Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: GtoRA2 on November 06, 2003, 12:26:17 PM
-
That the Planned parenthood is lying through the rotten teeth about the partial birth abortion Bill?
PP page Check the 4th paragraph down. (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about/pr/031031_abortion_lawsuit.html)
They lie on their page and say there is no clause for womens health. There is
Find it here. This is a listing of the Bill. (http://www.theorator.com/bills108/s3.html)
I am prochoice and it pissed me off I was lied to about this. That clause is what made or broke this bill for me, since it is in there I am ok with it.
Here is the section.
Sec. 1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited
`(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. 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. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the date of enactment of this chapter
This really makes me mad. I bet not one new media outlet goes after them for their lie.
-
I think planned parenthood should be supplemented by an organization called "planned birth control", that proactively seeks to educate young folks on the virtues of birth control, and how to avoid pregnancy.
-
banana
When the jerkoffs are not lying about a perfectly good bill I think they are supposed to do that.
:D
-
What is ironic is they are called "Planned Parenthood" and from what I've seen if you go there for their services you didn't plan anything at all. Hmmmmm...
-
Actually, their services include anything having to do with pregnancy and parenting. Whether that be giving info about how/where to terminate an unwanted pregnancy to how to plan for a wanted pregnancy and stay healthy once you are pregnant.
That paragraph seems pretty clear but I haven't read the whole bill. If they lied, they shouldn't have. However, they certainly aren't stooping any lower than their counterparts have been willing to do.
-
SOB
I am pissed. Not at you, lol just at the world right now.
Give me an example of a counterpart lying will ya?
-
we had a friend a few years back who went to planned parenthood for an abortion.
when they asked how far along she was the woman said "crap, don't tell me that, we can't do abortions here if you are that far along. if you say that's how far along you are we have to turn you away. so think carefully, how far along are you telling me you are?"
just a little peek into how they opperate
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
we had a friend a few years back who went to planned parenthood for an abortion.
when they asked how far along she was the woman said "crap, don't tell me that, we can't do abortions here if you are that far along. if you say that's how far along you are we have to turn you away. so think carefully, how far along are you telling me you are?"
just a little peek into how they opperate
Thanks for the affirmation Capt.
-
PP is right. There is no provision for the HEALTH of the mother only "necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered".
So if the mothers health is endangered there is no provision unless she will die.
No lie here. Move along.
-
Actually, their services include anything having to do with pregnancy and parenting. Whether that be giving info about how/where to terminate an unwanted pregnancy to how to plan for a wanted pregnancy and stay healthy once you are pregnant.
not from the info I've recieved from people with first hand accounts. (granted I don't spend a lot of my time with people who are willing to kill to avoid responsability for their actions)
2 different women I that I've known (one while living in kc and one here). went to planed parenthood to get counseling after a 'surprise pregnancy' they went to discuse their options (father is gone, what help is available, how would adoption work, what is the abortion procedure like, what are the costs of each option, what is the likely-hood of someone adopting their kid?) the where confused, scared and had no idea what they wanted to do.
when they arived and started asking questions they where basicly fed into a process..
something along the lines of "I'm pregnant and I need to talk to somebody about it" followed by "fill out this form, take it over there and talk to her", nobody realy dicussing options, just running her through the machine. both girls told me that other options where never discused, it was taken for granted that the babies would be killed. they where scared and confused and not once did anyone ask "are you sure this is what you want to do" tehy where made to feel that to consider doing anything else was just to stupid to think about.
IMO the 'other services' offered, (aside from abortion and birthcontrol) are just a front so they can say they are 'pro-chioice' instead of anti-baby.
niether of my friends felt like they where given choices while there.
btw-the one in kc is now 22 years older, has a 2 year old kid and still has nightmares about the baby she murdered (her words not mine)
the one from portland would have a 8 year old kid if either of them where still alive. she started using meth about 5 months after the abortion, od'd on herion about 3 years later.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
They lie on their page and say there is no clause for womens health. There is
Find it here. This is a listing of the Bill. (http://www.theorator.com/bills108/s3.html)
I am prochoice and it pissed me off I was lied to about this. That clause is what made or broke this bill for me, since it is in there I am ok with it.
Here is the section.
Sec. 1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited
`(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. 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. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the date of enactment of this chapter
This really makes me mad. I bet not one new media outlet goes after them for their lie.
