Gothamist: NY Pols on Supreme Court Abortion Stance

Maria

Mon, 23 Apr 2007 14:16:20 -0500

I work with disabled children and I can tell you first hand that no parent of a child with hydrocephalus or spina bifida considers themselves "screwed". They have very happy families and their children bring alot of joy to everyone around them, including me. Why dont you ask them if they wish they had killed their child while they still could legally? Can you look one of those kids in the face and tell them that their life isnt worth living? Hilter would be proud of you. Do you have any problems in your life? well maybe your mom should have killed you too.

Still Not Amused

Sat, 21 Apr 2007 06:18:02 -0500

Personally, I have pretty much stayed away from this issue . As I see it you have those that want the right to decide when end a life . Then you have those that want the right to abolish that said right and allow all created life to flourish . I think that is a side issue to the real and current problem . If you know that you can't afford to have kids and have them anyway your not being responsible with adult decisions . Kids cost money, Anyone looking to become a parent needs to understand that there are no ways out and should weigh their options carefully . I agree with what the Chinese Government has been doing for decades with regards controlling the population . You get two kids and that's it no exceptions ! It's a hard stance to take but it has it's benefits . The whole "Roe vs. Wade" thing will rage on forever until the Supremes decide to do the right thing and make a decision on the matter and not just bandage the wound .

Cailleach

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 17:44:40 -0500

A friend of my sister's just died due to severe eclampsia. Her fetus was dead as well. This is an often un-anticipated emergency situation that can arise late in a pregnancy. What good would it do to outlaw an abortion (the only life-saving option) until it was too late? And isn't the Supreme Court practicing medicine without a license?

William

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:33:15 -0500

Seriously, where are the arguments for Federal vs. States rights? I realize it's a paradox. People are selfish, the founding fathers knew this. They knew that they were selfish. However, in the ongoing spirit of the Enlightenment, they yearned endlessly for truth and justice, attempting to formulate a system that could somehow handle all sorts of opinions. The main issues with abortion are where life begins and what rights people have about their own bodies. There are no clear delimitations on these issues and there never will be, therefor, we need to attempt to find another way of handling these differences in opinion. Again, this is a paradox. Transcendental thought is a mere myth, an opinion of its own, but it is at least a striving towards a greater truth. The more people that add to these debates, the better. Any and all opinions are necessary, but I would hope that more would tend towards the ideals of the Enlightenment. We have yet to firmly grasp the consequences of the United States and the republic they form under out Federal government. Perhaps the geographic basis of our statehood is what is under fire. Perhaps the era of the nation-state is quickly coming to an end. Think wisely and good luck to us all.

Cynthia

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:00:30 -0500

If a woman who and wanted her baby and is 5 months pregnant got into a car accident and had to have an immediate c-section the health care system would spend hundreds of thousands of dollars caring for a tiny baby (which she may never have to repay even if she is uninsured) and placing it in an incubator for months if necessary. Then as a society we would spend tons of money on special education if any learning disability were to occur as a result of the premature birth. To condone partial birth abortion, when we have the technology and the social safety net to ensure babies born at this stage can be saved IF THEY ARE WANTED is indeed equivalent to infanticide. It's still immoral for diseased babies. If you're OK with partial birth abortion, why not just induce labor and when the baby is born club it to death? What about when a woman give birth to a full term baby that she thought she wanted but it comes out deformed - can she throw it out the hospital window. You can give these babies up to become wards of the state or to private charitable foundations. If you've decided you don't want something or that you thought you wanted it but it's defective so now you don't want it, it doesn't give you the right to KILL it. I agree with a prior poster that in 100 years, this will be considered an embarrasing, immoral policy.

Naral

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:21:42 -0500

By upholding the Federal Abortion Ban in its entirety, the Supreme Court has not only supported an abortion ban with no exception for a woman's health, it has given the green light to the anti-choice movement's plan to outlaw abortion entirely.

Vanessa

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 11:18:04 -0500

Yes, partial birth abortions are legal in Canada. Much like in the US, in Canada, partial birth abortions are very rare and used in extreme cases (such as infants with brain damage and severe deformities)

canadalove

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:18:34 -0500

What about Canada? Are partial-birth abortions legal in Canada?

