 |
|
|
|
|
Monday, April 30, 2007
Abortion ruling sets new state battle lines
By Christine Vestal, Stateline.org Staff Writer
|
|
Prompted by the U.S. Supreme Court’s approval this month of a federal ban on a medical procedure known as partial-birth abortion, activists on both sides of the abortion battle are aiming their sights at state capitols, where new campaigns already are under way.Anti-abortion activists said that, in light of the new high court ruling, they plan to push legislatures in more than half the states to revive state bans on late-term abortion procedures that had been blocked by courts. Anti-abortion groups also see a chance to seek additional restrictions on abortion procedures late in pregnancy. At the same time, abortion-rights groups are gearing up to push states and Congress to pass laws ensuring a woman’s right to abortion. The new laws – known as Freedom of Choice Acts – are designed to prevent further barriers to a woman’s right to abortion. Last week, New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer (D) vowed to push for a Freedom of Choice Act. If approved, the Empire State would join seven others with laws enshrining a woman’s right to abortion as established by the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 1973 decision, Roe v. Wade. Since Roe v. Wade, anti-abortion groups have turned to state legislatures to chip away at a woman’s right to an abortion with a patchwork of restrictions, from parental consent to physician counseling and mandatory waiting periods. The latest high court ruling is the first to uphold an abortion restriction without requiring an exception to protect a woman’s health. It is also the first time the court has approved a ban on a specific medical procedure. Legal experts on both sides of the debate agree the high court’s April 18 decision — Gonzalez v. Carhart — does not open the door for outright abortion bans. Instead, they say the decision leaves room for more limits on the procedure. But new efforts to restrict a woman’s right to an abortion could face stiffer opposition since last year’s state elections. Six new governors who support abortion rights were elected and 15 statehouse chambers shifted toward greater abortion rights, according to an analysis by NARAL Pro-Choice America. In the anti-abortion camp, activists are targeting 31 states with laws similar to the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban of 2003 just upheld by the Supreme Court. The state laws were blocked by federal courts following an earlier U.S. Supreme Court decision — Stenberg v. Carhart (2000) — that overturned partial-birth abortion bans in Nebraska and other states. Because the high court’s latest decision veered away from that ruling, laws in two of the states – Missouri and Virginia – were sent back to appellate courts for reconsideration within days of the Supreme Court decision. Court cases involving bans in Michigan and Utah also could be affected by the court’s ruling, legal experts said. In the other states, attorneys general and legislators must decide whether to dust off the old laws and seek court approval, rewrite the statutes or do nothing, legal experts say.
In most states, laws banning the procedure known as partial-birth abortion — in which a late-term fetus is removed from the womb intact — would need to be redrafted, said Denise Burke, an attorney with Americans United for Life, an anti-abortion advocacy group. Although the federal ban applies in all 50 states, Burke said, state laws are needed as well, because “the federal law is very narrow and may not catch all the procedures being done.” Of the 31 states with blocked partial-birth bans, NARAL’s analysis indicates that at least 18 have legislatures with a majority of members opposed to abortion. Burke said her group and others also plan to seek additional state restrictions, including curbs on post-viability abortions performed after the fetus is capable of living outside of the womb. Meanwhile, abortion-rights advocates already are building defenses against an anticipated onslaught of new restrictions. In addition to New York, abortion-rights advocates are seeking to pass laws to shore up a woman’s right to an abortion in other politically receptive states, including Massachusetts, New Jersey, Minnesota, Montana and Vermont, according to Katherine Grainger of the Center for Reproductive Rights.
Nevada was the first to pass a so-called freedom-of-choice law in 1990, followed by Maryland (1991), Maine (1992), Washington (1992), Connecticut (1997), California (2002) and Hawaii (2005).
In Congress, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) last week sponsored a similar law. Comment on this story in the space below by registering with Stateline.org, or e-mail your feedback to our Letters to the editor section at letters@stateline.org. |
Comment on this story in the space below by registering with Stateline.org.
|
|
|
|
|
| Issues: |
Crime and Courts
Health Care
Politics
Welfare & Social Policy
|
|
-
Most Recent Comments
-
Federal Ruling of Partial Birth Abortion
By Justina Baird on May 18, 2007 12:01:58 PM
An article in the Journal of the American Medical Association discusses fetal pain. It states,Fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester" (Lee, 2006). The article does not discuss the motivation of the sources, nor the relationship between the authors and the abortion industry. All of the authors and the experts sited have direct ties to the abortion industry. The article's findings that fetuses are not capable of feeling pain leads to the assumption that abortion is justified and is not morally reprehensible as the Pro-Life movement claims. All of the expert sources for research are currently practicing abortion providers, except Dr. Lee who is a resident working under the supervision of abortionists. This leads to concerns regarding the accuracy of the findings due to conflict of interest.
