Supreme court to re-visit late term abortion ban

[Seagoon]

Hello Crow,

Originally posted by crowMAW
Does anyone know when this proceedure is performed?  Under what circumstances?

Seagoon, I know you indicate that "most" of the time it is purely elective.  Do you have some data to back that?  The only data I've seen has been given by physicians testifying before Congress and was anacdotal or very limited in population scope.  I'm not sure there is any independent data collection going on.

Most of the data is anecdotal, but when physicians who perform them are interviewed, the answers are that the number is the thousands nationwide and that the majority are performed for elective reasons. For instance:

For example, the Record of Bergen County, New Jersey on September 15 published an investigative report by "women's issues" staff writer (and Columbia journalism professor) Ruth Padawer, who found that at a single abortion clinic in Englewood, New Jersey-- only a few miles away from the homes of the young couple in question- doctors acknowledged that they perform over 1,500 partial-birth abortions a year. Moreover, the story quotes doctors at the clinic as stating that "only a 'minuscule amount' are for medical reasons." The Record reported:

    "We have an occasional amnio abnormality, but it's a minuscule amount," said one of the doctors at Metropolitan Medical, an assessment confirmed by another doctor there. "Most are Medicaid patients, black and white, and most are for elective, not medical, reasons: people who didn't realize, or didn't care, how far along they were. Most are teenagers."

The September 17 edition of the Washington Post contained the results of an investigation conducted by staff writers Barbara Vobejda and David M. Brown, M.D., who interviewed several abortionists (not those in New Jersey), and concluded:

    It is possible-- and maybe even likely-- that the majority of these [partial-birth] abortions are performed on normal fetuses, not on fetuses suffering genetic or other developmental abnormalities. Furthermore, in most cases where the procedure is used, the physical health of the woman whose pregnancy is being terminated is not in jeopardy.... Instead, the "typical" patients tend to be young, low-income women, often poorly educated or naive, whose reasons for waiting so long to end their pregnancies are rarely medical.

Dr. Martin Haskell of Dayton, Ohio, has performed over 1,000 partial-birth abortions. In a tape-recorded interview, Dr. Haskell told American Medical News, "I'll be quite frank: most of my abortions are elective in that 20-24 week range. . . . In my particular case, probably 20% are for genetic reasons. And the other 80% are purely elective."

Dr. Haskell also wrote a paper in which he said he uses the method "routinely" in his walk-in abortion clinic, adding, "Among its advantages are that it is a quick, surgical outpatient method that can be performed on a scheduled basis under local anesthesia."

From: Why Are Partial-Birth Abortions Performed?

The physicians I've spoken to with OB/GYN experience have confirmed that.

- SEAGOON

[Donzo]

Originally posted by midnight Target
What a load of crap!

There are thousands of medical procedures that could be described here that would curl your toes... doesn't make them wrong.

Women getting a very late term abortion aren't doing it for fun. There is invariably a medical reason for the procedure. Like saving the mother's life or maintaining her health. Any other reason should get a doctor thrown out of his profession.

Do you really want to take this decision out of the hands of the physician and give it to the government? I thought conservatives were against socialized medicine?

One question.  
If the life living the the mother's womb is viable, why terminate it?  If the mother's life of health is at risk, why not deliver the baby and let it live.  Why does it have to be terminated when viable if the mother's life or health is at risk?

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Donzo
One question.  
If the life living the the mother's womb is viable, why terminate it?  If the mother's life of health is at risk, why not deliver the baby and let it live.  Why does it have to be terminated when viable if the mother's life or health is at risk?

Silly question. If both lives can be saved they should be saved. If by delivering the live baby you endanger the health of the Mother the choice should be made by the mother with help from her physician. NOT decided by the government.

And Seagoon I already posted the stats. You didn't read them or decided to ignore them. Late term PBE's are very rare and "elective" surgery is anything that is not an emergency.

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Mid, you speak of Abortion like it is a basic human right to begin with.  Yet I see it no where in the Declaration or Constitution.  

Actually, it is a right protected under the Constitution.  



ack-ack

[Seagoon]

Hi MT,

Originally posted by midnight Target
And Seagoon I already posted the stats. You didn't read them or decided to ignore them. Late term PBE's are very rare and "elective" surgery is anything that is not an emergency.

Sorry MT, the stats of 9 per year are utterly impossible.

If Haskell, who has worked to popularize the procedure and wrote the detailed description I posted states that he has performed over a thousand himself that would mean that he has been performing partial birth abortions for the past 111 years. Also, the single abortion clinic in NJ that reported they perform over 1,500 a year had no reason to lie. If you want to maintain that it's only that one clinic in NJ that is performing them nationwide (along with Dr. "Methuselah" Haskell's 9 a year of course) then I'll be happy to accept a massively under-inflated figure of 1,509 a year.

Also, please note, that the DOCTORS PERFORMING THEM report that they are usually carried out on teens and low income women who have carried their healthy children beyond the limits for a D&E. They "elect" to terminate their pregnancies late term.

In any event MT, I'm not trying to be contentious, but does it really matter to you how many are "ID&X" abortions are performed and why? Would you be willing to accept any state imposed restrictions on abortion?

Also, from the pro-abortion standpoint, surely if there were more ID&X abortions, then it would be more important to protect the procedure not less. An argument that more of them makes it worse inherently assumes that the procedure itself is bad, after all, more of a good thing isn't worse than less of a good thing, and surely you don't believe that ID&X abortion is bad do you? After all, how can a right derived from the constitution be bad when it is legally exercised? Surely more of a good thing is good, isn't it?

- SEAGOON

[crowMAW]

Originally posted by Seagoon
Most of the data is anecdotal, but when physicians who perform them are interviewed, the answers are that the number is the thousands nationwide and that the majority are performed for elective reasons. For instance:



The physicians I've spoken to with OB/GYN experience have confirmed that.
 

Thanks Seagoon...I read that same excerpt on another website before posting originally.  It does seem that all we have is anecdotal evidence...even the doctors performing the proceedure are not keeping records on the frequency or reasons.  Since I'm a car enthusiast, I'll use a automotive cliche':  The butt dyno is frequently wrong.

Before legislating a blanket ban, I think some actual non-biased data should be collected.  There are legitimate reasons for the proceedure to exist as an option for the the physician to offer and the mother to consider.  And in those cases the law should not prohibit it.

[Scatcat]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Ignoring your low rent attack mode rhetoric I will press on. Assuming you are a physician and that you have read the studies and statistics, you must know that incredibly small number of abortions would be affected by a ban on late term ID&E or X. So let's talk about those few women.

Are you honestly saying that there is NEVER a reason to perform such a procedure. That it was invented solely for the purpose of killing late term babies? Were you taught that in med school or is that your opinion?

And one more thing.... we are discussing abortion and a woman's right to choose. A medical degree is not required to weigh in on the discussion. Nice try scaring off the opposition though.

No we are not talking about a woman's right to choose.  Quit hijacking this thread.  It's about one procedure, go back and read the original post.  I have not posted my opinion about abortion, I have spoken on "partial birth abortion" the procedure.

I am saying in my opinion, a medical opinion, that this procedure is unneeded.  The argument for the procedure is for the health of the mother.  This procedure is no more safer then delivering the entire infant.  I am flat out saying the only reason this procedure is done past the point of viability is to kill an infant before delivery and call it {place your lable of choice here} before delivery of a living infant.

The only thing I've seen here is smoke screens by some of you who have an axe to grind about your personal abortion opinions.

Oh, and by the way, just because there is only a small number of these procedures vs. other sugical procedures doesn't change the reason why this procedure is performed.

[Scatcat]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Silly question. If both lives can be saved they should be saved. If by delivering the live baby you endanger the health of the Mother the choice should be made by the mother with help from her physician. NOT decided by the government.

And Seagoon I already posted the stats. You didn't read them or decided to ignore them. Late term PBE's are very rare and "elective" surgery is anything that is not an emergency.

You are wrong on all counts.

[Scatcat]

Originally posted by crowMAW
Thanks Seagoon...I read that same excerpt on another website before posting originally.  It does seem that all we have is anecdotal evidence...even the doctors performing the proceedure are not keeping records on the frequency or reasons.  Since I'm a car enthusiast, I'll use a automotive cliche':  The butt dyno is frequently wrong.

Before legislating a blanket ban, I think some actual non-biased data should be collected.  There are legitimate reasons for the proceedure to exist as an option for the the physician to offer and the mother to consider.  And in those cases the law should not prohibit it.

This procedure is not required to be reported or data to be collected.  No one really knows the true numbers.  Only those that perform the procedures can really tell how many are being performed.

[lazs2]

Ok... so now... partial birth abortions (in all their horror) are done maybe hundreds of times a year or more?

How is roe v wade stopping this nightmare?  How is r v w protecting these kids/citizens?   seems we need to revisit the whole thing if r v w allows for such a horror.

lazs

[Urchin]

Seagoon, sorry to hear about your unborn kids...  one of my aunts miscarried a couple times, it is not a happy business.  

I don't really have anything to add to the debate, although all the people who are wondering why they perform this procedure on "viable" infants.. I don't think they do.  I only remember seeing 18-24 weeks for the ages, so 4.5 to 6 months.  I don't think a baby can live on its own that early.

[Scatcat]

Originally posted by Urchin
Seagoon, sorry to hear about your unborn kids...  one of my aunts miscarried a couple times, it is not a happy business.  

I don't really have anything to add to the debate, although all the people who are wondering why they perform this procedure on "viable" infants.. I don't think they do.  I only remember seeing 18-24 weeks for the ages, so 4.5 to 6 months.  I don't think a baby can live on its own that early.

Some of these cases are performed beyond 24-26 weeks.

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Seagoon
Hi MT,

 

Sorry MT, the stats of 9 per year are utterly impossible.

If Haskell, who has worked to popularize the procedure and wrote the detailed description I posted states that he has performed over a thousand himself that would mean that he has been performing partial birth abortions for the past 111 years. Also, the single abortion clinic in NJ that reported they perform over 1,500 a year had no reason to lie. If you want to maintain that it's only that one clinic in NJ that is performing them nationwide (along with Dr. "Methuselah" Haskell's 9 a year of course) then I'll be happy to accept a massively under-inflated figure of 1,509 a year.

Also, please note, that the DOCTORS PERFORMING THEM report that they are usually carried out on teens and low income women who have carried their healthy children beyond the limits for a D&E. They "elect" to terminate their pregnancies late term.

In any event MT, I'm not trying to be contentious, but does it really matter to you how many are "ID&X" abortions are performed and why? Would you be willing to accept any state imposed restrictions on abortion?

Also, from the pro-abortion standpoint, surely if there were more ID&X abortions, then it would be more important to protect the procedure not less. An argument that more of them makes it worse inherently assumes that the procedure itself is bad, after all, more of a good thing isn't worse than less of a good thing, and surely you don't believe that ID&X abortion is bad do you? After all, how can a right derived from the constitution be bad when it is legally exercised? Surely more of a good thing is good, isn't it?

- SEAGOON

You are comparing apples to oranges. Late term ID&X (after 26 weeks) is nowhere near the same as the total ID&X abortions performed.

And yes it does matter how many. The reason it matters is that the opponents of choice are using the extreme to outlaw the necessary. All based on a religious agenda. Sad that peopple would stoop to such lows.



And BTW Scatcat ... no I'm not.

Elective surgery: Surgery that is subject to choice (election). The choice may be made by the patient or doctor.

For example, the time when a surgical procedure is performed may be elective. The procedure is beneficial to the patient but does not need be done at a particular time.

As opposed to urgent or emergency surgery.

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=14367

Maybe you need to read up.

[Scatcat]

Originally posted by midnight Target
You are comparing apples to oranges. Late term ID&X (after 26 weeks) is nowhere near the same as the total ID&X abortions performed.

And yes it does matter how many. The reason it matters is that the opponents of choice are using the extreme to outlaw the necessary. All based on a religious agenda. Sad that peopple would stoop to such lows.



And BTW Scatcat ... no I'm not.



http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=14367

Maybe you need to read up.

HEHE, my bad.  I misread your original comment regarding what elective ment.

However, this whole thread was about "partial birth abortions"  not "total ID&X (ie standard surgical abortions).