Bush Signs Abortion Bill
 

This went into an effect as a law?? I was reading an atricle, anyone else have more info on this?

Apparently it's meant for women that are over the 3 month mark, however, it's very vague. Politic's and religion a terrifying mix...:321GFY

bad news

I have no problem with drilling into a babies skull being illegal. :2 cents:

True true!

What happened to Seperation of Church and State?

jDoG

Just the beginning , If Bush stays in office, then Abortion will be all together illegal in less then 3 years.

That is for damn sure :ak47:

I just sent a email to the president & asked what happened to that, and why the pledge has 'Under god' in it...:1orglaugh I wanna see if I get a answer!

jDoG

Bad news for who?

The bill was meant for late term abortions.. if you don't know what that means you should look it up.

The only real problem is that it really is vauge, it prevents doctors from performing the procedure when needed to protect the life of the mother.

I love how that neandertalithic FUCK insists on driving the united states back into the god damned stone age with his ignorance.

:mad: :mad: :mad:

Sucking the brains out of a late term, viable baby is not neanderthal?

wtf do you call it?

while this bill is aimed at banning partial-birth abortions (which i agree should be outlawed) it really is just the beginning. They are hoping to make all abortions illegal and that infringes on our personal rights.

You're an idiot. This abortion is done for medical reasons, like when the mother's life is at risk. In other words, Bush would rather the mother die than abort the pregnancy.

I agree. However, it seems to me that with it being so vague they can change it to suit them any time they want. Sort of like the Patriot Act but not really.

I believe it was the American Medical Association that said the partial birth abortion procedure is NEVER necessary.

#1 laws aren't passed by the president, they're passed by congress. The president can't pass shit, he can only sign, or veto a bill.

#2 Do you really think that it's right to take a perfectly healthy baby, that can survive outside the womb......in other words a person.....and drill a hole in their head, suck their brains out to collapse the skull, then yank the corpse out?

What the fuck does that have to do with religion?

I am totally pro-choice when it comes to a 3 month old unviable tissue mass, but with all of the babies that are now surviving after 4 and 5 months gestation...then it just becomes murder for me. It's not about religion, it's about human rights.

You can justify doing this shit?

The most common late-term procedure is called ?dilation and evacuation,? or D&E. The woman?s cervix is dilated and the doctor removes the fetus with a combination of suction and pulling with forceps. Exactly how it works can differ from doctor to doctor. Sometimes suctioning out the amniotic fluid kills the fetus before it enters the birth canal; some doctors inject drugs into the fetal sac or cut the umbilical cord first; sometimes the procedure dismembers the fetus.

Bush might be shot before this time :1orglaugh

Quote from President Clinton's reasons for Vetoing a previous Bill banning partial birth abortions:

"I am returning herewith without any approval H.R. 1833, which would prohibit doctors from performing a certain kind of abortion. I do so because the bill does not allow women to protect themselves from serious threats to their health. By refusing to permit women, in reliance on their doctors' best medical judgment, to use this procedure when their lives are threatened or when their health is put in serious jeopardy, the Congress has fashioned a bill that is consistent neither with the Constitution nor with sound public policy."

I call it saving the parents (or parent) and the kid(s) a life of misery and despair because neither of them wants to be stuck in the world with the other if they're considering the operation.

Nice post.

You looking for a date with the Secret Service?

The reason why Clinton vetoed the bill had NOTHING to do with protecting the health of women and EVERYTHING to do with sucking up to his big lobbies and contributers. It was all politics. Every medical study and association has said that it has NOTHING to do with protecting a womans health

I call your justification an excuse.

Well I would certainly like to read this. There are instances where pregnancies have been terminated after the 3 month mark because they were necessary.


As for question about religion, we all know that GW has motives outside of saving babies past 3 months, he does not want abortion legal at all. And with this bill it's only a matter of time. Hell I didn't even know that they performed abortions past three months there...they don't here unless the mothers life is at risk etc.,

Anyway, the problem with Bush, and his followers, is he's an extremist. Rather than banning partial birth abortions entirely, the law could have allowed it in certain cases where it is necessary for medical reasons. And yes, there are times when a procedure like this is necessary, whether you like to admit it or not.

They do it all the time here.....for no good reason at all. The way the pro-abortion people seem to see it.....the parents should have the right to kill the kid up to when they are a toddler!

so?? isn't that what a justification is? :eek7

The problem is that women will just slip the Dr. an extra couple of hundred to sign a waiver saying it was for medical reasons......and if it is really necessary, then why would the medical community not say so?

if by partial birth, they mean a second trimester abortion. many of those are necessary for the survival of the mother. these are not commonly done only to avoid motherhood.

i am old enough to remember all the deaths to women caused by abortion being illegal. i knew a couple women who were forced to get abortions in mexico, and ended up with severe infection, one losing her uterus because of the chop jobs they did back then. both these women were in medical jeopardy, not simply careless.

there were many such women in the earliest 70's. now we are going to be there again because people are emotionally engaged against what the procedure seems like versus it's absolute medical necessity to the life of the women in many cases.