Douglas Johnson, the legislative director at the National Right to Life Committee to Congress, in an interview with USA Today, had this response. "If Congress wants an objective evaluation of whether calves and lambs are being slaughtered humanely, they will not rely too much on the report from the operators of slaughterhouses"
Faye Wattleton, the former president of Planned Parenthood, said, "I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don't know that abortion is killing" The executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, Ron Fitzsimmons, told The New York Times, "It is a form of killing. You're ending a life" Fitzsimmons also admitted that the method is used thousands of times annually. He adds, "In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus."
As reported in the American Medical News, the inventor of Dilatation & Evacuation (D&E or partial Birth abortion), Dr. James McMahon reported, "After 20 weeks (4 months)it frankly is a child to me, I really agonize over it. On the other hand, I have another position, which I think is superior in the hierarchy of questions, and that is: 'Who owns the child?' It's got to be the mother" .
An abortionist told All About Issues Magazine, "Every woman has these same two questions: First, "Is it a baby?" No, the counselor assures her. It is a product of conception...a blood clot or a piece of tissue...How many women would have an abortion, if they told them the truth? The counselor replied, None.
Neurologist Dr. Paul Ranalli of the University of Toronto says the 20-30 week child in the womb may even feel more pain than adult may. He adds that the "pain impulse connections in the spinal cord link up and reach the thalamus (the brain's reception center) at 7-20 weeks."
Dr. Kanwaljeet Anand of the University of Arkansas Medical Center reports that he and other specialists involved in studying the development of unborn children have shown that babies feel pain before birth as early as 20 weeks into the pregnancy. Anand has said other medical studies conclude that unborn babies are "very likely" to be "extremely sensitive to pain during the gestation of 20 to 30 weeks." In his testimony before the House of Representatives he related
Everyone needs to be informed regarding any healthcare issue, and that includes abortion. Currently, women are not being properly consented regarding the procedure, its risks, and the development of the fetus. If this were common practice in any other area, physicians would have more lawsuits than they already do. Women deserve better.
Report as Offensive
medical accuracy
By Stacey Burns on May 1, 2007 8:07:59 AM
In the first sentence of this story, the author references a "medical procedure known as partial-birth abortion." The problem truly is that no such medical procedure exists; the term is meaningless, nothing but twisted rhetoric deployed by strategists bent on undermining abortion rights. Those who insist on using the phrase should at least be clear that it is NOT a medical procedure.
Report as Offensive
The right to choose
By jon miklos on Apr 30, 2007 11:53:40 AM
Yes women do have the right whether or not to have baby's. It's called abstinence! Not a choice whether to end a life because the made a bad choice.
Report as Offensive
Belongs with OpEds
By Melissa M on Apr 30, 2007 9:58:42 AM
This extremely slanted view of the debate (ANTI versus RIGHTS) belongs more in opinion than billed as a true news article.
As a pro-life conservative I take offense that a reporter would use the ANTI vitrolic for one side of the debate instead of using terms of equality such as Right to Life versus Right to Abort or Anti-Abortion versus Anti-Personal Responsibility.
The tone of the article is also slanted to make it sound like women's rights are being ripped from them as a part of this decision. What right does any human have to force a partial birth and then crush the skull of a living infant that could viably live outside the womb and be given to a loving family that can't conceive their own children? For humanity's sake, such a procedure should have always been illegal.
Are we such a selfish people that we feel no personal responsibility for our actions? Actions that could mean that someone decides to choose death over life for a child? Where is the outrage that with all the viable and inexpensive forms of contraceptives available to women and men that these procedures are still required in such numbers and with such morally reprehensible procedures available to those who "wait til the last minute" before killing their child?
There may always be women who want and get abortions, but we would do better as a society to put our energy and money into education and prevention of pregnancy than into perpetuating the fallacy that killing a human, no matter how small that human is, is any one's right. Then perhaps, women will begin to have more respect for themselves and for their bodies, thereby ensuring that abortion is no longer a necessary NORM.
