Dean Urges President Bush Not To Sign The Partial Birth Abortion Bill

[pruner]

BOSTON-- Governor Howard Dean, M.D., urged President Bush not to sign the so-called partial-birth abortion ban into law:

"As a physician, I oppose efforts of politicians to practice medicine as they have done in passing the late term abortion bill, and I strongly urge President Bush not to sign it. There is no such thing in the medical literature as “partial birth abortion.” But there are times when doctors are called upon to perform a late term abortion to save a woman’s life or protect her from serious injury. I urge the President not make it a crime for a doctor to perform such medically necessary procedure.

"If signed, this law will chill the practice of medicine and endanger the health of countless women. Despite what politicians tell you, there is not an epidemic of third trimester abortions in this country. This kind of legislation serves the sole purpose of chipping away women’s constitutionally protected reproductive rights with the ultimate goal of overturning Roe v. Wade.

"I strongly support Planned Parenthood, the Center for Reproductive Rights and the National Abortion Federation in their efforts to overturn the ban on the grounds that it would be overly broad and unconstitutional."

http://blogforamerica.com/

[TLM]

1. How long before Clark and Kerry supporters roll in and

Claim this proves Howard Dean supports infanticide?

[DrFunkenstein]

5. Kerry Kerry Kerry

Or Clark Clark Clark.

Don't be so defensive, racist embracer.;-)

Had to edit to put the smiley. Can't be to sure these days.

[Upfront]

15. We Can Be

sure. You are a big time Dean basher.

[StephNW4Clark]

6. Wow, how uninformed are you...

...considering Clark released a press statement saying that he does not support the ban on partial birth abortion. But hey - continue to foster antipathy.

[TLM]

9. I didn't say Clark would roll in here... but his supporters

who will use anything to bash Dean no matter how baseless or hypocritical their attacks.


next?

[Pastiche423]

10. Could you post his statement here?

And supporters of the other candidates, could you do the same? This is a serious issue that must be screamed OUT LOUD!

The nine candidates are essentially the "heard" voices of our party at this time. It could strengthen our party by coming together.

My brain tilts on the ramifications of this bill. For cripe's sake! We are talking about the lives of many women here!

[VermontDem2004]

2. YES!

But it won't do any good. :evilfrown:

[JohnKleeb]

3. how about you make Bush pot brownies

That may change his mind :evilgrin:
btw good for Dean but something tells me that Bush is gonna sign it, shame really.

[Upfront]

17. Hey John

When will we hear from Dennis?

[Demobrat]

4. Howard Dean sucks the brains out of dead babies.

This proves it.

[Maple]

7. American English is

....er.. interesting to say the least.

[rucky]

14. Reminds me of a South Park episode

Christopher Reeve

[Malva Zebrina]

8. this is a response that is absolutely the unabashed truth

Dean , I think is my man.

[Nikia]

11. He'll sign it though

Just before the last presidential election, a grocery clerk told us that is why we should vote for Bush. That was why she was voting for him. It's a major part of his agenda.

[Alex146]

18. sad yet ture

but hopefully Iraq will turn off these people.

Go Dean!

[iverglas]

12. as a physician

Howard Dean should know better than to fall for the anti-choice shell game which consists of confusing late term abortion with a particular abortion procedure. And that's without even mentioning that the bill in question doesn't refer to a particular abortion procedure, which he does mention.

I oppose efforts of politicians to practice medicine as they have done in passing the late term abortion bill ... . ... But there are times when doctors are called upon to perform a late term abortion to save a woman’s life or protect her from serious injury. ... Despite what politicians tell you, there is not an epidemic of third trimester abortions in this country.

The prohibition imposed by the bill is NOT limited to abortions that are "late-term" (which is generally understood to be the stage corresponding approximately to the third trimester, or viability).

The procedure to which it allegedly refers is used in some NON-late-term abortions -- i.e. in 2nd trimester abortions -- as well as in some "late-term" abortions.

At that stage of pregnancy, the 2nd trimester and pre-viability, according to the US Supreme Court, the state has NO interest that would justify interfering in women's medical choices for any reason other than the health interests of the woman. It doesn't matter WHAT the reason for performing an abortion, or using any procedure for that purpose, is. Unless the state can demonstrate some interest other than what the US SC has already addressed in its decisions, it may NOT restrict the choices available to women for the LEGAL purpose of terminating a 2nd trimester abortion for whatever reason they may have.

As well, in the case of actual late-term abortions, the US SC required that any restriction or prohibition imposed provide an exception for the woman's HEALTH, and not merely her life as this bill does.

What the bill does, and the reasons why it may not do it, taken from Roe v. Wade:

(a) interfere in women's medical choices for reasons
that are NOT related to the health interests of the woman --

For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

(b) interfere in women's medical choices, even when
the state is entitled to do so ("late-term"), without regard
for the woman's HEALTH interests --

For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

It is blatantly unconstitutional legislation, notwithstanding whatever bafflegab about women's health interests the Congress inserted in its rationale in an attempt to establish that it meets those two conditions.

And it would really help if someone as politically and medically knowledgeable as Dean presumably is would not participate in the water-muddying practised for all these years by the anti-choice brigade, and would call the legislation what it is. An unconstitutional violation of rights, according to the US Supreme Court.

Ah, heck, his heart sure seems to be in the right place. Maybe somebody can just get him to put his head there too.

;)
.

[Malva Zebrina]

19. I appreciate the effort you put into your post

thank you. People are really ignorant of why this procedure is done the way it is done. Really very ignorant and it is a shame that fat bellied men in congress have seen fit to legislate the health of women--they do not understand, nor, it appears, do they care about the health of women--all they seem to care about is how they look to the reporters. Those who are ignorant, but religiously inclined toward "life" at any cost, even if it be the life of the mother rather than the life of a fetus who has a brain on the outside of it's skull, or that has only one eye in the middle of it's bulging forehead or that it actually has no mouth at all to feed with, only see the "partial birth abortion" thing as a selfish pursuit of a mother, and believe that women are willfully killing their babies by puncturing their brains and then ejecting them. These are the folks that have not a single idea or a single iota of knowledge when it come to women's health. They simply do not care about the mother.

[iverglas]

20. that much is obvious ;)

"These are the folks that have not a single idea or a single iota
of knowledge when it come to women's health. They simply do not care
about the mother."

Well ... I might not go along with the "no knowledge" part of it, in many cases. I think they know perfectly well -- and still don't care.

You're all round more generous than me:

"Those who are ignorant, but religiously inclined toward 'life'
at any cost, ... only see the 'partial birth abortion' thing as
a selfish pursuit of a mother ..."

I don't think they -- the lawmakers and opinion leaders -- give a shit about "life", or bother to have any opinion at all about women's motivations. They're just out to oppress women, full stop.

What they DO do is play on the addled notions of their followers about "life", and the eagerness of their followers to have confirmation and permission for their belief (if such it is) that women are selfish monsters.

I'm wary of playing that game at all -- of responding by proclaiming how much one values "life" one's self (and that the abortions the dim or disingenuous object to, whatever they are, are not inconsistent with the notions of "life" they profess to hold), or by waxing eloquent about the tragic circumstances in which women have the abortions that they object to.

Because they can always respond by attempting to limit abortions to women and circumstances in which those "qualifications" are met. If we say that women have the abortions they object to (remembering that those abortions are also performed in the 2nd trimester) only because of these terrible threats to their lives or deformities of their z/e/fs, why shouldn't we agree to limit them to those women and those circumstances?

One just does not defend rights by appealing to sympathies like that. Granted -- those sympathies are one of the big reasons we have the concept of "rights" in the first place. We, collectively, don't believe that other people should be forced to suffer hardship, and we recognize their right to make the decisions for themselves that they think best in order to avoid that.

But we wouldn't defend the right of people of colour, say, to ride buses by telling tales about how they might get run over by traffic if they were forced to walk, or how many shoes they would wear out if they couldn't ride. We wouldn't defend the right of atheists to vote by saying how depressed they would get if they weren't permitted to participate in democracy. We say they have a right to ride buses, they have a right to vote. That's where we start, nowadays, now that rights are recognized as something that everyone has and is entitled to exercise.

That's my bitch with Dean, to return to our sheep. He's playing into the hands of those who want to make the exercise of rights conditional on conformity with some image that somehow makes women (in this case) deserving enough to be permitted to exercise their rights. We should simply never fall into the trap of appearing to agree that rights are for the deserving. Rights are for everyone.

Women have the right to terminate their pregnancies, for whatever reason they may have, by whatever means they decide is best, subject only (in the US) to the conditions imposed by the Supreme Court in interpreting the Constitution, *not* by Congress or a state legislature in disregard of the Constitution.

If I were having to pick a candidate (and of course I have the luxury of not having any input into that decision, sitting up here on the globe looking down), that's what I'd be wanting to hear!

Actually -- and hoping I won't be interpreted as taking any candidate's side, just offering an example -- I was relatively impressed by Kucinich's statement on abortion when he did the switch. He (or whoever wrote it) gave a good statement of the issues:

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/issue_rightsreproductive.htm

I have come to believe that it’s not simply about the right to choose, but about a woman’s role in society as being free and having agency and having the ability to make her own decisions. That a woman can’t be free unless she has this right.

The thing is, that is a very good succinct statement about any right. Again, it's why we have the concept of rights. It's very reminiscent of what the Supreme Court of Canada (and especially the esteemed Madam Justice Bertha Wilson) said in 1988:

http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/1988/vol1/html/1988scr1_0030.html

An individual is not a totally independent entity disconnected from the society in which he or she lives. Neither, however, is the individual a mere cog in an impersonal machine in which his or her values, goals and aspirations are subordinated to those of the collectivity. The individual is a bit of both. ... The <Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms> and the right to individual liberty guaranteed under it are inextricably tied to the concept of human dignity. Professor Neil MacCormick ... speaks of liberty as "a condition of human self-respect and of that contentment which resides in the ability to pursue one's own conception of a full and rewarding life" ... .

So ... ahehm ... thank you for enabling yet another of my unrestrained expressions of enthusiasm for human rights.

;)

.

[realFedUp]

13. Bueno

This should have come out last week...but glad
he said it.

[Khephra]

16. He did comment on it last week

Or whenever it was that the Sentate voted it through.