Roe Vs Wade-- Justice To Be

[des]

This was in another thread so I decided to pull it out. Bro Rog wondered who thought Roe vs Wade would be overturned.

 

Something I heard yesterday re: the new justice to be and Roe vs Wade. He has made a few of what seem to be contradictory rulings. a.He ruled a husband must be informed of the wife's decision to have an abortion. b. He also ruled basically pro a so-called partial birth abortion because it did not exempt cases where the women's life was in danger. c.I think in another ruling he ruled pro in cases of incest and rape (??). d.In yet another case I think he ruled it wasn't constitutional to outlaw funds for poor women. (?)

 

I think actually pre- Roe v Wade you could have an abortion if you had 3 doctors' signatures that you had a serious medical risk and problem. In cases where people had money you could have an abortion, and if you didn't you could never have one. Since money is the major factor in an abortion or no, then if he actually did rule as above, he might not rule against it entirely but would place increasing restrictions on it. Of course I might be wrong on the above. I am pretty sure that he ruled on a. and b. -- but totally not sure on c. and d.

Of course d. is the most interesting and telling ruling.

 

Some pundit commented, that everyone was saying there was no litmus test, but there is a litmus test and this is it.

 

I sure hope we don't go back to pre- Roe vs Wade. I am old enough to remember women so desperate that they would go to any measures including coat hangers and swallowing Drano.

 

--des

[October's Autumn]

Even if R v. W was overturned safe, "illegal" abortions would still be available. Too many doctors know how to do it for it to go back to the way it was pre-R.v.W.

 

They fight the wrong way. They should be fighting to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. Making abortion illegal won't stop them. They've been around since the beginning of time and will always be around. In ancient times people who didn't succeed in terminating a pregnancy exposed their infants. Ignorance is bliss, huh?

 

*gets off soap box*

 

The way to reduce the number is through education on how *not* to get pregnant and what to do if raped. The "morning after" pill isn't an abortion -- it prevents implantation. You can also take ibuprofen which acts like progesteron and has been associated with higher numbers of miscarriages. In fact you can use ibuprofen to delay a period for a day or two. I used to do it unintentionally.

[des]

You might be right, OA.

 

There are also things like Diethel Stilbestrol. True nasty side effects are possible (the real big bad side effect is cancer for girls whose moms took it, but it doesn't allow the embryo to attach (or maybe some earlier effect, like reducing the lining or somesuch). It certainly doesn't have the safety record for RU (?). I don't really get the controversy on this. Yes, I *know* that some consider this murder-- and the Catholic church (who are the only ones with any legitimacy in this, imo, as some other birth control does prevent implantation as well , I think the diaphraphm for one. And gels or foam "murder" ###### cells. There's also a "late birth control" (I wouldn't exactly call it abortion) called menstrual extraction. A person can theoretically perform it on themselves. There might be a guerilla type group doing these. They aren't completely foolproof.

 

I think if you changed these products like Ru (?) to something like post-coetal birth control a whole lot of controversy would go away tomorrow. I think the Catholic church would keep it up, but I think a lot of pro life people would not be upset by them. It really is pretty insane to call them "abortion" when they are so early that in some cases you dont' even know if you are pregnant or not.

 

But if they'd allow these there would be so many fewer abortions. I think most abortions are unthought out birth control. If you make it easier for people to have another few days to think "do I really want to have a baby?" we would have fewer abortions and a lot fewer unwanted children.

 

The other thing you take it out of the public square where it doesn't belong anyway, you take the "abortion doctors" and put them back in private practice or in birth control, and you could lower the whole tone on the thing. There would be a small no. of abortions for the safety of the woman, and they'd be done in hospitals where they belong.

 

Frontline is doing a documentary on the de facto prohibition of abortion in some states. You might legally be able to get one but that abortion clinics can be shut down. Just means, of course, that poor women don't get one. If you are rich enough, you could get one pre- Roe v Wade. Just tell some kindly doc that you were minorly inconvenienced and he would do a D and C, and that would be that. But I don't think Frontline is going to get into that.

 

Yes, I agree about decreasing abortions like that. I think you could really reduce them. Jim Wallis who is really anti-abortion (and really pro-life in the true sense, imo) talks about that.

Jim Wallis doesn't mention RU (?) or any other post coetal birth control methods.

 

--des

[flowperson]

The RU (486?) pill has been used in clinical practice in France , where it was invented, for at least ten years now without noticeable repercussions as far as I know.

 

I recall a discussion on another thread here, regarding the erosion of scientific thought. One of the articles cited there addressed the FDA's handling of this issue, and how upset scientitsts are that a Government agency is clearly manipulating and altering its approval process for this pill to soothe the egos of fundamentalist conservatives.

