Roger L. Simon: Partial-Birth Abortion

In light of the new Supreme Court decision banning partial-birth abortion, I continue to be troubled by a simple question - just how many PBAs were being performed? A commenter on here wrote last week, as I recall, that there were 50,000 per year. This number struck me as wildly excessive and a brief Google search did not remotely corroborate it. Does anybody have an answer to this? Can anyone substantiate the facts here? Much hunch is that partial-birth abortions were a rare thing indeed - even before they were banned. The numbers were closer to 5000 than 50,000. But I have no evidence of this, only my suspicion. I would be interested in the facts, although I doubt they are easy to get. What is easy to get, although less interesting, are the opinions of the various presidential candidates on the subject.

UPDATE: According to Guttmacher, PBAs were a tiny 0.17% of abortions in 2000. (via Jose Guardia)

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

5000 was the number used on FoxNews' "Beltway Boys" discussion, earlier this evening. I guess it IS better than 50,000, but, damnit, damnit, damn this issue. Or the need for this issue. Or, the frailty at the base of this issue.

Roger,
I got the number by using the pro-abortion citation of "only" 3 to 5 percent of abortions are PBAs. The annual estimate for total abortions in the US is 1.2 to 1.4 million. I used middle 4% and came up with approx. 50,000.

I think I heard it was less than 10% of the total. I would be surprised if it is that much. The idea that women routinely walk into a doctor's office or a clinic in the last weeks of their pregnancies demanding and getting abortions is absurd. Doctors do not do that unless the woman is going to die or something is very wrong with the fetus. After all if the mother dies the fetus will too.

However, I think that people sometimes get confused with what actually constitutes the "health of the mother". Sometimes prochoice people consider emotional health and mental health issues as well as physical health and that is not really the issue. It seems to me that the law specifically bans this procedure, not abortion as a whole...so it does not really change things all that much anyway.

I voted for Bush knowing full well it would mean more conservative justices and probably some restrictions on abortion. I voted for him inspite of the people who show up at women's clinics and harass patients. In spite of the Army of God who threatened people. In spite of the rare but dedicated few who thought that shooting abortion doctors was justified. In spite of men who don't like women trying to make this an issue of men's rights when it is nothing of the kind.

Right now fewer people are calling themselves conservatives and fewer people are calling themselves Republicans.... if you do not want to lose more ground I would suggest that prolife people try to refrain from making this a man's right issue. Your previous remarks that a woman can just end a pregancy anytime because she does not want the responsibility of motherhood are enough to make me wonder if I want to continue to vote this side of the issue.

"In spite of men who don't like women trying to make this an issue of men's rights when it is nothing of the kind."

And I've voted Democratic despite women who hate infants and motherhood opposing men's rights. See how those juvenile characterizations work, Terrye? Both ways. Have some dignity.

I use abortion rights for the very sensible and logical reason that abortion rights for women is the "other side of the coin". It is the most glaring example of the extreme importance that America places on the right to choose or refuse motherdood (and so, fatherhood). That women do not wish for one to be discussed with the other is laughably hypocritical. Try telling women's advocates that they shouldn't compare men's health resources with women's. Or men's sport program availabilty with women's on campus.
But comparing men's rights to women's regarding parenting is wrong? LMAO.

Yeah, Planned Parenthood of North Texas falsely accusing commenters at Roger Simon's website of sending porn to their offices is going to impress too. So does trying to bring RICO charges against anti-abortion protesters. Real "civil rights" people, those pro-abortion organizations. Very impressive.

And keep your vote. You should vote your conscience, as I do, instead of trying to convince others to speak against their's to save the precious anti men's rights voters.

This issue is way more important for its political implications than for the actual substance of the decision.

I was under the impression that the technique was far more rare than even 5000/year, but I'd love to get an accurate number. There are other late-term abortion techniques that will presumably now be used as alternatives.

The issue here is, I think, a long-term win for the pro-choice movement. For more than a decade they've been defending this procedure on a slippery slope grounds. But the procedure itself is so loathsome that many pro-choice people (me, for example) have been so horrified by it that we're willing to set aside the abortion issue altogether when the time comes to cast our votes.

