I request that please, please, please this thread does not become yet another abortion debate thread.
I am interested in the part of the legislation that provides an exemption for late term abortions where the mother’s life is at risk, but not her health.
As I understand it, many abortions are performed because they are “life-threatening” which implies a serious degree of risk to life, but maybe not 100%. (We all know “miracles” happen, and few things are certain).
How exactly will doctors effectively determine whether it is a death or health matter? To what extent is it a judgement call, and what percentage of “likely fatality” will enable the exemption?
It is all subjective. As you said most things might be second guessed. In the end it comes down to the doctor’s professional opinion. If someone disagrees with that opinion then they will likely sue/prosecute the doctor and let a court determine which it is.
As a result doctors/hospitals/clinics will likely implement procedures to avoid legal exposure. Such things as getting multiple opinions from several different doctors/sources before proceeding. It’d be considerably harder to prosecute three separate doctors who all agreed on a diagnosis of a life threatening pregnancy to the mother.
If it doesn’t make an exception for the mother’s health, as well as her life, it won’t pass constitutional muster. SCOTUS recently declared a Nebraska statute banning PBA/D&X abotions unconstitutional in Stenburg v. Carhart because it only made provisions for the mother’s life and not her health as required by Roe and Casey. The senate bill is attempting to substitute their own factual findings for those of the lower court in Stenburg and say that a PBA is never necessary to preserve the health of the mother, that other procedures are available if an abortion is medically necessary to preserve the mother’s health. So they’re basically claiming that there are no circumstances where it could preserve her health, but there may be some where it could save her life. I can’t see this working.
I have been told that this bill, and earlier bills, banned the procedure, even if the (fetus/baby) was dead in the womb. i.e., they banned the procedure, even in circumstances where the intent of the legislation was moot. Is this correct, or is this perhaps a misunderstanding?
(Again, just true or false; we can argue about what should be in another place and time…)
Actually, that’s not true. Much less than 1% of abortions are performed due to rape, incest and risk to the mother’s life combined. These statistics come from an affiliate of Planned Parenthood, so if we allow for the possibility of reporting bias, the actual numbers could be much lower.
So does this bill have some way to go before it fully becomes law? I don’t fully understand (well barely actually!) US politics and legislative structure, but I had understood that it was a given that this was the new law.
A bill must be passed by both the Senate and the House of Representatives; if the two houses pass different versions of the bill, it must be harmonized in joint committee sessions; then the bill heads to the president for approval. Bush is extremely unlikely to veto this bill, the senate has already approved it, the house is considered a slam-dunk, so it’s well on its way, but it’s not the law yet.
After the law is passed, a party with standing to file suit can challenge on constitutional grounds, and the Supreme Court can accept the case or refuse to hear it, leaving it to a lower court.
The senate’s language is going to force a bright-line decision by some court as to whether a doctor’s medical judgement can ever be second-guessed by legislators. While D&X is generally considered to always have safer alternatives, this bill assumes that there will never be an exception, which may not pass muster with the court. Part of the problem for doctors is that while safer alternatives exist, they may result in a live birth: if the infant lives, the mother has an unwanted child; if the infant dies, the doctor has to face a review board, which may decide that he has acted incompetently or committed infanticide.
Well, if it gets past the House and Senate, and the president signs it, it’s federal law. The question is whether it’s a law that will survive a constitutional challenge. SCOTUS declared a virtually identical statute unconstitutional in 2000; this bill is attempting to get around that decision by making legislative findings of fact that were different than the findings of fact in that case about the medical necessity (or lack of it) of the procedure to protect a woman’s health. Basically, they’re trying to convince the deciding vote in that case, Justice O’Conner as usual.
[nitpick] The website seems clearly to have an agenda, so I searched the Guttamacher site to find the information they claimed to have gleaned, and was unable to find it. I guess I’m gonna have to consider that cite unfounded. I would expect the numbers to be fairly low as well. I just don’t like having unsubstantiated sites bandied about.[/nitpick]
Ultimately, even if the wording is changed, this is a bill that will be decided by a court. (Legislation by proxie?) I suspect that they all know the results of the Nebraska case, I just see it as politicians’ needing to say to a vocal element of their constituancy “Hey, we tried”.
One thing I really don’t understand about the “partial birth” abortion situation is –
Under what circumstances could a partial birth abortion medically be required to save the life or health of the mother?
I understand that there are cases where the condition of pregnancy may endanger the mother; or even cases where the physical act of labor may endanger the mother.
But a partial birth abortion is by definition a late-term abortion which involves going through labor. I.e. the condition of pregnancy has been going on for some time, induction of labor is required, and the fetus is viable. By definition.
So what I can’t figure out is, what is the medical necessity of inducing labor and subsequently terminating the fetus? If labor is dangerous to the mother’s health, why would you induce it? If the condition of pregnancy is dangerous to the mother’s health, and the fetus is viable, why not eliminate multiple risks and say, perform an emergency C-section? If you are going to partially deliver the fetus while still living, how could taking the step of terminating the fetus then be medically necessary? Why wouldn’t you just finish delivery?
Please note that I am not referring to this procedure as an elelective decision, and I am only referring to the “medically necessary” case, not the general case of reproductive rights. This is an admittedly difficult subject to keep out of Great Debates territory, but I am genuinely curious. I can’t figure this one out.
Thanks for the pointer, Truth Seeker. I was also interested to learn from that thread that the definition of “health” in the context of this debate is actually not the traditional common-sense definition of physical health.
So, it seems that the reason I couldn’t figure it out is that the answer is political and/or judicial in nature, and not medical in nature. Off to GD…
Here’s a link that explains the circumstances under which an intact dilation and extraction, a.k.a. “partial birth abortion”, would be advisable. Essentially, when the fetus’ head is far too large to ever be delivered normally, due to extreme hydrocephalus, this is considered to be the safest option.
With a name like “Partial Birth Abortion” it was destined to be targeted. If they had just called it “Puppy kisses” or “Butterfly Breeze” it woulda stayed under the radar. Does the Pro-Choice side have a term for the procedure?
Interesting link, flodnak. I had not considered severe hydrocephalus. I’m going to see if I can find that information from a primary medical source – not to cast aspersions, the site you posted to seemed to consider both sides of the debate, but it’s a religion-oriented site and not a medical one.
