removal of any and all legal obstacles to the feminist sacrament of abortion, regardless of the obvious carnage involved in the procedure, and insist that those who voice any opposition could only movitated by a desire to oppress freedom.
The ferocity with which some react to the slightest restriction to the most barbaric form of abortion is a testament to the contempt they hold for any view on the subject other than complete laissez-faire.
If the brains sucked out in during the “dialation and extraction” (the insistence on the euphamism is itself telling) are not human brains and if the skull crushed is not a humanskull, then what are they?
It would be a HUGE step forward if the pro-choice crowd would just acknowledge that the price of an abortion is the killing of a life that is human, scientifically defined, but that fact does not matter to the debate because someone else’s right to something LESS than life trumps, then we’d at least know where to begin.
As a pro-lifer, I will acknowledge that the VAST MAJORITY of pro-choice people are not motivated to see more human carnage, but have a sincere worry about government intrusion. Fair enough, but my opposition to abortion has nothing to do with wanting MORE of what you fear, but rather less of what my reason (notice that I didn’t say religious belief)tells me is the VERY consequential result of unfettered “privacy” and “freedom” that abortion brings about.
T–
Who are these “severely hydrocephalic children that will die anyway?” With what certainty are you talking about their imminent death? How are they different from other hydrocephalic children that can be successfully shunted and go on to lead normal, or mostly normal, lives?
For the record, I am 31 years old and shunted for hydrocephalus since 3 weeks of age. Despite all the dire predictions, I am a college graduate (Purdue!) and have a wondeful career and family. Luckily, the medical professions involved in my care didn’t write me off back then. Happily for me, they didn’t determine my condition was “incompatible with life.”
If the fetus is a fully human life at the instant of conception, how is it morally defensible to make illegal only this one procedure? What does it matter how the murder is committed? Whether it’s through sucking brains or some other method, it’s equally murder any time a fertilized egg is aborted, right?
If it’s murder from the moment of conception, how can one allow an abortion clinic to continue operating in one’s city? Doesn’t morality require the use of force, if necessary, to stop wanton murders conducted publicly for profit every day in one’s community?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad that those who are against abortion do not forcibly attack abortion clinics. But, I think this is evidence that, at some level, these people recognize that there is a moral distinction between a fully human life and the life of a fetus which will eventually become human. If there was a clinic where the same thing was being done to 6 year olds, nobody in their right mind would be content to sit around and argue about legislation that would prohibit the unwitting littel first graders from having their brains sucked out but would allow other ways of killing them. Anybody who considered it to be murder would be reaching for the torches and pitchforks.
Steve-
You were appropriately treated based on the severity of your disease. However, there are hydrocephalics who are so afflicted that it inhibits brain development to a degree that is incompatible with life. Fatality rates for hydrops fetalis (one cause of hydrocephalus) range from 60-90%, often with severe impairment for the survivors. Some causes have mortality rates approaching 100%. How much uterine distention is acceptable when the outcome is already known?
Some neural tube defects are compatible with life–as in spina bifida which can have varying degrees of debility ranging from minimal to quadriplegia, all the way to anencephaly (complete lack of brain development). Although the amount of impairment from spina bifida varies, anencephaly (complete lack of brain due to failure of the neural tube to close) is incompatible with life. Not allowing the option of abortion is such cases is unjustified. It is best that the doctor be allowed to practice medicine on a case by case basis.
Just as you are glad that your parents were able to consult with a physician and decide the proper course, so should other parents be able to do so. In the case of a mother-to-be with a child with severe hydrops or other severe congenital malformations, what is gained by maintaining pregnancy and then removing the soon-to-be-dead fetus by invasive open abdominal surgery when less invasive procedures with lower maternal morbidity and mortality exist? Just as you would not have wanted someone to mandate a particular treatment for you, you should not advocate mandating that others be barred from pursuing medically-appropriate therapies. And in the case of severe hydrocephalus with ultrasound-proven limited brain development causing massive uterine distention, etc., the mother should not be limited in her options.
That’s just discussing one subset of congenital defects, those involving brain and spinal development. We could talk about trisomy 13 or trisomy 18, both of which won’t lead to any rejoiners because they rarely survive hours, and almost never survive days, and never beyond that. If one of those is discovered in the third trimester, must the mother continue to carry to term, then deliver vaginally or by c-section rather than having abortion?
It is good that your hydrocephalus was treatable, and was treated. But that doesn’t change the fact that there are scores of named and unnamed congenital defects, syndromes, and disasters that can be recognized before birth and which are incompatible with life. Once that catastrophic fact is recognized, the health of the mother must remain the primary concern.
I’ve wondered why medical personnel are left out of the abortion legislative debate.It seems always purely a religious /moral debate vs ‘liberals’. After reading T’s explanations above I can appreciate how someone truly ‘anti-abortion’ just simply couldn’t deal with all the complexities. Is this an indicator of what ‘truth’ is…simple and easily understood?