# Hate abortion? Fire Bush! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 29, 2004, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-abortion-fire-bush/271917 "2004-10-29T20:15:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2004, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-abortion-fire-bush/271917/61 "2004-11-02T07:17:27Z")
Ya, I think our differences aren’t that great. We have 2 halves here. First, there’s the assertion that abortion rates respond to the economy in general (and, I would guess, the incomes of the lowest income quintile in particular). Of course, many other factors probably play a role as well. Then, we the contention that W’s economic policy has been poorly timed (i.e. “not synced at all”) with the business cycle. Anyway, if you buy both of the above, then one could probably estimate (roughly) some sort of relationship between the bad policies and the unwanted outcomes. Finally (and implicitly) we have the oddity that abortion opponents seem focused on one particular tool for curbing these procedures -prohibition- while [almost](http://www.adoption.org/adopt/homes-for-unwed-mothers.php) completely neglecting other instruments. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2004, 7:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-abortion-fire-bush/271917/62 "2004-11-02T07:39:09Z")
**Mr. Moto:** > [@](#): > > In United States v. Vuitch (1971), the Court upheld a District of Columbia abortion statute that made it a felony for a doctor to perform an abortion unless it was necessary to save the woman’s life or health. The law had been challenged by a physician who had been indicted for interpreting the word “health” to include more than the statute allowed; the physician argued that the word “health” was unconstitutionally vague. > > The Court rejected the argument but, in effect, approved a broader definition, noting that two other lower court rulings had construed the statute to permit abortions “for mental health reasons whether or not the patients had a previous history of mental defects.” Indeed, the Court said, “this construction accords with the general usage and modern understanding of the word ‘health,’ which includes psychological as well as physical well-being.” All you’ve got there is an indictment of **one** physician who allegedly interpreted the statute too broadly, and that the statute is now interpreted so that “health” includes “mental health”, which AFAICT is perfectly reasonable. That’s a far cry from the claim that doctors routinely lie about the medical necessity for late-term abortions. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2004, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-abortion-fire-bush/271917/63 "2004-11-02T18:41:08Z")
Reread my posts. I never claimed that the abortion providers lie. I claimed that they routinely found a need for abortions. With this mental health loophole, any abortion could be justified. Justified quite wrongly, IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2004, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-abortion-fire-bush/271917/64 "2004-11-02T22:05:30Z")
**Mr. Moto:** _I never claimed that the abortion providers lie. I claimed that they routinely found a need for abortions._ Insofar as you’re claiming that abortion providers have routinely found a need for **UNNECESSARY** abortions, you’re implying that they’ve routinely been lying. And you have so far failed to support that claim. **Mr. Moto:** \*With this mental health loophole, any abortion could be justified. \* Sez you. You haven’t provided any evidence that abortion providers **are** in fact using the mental-health provision as a “loophole” to justify abortions that are medically unnecessary to protect a woman’s mental health. You seem to be promoting the old-fashioned view that “mental health” has no medical meaning and doctors have no serious criteria for diagnosing endangered mental health. Thank heavens we have qualified physicians making these decisions about late-term abortions, instead of you. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-abortion-fire-bush/271917.md?page=3)