----- Original Message ----- From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 12:31 PM Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today
On 5/19/05, JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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;: May I just point to "in the case of a head-first presentation" or do you to read the about six hundred pages of the legal decisions on this case? > >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". And then it describes another procedure. >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%??? ;-) Whenever that procedure is used. Is that often enough? >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. >There has never been a test case to see if a "mental health diagnosis" is >sufficient to weight the women's health over a viable life. I doubt that >argument would fly and doubt that you would get doctors and a clinic willing >to risk prosecution. You and Dan seem to be picking extreme hypotheticals to >support your position. It took me 1 minute to find Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973) Companion case to Roe, striking down parts of a "liberalized" statute from Georgia with health/rape/incest exceptions. Holding, (7-2) per Blackmun, that a woman has a constitutional right to abortion from six months to birth, if her doctor "in his best clinical judgment," in light of the patient's age, "physical, emotional, psychological [and] familial" circumstances, finds it "necessary for her physical or mental health." Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
