# For once, I am proud to have GWB for a president



## JodiM (Mar 22, 2003)

I am sooo gad he signed for a law stopping the murder of innocent babies in the second and third trimester!!


----------



## Potty Diva (Jun 18, 2003)

Oh my dear Jodi,

GWB can't pass anything..

He SIGNED a law, now it has to pass, but, hopefully it will not









Can this be moved to Activism please?

Gracias...


----------



## JodiM (Mar 22, 2003)

Don't know how to move a post, sorry.


----------



## oceanbaby (Nov 19, 2001)

Ditto what Potty Diva said.

I am left still waiting for a reason to be proud of him.


----------



## Harper (Jul 10, 2003)

It was passed by both the house and senate (they have to agree on the final language of the bill) it went to GWB for his signature and is now law. The senate and the house passed the bill before but BC vetoed it twice, I think.

Still searching for any reason to think he is not evil.


----------



## chrissy (Jun 5, 2002)

Quote:

I am left still waiting for a reason to be proud of him.
It's gonna be a looooooooooong wait!


----------



## AnnMarie (May 21, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by JodiM_
*I am sooo gad he signed for a law stopping the murder of innocent babies in the second and third trimester!!*


----------



## Potty Diva (Jun 18, 2003)

my post went all weird







:


----------



## jeca (Sep 21, 2002)

I'm just curious, does the law allow for certain circumstances to be exceptions?


----------



## leakyandsnort (Apr 16, 2002)

There's no exception & I believe I heard today that there is going to be a legal challenge because no mention is made wrt the mother's health.


----------



## Happypants (Oct 21, 2002)

no, it doesn't make any exceptions for the health of the mother. heard on the radio that some group is going to court to fight it based on that. can't remember what group, tho.


----------



## Marg of Arabia (Nov 19, 2001)




----------



## choli (Jun 20, 2002)

Quote:

JodiM I am sooo gad he signed for a law stopping the murder of innocent babies in the second and third trimester!!
I'm sooo glad he's still allowing the murder of guilty babies!!


----------



## Marlena (Jul 19, 2002)

For the record, it doesn't prevent abortions in the second and third trimester. Rather, it merely prohibits one particular procedure which was very rarely used for such abortions (which are, themselves, uncommon to begin with).

Without an exemption for the health of the woman, I predict that the ban will become toast in relatively short order.


----------



## merpk (Dec 19, 2001)

Ahem.

Not only is there no exception for maternal health, _but a specific bill that was identical to this one *except that it included an exception for the mother's health* was beaten down by the President's party._

An attempt to pass the same law with the only difference between them being an exception for the mother's health was specifically defeated.

How many more times can it be said?

This has nothing to do with the specific procedure it outlaws, and nothing to do with concern for babies. And everything to do with political points, a foot in the door, etc., etc.

Unless, of course, the Republicans and their President simply really don't care about the lives of women at all, since they _did not allow for an exception for maternal health, and specifically denied a bill with that provision in it._

Can I say it again?

No, I'm not proud either.


----------



## AmyB (Nov 21, 2001)

> _Originally posted by merpk_
> *Ahem.
> 
> Not only is there no exception for maternal health, but a specific bill that was identical to this one except that it included an exception for the mother's health was beaten down by the President's party.
> ...


----------



## sm3247 (May 9, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by AmyB_

I'm not proud of this either. I think it's absolutely immoral to be willing to sacrifice the lives of women just to make an ideological point. This law will not save the life of one single baby. It's just a bad-intentioned attempt to insert politics into emergency medicine.

I get more and more disgusted with the current crop of Republicans every day.

[/B]
Amen


----------



## DebraBaker (Jan 9, 2002)

The mother's *life* is the one exception to this ban.

If the mother's *health* was being seriously compromised you could easily say that her life is threatened. I think there are cases in which "health" is defined too broadly.

This is a particularly henious procedure on an older fetus, it's disgusting.

Personally I'm proud of Bush. I don't think banning this particular type of abortion threatens the majority of abortions (done in the first trimester.)

Debra Baker


----------



## jeca (Sep 21, 2002)

What is this particular procedure that is being banned?

I use to keep up with these things a long time ago but sadly it has now been put on the backl burner with so many other things.


----------



## Potty Diva (Jun 18, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by DebraBaker_
*The mother's *life* is the one exception to this ban.

If the mother's *health* was being seriously compromised you could easily say that her life is threatened. I think there are cases in which "health" is defined too broadly.

This is a particularly henious procedure on an older fetus, it's disgusting.

Personally I'm proud of Bush. I don't think banning this particular type of abortion threatens the majority of abortions (done in the first trimester.)

Debra Baker*
And again, this won't stop late term abortions, they will only find another way to do them, and hopefully it won't put the mothers life/health at risk any more


----------



## Ms. Mom (Nov 18, 2001)

Just a reminder that this topic is VERY emotional for so many (myself included).

