I love PA... not....

[Serephino]

I'm thinking the whole country has lost its fricken mind.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Sad and funny at the same time.

[Serephino]

https://secure3.convio.net/pn/site/Advocacy?id=2007&page=UserAction&JServSessionIdr004=gwiiasl803.app331b

That's the link for a petition to stop this piece of crap from being passed.  Honestly, if this gets passed, I see each state doing something similar.  I'm anti-abortion for religious reasons, but I strongly support separation of church and state.  It seems like that's going out the window, and I'm very disappointed by that.

[Iniquitous]

You can definitely tell it is an election year. All the loonies have come crawling into the spotlight to push their personal agendas onto the people of this country.

[Shjade]

Honestly, if this gets passed, I see each state doing something similar.

Not a chance. Some states, certainly, but not all. Probably not even the majority.

[Caela]

This is crap! I am personally pro-life but I also don't believe I have the right to legislate MY moral values onto someone else. I am legislatively, pro-choice. I don't in anyone's shoes but my own and since I don't have the means, ability, or desire, to take in and raise every single unwanted child in the whole country I don't see where I, or anyone else, would have that right. I also don't believe the State OR the Church have any place in making my (or anyone else's) medical decisions for me. Those are between myself and my doctor whether it is getting a script for antibiotics or any sort of surgical procedure, which an abortion definitely is.

Why is it that when a woman's uterus is involved, doctor/patient confidentiality goes flying out the window?

[Callie Del Noire]

Why is it that when a woman's uterus is involved, doctor/patient confidentiality goes flying out the window?

Because the tools who write this crap are typically males who want a full on retreat back to the good old days when men wore the pants, women were to stay home (and pregnant) in the kitchen with no right to vote or speak out of turn with their husbands.

[Caela]

Because the tools who write this crap are typically males who want a full on retreat back to the good old days when men wore the pants, women were to stay home (and pregnant) in the kitchen with no right to vote or speak out of turn with their husbands.

Pfffft! Good luck with that! Sadly I think you have a point. Though I think some of it too, is desperation. Most of our "Statesmen" come from my father's or grandfather's generation. I think they look at people my age, and younger, and see that the world will change and are afraid of what we'll do when it's us who take hold of the reins of power. I doubt they think it out that clearly however, or they might make a few different choices.

As it is, my reproductive organs are MINE and I will make the decisions concerning them. IF some man thinks he has the right to make them for me, the I say turnabout is fair play and I'll be making the decisions regarding his penis...the first of which will be it's removal!

[Samael]

It is really hard to believe that this is happening.
As I grew up, I was told to look to the US for progressive thinking and giving us our first rocket cars.
The US was to be who takes us into the future.

Since then it seems parts of it have regressed into the other direction...

[Oniya]

As it is, my reproductive organs are MINE and I will make the decisions concerning them. IF some man thinks he has the right to make them for me, the I say turnabout is fair play and I'll be making the decisions regarding his penis...the first of which will be it's removal!

Preferably in the Lysistrata sense, rather than the Lorena sense.  (Less jail time.)

[Caela]

Preferably in the Lysistrata sense, rather than the Lorena sense.  (Less jail time.)

lmao...No I wouldn't actually take a knife to someone. But hey, if they get to muck with my plumbing I should get to muck with theirs. Since we're talking reproductive organs I think any man that thinks he should have a say in mine, should have to stand there while I make decisions for his. I assure you, I know some excellent surgeons (being a surg. tech. helps there) and after a few testicular removals men would stop trying to tell me what to do with my uterus and ovaries.

Yes I know that's extreme and not going to happen, I just get pissed when people think they should have a say in what should be a private decision between myself and my doctor.

[Callie Del Noire]

It is really hard to believe that this is happening.
As I grew up, I was told to look to the US for progressive thinking and giving us our first rocket cars.
The US was to be who takes us into the future.

Since then it seems parts of it have regressed into the other direction...

I think it's being backed by folks who want the public distracted with 'loud' issues while the real 'meat' of policy is being hacked up and our public fails to see how the back room deals are going on..

Sorry my inner cynic is being augmented by my next research paper.

[AndyZ]

One thing confuses me about abortion.  Why is it alright to kill a child in the womb, and a baby who actually survives a failed abortion doesn't always get health benefits in order to try to keep it alive the way a baby naturally born premature would, but it's not alright to kill a child who's out of the womb?