Report as Offensive
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 | Stateline.org has put together a list of state public policy resources organized by issue. Here, you will find useful links to essential information from government, academia, and think tanks. If you have a link to add, please email us.
|
| |
|
|
Powered by
By Justina Baird on May 18, 2007 12:01:58 PM
An article in the Journal of the American Medical Association discusses fetal pain. It states,Fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester" (Lee, 2006). The article does not discuss the motivation of the sources, nor the relationship between the authors and the abortion industry. All of the authors and the experts sited have direct ties to the abortion industry. The article's findings that fetuses are not capable of feeling pain leads to the assumption that abortion is justified and is not morally reprehensible as the Pro-Life movement claims. All of the expert sources for research are currently practicing abortion providers, except Dr. Lee who is a resident working under the supervision of abortionists. This leads to concerns regarding the accuracy of the findings due to conflict of interest.
Douglas Johnson, the legislative director at the National Right to Life Committee to Congress, in an interview with USA Today, had this response. "If Congress wants an objective evaluation of whether calves and lambs are being slaughtered humanely, they will not rely too much on the report from the operators of slaughterhouses"
Faye Wattleton, the former president of Planned Parenthood, said, "I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don't know that abortion is killing" The executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, Ron Fitzsimmons, told The New York Times, "It is a form of killing. You're ending a life" Fitzsimmons also admitted that the method is used thousands of times annually. He adds, "In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus."
As reported in the American Medical News, the inventor of Dilatation & Evacuation (D&E or partial Birth abortion), Dr. James McMahon reported, "After 20 weeks (4 months)it frankly is a child to me, I really agonize over it. On the other hand, I have another position, which I think is superior in the hierarchy of questions, and that is: 'Who owns the child?' It's got to be the mother" .
An abortionist told All About Issues Magazine, "Every woman has these same two questions: First, "Is it a baby?" No, the counselor assures her. It is a product of conception...a blood clot or a piece of tissue...How many women would have an abortion, if they told them the truth? The counselor replied, None.
Neurologist Dr. Paul Ranalli of the University of Toronto says the 20-30 week child in the womb may even feel more pain than adult may. He adds that the "pain impulse connections in the spinal cord link up and reach the thalamus (the brain's reception center) at 7-20 weeks."
Dr. Kanwaljeet Anand of the University of Arkansas Medical Center reports that he and other specialists involved in studying the development of unborn children have shown that babies feel pain before birth as early as 20 weeks into the pregnancy. Anand has said other medical studies conclude that unborn babies are "very likely" to be "extremely sensitive to pain during the gestation of 20 to 30 weeks." In his testimony before the House of Representatives he related
Everyone needs to be informed regarding any healthcare issue, and that includes abortion. Currently, women are not being properly consented regarding the procedure, its risks, and the development of the fetus. If this were common practice in any other area, physicians would have more lawsuits than they already do. Women deserve better.
Report as Offensive
medical accuracy
By Stacey Burns on May 1, 2007 8:07:59 AM
In the first sentence of this story, the author references a "medical procedure known as partial-birth abortion." The problem truly is that no such medical procedure exists; the term is meaningless, nothing but twisted rhetoric deployed by strategists bent on undermining abortion rights. Those who insist on using the phrase should at least be clear that it is NOT a medical procedure.
Report as Offensive
The right to choose
By jon miklos on Apr 30, 2007 11:53:40 AM
Yes women do have the right whether or not to have baby's. It's called abstinence! Not a choice whether to end a life because the made a bad choice.
Report as Offensive
Belongs with OpEds
By Melissa M on Apr 30, 2007 9:58:42 AM
This extremely slanted view of the debate (ANTI versus RIGHTS) belongs more in opinion than billed as a true news article.
As a pro-life conservative I take offense that a reporter would use the ANTI vitrolic for one side of the debate instead of using terms of equality such as Right to Life versus Right to Abort or Anti-Abortion versus Anti-Personal Responsibility.
The tone of the article is also slanted to make it sound like women's rights are being ripped from them as a part of this decision. What right does any human have to force a partial birth and then crush the skull of a living infant that could viably live outside the womb and be given to a loving family that can't conceive their own children? For humanity's sake, such a procedure should have always been illegal.
Are we such a selfish people that we feel no personal responsibility for our actions? Actions that could mean that someone decides to choose death over life for a child? Where is the outrage that with all the viable and inexpensive forms of contraceptives available to women and men that these procedures are still required in such numbers and with such morally reprehensible procedures available to those who "wait til the last minute" before killing their child?
There may always be women who want and get abortions, but we would do better as a society to put our energy and money into education and prevention of pregnancy than into perpetuating the fallacy that killing a human, no matter how small that human is, is any one's right. Then perhaps, women will begin to have more respect for themselves and for their bodies, thereby ensuring that abortion is no longer a necessary NORM.
Report as Offensive