PDA

View Full Version : Roe v. Wade Compromise is Working



OrnotBitwise
08-23-2006, 10:18 AM
After belly-aching about abortion threads the other day, I really oughtn't be posting this. I can't resist though. Immie and, if I recall correctly, Damo were claiming that no state has succeeded in limiting third trimester abortions within the framework of Roe v. Wade.

It turns out that this is not true. Some states have indeed limited, even effectively prohibited, late term abortions. Florida, for one.

http://www.wesh.com/news/9721968/detail.html?subid=22100409&qs=1;bp=t

From the article:

Dr. James Pendergraft is accused of performing two abortions during the third trimester in one of his clinics, WESH 2 News reported.

That's illegal in Florida, and the state suspended his license on Thursday. Pendergraft's attorneys have now filed an appeal with state officials.

-- emphasis added.

Digging a little tiny bit deeper -- Wikipedia depth, which isn't much more than a thumb's width -- we find this:

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that bans must include exception for threats to the woman's life, physical health, and mental health. That leaves 16 states with what appear to be enforceable bans on late-term abortions:[7]

* Arizona*
* Arkansas* (also allows late-term abortions in cases of rape or incest)
* California
* Connecticut
* Illinois*
* Kentucky
* Louisiana*
* Maine
* Maryland (also allows late-term abortions in cases of fetal abnormality)
* Missouri*
* Nebraska
* Oklahoma*
* Tennessee
* Washington
* Wisconsin
* Wyoming

(*) These states require a second physician to attend the abortion to care for the infant if it is accidentally born alive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-term_abortion

So, gentlemen, I submit that your argument has been shot out of the water completely. It simply is not true that states have been unable to limit third trimester abortions. It does appear that the Wikipedia author(s) believe the Florida ban to be unenforceable, but that's only one case. In fact, more states have such bans on the books than do not -- including mine which, I admit, surprised me.

IHateGovernment
08-23-2006, 10:22 AM
It depends who sits on the court. This will be brought to the supreme court. Now with Roberts and Alito there it will probably be upheld. This probably wouldn't have happened while O'Connor was still there.

What will be required though is the recognition that a child in the third trimester is a person which will have very far reaching effects.

However the court must rule this way. You cannot use the precedent of Roe v. Wade to also support the Florida law.

OrnotBitwise
08-23-2006, 10:27 AM
It depends who sits on the court. This will be brought to the supreme court. Now with Roberts and Alito there it will probably be upheld. This probably wouldn't have happened while O'Connor was still there.

What will be required though is the recognition that a child in the third trimester is a person which will have very far reaching effects.

However the court must rule this way. You cannot use the precedent of Roe v. Wade to also support the Florida law.
You can use it to support the California law, however, which prohibits third trimester abortions except to save the life of the mother.

The argument was that no state had limited late term abortions under Roe. This is patently false.

Damocles
08-23-2006, 10:29 AM
'Twarn't me arguing that nobody had effectively done that. At least not recently it wasn't.

OrnotBitwise
08-23-2006, 10:30 AM
'Twarn't me arguing that nobody had effectively done that. At least not recently it wasn't.
Hokay. The memory ain't what it used to be. :cof1:

Damocles
08-23-2006, 10:36 AM
No, I consistently railed against the R Party for using a slash and burn mentality... Never including the specific wording that would have made their laws constitutional with the sitting SCOTUS of the time. I believe it showed that there was little urge to actually limit abortion from the Party elite, only to look like they were working at it.

IHateGovernment
08-23-2006, 10:38 AM
Those laws are intact because they have not been challenged in the SCOTUS yet. If they are the SC will have to write a new ruling as to the personhood of children in the third trimester.

Cypress
08-23-2006, 10:39 AM
You can use it to support the California law, however, which prohibits third trimester abortions except to save the life of the mother.

The argument was that no state had limited late term abortions under Roe. This is patently false.


I thought this was common knowledge, that states can and do place limitations on late term abortions. That's totally consistent with Roe.

Immanuel
08-23-2006, 07:46 PM
So maybe I was wrong, but I doubt it. So shoot me.

Secondly, these laws only stand because those bastards at NOW have not found someone willing to fight them. This Mr. Pendergast will probably be the one in Florida that NOW was praying for.

Pendergraft defended his actions.

"The termination I performed was not only medically necessary, it most likely prevented her from an extremely difficult and potentially life-threatening surgery,"

I wonder what kind of surgery he saved her from. I'll start with suggesting hemmorrhoids.

Immie

Immanuel
08-23-2006, 07:47 PM
I thought this was common knowledge, that states can and do place limitations on late term abortions. That's totally consistent with Roe.

And the minute the SCOTUS gets its hands on them these laws fall. It does take time to get that far.

Immie

Immanuel
08-23-2006, 07:53 PM
And regardless of what you say, Ornot, Roe is no compromise. Look according to The Alan Guttmacher Institute, infamous for its damnable defense of the killing of human children, this affect .08% of all abortions. If that is a compromise then hell froze over three months ago and is now a glacier.

Immie

Cypress
08-23-2006, 07:54 PM
And the minute the SCOTUS gets its hands on them these laws fall. It does take time to get that far.

Immie

SCOTUS is the one that ruled limitations on third trimester abortions were appropriate. That's what Roe is.

Immanuel
08-23-2006, 07:56 PM
It doesn't matter. As I said the other day, the loopholes required constitute zero limitations on abortion at all. The loopholes are big enough to float an aircraft carrier through which means there is no effective limitations or compromise.

