Find » Legal » Supreme Court Interferes on How and...

Supreme Court Interferes on How and when Women Have Abortions

The Decision to Uphold the Ban on Partial Birth Abortions

By Jennifer Thompson, published Apr 18, 2007
Published Content: 416  Total Views: 235,517  Favorited By: 48 CPs
Embed:  
Rating: 2.8 of 5
The Supreme Court has made a decision to uphold the ban on partial birth abortions; a title assigned to the procedure by its opponents.

In 2003 President Bush signed the bill and the Congress passed the Partial Birth Abortion Act; this was the first time there has been a ban on an abortion procedure since a woman's right to an abortion was recognized in 1973, in the Roe vs. Wade decision.
President Bush, in a statement, celebrates what he calls the progress of his administration to defend the "sanctity of life." He followed by saying, "I am pleased that the Supreme Court has upheld a law that prohibits the abhorrent procedure of partial birth abortion," he said. "Today's decision affirms that the Constitution does not stand in the way of the people's representatives enacting laws reflecting the compassion and humanity of America."
This is the first time that the Supreme Court has issued law over how an abortion is performed.

In a partial birth abortion, the doctor removes the fetus, still intact, from the uterus and then cuts the skull, or it is crushed, to complete the abortion. The medical term for the procedure is dilation and extraction. According to the Guttmacher Institute, in the year 2000, 2,200 of these procedures were performed. These are the most recent statistics available.

Women seeking an abortion within the first trimester, which is the first 12 weeks of the term, will remain unaffected. However, those in opposition to abortion feel that this law won't change anything as the other available method - dismembering the fetus in the uterus - is still available.

But, the decision was certainly not that of all justices. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg called the decision "alarming." She said that the ruling "refuses to take ... seriously" the previous Supreme Court decisions on abortion, that it "tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists." She continues also that "the court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman's health."

Supreme Court Interferes on How and when Women Have Abortions
Comments
Comments 1 - 11 of 11
 
 
Yeah, Leena. I'm sure mine was the only c-section performed in 2004.

Posted on 04/29/2007 at 8:04:00 PM

 
Jennifer, one abortion costs $300-500 on average. But there are 1.4 MILLION abortions performed every year in this country, so I'd say the "not having kids" is raking in a bit more money than your one c-section. Either way, doctors don't always look to what is best for the patients. Many doctors are just hungry for power and money, which is why I don't necessarily trust them. I've heard all kinds of stories from a family friend who works in a hospital about how selfish doctors can be.

Posted on 04/29/2007 at 10:04:00 AM

 
Deborah - the other procedures are ones woman do...this is my impression...not LEGALLY or safely with a doctor.

Posted on 04/22/2007 at 6:04:00 PM

 
Well, actually this procedure is specifically after the 3rd month, not necessary after the 6th. And Leena, Doctors get paid far more than that to perform several other procedures. Wanna know what my doc made on my c-section? And I don't mean the total bill - Doctors make THOUSANDS if they give the prenatal care and then are the doctor for the birth or c-section, whichever. So, they make alot more if the woman has the baby.

Posted on 04/22/2007 at 6:04:00 PM

 
I guess the issue really isn't clear to me. If there are other methods available at that time in the process, what is the actual issue?

Posted on 04/19/2007 at 2:04:00 PM

 
Jennifer, you're right. Doctors know best. After all, the fact that they get paid $300-500 per abortion plays NO affect. Shanika, you're right. Women are smart enough to have abortions before the third trimester. Though I don't think it is EVER right, this is most DEFINITELY the worst kind. I personally don't trust doctors. They all have different opinions.

Posted on 04/19/2007 at 10:04:00 AM

 
The problem is that not all doctors agree that there is a significant risk to these women. I fail to see why a woman past 6 months of pregnancy that is in duress cannot have a cesarean. Not all doctor's are good people, nor do they always have their patients best interests at heart. They could easily be covering for women too damn selfish and indecisive to either take responsibility for their actions or abort early on. Im glad to hear this diabolical procedure has been banned.

Posted on 04/19/2007 at 7:04:00 AM

 
Leena, you think it's cause for celebration when your doctor can no longer guide you in your decisions? What about when a woman's life is in danger? Too bad for them, huh?

Posted on 04/18/2007 at 7:04:00 PM

 
Hooray! That's all I can say.

Posted on 04/18/2007 at 5:04:00 PM

 
Here's my thoughts: I think it's the doctor's call. A late abortion is not good, I agree, but at times it is imparitive for the woman's health. There are exceptions. Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's a pleasant situation, by any means. But I think the doctor should be the one helping the patients to make decisons.

Posted on 04/18/2007 at 5:04:00 PM

 
I have never been a George Bush fan. I have learned that he is a president that holds his cards way to close to his chest, and buries the truth of his actions from the American people. However, looking closely at many of the cases of this particular style of abortion is so disgusting it's horrific. And is mostly used by women that have waited too long in their decision making process to come to terms with either having the abortion or not. I believe that without certain laws in place, we cannot make progress in this society, people have to start to learn to take responsibility for themselves. I personally believe that every woman should make her own choices, but does that mean that once a fully developed child is still in the womb that we should have a law saying it's okay to kill a fully developed child?

Posted on 04/18/2007 at 3:04:00 PM

Type in Your Comments Below - (1000 characters left)

Submit your own content on this or any topic. Get started »
Comments 1 - 11 of 11
 
Advertisment