The economist said something that really resonated with me a few years ago. They opined that Roe v Wade was a mistake, not because abortion is wrong, but because unlike every other western country, the matter was decided by judicial fiat rather than public consensus and legislation. Where the subject has actually come to a vote, pro-life candidates lose and eventually the public accepts the result. Right now, the court dictates winners and losers, and everyone else is basically left in the peanut gallery.

I think what you'll see now is one of two things. Either the court is setting up for reversing Roe v Wade altogether (quickly or slowly) or they aren't. Assume they are undermining it. What next? Well, you'll see a host of anti-abortion laws passed in states by pro-life legislators whose constitutents mostly didn't care about their abortion stance because they didn't think it really mattered. When the next election comes around, you'll see a wave of democrats taking over state legislatures. Then a wave of pro-choice Republicans taking over the Republican party. The religious right is small but activist. Give the socially moderate majority a reason to and suddenly things will go very differently.

It will probably push the GOP to the sidelines for 5-10 years while we resolve our internal conflicts, and obviously the implications for foreign policy are terrifying. Not sure what can be done to prevent that.

Pro-choice forces had to be seen to be opposing a partial birth abortion ban, I suppose. But by clearing the decks of an issue that never helped them, I think SCOTUS did them a favor.

(PS: Of course the other possibility is that the court rules that abortion itself is unconstitutional. In that case, there will be blood in the streets. If that happened, you'd find me hiding in the basement with a year's supply of canned food.)

Abortion was legal in California befoe Roe v Wade. A lot of people do not realize that. Secondly, there are some clinics that routinely do late term abortions and one of those physicians has bragged about doing 50,000. Here he is. He is the most prominent proponent of late term abortion and is reputed to abort any pregnancy, no matter how late. Here he claims 10,000 in 5 years. That is an anti-Tiller site but reproduces his own material and quotes former employees.

Speaking of dignity, are you on NOW's payroll? I say that because you are giving credence to the claims of certain women's groups that there is an antifemale element within the prolife community. I don't think you want to do that, it will not help your cause to deliberately alienate half the population.

I actually knew a woman who terminated a pregnancy because she there were serious health issues involved and very real medical problems with the pregnancy. It is not all about role playing and power struggles, sometimes it is just about that woman and her circumstances. But then again, you are a man aren't you? You never had to make that choice did you?

Now matter how late? So you are saying that if a woman is two weeks from delivery and walks into a doctor's office and demands he kill the baby, he will? This is not helpful.

I hesitantly add my thoughts, unpersuasive though they be to pro-abortionists. As a cancer doc, I'm spending my career with Death as the enemy. It is startling, to say the least, to see death so blithely handed out to the unborn. Abortions are not reportable so accurate numbers don't exist; but whooping cough, TB, and syphilis are by law reported, among others.
We have morphed on justifying abortion over time, from saving mother's life to protecting mother's endangered health to just flushing the fetus and invoking privacy as the justifying ethos. In this day and age, pregnancy never threatens maternal life-never- Medicine has been just too good for a long time now. No one dies in childbirth. And endangered health has morphed from organic issues (what about her lupus?)as medicine has coped with those too, to psychologic (it's too stressful for her, what about postpartum depression?), culminating in abortion on demand, no justification needed.

And do consider who's dropping the pups now: the lowest rungs of our social ladder, and we're subsidizing that erosive population production. Add to that our ageing population, and the jobs "Americans won't do" (because we now lack the workers), into which vacuum come the lowest rungs of Mexico in their many millions. Latinas birthing here are 70+% single mamas. You may read this as advocating abortion on demand, when in fact I'm outlining consequences of Roe v Wade.

We are ruining ourselves morally and economically with "A woman's right to choose".

I have for many months seen your posts on this and other blogs, and found myself looking forward to your common sensical and well-expressed views. This issue seems to be a real hot-button for you, and at the risk of sounding like just another clueless male, I don't understand the heat. To me, being *conservative* means erring on the side of caution: Since we don't KNOW when life begins, assuming it starts at conception seems the *safe* choice from the standpoint of the fetus.

