Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Jailminister, Nov 5, 2003.
</font>[/QUOTE]OK I'm trying to imagine the health effects on the mother for this situation.
Suppose a doctor and a mother decide an abortion is necessary in the late term. Perhaps they determine the developing infant has no cerebral cortex, or no lungs, or something like that.
So in light of the banning on "partial birth" abortion, the alternative is ceasarian abortion.
So they decide that, granted that a ceasarian abortion is going to be performed anyway, it would be less surgically invasive on the mother to do the vaginal "partial birth" abortion.
Presto - instant health benefit for the mother.
Is this the way the reasoning is going to wind up going?
Judicial legislation - that should be an oxymoron.
</font>[/QUOTE]I watched the "debate" on t.v. No one was able to come up with even ONE case where this procedure was done out of necessity in regard to the mothers health (wait, if the baby is not a baby, then is the mother not a mother?)
Good question Jul!
The national organization for women(NOW) several years ago analyzed statistics to determine how many abortions were committed due to incest, rape, or out of necessity for the mother's health. Now I don't recall the actual statistics but the number in proportion to the amount of abortions conducted out of personal convenience, or lacking any of the afforemetioned motivators was so low that it was almost unregisterable. The arguement that uses health as a determinent in abortion is as ludicrous from that standpoint as a habitual, recreational pot smoker campaigning for legalized use based upon their "concern" for cancer patients suffering from the disease. Even if the health issue was a controlled option pro abortionists would still be against it because under that measure so few abortions would be performed. This isn't about human rights to them. It is about unadultrated, uninhibited access to a procedure that ends a human life that the feminist leftists are obsessed with.
Well the "health" issue is worse than that.
From what I remember reading a couple of years ago, courts have ruled that mental health qualifies as a health reason to abort if a health exception is granted. And the courts seem pretty consistent that the laws are unconstitutional without the broad health exclusion. So there seems to be no way to craft a good law that is not gutted if she claims that going through with the pregnancy would cause too much emotional stress, etc. I, personally, do not know how to close that judicial loophole.
So are you saying our political energy should be spent on other issues, then?
Did I or did I not say when this bill was passed, that the absence of the health exception would be challenged, based on existing case law? So how much did I win in the betting pool?
As for as judicial "loopholes", that's a bit of a stretch. Every law that is passed MUST pass judicial review to be a valid law. Three branch of government, remember? It seems we often think there's only two.
Let's see. First JohnV. Three branches it is and that's the way I like it. We need the courts to review and interpret the laws and I have respect for them even if my un-law-educated self may not always agree with them. My chief complaint would generally fall into the category that I am more of a strict constructionist type. Some judges seem duty bound to try and make law and rights from the bench. These guys fall on both sides of the divide, but seem to more often be "liberal." I am not sure I like the idea of a constitution that lives and evolves. If the meaning can change with time then does it really guarantee us anything?
Now KenH. Maybe loophole was the wrong word. But what we have seen is that courts are going to throw out anything without a broad health exception and the courts are going to rule that a broad health exclusion will include any kind of emotional or mental health issues that the doctor decides upon. So, yes, I see if very difficult to pass any laws that will affect the landscape in a meaningful way. (And I say all that without really volunteering exactly what I think or what I would want done.) So the final answer would be, I think you are wasting a lot of political capital with this that could be used more productively. Everyone can feel good about this law passing, but neither it nor any like it will actually change anything. If this is something really important to you to get changed, your time is better spent working to get candidates elected who will appoint judges who will rule in ways of which you approve.