At 09:41 AM 5/18/2005 -0500, Gary Denton wrote: >> Los Angeles Times Poll. Jan. 30-Feb. 2, 2003. N=1,385 adults nationwide. >> MoE � 3 (total sample). >> >> "Do you favor or oppose a law which would make it illegal to perform a >> specific abortion procedure conducted in the last six months of a woman's >> pregnancy known as a partial-birth abortion, except in cases necessary to >> save the life of the mother?"
[snip] >According to legal analysis and the language in the bill itself it did >not ban late term abortion. > >It banned a particular procedure and then messed up the language on >that procedure so that it bans some abortions at 12 weeks. (Actually >what the GOP has been describing as partial birth-abortion which has a >feet first delivery isn't banned at all.) Not true. From the law "the term `partial-birth abortion' means an abortion in which the person performing the abortion.... deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus;: >A majority 53% of Democrats would agree to a late-term abortion ban >with exceptions for the life of the mother. 65% of Republican agree to >this. Why wasn't this the bill? As you can see in the quoted portion above, the poll question referred to "specific abortion procedure conducted in the last six months of a woman's pregnancy known as a partial-birth abortion". >The bill was ruled unconstitutional because it had no exceptions for >the well-being of the pregnant woman and in one of the trials in a >finding of fact a conservative pro-life judge ruled that GOP >leadership had to know that this was a procedure often used for the >medical health of the mother despite them presenting false evidence >this was not so. Often? I thought that it was 0.004%??? ;-) >JDG is arguing any woman dumb enough to have an unwanted pregnancy is >rich enough and smart enough to find a doctor who would say having a >child is bad for their health. Not true. Any abortionist could make the necessary mental health diagnosis, as Dan M. has noted. JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