I get that people mistakenly believe it's just a bunch of cells that don't even resemble a person, but that's what the ultrasound disproves.

If people are required to take care of their infants or face jail time, even though it is their own bodies and such, it seems the rules would naturally be the same prenatally.  You can argue that it's not a baby yet, but the entire purpose of an abortion is to kill it before it becomes a baby.  If you expect it to be a miscarriage or such, then unless it's a health risk to the mother, let that run naturally.

I realize there are some cases where it would be necessary, but when people argue that you pull the limbs out but leave the head inside and then suck out the fetus's brains, I think you'd be much better off just inducing an early birth and at least giving the thing a chance at life.

Then again, I have my own very weird concepts on life and death.  I would just figure that abortion is closer to euthanasia than most people think, and it's weird to me that many people alright with abortion object to suicide.  At least with suicide, it's the dying person's option, and they had a chance at life.

[Iniquitous]

I get that people mistakenly believe it's just a bunch of cells that don't even resemble a person, but that's what the ultrasound disproves.

Mistakenly? Most abortions occur early in the pregnancy where the zygote IS a clump of cells. It's around the 8th week of pregnancy that it becomes a fetus but it still does not resemble a baby. It looks like a peanut and on an ultrasound screen, it will look like a snowy blob. It isn't until sometime around 12 weeks that it starts looking more like a baby.

The point is - forcing an ultrasound, especially before roughly 12 weeks, is not only stupid - it's invasive. It's state sanctioned rape imho.

[Callie Del Noire]

One thing confuses me about abortion.  Why is it alright to kill a child in the womb, and a baby who actually survives a failed abortion doesn't always get health benefits in order to try to keep it alive the way a baby naturally born premature would, but it's not alright to kill a child who's out of the womb?

I get that people mistakenly believe it's just a bunch of cells that don't even resemble a person, but that's what the ultrasound disproves.

If people are required to take care of their infants or face jail time, even though it is their own bodies and such, it seems the rules would naturally be the same prenatally.  You can argue that it's not a baby yet, but the entire purpose of an abortion is to kill it before it becomes a baby.  If you expect it to be a miscarriage or such, then unless it's a health risk to the mother, let that run naturally.

I realize there are some cases where it would be necessary, but when people argue that you pull the limbs out but leave the head inside and then suck out the fetus's brains, I think you'd be much better off just inducing an early birth and at least giving the thing a chance at life.

Then again, I have my own very weird concepts on life and death.  I would just figure that abortion is closer to euthanasia than most people think, and it's weird to me that many people alright with abortion object to suicide.  At least with suicide, it's the dying person's option, and they had a chance at life.

You're entitled to your belief AndyZ, as is everyone here. I miss the days where I served to uphold the right to have my fellow citizens believe what they will. Just remember your belief might not measure up to what someone expects.

The problem is this.. You can set definite limits and allow the use of abortion, as well as hopefully more suitable reproductive countermeasures and birth control, or you can let it continue in back alleys and behind closed doors. Where people died.

I look on, personally, abortion as a failure to plan things out for the most part. (some situations can't be avoided.. like rape)

How about this. I knew a couple, both of them were Tay Sachs recessive. That meant that they had a 1 in 4 chance of having their child die painfully before he/she attained their teenage years. Period. End of Story. As a result, along with fertility issues with the father meant that the turned to fertility treatments for a 'safe child' (which they finally got after years of work, suffering).

One of the things he said to me about his own outlook had to do with them early in their marriage. His wife was on the pill but they finally got pregnant. A test revealed that the child was Tay Sachs dominant. For several minutes my freind, and boss, sat there and I could only imagine what he and his wife went through. They knew he was not very fertile even then. That he managed to get her pregnant despite the pill was a miracle. A black one but a miracle still. Do they have the child or not was the hardest thing in the world.

I met his wife, she was a lovely lady. I couldnt imagine how hard it was for her and him to make that decision, even knowing that the child would never live to be an adult, given that his fertility issues were a constant thing.

Then I try to imagine what it would be like to have this loving couple be mandated to have their child paraded before them in this invasive and hateful manner. Knowing that it could the only child they could have ever conceived.

That is mean, hurtful, cruel and vindictive.

I occasionally go to my friend's facebook page to see the picture of their healthy daughter (who was the lucky 1 in 4 that doesnt' have the Tay Sach trait) and know that they are good people and parents.

