Who Wants Partial-Birth Abortions

[Truth Soldier]

Interesting blog post:

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/000955.html

So why isn't there a national ban on late-term abortions?

Because the Republicans don't want one.

Now, I know you're thinking I'm nuts. After all, didn't the Republican-dominated congress just pass a ban on "partial birth" abortions, which the Republican president is expected to sign?

Yes, indeed. But - despite their rhetoric to the contrary - the Republicans in congress know that their ban will almost certainly be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. And the funny thing is, the Republicans know perfectly well how to write a constitutional ban on late-term abortions - Sandra Day O'Connor, in her Carhart concurrence, explained very specifically what sort of ban would be constitutional.

Here's another piece of the puzzle. The Republicans in congress don't want a real ban - but the Democrats do. The Democrats have proposed constitutional bans on late-term D&X abortions again and again, and have been voted down by Republicans every time. It doesn't matter how the health ban is worded - the Republicans even rejected Dick Durbin's bill, which would "ban all abortions after a fetus is viable unless two physicians certify that the abortion is necessary to protect the life of the pregnant woman or that she was at risk of grievous injury to her physical health."

So what's going on here?

What's going on is, "partial-birth" abortion is a great issue for Republicans, and they don’t want it to go away. It lets Republican Congresscritters show their pro-life base that they're fighting the good fight and trying to save babies. It lets them portray Democrats who favor banning late-term abortions, but who want a health exemption, as extremist baby-killers. And by concentrating their fire on "partial-birth" abortions, the Republicans get to avoid dealing with the controversial and electorially dangerous issue of first-trimester abortions.

You see, as long as the fight against "partial birth" abortion consumes pro-life attention, Republican politicians get a pass from proposing any serious legislation attacking first-trimester abortion rights in the states. And that's very important to the GOP, because a serious fight against first-trimester abortions would be terrible for the Republicans; it would not only galvanize Democrats, it would create a serious split in the Republican party between pro-life and pro-choice Republicans.

[Aaron Brachowitz]

the Republicans know perfectly well how to write a constitutional ban on late-term abortions - Sandra Day O'Connor, in her Carhart concurrence, explained very specifically what sort of ban would be constitutional.

Maybe you're expecting a little too much deference to the Court from the GOP. After all, a huge number of Americans (though not a majority) think that the Court is simply wrong, not just about PBA but about abortion in general. Also, the ban that would pass the O'Connor test would probably be meaningless in practice.

There's definitely a political aspect to it, although I think it's probably secondary to the desire for a meaningful ban. If your opposition is willing to repeatedly step up and cast votes for killing viable babies, you probably want to have them cast that vote as many times as possible.

And who's really being extreme here -- the side trying to outlaw one specific type of abortion, or the side that insists on absolutely no restrictions on abortion?

[The Mad Hatter]

Originally Posted by Aaron Brachowitz

Maybe you're expecting a little too much deference to the Court from the GOP. After all, a huge number of Americans (though not a majority) think that the Court is simply wrong, not just about PBA but about abortion in general. Also, the ban that would pass the O'Connor test would probably be meaningless in practice.

There's definitely a political aspect to it, although I think it's probably secondary to the desire for a meaningful ban. If your opposition is willing to repeatedly step up and cast votes for killing viable babies, you probably want to have them cast that vote as many times as possible.

And who's really being extreme here -- the side trying to outlaw one specific type of abortion, or the side that insists on absolutely no restrictions on abortion?

Which side is that?

[SCavenger]

That would be the side fabricated by the side who advocates absolutely no abortions.

[yoyo]

Didn't NAARL (sp?) once have a slogan of "abortion on demand without apology"?

[Aaron Brachowitz]

Originally Posted by The Mad Hatter

Which side is that?

That's the status quo right now in this country, which the Democrats are fighting mightily to preserve. To my knowledge, the only restriction on performing an abortion at any point in one's pregnancy is the practical consideration of finding a clinic that will do the job.

[fallout]

Are we really at this point in politics, where political victory completely overshadows the whole point of earning an office?

I mean would a conservative really prefer to have third trimester abortions continue, simply to give him a stick to whack the left with? Doesn't his views on the item at hand matter at all?

I know it's gotten bad, but this bad?

[Tim><]

This will all prove to be irrelevant. SCOTUS will rule against this 6-2.

[The Mad Hatter]

Originally Posted by Zavos

This will all prove to be irrelevant. SCOTUS will rule against this 6-2.

Why 6-2? Did Scalia open his mouth again (too soon)?

[wonderer]

Hasn't the purpose of harvesting fetal brain matter run its course due to other scientific advancements and therefore the need for the procedure has become questionable?

To me, abortion supporters do not like the concept of the line being drawn of mother's rights ending the moment the baby starts coming out. It is my understanding that abortion supporters have been trying to extend the definition of abortion to include the first year after birth.