greybeta | So, what's bad about the Supreme Court ruling again?

Asking honestly, because I don't know: Is there a case where other abortion procedures would not be possible? This ruling only references partial birth abortions. Other abortion methods are still legal.

From:

Yes. Partial-birth abortions are done in the later months of pregnancy. As I understand, it's a procedure that's very rarely done, and almost never done (perhaps never) for reasons OTHER than the health of the mother.

And even if there's only one case out of a thousand where this is the only form of abortion that would save a mother's life, that's one woman who died when she didn't have to so that the Republicans could make their base happy.

But, you know, fuck her. Babies are cute!

From:

As I understand, it's a procedure that's very rarely done, and almost never done (perhaps never) for reasons OTHER than the health of the mother.

That wasn't what I was asking. I am aware of what a partial birth abortion is. The media made of point of stating that only partial birth abortions are affected by the ruling; all other forms of late term abortions are still legal. My question was whether or not these other late term abortions would not be possible because of concerns for the mother's life.

But, you know, fuck her. Babies are cute!

I don't stating - or implying - that this should be the case.

From:

I know you're not. But that seems to be the reigning opinion among those who are trying to get this outlawed.

From what I've read, it would be a very rare case where a partial-birth abortion was the only way to save a mother's life, and no other late-term abortion would do. So yeah, it's probably not going to happen often, if at all, that a woman is going to die somewhere because a doctor was put in the position of breaking the law or saving her life.

But the thing is, it's not a big deal to stick a provision in there that it's okay if the life of the mother is in danger and there's no other way to save her. Why not do that? The end effect is probably going to be more or less the same, and in places where it differs, it'd save someone's life. A lot of people who are up in arms wouldn't be, myself included. (Well, mostly.) What motivation other than satisfying a bunch of zealots and trying to woo them back to a party that stands for almost NOTHING that they believe in can the 'pubs have?

There's also, again, precedent. As I wrote below, every law makes it easier to squeak other, similar laws through. There's a chance that down the road, the Supreme Court will uphold some OTHER law that makes another kind of abortion illegal without provision for the life of the mother because this one is on the books.

From:

paranoidgrl.livejournal.com

I read the opinion briefly, and it appears the majority said "there's contradictory information about whether other abortion methods would be harmful, but since it's not conclusive, we're ignoring it. And, because there are other methods (which haven't been determined as to harm), banning this one type is not unconstitutional."

I guess if a woman who was denied this type of abortion who couldn't have other the other type of abortion because it was a threat to health sued, the Court would reconsider. The problem being, of course, that the woman would probably be dead by then.

But of course, as was said earlier, it's the slippery slope. It goes from, hey, there's other late terms abortion methods to why have surgical abortion at all when we have RU-486 to we don't need abortion because there's birth control. Of course, that's overly dramatic, but that's the direction it goes.

From:

But of course, as was said earlier, it's the slippery slope. It goes from, hey, there's other late terms abortion methods to why have surgical abortion at all when we have RU-486 to we don't need abortion because there's birth control. Of course, that's overly dramatic, but that's the direction it goes.

An application of the oft-ridiculed "domino effect" to abortion law, I suppose.

It wouldn't surprise me if the SC eventually remanded the question of legality to the states, at which point it would be interesting to see which side of the debate gets more people to the voting booth.

From:

paranoidgrl.livejournal.com

I know there's people who believe the SCt's definition of privacy in Roe was overreaching, so with the right combination of justices, we might find a group who throw it out and send it back to individual states. Thomas and Scalia in their dissent would do this. So, they just need three more justices on their side.

From:

The lack of compelling evidence that it is ever medically necessary is cited specifically in the ruling. And there is an exception in the subsection of the act prohibiting the procedure, so it's a moot point.

From:

Erm. I'm not sure what you're saying here, but if what you're saying is that there's an exception when the health of the mother is at stake, I did some quick research, and no there isn't.

As I said, if it's almost never (or never) medically necessary, then it should be no big deal to shut people like me up by putting an exception when the health of the mother is at stake in, so why didn't they?

This whole ban was politically motivated, and the idea of anyone using the bodies of the women in this country to score some cheap points makes me sick.

From:

Oops. Looked again. There is an exception for the life of the mother, but not for the health of the mother.

From:

Sorry about the late reply. Haven't had a good block of time to do LJ replies for a few weeks.

Yes, the exception is only for the life of the mother, not the health. The ruling stated that lack of a health exception did not constitute an undue burden in the opinion of the court because it was not established that alternatives pose a particular health risk.