Vanessa

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 09:00:58 -0500

Dear Ivy League Grunt, Thanks for the level-headed analysis. I think that it is important for each of us understand the others' point of view and to realize that each side DOES have compassion, we just rationalize things differently. I think that when we decide whether we are Pro-Life or Pro-Choice, we imagine what we might do if we were a pregnant woman with an unwanted child. Our imagined choice is based upon a myriad of circumstances (education system, healthcare system, financial status, family support, etc). I belive that we should begin to imagine what it might be like to be in different (perhaps more disadvantaged) situations. Pro-Life advocates focus on partial birth abortion because the procedure IS so horrendous and gruesome and thus it's hard to ignore their arguments. But, as others have mentioned, partial birth abortion is most often used on babies that are already severly deformed or brain dead (for instance, the baby may have a swollen head the size of a basketball and thus the child is severly brain damaged, going to die and cannot be normally delivered/extracted via the birthcanal). What Pro-Lifers fail to mention is the facts (ALL the facts). Partial-birth abortion is a very rare procedure and does not represent the majority of abortions. Partial-birth abortion is often used when the woman's health is at risk (by the way: the clause in the ban protects a woman against death, but NOT severe & chronic health conditions as a result of carrying the child to term). At 4-5 months babies CANNOT surive outside the the womb. The youngest surviving infant was 5.75 months old at birth - a RARE case. Partial-birth abortion takes place at 4-5 months. I wouldn't chose an abortion. I don't have to. I actually want a child. I am married, have steady income and a supportive family. I am quite lucky. That said, I support a woman's right to choose and a doctor's right to administer the appropriate treatment. Like most people, I don't even want to imagine Partial-Birth abortion being used as a form of contraceptive, or a last ditch effort to rid ones self of a healthy baby.

Jo

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 08:53:26 -0500

Normally I don't comment, but when partial birth abortions are done--and that is in the .05% numbers, it is removing of a foetus which is so severely malformed that it cannot survive after birth, such as anencephaly or microencephaly, both of which are conditions where the brain is severely malformed plus the skull and often the skull is not fully formed. Think about it, why should a mother, upon hearing one of these conditions exist, continue to carry it to term--then have a bad labor and birth. (These malformed foetus, do not have the musculature to "help" in their own delivery, which happens with a normal child). It may live for hours, maybe several days in continual care, and then die. Is that mother expected to see her poor child suffer its last moments in front of her and family? I don't' think so.

hogwash

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 23:53:47 -0500

The truth is most abortions are committed out convenience to the mother, not because of a life threat to the mother's health. Most abortions are committed by a teenager or early 20-something. How can such a large number of young women be so unhealthy that having a baby would cause ill health to their bodies? Leftist propaganda my friends. Same goes for this partial-birth abortion issue. Most of the abortions being made were on healthy fetuses, or no-name cloaking the mother's condition in terms of "life-threatened or health-harmed" so that the doctor can proceed with the abortion. The back street doctor (it is never a well-reputed doctor) performs the murder, gets his pay, and commits the next. State sanctioned murder. This crap that there now is concern over not being able to abort a partially born fetus is simply outrageous. That all other types of abortion are remain legal still makes me sick. More babies have died from abortion than any single war or conflict in the history of the world. 100 years from now, the world will look back in awe at this crime, much like slavery, gender discrimination, and racial discrimination, and say, "how could we?"

IvyLeagueGrunt

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 20:42:21 -0500

It is a true testament to Gothamist readers that the postings on this issue are (mostly) quite civil. When I compare these comments to some on other, supposedly intellectual, blogs the contrasts are startling. I agree that in such discussions it is unlikely that one is going to change another's mind on the issue. However, it is important to understand the concerns on both sides of the debate. Many Pro-choicers, in this case, are concerned not with murdering innocent life, but as Zoer mentions, compassion and acceptable options for women and families in very difficult circumstances (eg. an Anencephalic baby with a brain stem but no forebrain and thus no capacity for consciousness) Conversely, many Pro-lifers are not out to take rights away for women or invade their privacy, but rather are concerned with protecting the rights of a baby to live, and are looking to prevent abortion being used carelessly simply as a means of birth control. No matter where along the spectrum of opinions the law resides, there will always be severe contention. I do believe placing the issue under the masthead of a constitutional right to privacy was merely a legal contrivance, and as such its permanence will be in jeopardy unless and until the constitution is modified to clarify the definition and scope of "life."

koko

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 20:30:40 -0500

I don't get that poster. If they had voted against the abortion stance would "5 MEn speak FOR ME?"

Joy

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 20:02:59 -0500

Thank you Zoer, thank you for a thoughtful comment. A little more compassion for everyone involved. (Although I kinda agree with Steve that it's a bit flip to compare a vasectomy with an abortion on your earlier post). And Steve don't take it so personally, it's is hard for certain people to have laws passed by other people who will never face that situation, personally. The thing is that this is a problem that has no comparison.

Choose Life

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 19:58:26 -0500

Zoer, Thanks for your comments. I do have compassion for the pregnant mother, and as I said some rare, very rare, exceptions may neccessitate reconsideration (and I am glad that post 33 sited the clause that makes exception for those circumstances--I will check the reference). Plenty of men and women (pregnant and not pregnant) are making their voices heard. Unfortunatley, from inside the womb, we are not able to hear the children speaking for themselves. This is why I speak out for them.

timbnyc

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 19:54:26 -0500

Meanwhile, in Iraq, fully-birthed fetuses are being blown up on a daily basis.

Zoer

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 19:41:43 -0500

Hi Choose Life... I agree that it is a terrible procedure and terrible situation for all concerned! The reason that it is an incredibly rare procedure (and never casual) is that it is a serious operation for the woman (if it was casual she would have taken the day after pill)... the deformities are often much more than superficial ... often this procedure is necessary because of life threatening/ending deformities of internal organ's of the fetus ... no one takes this surgery lightly! It's upsetting that there is so much loving focus and attention to the fetus but angry hostile comments about the woman involved ... she is a person too, she is someone's daughter/sister and yes maybe mother... where is the compassion for a woman that has to make such a hard decision? This surgery is now illegal... even if her health is at grave risk and even if her doctor thinks this procedure is the best one for her particular situation. I think that people should look at this issue with compassion for everyone involved ... even a pregnant woman.

this thread will go on and on and on

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 19:35:21 -0500

JUST A REMINDER to everyone: nobody's gonna change anyone's mind here. It's like talking to brick walls--and that goes for both sides. I suggest everyone go and rent/buy "That's My Bush" Episode 1: "An Aborted Dinner Date"

Steve

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 19:10:41 -0500

Zoer, you are a PERFECT example of why our country is so screwed up! To equate a vasectomy with an abortion is like comparing a bird to a cedar tree. Hint: Study the cedar tree. You (and those like you) probably won't get it! Post 29 - RIGHT ON!!! The HUMANE Pro-Choice, AS IT SHOULD BE!!!

Read the Statute

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 19:02:37 -0500

18 U. S. C. §1531(a) "...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."

Choose Life

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 18:54:32 -0500

Lauren, why do you say partial birth is not abhorrent? Do you understand what the procedure entails--disconnecting the limbs of a fetus and then crushing the skull to remove a baby who may be able to survive outside the womb? what is the difference between doing this to the baby when it's inside the womb or when it's out? While I do believe there me very rare exceptions when the mother's life is jeopardized, the standard should be that we do all we can to protect innocent life...especially innocent lives that can't protect themselves.

anonymous

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 18:39:00 -0500

It's really disturbing when our culture supports active killing of a fetus that could live outside the womb already. How is it now infanticide? Why are we not concentrating on how to help those who have children and can't/don't want them, as well as pregnancy prevention??????

Zoer

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 18:38:36 -0500

It's so sad to think that the Supreme Court would allow a law that doesn't care about the woman's health... also #19... "We Must Protect Roe" is a reference about protecting a law that protects women from government interference between a woman and her Dr. ... and the fact that the original Roe changed her mind later in life is fine ... it's a free country and she is (as far as I have heard) not a legal expert on civil rights and freedoms. I hope she appreciated the law protecting her at the time she needed it!. Don't we want the Government out of our lives?? I wonder what would happen if the High Court outlawed vasectomies?

Pro Choice and Accountability

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 18:37:45 -0500

A woman should have the right to choose, but the choice I'm talking about is made the night before, not the morning after. A woman should have the right to choose what she does with her body, but in terms of abortion, she's not dealing with just her body anymore. She's dealing with a baby's body. I find insight in comment 9. If a woman regrets the natural consequences of her actions, that doesn't mean she can change them...what if she regrets giving birth to a child? Does that mean she can eutenize him or her? The constitution protects the right to life, not just for adults, but for children born and unborn also.

Steven

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 18:35:04 -0500

I have always believed in a woman's right to choose however, after reading about this procedure I believe the 5 Justices made the correct decision. Yes I am a man no I am not from the Bible belt. I was born and raised in NYC and I am a single dad that raised my two children 100% on my own from ages 7 & 81/2 through to adult.

real analysis

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 18:25:45 -0500

There was an interesting article in Atlantic Monthly last year (maybe late 2005) that said the overturning of Roe v. Wade is not likely but it would be the best thing to happen for both abortion rights advocates and the Democrat Party. The logic is that overturning Roe doesn't make abortion illegal, it only gives states the power to ban it. The only state legislatures that would even dare try are in places like South Dakota. Do any of you think the New York state legislature would ever pass a ban and that any governor of New York would sign a bill? Anyway, the outrage in even South Dakota would pretty much doom the reelection prospects of the state legislature and the governor and damage the national Republican Party. So. . . protect Roe? Meh. I'd be more worried about Congress stepping in.

Allan

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 18:19:22 -0500

Thumper here..... What is it you find so appealing with killing a baby who is mentally handicapped or otherwise deficient. I believe Nazi Germany used the term "Life unworthy of life" to justify their homicide on an industrial scale when they were gassing by the millions Jews, Gypsies, and who ever else did not fit their sense of eugenic perfection. Is this the same mentality that what you really want to adopt? Who's right is it to judge if who have a right to live or not just because you maybe inconvenient.

Steve

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 18:17:40 -0500

Yo Matt (Post 16) TRUE DAT!!! Another DOUBLE STANDARD - Why is it that when a pro-choice supporter was hit by a drunk driver and it killed her unborn TISSUE, she wanted manslaughter charges brought against the drunk driver? Shouldn't she have just considered it a simple abortion? Oh yes, I forgot, abortion is MOSTLY a matter of CHOICE BASED ON CONVENIENCE to the mother. Either it is TISSUE or (in REALITY) it is a LIFE, can't have it both ways.

Jared

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 18:14:19 -0500

Post 18, Do you feel as though children with defects are not to be valued the same as those without? Or you personally wouldn't love your child as much if they had a defect? Is this more of a Darwinist approach? In the past, women would be willing to die for their children, now mothers are fighting for their right to kill their children so that they can live on. Just out of curiosity, can you explain, in your opinion what you think is a good reasoning process for why a women should have the right to destroy a fetus that will become a child? Is there a clever way to spin this to make it seem like it's not baby murder? (not mocking, would love to hear your reasoning)

not an expert

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 18:12:37 -0500

From a cursory reading, the case states that you do not have a constitutional right to a late term abortion under the Planned Parenthood v. Casey standard. The government has an interest in fetal viability at the stage the statute addresses that outweighs the 'privacy' rights of the individual. There is a life exception in the statute. If you want to overturn this write your congressman. The whole mess started when abortion was made a constitutional issue and a privacy right was contrived to protect abortion. Matters such as this should be taken care of by plebiscite. If we want a privacy right in the constitution we should vote for it. I would be in favor. However, Nine men and women should not be in a position to add text to the constitution.

Samantha

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 18:09:33 -0500

Out of these 19 comments so far, how many do you all think are from women versus men? I bet most of the really crass ones are from men. Why is that?

Josh

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 18:07:47 -0500

Guess Roe should have thought about that before the case went to the Supreme Court.

Ash

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 18:07:23 -0500

I find it interesting when we say that it is a woman's choice whether or not she wants to bring the baby into this world. I did not realize that the baby was not apart of this world already.

Kibler

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 18:01:53 -0500

I like how the picture shows a woman who is holding a sign that states "we must protect roe", while it's a well known fact that the orginal "Roe", which was a pseudonym to protect the real woman's name, is now a staunch Pro-Life individual.

samantha

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 18:01:22 -0500

Holy crap, did a whole bunch of bible belt residents just comment on gothamist?? Wake up, thumpers! The ban, which could outlaw abortion as early as 12 weeks, has NO exception for a woman's health or for severe birth defects. So let's say you go in for an ultrasound at the typical 13-16 week mark. If your kid has spina bifida or hydroencephalus, you are screwed any way you "slice" it.

Liz

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:57:56 -0500

What about a woman's choice to use birth control in the first place?

Matt

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:57:30 -0500

Seems strange that the same people who decry lethal injections as cruel and inhuman have no problem with scrambling a baby's brain.

Nappy headed whoores

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:56:56 -0500

There's no constitutional right to going to a state sanctioned medical institution to abort your unborn child. My tax dollars pay for those places, whether a free abortion clinic, or a licenced top of the line abortion clinic. If the place is approved, reviewed, and sanctioned by the state, my tax dollars fund it. If a harlot wants to abort her child, she can sterilize the hanger with alcohol, and do it herself. She's doing it at home, by herself, and the state isn't involved. Since I know Jen will delete this post, let me throw in the words Nappy Headed Hos, blacks, Al Sharpton, negros, darkies. That way, this post will stay. :-)

Liz

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:56:44 -0500

What about a woman's choice to use birth control in the first place?

Nappy headed whoores

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:55:22 -0500

allan

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:54:15 -0500

You are still murdering a baby human being who is innocent. Its murder anyway you want to slice it.

Brian O

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:53:55 -0500

Lauren, I work in the foster care system and I can assure you that there are families that will foster to adopt handicapped children. Because a child has a handicap it does not give the mother or the State the right to take away life.

Obe

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:53:03 -0500

"if someone's living paycheck-to-paycheck, why are they having a kid in the first place?" wow.

Rich

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:52:53 -0500

So if someone has an 18-month old child they can't afford, it's OK to euthenize the child?

idiot alert

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:52:17 -0500

Nice exaggeration Margo.

Margo

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:48:03 -0500

So, number 5, are you suggesting that only rich people should have children?

brian

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:46:29 -0500

did someone just say that a deformed child doesn't deserve to live because there's no market for it in the adoption agency? Is that how we measure life now?

a

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:41:32 -0500

if someone's living paycheck-to-paycheck, why are they having a kid in the first place?

didn't think so

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:39:30 -0500

How about some actual legal analysis instead of this reactionary ranting from both sides?

Lauren

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:33:15 -0500

Partial birth abortion is not abhorrent. The fact that less .5% of abortions are partial birth points to the fact that it is not very common, and is in fact, a procedure that no woman WANTS. However, finding out that your child is severely deformed, ill, etc in the 2nd trimester may necessitate the need for it. While we can all sit in our high horse and claim we would never abort a severely deformed/ill fetus, someone who is living paycheck to paycheck in severe poverty would likely not be able to cope. Who is going to adopt that child? I don't think the adoption market for deformed/handicapped children is very high. Point is, it is the woman's choice of whetehr she wants to bring the child into the world or not. Yesterday was a sad day for America.

Tim N.

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:24:18 -0500

My friends, this is your country now. I would suggest we redoubling our efforts to change it.

Jess

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:15:02 -0500

Roe vs wade will never be overturned. This is not a "first step" in anything. I all for right to choose but somehow find the Partial birth thing very abhorent and I kind of agree. So there.