From what I've seen the pro-abortion leadership has gone out of its way to encourage abortion, opposing measures such 24-hour waiting periods, etc. I'm not trying to be provocative, but as far as PBAs are concerned, would you be cool with *only* 5000 lynchings per year?

Mike M and TomTom have made some interesting points - I look forward to your responses. I am truly looking for enlightenment here. I don't understand the passion; it's as if you (and many others) fear a return to something out of The Handmaid's Tale.

BTW, I know personally of two abortions by people close to me. Both were solely for the person's convenience.

To me, being *conservative* means erring on the side of caution: Since we don't KNOW when life begins, assuming it starts at conception seems the *safe* choice from the standpoint of the fetus.

Well, Jack... I think you hit the nail on the head. To you, being *conservative* means something far different than the traditional use of the word in political terms. Usually conservative political groups are erring on the side of caution with regard to the government, its power and its reach... not erring on the side of cautions metaphysics as a basis for creating laws. I'm not trying to belittle your position, only point out one of the reasons that I think the abortion issue has become such a problem within the Republican party. The conservative point of view that you have is something different, and in many cases opposite of what traditional conservatives would hold.

A traditional conservative would argue against Roe v. Wade because it was a Federal ruling that overpowered the State and its citizens right to vote on the issue for their state. However, a traditional conservative would also be against Federal rulings against abortion, since it would overpower the State and its citizens right to vote on the issue for their state. Further, some traditional conservatives would be against any law regarding the legality of abortion, as it would be seen as government activity in the affairs of individuals.

That being said, I find partial birth abortions disgusting and can't imagine why anyone would choose, in the final weeks of pregnancy, to kill, rather than put up for adoption, the child. However, I am not their god, nor am I their doctor. If it is a sin and some deity exists, then I figure he can handle the problem. If it is not a good medical practice, then I would expect the AMA etc to make it an unacceptable practice.

However, neither I, nor any politician that I've yet seen, appears qualified as God or the personal doctor of each patient either... and surely none of them are qualified to interpret some metaphysical question such as "When does life start?"

So, it seems easy to see how conservative groups like the Republicans will need to figure out what they stand for. If they approve federal laws about abortion, then they lose ground for fighting federal gun laws, federal laws on privacy etc. so it appears a tricky puzzle for them to sort out.

I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see the conservatives split into two groups... the more centrist might even pull off a few centrist dems. That wouldn't be bad, three parties might be quite helpful for the government at this point.

Approximately 60% of Americans have been really stable on abortion for over 35 years - don't like it, won't pay for it, but won't tell them what to do. Medical technology has changed this.

There was a study last year IIRC about our youth, they don't like it. They are more conservative regarding abortion, which makes sense, since some of them might have been the pick of the litter.

this was a states rights issue from the get-go. IIRC, there's a book on the history of the USSC that was published w/in the past 2 years and it stated that the judges thought this would be a non-issue.

They needlessly split the country. When it goes back to where it should have been, the states, it'll be interesting.

For example, IIRC, MO has a more restrictive policy than IL, so abortions are performed here. But the MO legislature said you can perform them, we're not reimbursing you. IL was not happy.

The people who are really having abortions aren't the young, it's the 30-40 y.os.

But Terrye, there are those who use abortion as birth control that needs to be slowed down. I'm only wriring that as ancedotal, I was on a forum once where a woman's sister was a nurse, pro, but she saw the lower income coming in for abortion 4-5-6-7-8, she started getting squeamish.

Even SD couldn't get the bill passed. There will never be a total ban, those who believe that are living in la-la land.

What's interesting is wait until those same kids who were pick of the litter don't have qualms about pulling the plug on their parents....earlier and earlier.

--If they approve federal laws about abortion, then they lose ground for fighting federal gun laws, federal laws on privacy etc. so it appears a tricky puzzle for them to sort out.--

Using the figure of 1.3 Million as the number of abortions (Guttmacher Institute) .......0.017 as the % of late term abortions....would give you about 22,100 Late Term abortions.

