As you would pretty much expect from me, I think the ruling is wrong and repugnant, to put it siccinctly.

Now it's very possible that I don't understand the situation fully so please correct me if I'm wrong but I can't actually see a problem with a ban on partial-birth abortions. Surely if a woman needs an abortion late in her pregnancy it can be performed a different way? For example, can she not have the baby's heart stopped and then labour induced or a d&c?

I think the concern here is that while women and their doctors are able to choose a different method, it is that the government is now making blanketed medical decisions for all women, and this bill does not include the exception for the life of the mother.

It is a serious blow to the autonomy of women.

]

And then again, maybe she can't, and now, she's going to die.

But if the woman was dying then surely it would be quicker and safer to do an emergency c-section? I though pba was only used in cases when the baby had a poor prognosis and couldn't be delivered naturally.

But as long as there are other available options then I can't see the problem. It's a blow to the autonomy of men and women that we can't steal from shops but the law is there to protect society.

My point was that the government doesn't have the right to tell doctors or women how to remove a fetus from their body.

Ok I understand you. So who should have the right to control the actions of doctors? For example, there are laws in place to prevent euthanasia so doctors aren't allowed to kill a person who is terminally ill (unless you count o/d of morphine of course). Why should the legislation of abortion be any different?

That is what I was thinking when I heard it on the news this morning. If it was a necessity for the woman's health to abort the baby and it now becomes an emergency situation, wouldn't a c-cection now be a better/faster way of coming to the same conclusion? It just sounds so awful with the partial birth abortion and the whole crushing of the skull thing.

it does sound awful, but if the fetus is doomed to die anyway, and since the anesthesia for the fetus endangers the mother, then this "barbaric" way is actually safer.

I am soooooooooo glad I live in a country where doctors, not the govt, make medical decisions.

To those who asked about c-sections - that is major invasive surgery and far riskier for the woman than an intact d&x.

Regarding the issue of euthanasia - that is not a medical procedure. There is not one other medical procedure that is banned by govt. There should be no medical procedures banned by govt.

I heartily agree!! I think you said the exact words that need to be said.

eiri thanks for sharing. That is good news.

I don't understand what is alarming about this given that most abortions are performed in the first trimester.

it is not good news. As ms rosie said, there is no other medical procedure that is illega in the usa; and neither should this one be illegal.

There is no procedure called "partial birth abortion". It does not exist. Such wording is purely semantic manipulation and every bit as revolting as the goon who signed it into law.
I would dearly love to place Mr. Bush and his two supreme court cronies in a hospital NICU when a fetal victim of lethal chromosonal abnormalites is born, perhaps a victim of trisonomy 21 or anencephaly / iniencephaly or other lethal deformity is 'born' and see for himself what he is banning. I'd like those jerks to have to look the woman who was forced to carry that to term only to watch it born dead or die shortly afterward how much they value life..

But she wouldn't have to give birth to such a child because it could be aborted by a different method, surely?

I really don't care if other options exist. I want the spineless mutuant thug who signed this atrocity into law to have to deal one on one with the results of his own ego.

The only real 'threat' I can see from this ban is that people fear it may open the floodgates for other abortion procedures (or indeed all abortions) to be banned. Now that would be something to get concerned about because that would mean women having to obtain illegal and, most likely, unsafe abortions. However, I don't think that a total ban is very likely.

However, just because one particular procedure has been banned, doesn't mean that the safety of women has been compromised. As stated before, there are enough other procedures that can be utilised should a woman require a late term abortion for the sake of her health.

how can you possibly defend such a barbaric way of killing a fetus? Even if I had a baby with trisonmy 21 I wouldn't want to abort the baby in such a macabre way. No one would unless you have a henious mind.