Yea sure... it's all a big conspiracy. Everyone's in on it except for you and Bush.

By the way one more time everybody:


BUSH DOESN'T MAKE ANY LAWS.....ONLY CONGRESS CAN DO THAT (THE HOUSE AND SENATE COMBINED)

Not the AMA but it is from the director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers.


"When you're a doctor who does these abortions and the leaders of your movement appear before Congress and go on network news and say these procedures are done in only the most tragic of circumstances, how do you think that makes you feel? You know they're primarily done on healthy women and healthy fetuses, and it makes you feel like a dirty little abortionist with a dirty little secret. I think we should tell them the truth, let them vote and move on. In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along. The abortion-rights folks know it, the anti-abortion folks know it, and so, probably, does everyone else."

--Ron Fitzsimmons, Executive Director for the National Coalition of Abortion Providers The New York Times, February 26, 1997

Someone who actually knows what they're talking about. How refreshing! A beacon in a sea of idiocy.

I tried to edit my previous post. It wasn't the AMA. It was former surgeon general C Everett Koop.

No, with partial birth, they are talking about third trimester. I'm totally pro-choice when it comes to early abortion. I've volenteered and escorted women through the picket lines when the wacko "operation rescue" people were out there.

More from Clinton's Veto message:

"There are, however, rare and tragic situations that can occur in a woman's pregnancy in which, in a doctor's medical judgment, the use of this procedure may be necessary to save a woman's life or to protect her against serious injury to her health. In these situations, in which a woman and her family must make an awful choice, the Constitution requires, as it should, that the ability to choose this procedure be protected."

Anyway how could it possibly be necessary to save the mothers life to kill a baby that is already almost entirely outside of the womb?

Clinton is a known liar. He has no credibility. For that reason his quotes are meaningless.

Page 1 :thumbsup

his christian abortion bullshit was BLOCKED within hours after it was signed.

'A U.S. federal judge has blocked implementation of a law outlawing one particular type of late term abortion. The court order was handed down less than one hour after President Bush signed the measure into law.'

http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?o...C989F732B5D2C0

"But the judge in Nebraska said he has problems with the ban because it does not allow the procedure if it is needed to protect the health of the mother. "

Why does everything related to abortion get watered down to relegious right BS? If you think that the practice of delvering a baby feet first and then stabbing it in the skull with scissors is barbaric that makes you a fucking right winger?

We had this discussion last night and a friend (woman) had the idea that when a woman gets pregnant thats a risk she takes that she might die.

She also feels that abortion itself is wrong due to the many forms of birthcontrol we have now nobody should be getting pregnant unless they want to.

4Pics, i got pregnant on the pill once. a year later, i got pregnant using spermicial foam AND my husband wore a condom that broke - maybe from the foam? because of this, your friend's opinion that with birth control available, no one should be getting pregnant doesn't really impress me.

without abortion, any woman who has vaginal intercourse is risking her life. that doesn't really seem fair as men risk nothing but getting off.

what about teenage girls who aren't capable of making a life decision but who boys are always trying to convince to put out? some of them aren't physically capable of giving birth without severe health problems. are we to make 14 and 15 year olds have babies just because their dates convince them to have sex or even date rape them?

I totally agree with all that your're saying.....but what does any of it have to do with partial-birth abortion?

Are you fucking stupid? When people say Bush, they're talking about him and his administration, you know the people he appointed. This bill was passed because of them, most people realize what a joke Congress is.

Everyone that has a problem with this BILL should be writing their representatives instead of bitching about it here. Someone wrote the bill. Someone sponsored the bill. Someone let the bill make its way to the president.

You don't have to be a religious freak to be pro-life.

Of coarse! I mean come on, better a child DIE a proud Christian than go to hell later, right? No matter what religion you are. :winkwink:

I have a different opinion then she does on this due to me being pro-choice.

But your case is probably really rare. I've never know anyone who had a condom break while their gf was on the pill. Hell I dont even know anyone who uses a condom if the gf is on the pill. That's the whole point of the pill is so we dont have to wear a condom right?

You should try the IUD...

http://www.americanpregnancy.org/pre...nancy/iud.html

I am all for choice, as I feel that we should have the right to make our own decisions not have them made for us already.

i've known women who have had children while on the pill, while using condoms. after the third child she got her tubes tied. it can and does happen.