I believe in a womans right to choose......however, I think LTA's are ethically wrong. It is barbaric.

1. It's always been a case of judicial overreach for me. I don't like abortion one bit, but I think the way to stop it is to *convince* people that it is wrong. That can't happen when the courts give both sides cover. And frankly, I see it as a nasty symptom of a larger problem.

2. If people think that women don't get late-term abortions, pretending they are for health reasons, when they aren't--they don't know what they are talking about. I'll not break confidentially agreements even though they are long expired, but for many years I worked heavily with federal medicaid reporting, including abortion, sterilization, child screening, and other such--for multiple, highly varied states. In *some* states, women rarely get abortions for bogus "health reasons". In others, the doctors will list "health reasons" for what is actually a hang nail, then do the abortion. I've seen the numbers. I've seen the related diagnosis codes and procedures and medical histories. I've talked to the case workers and the doctors and nurses that do the insurance reviews. Everyone involved knows what goes on.

Without the so called "social conservatives", there is no appreciable wedge of fiscal conservatives, in either party. The small slice of libertarians, a few classical liberals with "good steward" streaks in both parties, and the "social conversatives" *are* the fiscal conservatives. The rest of the fiscal conservatives could have their convention in the Podunk center. I say this every time that a commentator like Wellspring tries to whistle past the graveyard, and no one yet has bothered to engage. Go dig deep in some polls or read Michael Barone for awhile, if you don't believe me.

dclydew, if three p[arties are better than two, then might not four or six be better than three? The whole magic of the number 'two' is that it's neither one-party rule, nor is it coalitions of sets of populist factions making issue-by-issue coalitions, with all the attendant evils that will likely follow (hot-button referendums, constitutional conventions, &c, for starters). 'Two parties' forces each party to moderate internally, before coming out to the general election. A third party in USA now would solidify radicalism all the way around.

Pubs are just going to have to figure this issue out, or hand over the country to the best organized faction--the hard left even now trying to take over the Dem party. We need to get our game face on here, folks, or kiss it all goodbye for a generation (or maybe much more).

IOW, we also have to make sure we have a country for all the babies that are not disposed of.

--If they approve federal laws about abortion, then they lose ground for fighting federal gun laws, federal laws on privacy etc. so it appears a tricky puzzle for them to sort out.--

I think you may be confused. The Bill of Rights and all amendments are not the extent of our protected rights. Rather, the 9th amendment provides that the list is not exhaustive and that we have rights beyond those specifically mentioned in the Constitution. As Justice Goldburg stated "...the Ninth Amendment shows a belief of the Constitution's authors that fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments and an intent that the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive."

Thus, that which is not explicitly allowed or denied by the US Constitution, has (until recent history) been held by conservatives as reserved to the People or the State. The Constitution doesn't explicitly state that "some guns can/can't be banned", it only states that citizens (a millitia specifically) has the right to bear arms. The Federal government could rule that we all get muzzle loaders and everything else is illegal and it would break the technical statements of the Constitution. Traditional Conservatives would argue (and I would agree) that this doesn't meet the spirit of the amendment, or of the 9th. The specifics for implementation should be left up to the state, not the federal government.

Abortion is in the same spot. There is no statement in the Constitution about it, if anything, the Supreme Court has accepted that an inferred right to privacy does apply here. Thus, as long as the right to privacy is respected, the actual implementation of the law (without Roe v. Wade) would be left up to the states.

From a philosophical standpoint, it appears much better to keep as many laws local as possible. The general population of the citizens of New York is no more or less American than the general population of the citizens of Mississippi, or Alaska, California or any of the 50 states. However, the personal political views of Mississippi, California, Alaska, New York and Ohio are vastly different. They have different concerns, different circumstances and different perceptions of life in this country. Anytime we presume to lay down law for ALL citizens at the federal level, we are failing to take into account the huge philosophical, religious and social differences in our 50 states. The larger the group, the more difficult and divisive the politics. This is why our founders tried to leave most decisions in the hands of the States or the Individuals, enumerating only those points that they felt were absolutely necessary for the federal government.