You haven't been lied to. Notice in your post that the bill only deals with saving the life of the mother--no reference to the health, either physical or mental of the mother.
h
Dang Midnight, beat me to it!
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
PP is right. There is no provision for the HEALTH of the mother only "necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered".
So if the mothers health is endangered there is no provision unless she will die.
No lie here. Move along.
What? Did you miss this part?
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.
Seems to me that the bill is worded to the effect that if the pregnancy is causing the mother ANY kind of health problems then PBA's are ok if it is needed to save the mother.
If I am missing something please tell me, I am not sure what it is you are missing MT.
-
no mt and horn have that right. it clearly says her life must be endangered, by these health problems.
so if whe may be stressed out afterward from having children, or gain weight (wich is a major health issue) she can't use them as a excuse for murder.
I do realise there are serious (although not life threatening) issues, that would set up a situation where it would be better for the mothers health to have an abortion. the problem is the pro-death lobby would use these as loopholes to make the law irelivant.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
SOB
I am pissed. Not at you, lol just at the world right now.
Give me an example of a counterpart lying will ya?
From National Right To Life (on their web page in the "Abortion:Some medical facts" section):
"There is strong evidence that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. A study of more than 1,800 women appearing in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute in 1994 found that overall, women having abortions increased their risk of getting breast cancer before age 45 by 50%. For women under 18 with no previous pregnancies, having an abortion after the 8th week increased the risk of breast cancer 800%. Women with a family history of breast cancer fared even worse. All 12 women participating in the study who had abortions before 18 and had a family history of breast cancer themselves got cancer before age 45."
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/ASMF/asmf13.html
_______________________
From the National Cancer Institute:
In February 2003, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) convened a workshop of over 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. Workshop participants reviewed existing population-based, clinical, and animal studies on the relationship between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. They concluded that having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer.
http://cis.nci.nih.gov/fact/3_75.htm
____________________________
I don't fault right to life any more than I do planned parenthood though...neither should be presenting lying or bending the truth.
-
Sob
Thanks for the info.
MT
I still see it as them lying. Aborting a late term child should ONLY be done when the life of the mother is at risk. Give me one good reason why it can not be decided in the first 6 months?
-
Apathy...I've only had one friend go to a planned parenthood clinic, in '93 in Salem. She went in afraid not really wanting to have an abortion, but definitely not wanting to have a baby. She got information on abortion, adoption and pregnancy. She did end up getting an abortion.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Sob
Thanks for the info.
MT
I still see it as them lying. Aborting a late term child should ONLY be done when the life of the mother is at risk. Give me one good reason why it can not be decided in the first 6 months?
Your feelings on the matter are irrelevent as to whether they lied. I think it is pretty clear that the Mothers LIFE must be in danger, not just her health. ... for example:
What if continuing with the gestation would cause a stroke, or other permanently dibilitating harm to the Mother. The PBA would in that case be illegal, as the Life of the Mother is not at risk.
-
The creation of life is that by God.
Only the arrogance that of man is in the taking of lives.
-
Originally posted by mrblack
The creation of life is that by God.
Only the arrogance that of man is in the taking of lives.
Damn, i gotta go home and talk to my wife. Who is that God fellow you're refering to ? I'll break his knees !!!!
-
Originally posted by fd ski
Damn, i gotta go home and talk to my wife. Who is that God fellow you're refering to ? I'll break his knees !!!!
Check the closet:rofl
-
Originally posted by mrblack
The creation of life is that by God.
Only the arrogance that of man is in the taking of lives.
I gotta start saving this stuff.
-
MT so would you be ok with it if it said the mothers Health?
I am not kinda torn, I see what you mean, and can see how that can be bad.....
-
I'm not OK with it because it is unnecessary. This type of abortion is admittedly horrible. It is also so rare as to be almost nonexistant, especially when counting possible LIVE births.
This law is just political capital for GWB in the fall. He just limited a doctor's possible choices and a woman's possible choices for an estimated 4 million votes.