The primary objection to the opinion of the court seems to rest wholly on the idea that IDX potentially poses less risk of cervical than a traditional D&E, due to only a single pass into the uterus. This is largely conjecture rather than established fact, however, and doesn't account for addition risks incurred by larger dilation of the cervix, injury during fetal position for the procedure and accidental injury from the blind incision made on the fetus.

One major point which is regularly skimmed over in accounts of the ruling is that the ban is only on live IDX, which means that even if the physician believes whole-heartedly that IDX is necessary for the health of the mother it is still an option. The procedure just needs to be preceeded by a lethal injection to the fetus (possasium chloriade directly into the hearth is the most common).

From:

As I've said in the past, unless the courts can establish with absolute certainty that no woman's health is going to be harmed or threatened EVER by their ruling, then it's tantamount to saying that once women become pregnant, their bodies no longer belong to them.

And they certainly can't establish an absolute level of certainty, given that the procedure that's been banned isn't even a real medical procedure, and their vague description could cover any number of late-term abortions. Late-term abortions aren't done for shits and giggles. They're done because the mother's life or health is in danger, and in a situation like that, I don't understand why we're not letting the women and their doctors make the decisions. The courts have no place in it.

From:

fub.livejournal.com

Wait.. if the mother dies, doesn't the child die with her? How does that make any sort of sense?

From:

I guess the argument is that it's okay if the fetus dies, just so long as doctors have no hand in killing it? I don't know.

From:

It doesn't. And the bill does have an exception for the life of the mother.

From:

greybeta.livejournal.com

I thought that what was what it was, but I had to ask to be sure. Just somethin about abortion and controversy makes people use a lot of legal quotes.

From:

(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the enactment.

From:

visgoth.livejournal.com

Withdrawn. I was misinformed and did not verify on my own. Thanks.

From:

visgoth.livejournal.com

But it is worth noting that it is not an exception for the mother's health it is an exception for the mother's life.

So if the alternate procedure will merely sterilize her for life, while this one would do no harm... No more babies for her.

From:

That's kind of the point, though; the court deemed that there are safe alternatives. Including, as I noted in my earlier response to

purplkat, the same exact procedure that's proscribed in the act, provided the fetus is terminated prior to extraction.

From:

Basically, the ramifications are this:

First of all, I'm not sure which law this is that got upheld, but if it's the one I'm thinking of, it's possible that the law makes no provision for the health of the mother. IOW, if a doctor is in a place where he has to either do a partial birth abortion or the mother will die... well, she's not as perfect and innocent as babies anyway, so fuck her. (Yes, someone was trying to get a law like that passed. It's extremely disturbing.)

But the larger issue is that ever since Roe v. Wade, a faction of the Republican party has been trying to chip away at it so as to eventually get it overturned. Because law works strongly on precedent, every 'type' of abortion outlawed makes it easier to outlaw the next 'type', until it's all illegal again, and women stop existing as entities with free will who get to control their medical decisions once they get pregnant.

Also, it serves as an indication that yes, this Supreme Court is willing to overturn parts of Roe v. Wade. And if they're willing to overturn parts of it, they might be willing to overturn it altogether.

While I personally hope never to have an abortion (and, indeed, if I found myself pregnant I don't even know if I would -- despite the fact that I REALLY, REALLY don't want to ever bear children) I think that it's extremely important that the option be there, distasteful as it may be. Because, as I said, the alternative is that when women get pregnant, they're no longer able to control what happens to their own bodies anymore. Not legally, anyway. And then we go back to back alley abortions that kill women and are done with no counseling whatsoever.

The direction that this country has been going in terms of women's reproductive rights really frightens me. The stories about pharmacists refusing to hand out birth control because it's "against their beliefs", for example. It's not their place to judge when a woman should be able to take a pill that many (maybe even most) women use for more than keeping themselves from getting pregnant. If they can't stomach doing a routine part of their job, they need to get work elsewhere. I've also heard about a government agency urging all women of child-bearing years to treat themselves as "pre-pregnant" and eat and exercise accordingly. Not 'eat well and get in shape because it's good for you and you'll be healthier', but 'eat well and get in shape because you never know when you could become pregnant'. As if the woman herself doesn't matter, except as a vessel to bear a child.

Anyway, this ruling is just another stone on that particular path.

From:

aynilove5.livejournal.com

Amen.