I would be wildly happy for most of the divisive issues of today (with the exception of the war) to be dealt with at a local level. What must be dealt with at a State level, deal with at a State level, what can be dealt with at a local level, deal with it at a local level, what can be left up to the individual... leave to the individual.

I support the right of a town/village/city to pass a "smoking ban" within the confines of its city limits (though I would prefer to see the business owners held responsible for meting the needs of their clientèle). At a State level though, this law becomes much more authoritarian. At a Federal level it would be totalitarian.

Abortion, I think should be addressed by the state. If a state wants to spend state dollars on paying for abortions (and the citizens vote for that) then I say let them. If another state wants to outlaw them (except in emergency situations, if such exist) then I say thats fine too.

The entire debate over abortion exists at a metaphysical level. Metaphysics, I think, are best left to individuals... but, practical implementation of civil society may require State laws about the subject. However, I think it would be wrong for the federal government to impose its Will over the people when it comes to things that are ethereal and philosophical.

There are going to be people who use abortion as birth control whether it is legal or not.

I never had children and that broke my heart. I can not imagine getting an abortion myself for that reason among others, but I also that sometimes people find themselves in impossible situations to which there are no magic answers and that when push comes to shove there are times when we have to make certain decisions for ourselves, and other people should not be able to control those decisions, not always.

Now I do think that issues like parental notification and other family issues should always remain with families. The idea that some 14 year old girl could get an abortion and her parents not even know strikes me as wrong headed in every way.

But there is a tendency among some more fanatical members of the prolife movement to go the other way and assume that abortion is just a woman's way of avoiding responsibility.

I will say this, I have known a lot more men to abandon their children than women and while there are exceptions to every rule most women would never deliberately abandon or harm or destroy their own child. I just think we need to be careful that we don't create a situation in which the end result is the opposite of what the prolife movement wants.

If we were truly still split along Jeffersonian/Hamiltonian ideals I would cede your point. However, we no longer have that clear philosophical divide. We are two parties of random unassociated issues (usually whichever ones are likely to pull in a couple votes here or there). As Jefferson stated:

"Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call them, therefore, liberals and serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, whigs and tories, republicans and federalists, aristocrats and democrats, or by whatever name you please, they are the same parties still and pursue the same object. The last appellation of aristocrats and democrats is the true one expressing the essence of all."

Neither current party fits with either of these ideals. Current Republican and Democratic platforms contain a confusing mash of distrust of the people and distrust of the government with neither party being more or less consistent.

There is no party for the man who supports the defense of America and the defense of individual freedom. There is no party in America that supports a strong federal government and the removal of power from the people.

The Republicans currently in power fit the "number 2" party of Jefferson's time on Guns and taxes, but they fit the "number 1" party when it comes to abortion, gay marriage, creating democracy through force etc. The Democrats fit the "number 1" party on Guns, Defense and personal prayer in school, but then take up the "number 2" mantle when taking on issues of medical marijuana, abortion etc.

Then there are the extremes on both sides which seem aristocratic on all fronts... at least they're consistent.

I am of the opinion that we would be better off with parties that have internal consistency. Based on current political views, I would guess that a centrist "democratic" style party with liberal and conservative "aristocratic" parties on either side. I think that the central party would be much larger and more powerful, which would force the smaller extremes to compromise, rather than having both active parties compromising constantly to meet the extremes of only the left or right.

"There are going to be people who use abortion as birth control whether it is legal or not."

Sorry, Terrye, but there will be a lot more that use it the more easy it is to obtain. Especially if the law says that they don't have to confront the choices being made. It's that way with every ugly decision in life.

It's a sad commentary on a society when it actively works to undermine adoption because of racial nonsense and worries that more open, supportive adoption procedures will undercut abortion. That is what abortion proponents (and racial hucksters) have come to. They'll cut off a lot of noses to spite all our faces.

The *only* good thing about the number of abortions in this country is that it is ultimately self-correcting. Any movement that works to cut down the next generation within it's members is a movement destined to fail.