A law like this.. doesn't make you a better person by rubbing someone's nose in their choices (right or wrong), it's invasive. It's hurtful. It's petty. It is low and vile and totally without compassion for another's issues or life.

That's discounting how you're grossly invading the privacy between doctor and patient.

Consider this. You open the door in one sitaution, where will the next invasion begin?

[Shjade]

I realize there are some cases where it would be necessary, but when people argue that you pull the limbs out but leave the head inside and then suck out the fetus's brains, I think you'd be much better off just inducing an early birth and at least giving the thing a chance at life.

...the hell?

[Serephino]

Yeah, a fetus looks like a blob with a tail until sometime in the second trimester.  I did research on this for my stories and role play to have some accuracy.  It really is cool to look at the pictures and watch it develop from a dot to a baby.

Andy, I do agree with you to a point.  Once a fetus does have a brain and organ systems and what not, I think killing it then is pretty horrific.  In my perfect world there would be a compromise.  If I could write legislation on this I would outlaw abortions after something like 14 weeks, unless of course the mother's well being is threatened, among other exceptions.  Even then, if the baby could be saved I would want the doctors to try.  Women usually find out before then, and if they wanted an abortion they could do it in the early stages.

As much as I don't like it, I concede that there are valid reasons.  Callie's example is one of those.  I wouldn't want to impose a low quality of life on a child.  This bill really is barbaric.  It requires the woman to have a copy of the ultrasound.  It can make a difficult decision so much worse.  Like Callie said, if that woman had to keep an ultrasound of the baby she had to abort, well, that would be torture, especially if she was never able to get pregnant again.

   

[AndyZ]

I'll admit that my posts are more about abortion, euthanasia and moral equivalence than this particular bill.  As such, if you want me to stop posting here, I shall.  I tend to get extremely philosophical, and when you combine that with ADD (and currently being sick), getting off-topic is easy.  However, I think abortion is close enough to the topic in order to keep posting, unless you say otherwise.

The way I personally see matters, I tend to be fully aware of causality.  If I save someone's life, it means that if not for me, that person would die.  By contrast, if I kill someone, I believe that that person would have continued to life were it not for my actions.  Otherwise, killing them would be meaningless.

To that end, in my perspective, if you're killing a fetus, unless you're doing so because you realize that the mother's life is at risk, then you realize that a baby will be born if not for your actions.  If the mother's life is at risk, then you realize that the baby's life isn't certain and are saving the mother.  Trying to claim that aborting the fetus when it may have been a miscarriage anyway does not work in my book, for the same reason that a person may have continued to live and you killed them anyway, or that a bomb may or may not have been triggered and the bomb squad detonates it anyway to make certain of safety.

Now, I understand the reasoning for terminating a fetus with birth defects.  However, I put that in the equivalence with euthanasia.  If someone is going to be born with a terrible disease that in your perspective makes it too terrible for that person to live, then you should accept the equal premise that someone with said disease has the right to commit suicide.

A lot of people don't accept this correlation, and I was hoping that someone could explain why.

The problem is this.. You can set definite limits and allow the use of abortion, as well as hopefully more suitable reproductive countermeasures and birth control, or you can let it continue in back alleys and behind closed doors. Where people died.

I am quite familiar with this premise, but when extending it to equivalent circumstances, I'm not sure it really holds up.

Have you ever heard of female circumcision?  I saw a thing a year or two ago on ABC about how a number of doctors face the dilemma either to perform it or to have their patients go to the Middle East to get it done by in abhorrent conditions and with less qualifications.

Many a dirty cop has said that if they don't accept the bribe, the crook will just find someone else willing to pull some strings.

A hit man can claim that if he doesn't kill people, they'll just hire someone else.

Perhaps it's a lighter shade of gray if performing the act yourself has less abhorrent side effects.  However, doing so changes the act from something terrible which is only best kept for tremendous circumstances, into an act which is commonplace because "everybody does it."

You don't need me to tell you how much trouble we're in solely from things that "everybody" does.

How about this. I knew a couple, both of them were Tay Sachs recessive. That meant that they had a 1 in 4 chance of having their child die painfully before he/she attained their teenage years. Period. End of Story. As a result, along with fertility issues with the father meant that the turned to fertility treatments for a 'safe child' (which they finally got after years of work, suffering).

