|
Re: Supreme Court upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dilettante
The law in question clearly defines what Partial Birth Abortion is. If that term had no legal meaning before, it does now. If that isn't what your talking about, then you aren't talking about this law.
The law still allows Intact Dilation & Extraction as far the the intact extraction of the fetus goes; there is no ban on that. The ban only applies when, after the extraction is part-way completed, the doctor then actively and purposefully kills the baby/fetus.
All aspects of Intact Dilation & Extraction that benefit the mother are still perfectly legal, on the the additional act of actively killing the fetus has been outlawed.
|
Nothing clear about it at all. The definition in the legislation is deliberately vague and fits a variety of circumstances. This court found it not to be unconstitutionally vague but the fact that it's not unconstitutionally vague is not the same as saying it has any medical meaning. And in the text of the legislation the real name is used. The "partial birth" crap is only for the tv cameras.
The idea that there is some form of abortion which does not actively and purposefully kill the baby/fetus takes my breath away.
This court bent over backwards in order to hand the religious right a political "victory" on this issue. Of course it's not really a "victory" at all for people who wish there were less abortions. But it's a great soundbite for republican politicians and it does penalize a small number of women who may suffer health problems as a result of their doctor no longer being able to offer this option. And I guess that's good enough for some people.
__________________
A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the utmost extremes of injustice and oppression.
Edward Gibbon
|