Sounds great except for one little thing. Power corrupts. Such a party would have power for a very long time, with the natural consequences. You are wanting a party of Joe Lieberman and John McCain at their best moments. What you would get more often is a party of Joe Biden and Chuck Hagel at their worst.

Not the most awful form of government every envisioned, but one on a long, slow, sure trajectory to France, minus the elan, charm, and culture.

There is only one issue re: LTA: Is a LTA a homicide? If it isn't then the issue is moot. If it is a homicide then the issue becomes one of the right of the mother to self-defense.

A person can kill another person if they are threatened with death but can a person kill another person if they are threatened with harm but not death? And if they only run the risk of harm, then how much harm can they inflict on the other party in order to defend themselves? So, in matters of self-defence, there is the issue of proportionaity.

If a woman runs the risk of death then she is entitled to commit a homicide. But if she only runs the risk of harm can she commit a homicide to protect herself? The particular problem with LTA is the one of proportionality. Proportionality of response to possible harm is not possible.

So, other than the threat of death, how much harm does a woman have to be threatened with in order to justify a homicide?

I am not a woman so some may think that I have no stake in this. But I think I do. Permit me to offer up this scenario: my wife is late term pregnant. She is in a coma. The Doc says the conditions surrounding delivery make the delivery very risky. If the risk is death then I would not only permit but would order a termination. If the risk was one of harm then the question then becomes: how much harm? Would there be permanent harm of temporary harm? Permant harm? I would go ahead with termination. Temporary harm? No termination.

This rationale may seem cold blooded but that is as it should be. Thinking should be cold blooded. Action should be passionate. Not vice versa.

I don't disagree that this would be dangerous. I think that the fringe parties would probably see a rather heavy evolution over the next decade or so and probably create some additional competition. However, the two parties that we have today seem corrupted by power, so how is the two party system any cleaner?

Finally, any system, I think will become corrupt... that's why Jefferson said that the tree of liberty needed watered with blood every few generations. I often muse about the state of that tree, having gone so long with a good watering. ;-)

The point of the two party system is that for minimum corruption (not zero, that not being possible), you need two viable parties. The only way to have two viable parties is to have two parties with a real shot at taking it all. The best way to have that, is to rig the game (with things like winner take all electoral votes).

We will have monkeys pulling the levers of power. It's better to have two 400 lb. gorillas and a few miscellaneous monkeys instead of one 800 lb. gorilla and a lot more monkeys. :)

If you want to be technical about it, I suppose the best form would be four parties. One center-left and one center-right dance around the middle, with each representing the Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian ideals best they can. (Both guys were pretty kooky when considered alone. It was only the fight between them and their partisans that kept us on solid middle ground.) Two other parties on the extremes serve as an outlet, get marginal representation (about 10% of the house seats, an odd senator or three) to keep them in the game, but have no shot at running anything. Every now and then, they champion an idea whose time as come long enough for one of the major parties to finally run with it.

Come up with a power plan that makes that possible, and we'll talk. (From what I've read of game theory as it applies to politics, I don't think it is possible. But I'm no expert.)

Or you could just cut to the chase, somehow break the Media power that makes GOPers feel hounded all the time and makes Dems drunk with potential, and go back to having two parties that would tolerate some variation, but not anti-American behavior.

A partisan media that pretends objectivity enables bad behavior on both sides. Better to have an openly partisan media, with a handful of outlets that earn a reputation for close to objective reporting.

SM, your last two posts describe something very much like what we have, in informal form.

Regionalism is another complication for dclydew's improved system. In fact, without two and only two parties, regionalism could break the union, in a very short two or three steps of logical evolution. Don't EVEN have a Dixie party, and then elect a Ted Kennedy or somesuch.

You want your Georgia liberal to align with your Oregon liberal on the basis of ideas, not with your Georgia conservative on the basis of being fellow Georgians.

I am not debating partial birth abortion. If the people want to make that illegal and require different options, then so be it. I am talking about the broader issue of whether or not the state can make abortion illegal under all circumstances oblvious to the feelings of the woman who is in fact pregnant. I also think that if the woman's life is on the line, there should be no question that she has the right to live herself.

