In what way do you not consider the Partial Birth Abortion law “no significant legal barrier” ? You seem to be applying very vague criteria to risk factors involved when doctors consider the necessity for such a procedure. Are you asserting that nearly any medical condition can be used to apply medical necessity?
The point is that there are no significant legal barriers to obtaining an abortion at any time during pregnancy. Whether a woman should “risk any part of her health” is an interesting question, but irrelevant to the matter at hand.
[/QUOTE]
You’re applying a self-serving definition of the word “significant,” but more importantly you’re ignoring the reality that third term abortions are exceedingly rare and virtually always medically justified. You’re also missing the point that you would be hard put to find a physician who would be willing to perform a medically unnecessary third trimester abortion regardless of legality. Physicians do have ethics and hospitals have policies.
If you read my post carefully, it notes that numerous states regulate abortion on the basis of fetal “viability”, and gives a cite relating to court recognition of such a standard.
If you need an example (it’s not hard to find specifics of state abortion regulations), here’s what Ohio law has to say. It is a felony in Ohio to perform an abortion on a “viable” fetus unless specific standards are met (i.e. substantial risk of the death of the mother or irreversible severe impairment of a major bodily function. That hardly translates into “no significant legal barriers of any kind whatsoever”.
The PBA ban was found unconstitutional by federal judges in several states and has never been enforced.
Incidentally, (I realize you probably already know this, I’m just directing it at the board at large) whenever I see the words “partial-birth abortion,” I always feel compelled to point out that this is not a genuine name for any medical procedure but a political catch phrase designed to demonize a procedure called an Intact Dialation and Extraction (D&X) which happens to be the safest procedure in the 2nd trimester. The repugnant and unconstitional ban passed by Congress did not actually ban all late term abortions per se, it only banned the safest one.
Actually, I got the exact opposite feeling from the DA’s quote. I would have guessed that he was strongly anti-abortion from his statement and that he was saying in effect, “I hate abortions but I can’t legally stop them, so I’ll have to settle for taking shots at them whenever I get a chance.”
And as long as those regulations can be circumvented based on the “health” exception, they are nothing more than minor speedbumps on the road to an abortion.
As DtC said, this law has never been enforced. Moreover, it only limits a particular type of abortion procedure. It is not a bad on late-term abortions in general.
Remember, we are talking about whether there are significant legal barriers to obtaining an abortion. There may be practical barriers (the availability of an abortion provider, for example), but no significant legal barriers.
I invite you to present data to back up your claim that this and/or other state laws are “minor speedbumps” to second trimester or later abortions* and that women and their physicians are engaging in felonious behavior to circumvent the law.
You may start with health hazards associated with eclampsia and kidney function, for instance. What information do you have to present that this is an insignificant concern, or that doctors and patients are faking this as a justification for later abortions?
*One assumes you are aware that something like 88% of all abortions take place between the first 6 and 12 weeks of gestation.
Are you aware that before Roe v Wade abortions were legal during the first trimester when the life of the mother was endangered even because of extreme emotional distress? I don’t know if that was a federal law or if that was true only in certain states.
I completely disagree. I think the prosecutor was saying that whether you’re pro-choice or anti-choice, we all agree that you can’t kill children after a live birth. I think the prosecutor is correct. The question is whether it serves any purpose to through a disturbed woman in prison for say 10-20 years, or whether it’s better to have a lighter prison sentence with supervision after she’s released.
I think that people are reading a lot into the tiniest of news clips. I don’t know anything about Wisconsin statutes or sentencing laws, but it appears that this particular woman was found guilty of two unintentional crimes of the neglect/endangerment variety. Her story at trial was that she hid her pregnancy from family and unexpectedly gave birth in a toilet and delayed in getting medical help. Police said that she admitted to holding the baby under toilet water, but she wasn’t charged with murder so the prosecutors apparently didn’t think they could prove that. It isn’t a surprising sentence, but I’m surprised that she’s so old and that it was her third baby. It’s appalling, but unrelated to legalized abortion.
While there is no federal law against late term abortions, there are several state laws against them, and they most certainly are enforced. More information here.
Also, you didn’t answer my question. Is it your assertion that these laws are so vague that medical necessity for a late term abortion is a forgone conclusion?
More tolerable? I doubt its ever been tolerable. What makes me wonder, though, is that if someone injures a woman who is pregnant, they are charged with murder of the baby (fetus). Yet, its okay if the woman chooses this? Doesn’t seem fair.
Also, people keep saying “Its the womans body!” Well, since when does her body have a different blood type or a penis?
Since she got pregnant with it. If we’re going to ask silly questions, since when does a person have another person living inside them?
It’s stupid to call it murder but it’s a perfectly fair distinction. Causin a woman to lose a pregnancy against her will is a crime against the woman and a pretty svere one. It’s too bad Congress felt the need to create an imaginary “murder” victim, but there’s nothing wrong with the principle of severely punishing someone who injures a woman in such a brutal way.