One of the things he said to me about his own outlook had to do with them early in their marriage. His wife was on the pill but they finally got pregnant. A test revealed that the child was Tay Sachs dominant. For several minutes my freind, and boss, sat there and I could only imagine what he and his wife went through. They knew he was not very fertile even then. That he managed to get her pregnant despite the pill was a miracle. A black one but a miracle still. Do they have the child or not was the hardest thing in the world.

I met his wife, she was a lovely lady. I couldnt imagine how hard it was for her and him to make that decision, even knowing that the child would never live to be an adult, given that his fertility issues were a constant thing.

Then I try to imagine what it would be like to have this loving couple be mandated to have their child paraded before them in this invasive and hateful manner. Knowing that it could the only child they could have ever conceived.

That is mean, hurtful, cruel and vindictive.

I occasionally go to my friend's facebook page to see the picture of their healthy daughter (who was the lucky 1 in 4 that doesnt' have the Tay Sach trait) and know that they are good people and parents.

A law like this.. doesn't make you a better person by rubbing someone's nose in their choices (right or wrong), it's invasive. It's hurtful. It's petty. It is low and vile and totally without compassion for another's issues or life.

That's discounting how you're grossly invading the privacy between doctor and patient.

Consider this. You open the door in one sitaution, where will the next invasion begin?

I don't really like when the government steps in and something HAS to be done.  I'm not a fan of when Republicans do something like this, nor when Democrats force Christian hospitals to pay for such procedures.  Both are extreme views.  However, I realize that when the government redistributes wealth, it's got to put it somewhere.

I'm not really convinced that government programs should be able to withhold funds unless they like what you're doing, but I don't know how you would manage that without things going completely haywire.  However, when the government plays favorites (like how they go after the Christian hospitals but Planned Parenthood still gets public funding), the fact that the government is choosing sides becomes quite obvious.

I'm getting off topic though.

...the hell?

You've really never heard of partial birth abortion?

Under the Intact D&X method, the largest part of the fetus (the head) is reduced in diameter to allow vaginal passage. According to the American Medical Association, this procedure has four main elements.[3] Usually, preliminary procedures are performed over a period of two to three days, to gradually dilate the cervix using laminaria tents (sticks of seaweed which absorb fluid and swell). Sometimes drugs such as pitocin, a synthetic form of oxytocin, are used to induce labor. Once the cervix is sufficiently dilated, the doctor uses an ultrasound and forceps to grasp the fetus's leg. The fetus is turned to a breech position, if necessary, and the doctor pulls one or both legs out of the cervix, which some refer to as 'partial birth' of the fetus. The doctor subsequently extracts the rest of the fetus, leaving only the head still inside the uterus. An incision is made at the base of the skull, a blunt dissector (such as a Kelly clamp) is inserted into the incision and opened to widen the opening,[4] and then a suction catheter is inserted into the opening. The brain is suctioned out, which causes the skull to collapse and allows the fetus to pass more easily through the cervix. The placenta is removed and the uterine wall is vacuum aspirated using a cannula.[5]

This was a big argument during the 90s; I don't honestly know if it's currently legal in the United States.

Andy, I do agree with you to a point.  Once a fetus does have a brain and organ systems and what not, I think killing it then is pretty horrific.  In my perfect world there would be a compromise.  If I could write legislation on this I would outlaw abortions after something like 14 weeks, unless of course the mother's well being is threatened, among other exceptions.  Even then, if the baby could be saved I would want the doctors to try.  Women usually find out before then, and if they wanted an abortion they could do it in the early stages.

To me, if it's going to have a brain and organ systems, then actions taken to stop it from having them are pretty much the same in some aspect.  It's the same response that if someone is stopping a pregnancy because the baby will have X as a defect, then you realize that it's a causal thing, and unless you also accept euthanasia, you're disproving yourself.

One could argue that euthanasia requires a willing participant as well.  It's very difficult to prove if a person would want to be born.

But yeah, it could just be me.

[Shjade]

The way I personally see matters, I tend to be fully aware of causality.  If I save someone's life, it means that if not for me, that person would die.  By contrast, if I kill someone, I believe that that person would have continued to life were it not for my actions.  Otherwise, killing them would be meaningless.

To that end, in my perspective, if you're killing a fetus, unless you're doing so because you realize that the mother's life is at risk, then you realize that a baby will be born if not for your actions.  If the mother's life is at risk, then you realize that the baby's life isn't certain and are saving the mother.  Trying to claim that aborting the fetus when it may have been a miscarriage anyway does not work in my book, for the same reason that a person may have continued to live and you killed them anyway, or that a bomb may or may not have been triggered and the bomb squad detonates it anyway to make certain of safety.

A baby is likely to be born if not for your actions, sure. On the other hand, a baby hasn't actually been born yet. What currently exists is cell growth inside a person, something that takes place all the time every day and is often altered medically.

I'm not seeing the merit to your position; causality is not, itself, a support for something.

If you're removing a tumor, you realize that a tumor would continue to grow if not for your actions. Does that mean you should leave it alone because your interest in letting it grow takes precedence over the interest of the person in whom it is growing has in removing it? Everything eventually becomes something else. What does that have to do with this decision?

Also, one of your premise examples suggests you may benefit from rethinking your approach to causality and its relevance to action: you mention that killing someone would have no meaning if they would have died anyway, regardless of your actions. That's not necessarily the case. The method, timing, and reason for a person's death all have a dramatic impact on the results. I think you'd agree that if someone were dying in the hospital and their doctor euthanized them, the repercussions would be significantly different than if a family member did the deed, both of which would be significantly different from letting the patient's death come at its own pace from their condition. There are definitive differences in effect for each of these actions, despite the similar cause that would trigger each chain of events. A premise as broad as "he is going to die anyway" does not make all paths toward that destination the same or moot.

Likewise, a baby being born, or a baby not being born - these two things can come about in a wide variety of ways, each with their own considerations and repercussions. Lumping them all together in two massive columns doesn't really do justice to the concept.

[Oniya]

You've really never heard of partial birth abortion?

This was a big argument during the 90s; I don't honestly know if it's currently legal in the United States.

Partial birth abortions are late term (that is, between 15 and 26 weeks) - and they are highly dangerous to the mother as well.  On Nov 5, 2003, Congress passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban.  The PBA Ban prohibits all partial-birth abortions in the United States except those which are shown to be necessary to preserve the life of the mother. The penalty for performing a partial-birth abortion is a fine and jail time up to 2 years, both of which are levied upon the doctor who performed the procedure. In addition, the father of the fetus and the fetus' maternal grandparents (though not the fetus' mother) may seek damages against the doctor for performing the abortion.

It was challenged in 2007, and was upheld by a vote of 5-4.   Justices Kennedy, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Roberts voted to uphold the ban, and Justices Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer, and Stevens dissented.

[Callie Del Noire]

Partial birth abortions are late term (that is, between 15 and 26 weeks) - and they are highly dangerous to the mother as well.  On Nov 5, 2003, Congress passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban.  The PBA Ban prohibits all partial-birth abortions in the United States except those which are shown to be necessary to preserve the life of the mother. The penalty for performing a partial-birth abortion is a fine and jail time up to 2 years, both of which are levied upon the doctor who performed the procedure. In addition, the father of the fetus and the fetus' maternal grandparents (though not the fetus' mother) may seek damages against the doctor for performing the abortion.

It was challenged in 2007, and was upheld by a vote of 5-4.   Justices Kennedy, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Roberts voted to uphold the ban, and Justices Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer, and Stevens dissented.

So, medical emergencies aside, it's a not relevant point in the abortion debate? If I'm understanding what you posted right?

[Oniya]

Yup.  Some doctors won't even perform them in medical emergencies (I believe the alternative would be an emergency C-section, but I'm not certain on that.)

[AndyZ]

A baby is likely to be born if not for your actions, sure. On the other hand, a baby hasn't actually been born yet. What currently exists is cell growth inside a person, something that takes place all the time every day and is often altered medically.

I'm not seeing the merit to your position; causality is not, itself, a support for something.

If you're removing a tumor, you realize that a tumor would continue to grow if not for your actions. Does that mean you should leave it alone because your interest in letting it grow takes precedence over the interest of the person in whom it is growing has in removing it? Everything eventually becomes something else. What does that have to do with this decision?

Well, with the tumor it's a question of inaction vs. action, as well as certain vs. uncertain outcome.

A person with a tumor may die from it, or may not.  If you remove the tumor, it's because you believe that the person will most likely die, and take preventative steps towards that happening.

Continuing that analogy, a pregnant person may have a baby, or may not.  If you remove the baby, it's because you believe that the person will most likely have a baby, and take preventative steps towards that happening.

If you didn't believe the person's life was at risk, you wouldn't remove the tumor.  Similarly, if you didn't believe that the woman was going to have a baby, you wouldn't abort it.

A tumor has no rights; most would say that a person does.  A fetus becomes a baby becomes a child becomes a teenager becomes an adult.  I just don't see why one transition is more important when all are, if not inevitable, sufficiently expected to induce an abortion.

Also, one of your premise examples suggests you may benefit from rethinking your approach to causality and its relevance to action: you mention that killing someone would have no meaning if they would have died anyway, regardless of your actions. That's not necessarily the case. The method, timing, and reason for a person's death all have a dramatic impact on the results. I think you'd agree that if someone were dying in the hospital and their doctor euthanized them, the repercussions would be significantly different than if a family member did the deed, both of which would be significantly different from letting the patient's death come at its own pace from their condition. There are definitive differences in effect for each of these actions, despite the similar cause that would trigger each chain of events. A premise as broad as "he is going to die anyway" does not make all paths toward that destination the same or moot.

I agree.  I do not feel that the argument of "somebody else will do it if I don't" is acceptable.

Likewise, a baby being born, or a baby not being born - these two things can come about in a wide variety of ways, each with their own considerations and repercussions. Lumping them all together in two massive columns doesn't really do justice to the concept.

Again, I consider this equivalent to euthanasia, and the levels of life and death.

If a baby survives the abortion procedure, we treat it as a normal infant, giving it health care and all such.  Obama voted against this, by the way.  I don't disagree with the law by any means, but to me, this feels more like the Spartan method of seeing if your kid comes back alive in order to really respect him.  We failed to kill it, so therefore it's alive?

To me, the only point that makes sense to claim that another life exists is when, through no further action on your part, a child will exist.  While I agree that birth could be seen as that point due to labor and such, I don't think most people would claim that a nine month old fetus that's fully capable of coming out isn't really a baby until it takes its first breath.

Trying to demarcate a point on the pregnancy when it's actually a baby doesn't seem realistic to me personally.  Do we go by when it looks alive?  When it first gets eyes, a brain, hands?  Without getting into euthanasia topics, a person without such organs (on life support, presumably) is still considered to be a person in many respects.  It's even considered a double homicide if a pregnant woman is murdered.

I really don't know how to explain any better than this.  According to the law, if I fire a bullet at someone and it hits a sheet of bulletproof glass that I didn't see, I've still attempted murder.  If I had successfully committed that act, a person would not be alive who would otherwise be.  The argument that "maybe s/he would die anyway" does not hold for reasons already explained.

Then again, maybe I should just ask if people see any correlation between abortion and euthanasia.  I may be fighting a meaningless argument if people do accept abortion but also agree with euthanasia.  Could I get someone to comment on this part and let me know if I'm crazy for seeing a connection there?

Partial birth abortions are late term (that is, between 15 and 26 weeks) - and they are highly dangerous to the mother as well.  On Nov 5, 2003, Congress passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban.  The PBA Ban prohibits all partial-birth abortions in the United States except those which are shown to be necessary to preserve the life of the mother. The penalty for performing a partial-birth abortion is a fine and jail time up to 2 years, both of which are levied upon the doctor who performed the procedure. In addition, the father of the fetus and the fetus' maternal grandparents (though not the fetus' mother) may seek damages against the doctor for performing the abortion.

It was challenged in 2007, and was upheld by a vote of 5-4.   Justices Kennedy, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Roberts voted to uphold the ban, and Justices Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer, and Stevens dissented.

Thank God.  I guess I just didn't hear about it while I was in college.  Thanks for the info.

As a stupid question, though, if a woman elects to get a partial birth abortion, why would she even try to seek damages?  Is this part of the bill just to make absolute certain, or did you add in the bit about the mother not being able yourself for sake of clarity?

[Oniya]

The bit about damages was included in the eHow article that I found by googling 'Legality of partial-birth abortions'.  If you want to review the text of the thing, here's a link to it:  http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-108publ105/content-detail.html

As for me, the fact that it's illegal in the US makes it a non-issue.  It's already not going to be happening at any clinic, and therefore shouldn't be used as an appeal to emotion.

[AndyZ]

Yeah, I didn't realize that it was illegal now.  Thank you for letting me know ^_^