You want your Georgia liberal to align with your Oregon liberal on the basis of ideas, not with your Georgia conservative on the basis of being fellow Georgians.

I'm not sure I agree with this view. I want Americans to align with Americans that share their philosophical values. Unfortunately, neither party seems to have any clear standard when it comes to their philosophy. They speak only of Issue X and Issue Y, even if the two issue are diametrically opposed from a philosophical standpoint. Regionalism, I think wouldn't be as much of a risk in this day and age of world encompassing communication, but it could be, I'll grant you.

I agree with your assessment in this discussion, four parties would be good, though the two centrist parties would, I fear compromise quite a bit of their position to win the votes of the fringe. That's why I had originally mentioned three so the center would either have to stay center, or work with both extremes. Of course, this would only work as long as the split was 25/50/25 give or take 10%. In the harsh reality of day, its probably untenable.

Maybe just a good housecleaning on the part of both parties (and a little soul searching based on Jefferson's statement above) would really clear up a lot of my perceived issues. As it is though, without either new challengers or a major rethink on the part of the DNC and RNC, I fear that we will have only the choice between Authoritarian and Authoritarian, different only in which bits of individual lives they'd like to be in control of. That doesn't strike me as a good thing for our nation.

I also think that the mainstream media could do with a good housecleaning as well. Unlike you, I don't think they have a strong political bias, but rather they seem to have a strong Green bias (they are biased to the stories that bring them more green). I think part of this has to do with the media conglomerates and their drive for $$ over valuable reporting. I think another part of it has to do with capitalism... they're giving the market what they want (apparently) constant news of bad things, horrible events and potential disasters.

In the great scheme of things, I think we're much better off discussing these issues than that of abortion anyway. ;-)

I don't know Buddy, but I think it may be the first time that I have ever agreed 100% with your post ;-)

This started off with a question about the numbers. The math (also illustrated above) follows:

My guess is that the real numbers are much higher, but it's hard to know given the unreported nature of abortion.

Approximately 50 million abortions have been performed since the Roe v. Wade decision. Maybe 1% involves the health of the mother or heinous acts such as rape or incest. That means "other" reasons, including convenience, account for the overwhelming majority of abortions. What does one call 49.5 million lost lives?

We cringe at the Islamists blowing up children to disguise car bombs. We mourn for the more than 3,000 American soldiers who have made the ultimate sacrifice.

Yet in the last six years (the period of the war in Iraq), more than 13,200 partial birth abortions have been performed, if you accept the 0.17% number.

Abortion, in general, is a tradgey - for the mother and for the fetus. Partial birth abortion is barbaric and horrifying. I can only imagine the scars on the psyche of women who have made this choice. (Yes, I am sure there are many men who mourn too.)

My personal view revolves around the sanctity of life. Anything else leads to a slippery slope. Some of the implications have been articulated above, including euthanasia. Just where does adverse slection stop?

Regarding the law, abortion is a legislative issue and should be left to the states.

Regarding policy, anything that weakens the nuclear family should be questioned. Johnson's Great Society has done more to fragment the family and has foisted untold costs on individuals and collectively society. Whether it is tax or social policy, we should act to strengthen the family. (By the way, I am not calling for a socialism in any way.) Our society will be stronger for it.

Well, it's not as if previous versions of Congress have all been paragons of virtue compared to the present bunch. There has *always* been a substantial number of lightweights in the Congress. Granted, you don't usually see them as light as Hastert and Pelosi, especially not in series with a change of power, but they are there all the time.

I bow to no one in my preference for federalism, but it's not as if that's a total cure, either. All that will do is encourage some of the lightweights to stay in a state where the power is, rather than go to Congress. (The benefit, of course, is that only Mass. has to put up with Ted Kennedy. The danger is that Ted Kennedy has a lot more power in that state, then.) For it to really work, you'd have to have federally mandated push of some power from the states to local governments. (Education is so messed up in Alabama precisely because the state runs it.)