Since she’s pregnant,
Well, for starters, a woman who miscarries due to assault did not choose to terminate her pregnancy, so I’m not sure why you feel it’s analogous.
Huh?
And there was no reason at all to bring up “what to do with the child before they are born” unless the assistant D.A. thought that that abortion rights had been an issue at trial (and there’s no indication of that).
My impression was also that the assistant D.A. is anti-abortion rights, and felt compelled to make a “point” here.
I think you peple are putting too much into a hypothetical thought process that I gave the woman (that part about aborting the baby two weeks ago). You could change that number to two months (or 6) if you’d like. The rationalisation process might still be the same though.
The basic underlying reasoning is this; Why is it so terrible for me to kill my child now, when I could have had a doctor do it X number of days ago legally.
I don’t follow the rational of you who say that if abortions were illegal that we’d have more mothers justifying muders like this. ?
It’s the same with underage drinking. As a society, we don’t nail a 20 year old to the cross for drinking because he’ll be legal in a few weeks anyway. A fourteen year old, maybe, or maybe not, since drinking will be legal sometime in his life. Abortions are legal sometime during the pregnancy.
Whether or not late term abortions are performed on a regular basis or not is really none of my concern, it’s that fact that they *do * happen at all is enough of a reason to include it in the discussion since I’m sure most people (including the mother in the OP) haven’t done the research and only know that it’s ‘possible’ to get one.
I don’t like to use the term slippery slope because it’s to easy to wave a hand at, but if we keep handing down lenient sentences and allow more late term abortions to be performed we will move that line closer to the edge. Every case like this sets a precedence, whether you like it or not. Every mother that gets a reduced sentence because of some ambiguous mental condition is another bullet in the clip for the next defense attorney who will use this defense against the prosecution.
Jackmannii, why wasn’t that child afforded the same protection that you or I would get? Would you be satisfied with your killer getting only 2.5 years?
You say the DA was trying to make a point, but I think he was just saying something that no-one could really disagree with. In other words, he opened his mouth but nothing really came out. His nuts hurt from riding the fence, me thinks.
We can get down to all kinds of scenarios about what the mom was thinking or what kind of mental condition she may or may not have had, but in the end, anyone that kills another person has some mental issues.
Tolerable is a function of the sentence. 2.5 years is on the tolerable side.
We are not putting too much into that hypothetical because when (during the course of a pregnancy) a woman has an abortion is a pivotal distinction.
Your sense of it only works if we take the stance that human life begins at the moment of conception. At that point, it seems you are saying, the blastocyte has all the rights of a fully formed, walking, talking human.
Of course this is the central point in the whole abortion debate…when does life begin? When does a fetus deserve the same protections you and I enjoy?
If we take your sense of it do we prosecute women who miscarry if we can show they did not take prudent care of themselves? Get them for negligent homicide maybe?
It does not matter whether someone has done “research” before seeking to terminate a pregnancy. If a woman walks into a doctor’s office wanting to get an abortion the doctor will know what is or is not acceptable (legally or otherwise).
As for whether later term abortions are common or not should concern you. There will always be the unique case where some unscrupulous doctor handed out later term abortions for nothing more than some money. This by no means suggests that doctors or society as a whole finds them acceptable. I have some experience in women’s reproductive health care and I cannot think of a single place anywhere in the US where a woman can walk into a doctor’s office (or hospital or clinic or whatever) and expect to get a later term abortion with no more at issue than she wants one.
The law is full of areas where extenuating or mitigating circumstances modify the potential penalties a person may receive for a given crime. Indeed the law specifies several different “types” of murder. 1st, 2nd, 3rd degree murder, negligent homicide and maybe a few more. The law rightly distinguishes between a person who randomly walks down the street and brains someone with a bat and another person who turned around to see what their 5 year old in the backseat of the car just screamed about and doesn’t see the person stepping out into traffic and runs them over.
I agree that woman’s sentence does seem lenient but I was not on the jury and do not know the details of the case. It wouldn’t be the first time someone gets lucky and pulls out a light sentence. To some extent penalties have been revised in the past decade or so to tighten these things up (minimum sentence for a given crime) but in general I think judges dislike having their hands tied as they feel they are better able to determine what is appropriate in a given case rather than having an inflexible rule. That is another debate though.
With abortion made illegal and more women forced to bear children in circumstances they feel intolerable, it’s not unlikely that infanticide will increase.
? Either late term abortions are becoming significantly more common or they’re not (and evidence presented earlier in this thread suggests they are not).
Do you have evidence that sentences are more lenient now than in the past? Were we regularly handing out 37-year sentences in such cases 50 years ago?
I’m not saying 2 1/2 years was the right sentence. But I also don’t think a mentally defective act of infanticide should be regarded in exactly the same way as that of a sociopath who robs a 7-11 and guns down the clerk.