Immie

Cypress
08-23-2006, 08:04 PM
It doesn't matter. As I said the other day, the loopholes required constitute zero limitations on abortion at all. The loopholes are big enough to float an aircraft carrier through which means there is no effective limitations or compromise.

Immie

A think we can agree that a sensible solution would be to limit unintended pregnanices, with eduction, contraception, plan B, and universal health care. That would drastically reduce the demand for abortions. That's the reason many western european countries, have much lower abortions rates that us.

I have no problem with sensible limitations on abortions after the first trimester either.

Immanuel
08-23-2006, 08:20 PM
A think we can agree that a sensible solution would be to limit unintended pregnanices, with eduction, contraception, plan B, and universal health care. That would drastically reduce the demand for abortions. That's the reason many western european countries, have much lower abortions rates that us.

I have no problem with sensible limitations on abortions after the first trimester either.

Unfortunately, NOW and other Abortion organizations do not agree with you.

I have no problem with the education and contraception. At this point in time, I do have a problem with the so-called "morning after" abortificant and I'm concerned about Universal Healthcare. Universal health care is not the be all that ends all in healthcare although I think it is where we are headed.

Universal healthcare done properly might not be a bad deal, but if the U.S. government gets its hands on it, I am convinced it will get screwed up in beaureaucratic BS and be a total failure.

Immie

Damocles
08-23-2006, 08:23 PM
It'll be the single largest expense ever if we let our government get its hands on it.

Immanuel
08-23-2006, 08:31 PM
It'll be the single largest expense ever if we let our government get its hands on it.

I'm not so sure about that. We still have The Iraqi War to contend with.

Immie

Damocles
08-23-2006, 08:33 PM
That will end, Universal Healthcare would just balloon unendingly until all we had was "free" healthcare.

Immanuel
08-23-2006, 08:44 PM
That will end, Universal Healthcare would just balloon unendingly until all we had was "free" healthcare.

That will end?

You have more faith than I do. I am not so sure you are correct. Although, I suppose that if a Democrat wins a future election maybe when he is in office he (or she) will find a way to get us out of this. Let's hope the next President, whoever he or she is, can find a way out and will take it.

Don't get me wrong, I support fighting terrorists and terrorism but corralling our soldiers in Baghdad and painting targets on their backs is no way to fight terrorism.

Immie

Damocles
08-23-2006, 08:53 PM
I think if a Republican wins they will find a way to get us out of this. I don't believe that this, or any war, will last forever.

Immanuel
08-23-2006, 08:57 PM
I think if a Republican wins they will find a way to get us out of this. I don't believe that this, or any war, will last forever.

Well, what if by some miracle (or should I say disaster?) Dick Cheney wins the next election and becomes our President? :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

Do you think he would end it?

Nevermind, that is just too scary of a thought to even consider.

Immie

Damocles
08-23-2006, 09:02 PM
Dick isn't going to win the next election. But no, I don't think he'd end it. I do, however, think that McCain would, simply by doing it better.

krisy
08-26-2006, 10:43 AM
Dick isn't going to win the next election. But no, I don't think he'd end it. I do, however, think that McCain would, simply by doing it better.

McCain...yikes! He is too much of a Republicrat for me!!

Damocles
08-26-2006, 10:47 AM
McCain...yikes! He is too much of a Republicrat for me!!
Even so, I think he'd be better at war.

Cypress
08-26-2006, 11:08 AM
I can't complain if either of the two leading GOPers get nominated: Guiliani or McCain. Its not a conservative country, and good to see the GOP considering a maverick moderate and a liberal repub as their top candidates.

McCain is with the Dems on global warming, campaign finance, immigration reform, and lobbying reform. And taxes to a large degree. And no matter how much he lies to them to curry favor, he'll never comprehensivly promote the religious right agenda.

Guiliani is pro-gay, pro-environment, pro-affirmative action, pro-choice. Very liberal for a repub.


I can't really complain too much ;)

BRUTALITOPS
08-27-2006, 09:57 AM
"Its not a conservative country,"

Compared to the rest of the developed world I say we are pretty damn conservative cypress.

Back to the main thread topic:

This isn't going to do anything. Just wait until women start latching onto some junk 'mental' problem such as post-pregnancy depression or something to that effect...

Lady: "Doctor, I will be sad for a few weeks if I give birth

Doctor: "...ok have an abortion..."

Don Quixote
08-26-2007, 11:34 PM
abortion needs to be a MEDICAL decision between the provider and the supplier

Damocles
08-26-2007, 11:42 PM
abortion needs to be a MEDICAL decision between the provider and the supplier
I would add, between the receiver and their God as well.

I know you probably meant the provider and the receiver, because the supplier and the provider are one and the same.

FUCK THE POLICE
08-27-2007, 05:23 AM
"Its not a conservative country,"

Compared to the rest of the developed world I say we are pretty damn conservative cypress.

Back to the main thread topic:

This isn't going to do anything. Just wait until women start latching onto some junk 'mental' problem such as post-pregnancy depression or something to that effect...

Lady: "Doctor, I will be sad for a few weeks if I give birth

Doctor: "...ok have an abortion..."

It's better than:


Lady: "Doctor, I will die if I go through with this pregnancy"

Doctor: "Sorry, there's a law against it. Would you like to sell him into slavery? We offer decent wages..."