Let's try VERY hard to keep the debate on topic and try to be respectful of everyones opinions.

Thank you


----------



## hhurd (Oct 7, 2002)

If only our "leaders" spent as much time and resources improving the lives of the children who have already been born...

They aren't as "innocent" I guess.


----------



## chrissy (Jun 5, 2002)

Quote:

If only our "leaders" spent as much time and resources improving the lives of the children who have already been born...
I could not agree more!


----------



## reeseccup (Jul 3, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by jeca_
*What is this particular procedure that is being banned?

I use to keep up with these things a long time ago but sadly it has now been put on the backl burner with so many other things.*

The procedure is usually performed during the fifth month of gestation or later. The woman's cervix is dilated, and the fetus is partially removed from the womb, feet first(or if head down I would think they would have to do the brain vacuum first in order to remove the fetus (ds1 was head down from 3 months on not turning, so this is a possibility). The surgeon inserts a sharp object into the back of the fetus' head, removes it, and inserts a vacuum tube through which the brains are extracted. The head of the fetus contracts at this point and allows the fetus to be more easily removed from the womb.


----------



## EnviroBecca (Jun 5, 2002)

I was really irritated at W's soundbite that aired on NPR all day, about how the right to life is not something that can be granted or taken away by the government...true, so why is he acting like he's just bestowed life upon babies? This law, even if it does go into effect, will not save a single life; the procedure it bans is not the only one available to those who choose abortion, and it has been used mostly in cases where the fetus would die before or shortly after birth anyway. All this law can do is increase suffering. But that seems to be the goal of our so-called President, anyway. It makes me sick to hear him posturing about the sacredness of life while Americans and Iraqis are being killed every day because of him.


----------



## Amazlilith (Nov 10, 2002)

GWB has yet to do ANYTHING that would make me proud...

What people don't understand (and others here have stated above) is that this procedure is not on Healthy Viable Babies. This is done rarely and in the third trimester. You can not just choose to have this. Women's lives are in the balance here.

And for the record, I am pro-choice but not pro-abortion....


----------



## MysticHealerMom (Oct 7, 2002)

wow, i got hopeful for a second there. but, it's 'this thing again'. it wouldn't and doesn't make me proud. dubbya is already personally responsible for more than 300 deaths just in terms of Americans in this ficticious war. this nebulous and irrisponsible law is not going to clear his record or [sic] conscious as a liar and murderer.


----------



## chrissy (Jun 5, 2002)

Quote:

The mother's *life* is the one exception to this ban.
This is NOT true. There is no exception for the health of the mother.

This type of law has been struck down numerous times by numerous state courts as unconstitutional. An almost identical Nebraska law was struck down by the US Supreme Court.

GW (or at least his advisors) knows that it will be struck down again. It's just his political posturing. So much for swearing to uphold the Constitution.


----------



## isleta (Nov 25, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by lawyORmama?_
*This is NOT true. There is no exception for the health of the mother.

This type of law has been struck down numerous times by numerous state courts as unconstitutional. An almost identical Nebraska law was struck down by the US Supreme Court.

GW (or at least his advisors) knows that it will be struck down again. It's just his political posturing. So much for swearing to uphold the Constitution.*








You posted before I could get these words out! Thanks!! Also, not proud









Again, THERE IS NO EXCEPTION FOR THE MOTHER. Not pro-life if you ask me.


----------



## SpiralWoman (Jul 2, 2002)

I always thought that Republicans/Conservatives wanted less government, not more. Why is it ok for Bush to make medical decisions for people he will never meet, when he clearly isn't a Dr? Sad sad sad.


----------



## Ilaria (Jan 14, 2002)

Quote:

THERE IS NO EXCEPTION FOR THE MOTHER. Not pro-life if you ask me.
Ditto. It's sick and sad...









Saying Bush is "pro-life" IS the funniest thing I heard today! :LOL


----------



## Delta (Oct 22, 2002)

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The mother's *life* is the one exception to this ban.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is NOT true. There is no exception for the health of the mother.
Actually it does have a provision to protect the *life* of the mother. The provision to protect the *health* was considered too broad and was defeated.

Actual Bill:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...z6JG4Q:e17817:

Quote:

Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the date of enactment of this chapter.
Bill Summary and status:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...108query.html|


----------



## chrissy (Jun 5, 2002)

Does anyone have a link to the language of the health of the mother provision that was considered too broad?

Delta, thank you for providing the language of the bill. I think, however, that its language is way too narrow and does not protect the health of the mother.