From:

greybeta.livejournal.com

My my, I didn't realize you had done so much cogitation upon this subject. What you say does make sense, though.

From:

I'm a closet raving feminist. ;) I don't bring that side of me out very often, because I know that for the most part, the people who disagree with me aren't going to be convinced by a raving woman, and for those who agree, it'd be like preaching to the choir.

But yeah, deep down, I'm a raving feminist.

From:

First of all, I'm not sure which law this is that got upheld, but if it's the one I'm thinking of, it's possible that the law makes no provision for the health of the mother.

The stories about pharmacists refusing to hand out birth control because it's "against their beliefs", for example. It's not their place to judge when a woman should be able to take a pill that many (maybe even most) women use for more than keeping themselves from getting pregnant.

I'm personally not comfortable with the idea of the government compelling anyone to sell a product or service they personally consider reprehensible. I do, however, believe a company is well within it's rights to refuse employment to or terminate employment of anyone unwilling to perform their job duties (whether we're talking about a Christian refusing to sell birth control or a Muslim refusing to sell alcohol).

I've also heard about a government agency urging all women of child-bearing years to treat themselves as "pre-pregnant" and eat and exercise accordingly. Not 'eat well and get in shape because it's good for you and you'll be healthier', but 'eat well and get in shape because you never know when you could become pregnant'.

The actual report is somewhat less sinister than certain news stories have made it out to be. Some of the language is highly unfortunate, though, and in my opinion they should have put emphasis on the idea of promoting effective birth control when pregnancy is undesired. The underlying problem they're attempting to address is very real though - almost half of all pregnancies are unplanned and as such receive no pre-conception and little pre-natal care. To compound the problem the unplanned conception and birth rates are highest in the population segments with the lowest level of access to care.

Not 'eat well and get in shape because it's good for you and you'll be healthier', but 'eat well and get in shape because you never know when you could become pregnant'. As if the woman herself doesn't matter, except as a vessel to bear a child.

That's sort of to be expected in a report specifically targeting pre-conception health care. :)

From:

I'm personally not comfortable with the idea of the government compelling anyone to sell a product or service they personally consider reprehensible.

What if a person personally felt it was reprehensible to sell products or services to a minority, or a particular class of people, and their company had no problem with that? What if a person felt that it was reprehensible to sell certain products to a certain class of people? Would that be okay?

Or to put it another way, what if the pharmacist in question were refusing to fill a prescription for a medication to treat HIV?

There's a line here, and it's a subtle one. Not all people are balanced and reasoned -- they employ double standards, where one thing is fine, and another is not. In this case, someone who refuses to dispense birth control is targeting women and only women, and stigmatizing them with moralistic judgments. I'll bet these same people are FINE with handing out, say, Viagra. In addition, they're withholding from women a medical service, prescribed by their doctors (who presumably know what they're doing) and, in some cases, necessary for day-to-day life.

As for whether the government should step in, my feeling is that because a pharmacy is a branch of the health care system, and because birth control pills are used by a lot of women to improve their overall health, it's an issue that needs to be regulated. For example, the primary reason I take birth control pills is because I get horrible, horrible cramps and mood swings every month if I don't. I literally would not be able to hold down a job without them. I know women who spend five days out of every month in so much pain that they're throwing up but who experience only mild discomfort when they're on the pill. When you're talking about medical necessity of that magnitude -- and it's not as rare as you might think -- then someone refusing to dispense the service, especially because they're being a judgmental prick, becomes a serious problem. Being a pharmacist means dispensing a lot of different medicines, even the ones you don't agree with. It really isn't the same thing as someone who owns a corner store and doesn't stock alcohol. It's not even in the same ballpark.

The "pre-pregnancy" report is another thing entirely. I know what they were trying to do, but honestly, the language was deplorable.

And the truth is that I don't see the need for women who are not trying to conceive to treat themselves as "pre-pregnant". All of the literature I've read indicates to me that for the first few weeks of pregnancy, whatever sins you commit aren't going to have THAT big of an impact. Sure, you shouldn't be binge drinking or using massive amounts of cocaine, but you shouldn't be doing that anyway. So why not issue a report titled: 'People, Do Not Binge Drink And Use Massive Amounts Of Cocaine! It Is Bad For You!'

I think the very fact that someone felt the need to commission studies and write this report are part of the culture that I'm talking about, that sees women as very little more than a pod wherein babies gestate. I don't think everyone in the government is this way, but I think that the attitude is prevalent enough that it's a problem.