I said the media are "enablers", and it was a very deliberate word choice. The whole "sound-bite" thing is stupid. I've often thought that a real campaign finance reform would consist of three simple parts:

2. No campaign pitch of any kind can ever appear on screen or radio. Knock yourself out in print.

3. If you want to propose policy (as official, candidate, or interested third party), feel free to have your policy statement read aloud on TV or radio by trained commentators.

I think you have some very valid points there... though I don't find Ted Kennedy having power in Mass as a bad thing. If the people like what he does, then let him do it... if they don't like it, they can kick his arse out. I have often thought that they send him off to Washington, because they won't have to actually deal with him as anything other than a powerful provider in DC. Sorta like Ted Stevens in Alaska.

Quick answer: George Wallace with even more power in Alabama. If you don't think Ted Kennedy in Mass. could be that bad in his own way, then read "The Prince" again. :)

Always hard to argue against populism, but as a national governing philosophy it's a huge ongoing gamble.

Well, let's see... Abortions of any kind are not recorded or reported. That leads me to believe that any statistics regarding same are bogus. So...let's throw out all numbers given above...

Let's get down to the issue...do you care about abortions occurring...yes or no?

Okay, should the justice system really have anything to do with this? Should states decide legality? Should this be seen as throwing out the trash?

It really does seem to depend upon whether you might be the Father or whether the Mother does not wish to have a baby. Whatever you decide, you DO have to live with your decision... and yes, a life depends upon it...

About ten percent of abortions are in the second or third trimester. Some second trimester procedures involve dismatling the kid in utero, but are not PBAB. Third trimester deliveries are not abortions, but delivery of a live kid to save the mom, but some people call these "abortions", because in medicine abortion means early loss of a pregnancy from any means.

When done for mom's life or genuine health problems, you don't do Partial Birth abortion because it is not a safe and accepted medical procedure. The risk of hemorrhage, perforation of the uterus, and future miscarriages is high.

But having a live crying 2 lb baby with Down's syndrome or myelocoel (both compatible with long life but with mild retardation) in a mom who incorrectly was informed that the baby would be a " vegetable" is upsetting to all concerned. Hence partial birth abortion which guarantees a dead kid.

And, alas, most partial birth abortions are done on teens who hide their pregnancy and when the parents find out, they prefer killing a healthy grandkid to being ridiculed at the church or country club. One clinic in NJ reported over 1000 cases, mostly on teens...

Doing PBAB on a live baby who could live is barbarian, and the "yuck factor" (to use Arthur Caplan's term) is high, which is why most people wanted it banned.

Presumably, injecting the kid's heart with Kcl to stop the heart and then doing a safer delivery for mom of a dead kid is more acceptable in our society.

Just where do you get your statistics? Since abortions are NOT tracked medically, I don't see think your comments are necessarily true.

Oh, and those medically necessary abortions are probably so rare as to be insignificant.

That's the major problem, most abortions are actually done for convenience rather that necessity.

I know this is not PC according to some here...but,
this latest effort by the Supreme Court was not only right but but of course needs to go much farther.

It does not matter if the numbers are small or large, they all need to be stopped!

My god, killing a late term "baby" for any reason except that the Mother would die in the process of delivery is just simply murder. This includes all late term abortions, partial birth killings included.

"UPDATE: According to Guttmacher, PBAs were a tiny 0.17% of abortions in 2000. (via Jose Guardia)"

No, via Wikipedia then Jose. That's the Wikipedia citation for PBA. So now we are depending on citations that Wikipedia uses to settle issues? Does that count for Palerstinian/Israeli issues too? Political issues? Ever heard of researchers selecting statistics?

I read part of an interview with an abortion provider who stated that he himself performed over a thousand in his career. But the whole industry only does a couple thousand a year?

By the way, Wikipedia comes up right quick on a google PBA search. I'm guessing that it is where the statistic was found. It would have been more accurate to mention who was employing the statistic, so that we could better judge its use.

April 18, 2007: Partial-Birth Abortion - the numbers game

Comments

Post a comment

Email This Post