For example, under this bill it seems that if a woman needed to terminate the life of a fetus, her doctor would be required to perform another, more dangerous procedure rather than the safer procedure this bill outlaws. This procedure is done because it is the safest for the mother. The bill requires another more dangerous procedure to be done unless doing so will out and out kill the mother. When a woman is already going through a horribly traumatic situation why would it possibly be okay to force injury and a more difficult recovery on her as well?

What if her actual life is not in danger but her health is?

What if this procedure is the only way to save her reproductive capabilities?

I must add that this procedure *is* horrible but, in my opinion, it is necessary for extreme situations. It is a medical procedure. Doctors do it because it is the safest way to remove a fetus at this stage not because they are evil and want to torture unborn babies.

It makes no sense that politicians are telling doctors how to practice medicine! What do they know about a woman's body?

It's ridiculous really and all about political grandstanding rather than any actual benefit to anyone.


----------



## jeca (Sep 21, 2002)

Oh the vacuum abortion, yes I remember that now. How completly sick it is. Why on earth would anyone want to have that done anyway especially so late? So he signed a law on soemthing that is already rarely done? Then why is it such a big deal to them, what's the purpose of that. With all the reason "drama" in Iraq lately I haven't been watching too much TV as I am trying to limit upsetting myself(it got to the point where my stomach was churning). This is the only way to chose my topics so please educate me mamas.


----------



## Happypants (Oct 21, 2002)

did anyone else hear that a federal judge blocked this just hours after W signed it?? it'll only apply to the 4 docs in Nebraska who filed a lawsuit against it, but that's a start, no?


----------



## spatulagirl (Feb 21, 2002)

If this method is rarely used, then what are the other methods used in late-term abortions? Why was this law passed against just this one procedure? Can these other methods be used in late-term abortions?


----------



## DebraBaker (Jan 9, 2002)

think if it's a serious health issue you could make the argument that a woman's health is threatened.

"Health" was defined as too broad because there have been cases in which a woman's "health" was defined as emotional stress, etc which is, by most standards, overly broad.

Quote, "What people don't understand (and others here have stated above) is that this procedure is not on Healthy Viable Babies. This is done rarely and in the third trimester. You can not just choose to have this. Women's lives are in the balance here."

Why should less-than-healthy babies be subject to such a brutal procedure? Yes, this procedure is done rarely but it *is* done. And there is nothing to legally bar a woman for getting this procedure for any reason at any point in her pregnancy....she just needs to find a doctor willing to perform such a brutal procedure.

The *only* time I can see this justified is if the woman's life is in jeopardy and I should think there is something more humane than a live dissection in any case.

We don't treat convicted murderers so barbaricaly why should innocent babies be subject to such brutality.

And, yes, I think more attention should be given to already born children!

Debra Baker


----------



## chrissy (Jun 5, 2002)

I agree that this procedure sounds grotesque but it is a medical procedure- lots of medical procedures sound grotesque.

This procedure is the one that is most commonly done in late term terminations and it is so because it is the safest for the woman.

To force doctors to do a second rate procedure is cruel to the women. Sadly the fetus is going to die either way so the focus should be on the mother and what is the safest procedure to her.


----------



## DaryLLL (Aug 12, 2002)

I thought this procedure was most commonly done on hydrocephalous babies, whose heads are 3 or 4 times the size of a normal newborn's head, and would not fit through the birth canal? Didn't someone talk about that on another recent thread on this topic?

Obviously, without this procedure, both the baby and the mother would likely die.


----------



## GoodWillHunter (Mar 14, 2003)

Okay...

From what I read last night, and it was pretty gruesome, most PBAs are done on fetuses who

1. Are no longer living
2. Will not survive past birth
3. Have hydroencephalus and will not survive the birth
4. Have *severe* genetic abnormalities and most likely will not survive past birth.
5. When the mother is in danger of dying due to the pregnancy.

What the statistics do say is that PBAs are not done on healthy fetuses with healthy mothers.

The ban on this procedure will force mothers to carry non viable babies to term, give birth and then watch their babe die. They will have to suffer the whole pregnancy, knowing there will not be a happy ending to it, suffering people coming up to them and talking excitedly about the baby who will never be. I mean, how many of you ask a pregnant woman when they are due? I do. It may be none of my business, but, well, I'm friendly and love to talk about babies!!! Can you imagine going up to a woman who is pregnant with a baby who is going to die outside the womb and asking her?







I can't imagine the pain and agony.

I do not support this ban at all. I believe there should be exceptions. Abortion should not be used as a form of birth control! However, there are cases where it can and should be used.

Just my two cents. For what they're worth!


----------



## Potty Diva (Jun 18, 2003)

This is a very big discussion even in our town!! The news is covering it like white on rice.

Another thing that concerns some people is that the wording of the law could put women who get more common abortions (as early as 12 weeks) in jeopardy. The wording of the law is very flimsy.

I know I'm not wording myself very well, hope you all can see past that


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

A *major* issue I have with this law is it does nothing to protect FUTURE children that the woman wants to have. In certain situations, a "partial birth abortion" is the only way to protect a womans ability to bear future viable babies. Why take that away from a woman?

It makes me







uke to hear someone who supports the death penalty say the govt should not decide when life should begin/end.


----------



## Harper (Jul 10, 2003)

Thank you GoodWillHunter. That explains it perfectly. The law is just cruel.


----------



## Marg of Arabia (Nov 19, 2001)

Thanks for your post! GoodWillHunter! It best represents my take on all of this.......................


----------



## mamawanabe (Nov 12, 2002)

This bill doesn't ban abortions in the second and third trimester, but a couple of posters mentioned that they thought it did and that banning abortions in the 2nd and 3rd trimester was a good thing. While most unwanted pregnacies are ended in the 1st trimester, abortions in the 2nd and 3rd most often occur because of fetal abmoralities.

Amniocentesis is usually performed between the fourteenth and eighteenth week of pregnancy. That would be second trimester right? Though this country is split 50-50 (actually I think it is more 40-60, but the pro-choice camp is louder and more effective at rallying, so in terms of public discourse, 50-50 is fair) on the abortion issue, 90% of women/couples who recieve results that show serious a chromosomal disorder (down syndrom etc) decide to abort. I heard the 90% figure on a dateline (or 48 hours or 20/20) show about a couple that agonized over the decision before deciding to keep the baby.

CVS test can be done earlier (10-12 weeks) but it carries a more significant risk of miscarriage.

This isn't to say that someone can't argue that 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions (or all abortions) should be abolished, but the 90% figure should give us pause. If 90% of people, some 20% of whom had to have been pro-choice before being faced with such a decision, choose to abort, than abortion is something that an overwhelming majority of our population wants available for themselves even as some don't want it availble for others.

Of course, the 90% is just a figure I got off a TV news show, and we all know how "facts" like statistics can be skewed.


----------



## Delilah (Sep 2, 2002)

testing at 25 weeks to determine if my son's brain was developing normally or abnormally due to hydrocephaly. It would have been a difficult decision to make if he was severely abnormal, but ultimately, I would want that decision made by me, my husband, and my doctor, not some bureaucrat.

Not everything gets covered before 18 weeks...


----------



## MFuglei (Nov 7, 2002)

The original Nebraska law as struck down by the Supreme Court because the language regarding the PBA itself was too vague -- it could have led to the complete ban on ALL abortions in ALL trimesters, so in the spirit of R-v-W, the Supreme Court struck it down.

This law isn't much different from Nebraskas and is just as reprehensible in my mind. It is another effort by the anti-choice movement to remove a woman's right to choose.

Do I think PBAs are awful? Absolutely and I hope to never ever be in the position to have to make a decision like that. I have a good friend who had a PBA in her 27th week of pregnancy after discovering her child had severe spina bifida and hydrocephaphy. The child would not have survived labor. During her PBA she had a full placental abruption and her uterus ruptured. Any other procedure would have killed her.

ANY OTHER PROCEDURE -- which is exactly what Georgie Porgie would have physicians do to her. . . if George had enacted this legislation 2 years ago my friend would be dead now - her 4 year old would be motherless because some man wanted to control her uterus.

Oh, and for the record, I'm pro-life. But I also believe in keeping laws off my body. . .


----------



## jannan (Oct 30, 2002)

So, are all PBA's done by d and x? What is the common procedure say, after 12 weeks? and why are PBA's banned but it is Ok to murder Iraqi children? And why didn't Barbara Just walk into the Abortion clinic and do us all a favor and abort George?

I could go on and on and on...........


----------



## Ms. Mom (Nov 18, 2001)

Again, let's try to keep this on-topic and keep the debate respectful - thank you.


----------



## MFuglei (Nov 7, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by jannan_
*So, are all PBA's done by d and x? What is the common procedure say, after 12 weeks?*
Partial Birth Abortion is the slang term referring to a procedure called "Dialation and Extraction".

My understanding is, after 12 weeks, the following abortions can be performed:

Dilation and Curretage (late 1st trimester) - cervix is dilated and uterus is scraped

Dilation and Evacuation (9% of abortions are of this variety): cervix is dilated and the fetus is removed in pieces. This is a 2nd trimester abortion and is used up to about 21 weeks.

Saline or prostaglandin abortions (about 1.5% of total): Saline is injected into the womb and the fetus is poisoned.

Hysterotomies: The baby is removed via c-section

Partial Birth Abortion (Dilation and Extraction - about 0.2% of all ended pregnancies).

** above information found at www.religioustolerance.org**


----------



## Lucysmama (Apr 29, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by TiredX2_
*
It makes me







uke to hear someone who supports the death penalty say the govt should not decide when life should begin/end.*
I totally agree.


----------