 

Another thing to consider here is that in a global economy that has people traveling to India and Thailand to obtain heart bypasses, plastic surgery, and certain other complex procedures at about 25% of the cost of similar procedures performed in American facilities, it doesn't seem to make sense that it would be overturned if one could get on a plane and get it done elsewhere for a reasonable price in premium facilities and by qualified professionals. How much trouble would it be to go to Canada, Mexico, or Central America to get it done. Not much. Much of the year it costs less to fly to Europe that coast-to-coast in the USA.

 

Lastly, I believe the majority of Americans are beginning to realize that the screaming of the fundies that they protect and revere life is fairly hypocritical when it is considered that they usually whole-heartedly support vicious and bloody military ventures on the part of their government. I know that this is a significant over-generalization on my part, and I know that there are plenty of liberals and progressives who probably wouldn't opt for the termination of a pregnancy.

 

But the fact remains that we live in a constitutional democracy in which people are encouraged to choose and live with the consequences of their choices. If you remove too many choices in which Americans must exercise their moral independence, you effectively remove their freedoms. And in America, that's the one thing that we will not tolerate for very long. However the current administration has done a pretty good job of doing just that post 9/11 without too many people complaining very much. I guess it all boils down to how scared, humiliated, and apathetic the American public can be made to feel before they rear up on their hind legs and insist upon the rights that have been historically guaranteed to them over the past 230 years.

 

I haven't said much about this subject before because emotionally, it hits a little too close to home for me, so I hope that not much of what I've said will unduly upset many of you.

 

flow....

Edited November 13, 2005 by flowperson

[October's Autumn]

It is a touchy subject. Another example of polarization where it shouldn't be. I don't believe abortion should be illegal but I also don't think it is no big deal. The closest analogy I've come up with is someone who has a masectomy or a limb amputation. It is a big deal yet still necessary. I think abortion may often be that way. Literally when it is done for medical reasons (including rap) and emotionally when the pregnancy is unwanted.

 

I tell my husband that a woman who has an unwanted pregnancy is in a no-win situation. She has to do what she feels is best.

[flowperson]

OA

 

You are absolutely right. This is a woman's choice in the end and the law should support that right.

 

flow....

[des]

IMO, it always comes back to the woman carrying the embryo or fetus. You know that the pope can say what he will but he has never, nor can he ever have this experience. I don't think it neatly is close to any other kind of experience. An abortion can never be like any other murder, even if you believe it is morally wrong. The woman's whole body is matched for this pregnancy-- the body changes, the hormones change, the mood changes, etc. And the longer in the pregnancy the more the body and mind change to accommodate the pregnancy. It is the main reason, I guess, that I wouldn't consider it casual or frivolous in some way. But it is also the main reason, I don't see anyone coming around and saying it is murder. If you require every woman to carry every pregnancy to term, you also have to understand just exactly what kind of thign you are subjecting a woman to, as well as what you are going to do once the birth occurs. Do you decrease food stamps for the poor mother as the President's budget would like?

 

It's a really good reason that there is so much intense emotion around the topic. But I think it is a good reason to start thinking "middle way". The middle way would be decreasing the number by increasing birth control, improving health of babies and women, etc.

 

 

--des

[Carl]

My feelings about legal abortion are fairly utilitarian.

 

While in an ideal world - I believe that abortion would not take place. However, the reality is that they always have and always will.

 

So for me the question has never been one of allowing or disallowing abortion.

To me the question has always been whether they will be performed by hack "doctors" or even God forbid, worse. - Or, will they will be performed as safely and cleanly as possible by trained and qualified medical professionals.

 

I really do see it as the lesser of two evils I guess. I vote for keeping it legal and well regulated (ie: Medical Doctors, Nurses, Clinics, Hospitals, etc).

 

I use this same logic when I oppose Gun Bans. Since it is impossible to collect all guns, criminals will always have them. Therefore we must regulate their sale and permit their carry by trained law abiding citizens only. In an ideal world - I would remove every single one of them. But - cest la vie.

[des]

Have you heard of the recent bruhaha on Plan B going OTC? (Plan B is not really an abortion, but basically for contraceptive failures, rape or incest, etc. within 72 hours.) The FDA panel approved it, saying that it was safe and effective. But some small group of conservative doctors have opposed it. Most of the opposition they stated was for teens. The group reworded their approval for adults only. The FDA took the unprecented of having another wait and see period.

 

To me this would be a drug that could DECREASE abortions. This leads me to feel what I have often felt about abortion. There is a strong minority that really opposes it. I feel this group is sincere. But there is a politically right wing group that uses the abortion issue to get this group on their side. They would rather, I think, keep abortion legal so it will always remain an issue that they can USE. This drug is not an abortion, but this group uses the approval of this drug, which could possibly decrease abortions, for their own ends.

(Look what this same group did with gay marriage. All the rage before the election, it has practically disappeared. It got people to the polls.)

 

--des