From:

What if a person personally felt it was reprehensible to sell products or services to a minority, or a particular class of people, and their company had no problem with that? What if a person felt that it was reprehensible to sell certain products to a certain class of people? Would that be okay?

I question the wisdom of trying to legislate away discrimination, but that's another discussion altogether. Refusing to sell to a class of people based on race or gender is in a different category than a retailer choosing not to carry a product. A more analagous question would be whether any place that sells magazines should be forced to sell hard core pornography so long as a customer asks for it.

Or to put it another way, what if the pharmacist in question were refusing to fill a prescription for a medication to treat HIV?

I don't see any good reason any retailer should be forced to stock any particular product, regardless of what it is.

Not all people are balanced and reasoned -- they employ double standards, where one thing is fine, and another is not. In this case, someone who refuses to dispense birth control is targeting women and only women, and stigmatizing them with moralistic judgments.

Not carrying a product is not targeting anyone. It's a passive action. If it crosses the line into actively harrassing, that's another issue entirely, and is reprehensible.

As for stigmitizing and moralizing, that all comes down to how it's handly. If they're putting up signs saying "We don't fill perscriptions for whores" or berate women who ask for birth control, sure, that characterization stands. But if the attempt is met instead with "I'm sorry, we don't carry that. You'll have to go elsewhere" I don't see a problem.

I'll bet these same people are FINE with handing out, say, Viagra.

Possibly, maybe probably. But believe that deliberate prevention of procreation is wrong doesn't mean that sex itself is wrong.

In addition, they're withholding from women a medical service, prescribed by their doctors (who presumably know what they're doing) and, in some cases, necessary for day-to-day life.

I personally don't agree that every pharmacy has to handle every drug, period.

As for whether the government should step in, my feeling is that because a pharmacy is a branch of the health care system, and because birth control pills are used by a lot of women to improve their overall health, it's an issue that needs to be regulated.

That would seem to be the crux of our disagreement. I don't believe the reasonable extent of regulation extends to forcing every pharmacy to serve all market segments. I would no sooner see an independent pharmacist compelled to carry particular product than I would see a christian hospital compelled to performa abortions.

When you're talking about medical necessity of that magnitude -- and it's not as rare as you might think -- then someone refusing to dispense the service, especially because they're being a judgmental prick, becomes a serious problem.

Unless you can buy the product elsewhere, which you can. Even using the contrived example of someone in a town with only one pharmacists, no national chains, no planned parenthood, no clinics, no hospitals with pharmacies, and a doctor willing to perscribe birth control but with no idea where to fill it, you can still have birth control delivered. Assuming the middle of nowhere town has an internet connection you can even order it online.

From:

[Seperate comment since I exceeded comment length.]

The "pre-pregnancy" report is another thing entirely. I know what they were trying to do, but honestly, the language was deplorable.

This we can agree on. :)

And the truth is that I don't see the need for women who are not trying to conceive to treat themselves as "pre-pregnant". All of the literature I've read indicates to me that for the first few weeks of pregnancy, whatever sins you commit aren't going to have THAT big of an impact.

Actually the first trimester is when drug and alcohol use is going to have the most impact. The impact is thought to be minimal in the first two weeks after implantation, but even moderate drinking before five weeks has been shown to sharply increase the chance of spontaneous abortion, fetal alcohol syndrome and nueral tube defects. Remember - by the time you've missed your period there's already a circulation system with a beating heart and a nascent nervous system with a distinct spinal cord.

The systematic poor nutrtion in most people's diets and casual drug use is a problem with fetal health. What constitutes Drinking Responsibly under normal circumstances can have dire effects on fetal health. Likewise with "social smoking" or a diet consisting of pop tarts, McDonald's and microwave pizza.

But, like I've said, I would have liked to see the report focus on the idea of reproductive responsibility. It's fine and dandy to not want a baby or not plan on a baby, but a significant number of people don't make a credible effort to prevent it. I know people who've had as many as four unplanned pregnancies, none of which was due to birth control failure.

From:

BTW, here's an article I stumbled on while I was double-checking about the life of the mother/health of the mother thing:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003672547_scotusprocedure19.html

It discusses the fact that in medical terms, there is no such thing as a 'partial birth abortion', and it's going to be very hard for doctors to do their jobs AND make sure they're on the right side of the law.

From:

paranoidgrl.livejournal.com

That was one of the reasons the law was challenged by doctors - that it was too vague. The Supreme Court disagreed with the doctors.

I don't think this case is settled by a longshot.

From: