The silver lining of a perforated uterus

[babylonsister]

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/04/the-silver-lining-of-a-perforated-uterus/

The silver lining of a perforated uterus.

The Washington Post today highlights a rift in the anti-choice movement. Several groups believe the Supreme Court’s recent ruling upholding a ban on late-term abortions “was a disaster for their cause” because some late-term abortion procedures would still be legal. But James Dobson’s Focus on the Family supports the Court’s decision. Its reasoning:

“The old procedure , which is still legal, involves using forceps to pull the baby apart in utero, which means there is greater legal liability and danger of internal bleeding from a perforated uterus. So we firmly believe there will be fewer later-term abortions as a result of this ruling.”

In other words, Marty Lederman writes, the Court’s ruling “is especially desirable precisely because the primary alternative method of late-term abortion endangers the health of women.” Scott Lemieux has more here:

http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2007/06/its-allright-mr-kennedy-mu-uterus-is.html

It's Alright Mr. Kennedy, My Uterus Is Only Bleeding
Marty Lederman points us to an interesting WaPo article, in which a few members of America's tiny minority of serious, principled "pro-lifers" have come to see that "Partial Birth" bans are silly, irrational laws whose primary purpose is to separate money from their wallets and funnel it to the Republican Party. Focus on the Family, however, maintains that the bans do have an upside: the law does increase the "danger of internal bleeding from a perforated uterus." If you don't believe me that most of the American forced pregnancy lobby cares a great deal more about punishing women for sexual choices they don't approve of than protecting fetal life, well, I say we take their word for it.

And, again, this explains the sexism in Kennedy's opinion; you take it away, and the legislation has no connection with a legitimate state interest at all. As you can see, most anti-choicers (despite the bad faith Congressional findings that 2+2=171) don't really think that these bans on a safer procedure protect women's physical health. They simply believe that women can't be trusted to make judgments about their own lives, and if this causes some women to be seriously injured that's a feature, not a bug. It's almost impossible to overstate how disgusting this legislation is, and how deeply entwined outright misogyny is with the American "pro-life" movement.

[Iris]

1. wtf? Do they believe because the procedure is more dangerous fewer women will have it?

From all I've been able to gather, a late-term abortion is generally a worst case scenario, so it's unlikely someone would forgo one if she really needed it.

Jeez. These people are so sick. I suppose, if the mother already has young children to care for, it's still better for her to bleed to death and leave her living children motherless than for a fetus that probably has little chance of surviving to die?

[nini]

2. "forceps to pull the baby apart in utero"

forceps? :shrug:



I know someone who lost her baby and almost lost her own life when her uterus perforated during delivery. The fact he thinks that's good in any way shows what a twisted sick piece of shit he really is.