-
so I have a medical question if anybody out here knows the awnser (please no guesses).
are there any known (physical) medical situations, that would require a late term PBA, to prevent the mother from developing a cronic debilitating condition?
is the pro-death lobby really conscerned about health issues or just trying to keep anything from hampering their death-mill and possably making them learn to practice real medicine
if the 'life threatening' clause would have said 'cause health issues', it would be bussiness as ussual, as the woman needed the procedure to prevent stretch-marks and saggy breasts.
no matter how distasteful I find abortion I don't really think it should be completely ilegle. mainly I think if a dr decides it's necissary then it's between the patient and the dr. (a real dr, one who practices medicen to heal people and would ocasionally find it neccisary to do an abortion for medical reasons, not a butcher in a death-mill)
the thing I have real trouble with is that while the death-lobby ponie out these examples of 'what-if' and 'this poor woman victimised by the law', they really put most of their real life work into abortions of convienence.
what percentage of abortions are for a real medical need? I serriously doubt it's a signifigant percentage, and if that was what the issue was about there would be a lot less arguing.
women are always painted as a victim by the pro-abortion group. they talk about women who's lifes, or health is endangered, they talk about the girl who dies in a pre-'roe v wade' back alley abortion. and they use these as examples to why we need abortion legal.
the fact is that virtually nobody(nobody commonly thought of as sane) wants a mother to be forced to carry a baby to term that would be killed or seriously disabled because of it.
abortion should be a last resort sort of thing not an alternative form of birth control.
but making abortion illegal isn't the whole answer either. if you want women to cary their children to term they have to at least think they have some hope of suporting the kid.
an interesting statistic I read last week (off msnbc, not sure of the date or the address though), was that from 90-99 the teenage abortion rate dropped 39%, the teanage pregnancy rate dropped also, as well as the overall abortion rate (but I cant remember the %'s for those).
it lleads me to believe that just saying "abortion is wrong and we wont have it here", then putting it out of your mind and moving on isn't the answer.
I don't recall any major changes in abortion law in that time frame. what I do see is that near the start of that time-frame just about every last holdout had finally come to grips with the fact that aids wasn't just killing junkies and studmuffins.
we admitted that teenagers have sex. and worse yet, probably even our teenager is going to have sex. we figured out that we shoulod warn them of the honest dangers. we allowed discussion that went beyond "don't" to "don't, but if you do..."
and the pregnancy rate went down, and with the economy improving at that time the percentage of those who chose abortion in responce to a pregnancy went down dramaticly.
-
Dr. William F. Harrison, a diplomate of the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2 He wrote that "approximately 1 in 2000 fetuses develop hydrocephalus while in the womb." About 5000 fetuses develop hydrocephalus each year in the U.S. This is not usually discovered until late in the second trimester ............................. ............................. ............ some cases are much more serious. "It is not unusual for the fetal head to be as large as 50 centimeters (nearly 20 inches) in diameter and may contain...close to two gallons of cerebrospinal fluid." In comparison, the average adult skull is about 7 to 8 inches in diameter. A fetus with severe hydrocephalus is alive, but as a newborn cannot live for long; it cannot achieve consciousness. The physician may elect to perform a D&X by draining off the fluid from the brain area, collapsing the fetal skull and withdrawing the dead fetus.
There's a case that doesn't involve the Mother's life.
-
I thikn it could be sucessfully argued that a child with a 20" head would signifigantly endanger a mothers life.
and this combined with the fetus not being viable, and unable to acheave consciousness would make it a safe bet that nobody would be prosecuted.
-
Originally posted by mrblack
The creation of life is that by God.
Maybe with the virgin Mary, but here on earth it's two people doing the deed.
-
What? Organizations lying to further a political objective? Imagine that. The HORROR of it!!!!
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
What if continuing with the gestation would cause a stroke, or other permanently dibilitating harm to the Mother. The PBA would in that case be illegal, as the Life of the Mother is not at risk.
A stroke is life threatening, so if the mother had a condition which put her at risk for a stroke if the pregnancy were continued the doctor would be free to recommend an abortion.
As far as debilitating harm, all pregnancies carry the risk of debilitating harm, that's just the way it is.
In any event, the only reason I can imagine for aborting a fetus in the 3rd trimester would be if the pregnancy threatened the mother's life and she was too weak to handle a C-section.
A C-section would remove the baby without deliberately killing it. It may die anyway, but the medical profession is supposed to try to preserve life. Late term abortions were invented to get rid of unwanted babies, not to preserve life, not even the mother's. They just want the mother to live long enough to pay for the procedure.
ra
-
yes it bothers me.