I have a possible correction from above. I said there were three clinics which performed third term abortions in the US. As of August, 2009 (and after the murder of Dr. George Tiller by anti-abortion terrorists), there was only one doctor left who could do them.
Sure.
Right, but you haven’t quite answered the question I’m asking. I know in many, most, states the procedure is illegal (but doesn’t Carstairs mandate a health-of-the-mother exception even then?)
But in some states, it’s not illegal.
And as you say, in some of those states we have some – three – clinics that will do third-trimester abortions.
So my question is: what contains them? You say medical necessity, and I agree that’s what their guidelines probably say. My question to you is: can “medical necessity” include the mental health of the mother? I’m sure it’s a vanishingly rare event if it happens at all, but my question is: CAN it happen? Is it possible to remain within the law and do it?
From Diogenes’ link:
So this would be a good example of what I’m asking for: "at risk of ‘substantial and irreversible harm’ might conceivably include mental harm, I suppose, but it seems like quite a stretch, and further stretched by the requirement that a second doctor must concur. So I take that to be a law that limits the procedure to physical medical concerns.
But in contrast I see Dr. Hern’s own web page:
(bolding mine)
This seems to indicate that a “psychiatric indication” is a reason to do a third-trimester abortion.
Or am I misunderstanding something?
Aren’t you guys hijacking a thread about puppies?
Yeah it was a nice fluffy thread about cute puppies before all the abortion stuff came up. 
You’re misunderstanding something. His website says that sometimes women present at the clinic because they have a psychiatric condition, not that the clinic provides abortions to them. You’re also kind of ignoring he part where its says that “almost all” of those abortions performed are because of fetal anamolies. A small minority are because of health conditions of the mother.
I guess it’s conceivable that a psychiatric condition could be severe enough to warrant a third trimester abortion (and that’s up to the state of Colorado to decide, not Dr. Hern), but I also think you’re lunging at that little phrase like a starving man diving for a sandwich. It’s the only hope you have of finding something you might be able to spin as an “elective” third trimester abortion. If you can actually find a real example of this or find out whether any sort of psychiatric (which is different from psychological, by the way) condition can legally justify a third trimester abortion in Colorado, I’d be interested in seeing iut. I haven’t been able to find any specifics on it.
I would imagine that if it happens at all, it happens because of profound mental health problems, not just some abstract, vague, all-encompassing, emotional whim of the mother, as the pro-lifers desperately want people to believe.
Not really. Remember those chicken plants that are causing salmonella on eggs? As soon as they investigated them for this, they discovered rats, feces, rodent holes, disease, overcrowding, and so on. And these are major producers who have incentive to clean up their act, the money to do so, and have been previously caught with undesirable and filthy conditions in their plants. Do you really think the “best” slaughterhouses do better than these people? They have no economic incentive to do so. And what about all the ones that aren’t the best?
Slaughterhouses are nasty businesses at best and you know it. Humans sure haven’t liked it whenever we’ve been shipped to industrial processing centers and slaughtered.
I’m not ignoring anything. I absolutely grant, say I said above, that the vast majority, almost all, of third-trimester abortions are because of fetal anomalies, and then of the remainder, almost all are for a physical medical condition of the mother. Right there with you.
But I think you’ll agree that “almost all,” is not the same as “all.” And even “Almost all of the tiny fraction left over from almost all,” is ALSO still not the same as “all.”
So while we’re talking about a tiny fraction, I don’t believe we’re talking about “zero.”
So far as I can discern, the state of Colorado has no rule or law prohibiting Dr. Hern from using his own judgment.
I’m sure you’re right. In the Esquire article you linked, Dr. Hern refused to abort a third-trimester rape victim. Based on that, it would seem that whatever his standards for psychiatric issues are, they are not trivial.
But I’m asking about the rules, not Dr. Hern. Is there some rule or law that would prevent a Dr. Smith from opening up a clinic in Blackhawk and providing third-trimester abortions on less compelling grounds than Dr. Hern uses?
Nobody masturbates everyday.
You’re asking me a question I don’t know the answer to. I tend to doubt it would be that easy, but I don’t know for sure. I do know that, in practice, it doesn’t happen, since Hern is currently the only provider left in the US. So, getting back to the post that started this whole tangent, any “outrage” over third trimester elective abortions would be outrage over abortions that are theoretical at best, not something that actually occurs.
If everybody did, we wouldn’t be having this abortion hijack.
Speak for yourself, in college I was diagnosed with Carpal Tunnel, I had to tell the doctor it was from writing exams.
This is and always has been a normal way to quickly kill unwanted puppies and kittens. Don’t see the big deal frankly. You people are so weird about animals (and I say this as someone with three dogs and two cats).
Gleefully pitching them one by one into a river while mugging for the camera? Remind me to never visit your ‘normal’ world.
What glee? What mugging? All I saw was a quick, methodical drowning. How is this more cruel than how unwanted animals in the USA are killed ? A lethal injection stabbed straight into the abdomen or gassing are the most common methods.
I agree. Even if one or two happened, they are clearly not a matter of widespread practice. We may debate whether we should outlaw them or not a as matter of principle, but no one can credibly argue that we must outlaw them to stop the massive onslaught of such abortions.
I did not know this. I am not the type to get all softy about animal abuse. I really think it smacks of hypocrisy for me to fry up steaks for my daughter and husband and then act all fragile about a kitten in a trashcan.
But I really did think something must be…*wrong *with someone who just throws puppies in a river for seemingly no reason. (I mean, couldn’t she take them to the pound?) I had no idea it was a normal way to deal with unwanted puppies.
I would not even stand in the way if states wanted to close up any potential loopholes for mental health justifcations rfor third trimester abortions. If the fetus is healthy, and the woman has non-trivial mental health issue (say she is violently psychotic or suicidal, for instance) then I would suggest a law favoring the woman’s ability to induce labor and/or have the fetus removed surgically, then made a ward of the state. I don’t object, in principle, to the state deciding it wants to preserve the life of the baby in those cases, but if any termination of physically healthy full term (or near full term) fetuses currently occur at all, they are exceedingly atypical and rare.
[Moderating]Hey, folks. If you want to discuss abortion, there are about five hundred billion other threads on this board where you can do that, or you can go ahead and start thread number five hundred billion and one. Let’s keep this thread on the topic of drowned puppies and attendant animal rights subjects.[/Moderating]