Partial-Birth Abortion, Drugs and Hurricanes
(CWA) 9/14/2004
By Jan LaRue, CWA’s Chief Counsel
Tragically, surviving the womb depends on seeking shelter with mother rather than from mother.
Three federal judges have now declared that the ban on partial-birth abortion (PBA) is unconstitutional because it has no exception for preserving a woman’s health. All three cite the mandate in the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in 2000 in Stenberg v. Carhart.
Most folks probably think that the Court is referring only to a risk to her health that stems from the pregnancy itself. And they would be very wrong. But they shouldn’t be embarrassed; Justice Clarence Thomas thought the same thing.
The “health risk” is more than that. According to the majority in Stenberg, it means that a woman with a perfectly healthy pregnancy of any gestation may not be denied a particular abortion procedure, no matter how barbaric or inhumane it may be, if she and her abortionist think it’s safer for her as compared to another abortion method. Lest you find that hard to believe, here’s what Justice Stephen Breyer, who wrote for the majority, said in Stenberg:
Justice Thomas says that the cases just cited limit this principle to situations where the pregnancy itself creates a threat to health. He is wrong. The cited cases, reaffirmed in Casey, recognize that a State cannot subject women’s health to significant risks both in that context, AND ALSO where state regulations force women to use riskier methods of abortion. Our cases have repeatedly invalidated statutes that in the process of regulating the methods of abortion, imposed significant health risks.
… The State fails to demonstrate that banning D&X [the medical term for partial-birth abortion] without a health exception may not create significant health risks for women, because the record shows that significant medical authority supports the proposition that in some circumstances, D&X would be the safest procedure. [Emphasis in original.]
Just as an aside, we weren’t aware of any “force[d]” abortions other than in China. What we do have in Breyer’s statements is an admission that abortion is risky and some methods impose “significant health risks.” Women, take note.
Martin Haskell, M.D., who perfected the breech version of the D&X procedure, testified at trial when the Wisconsin PBA ban was litigated in the federal district court. The U.S. Court of Appeals referred to Haskell’s damaging testimony when it upheld the Wisconsin and Illinois PBA bans in Hope Clinic v. Ryan in 1999:
None of the physicians would state unequivocally that the D&X procedure is safer than the D&E* procedure. Broekhuizen conceded that further study of the procedures is required. Smith admitted that he had never encountered a situation where D&X would have been the best procedure to use. Haskell, who invented the procedure, admitted that the D&X procedure is never medically necessary to save the life or preserve the health of a woman. Giles agreed.
When it comes to weighing conflicting expert testimony, you would think that the Supremes would do what the 7th Circuit did—take it from the horse’s mouth. It’s never “medically necessary.”
The last judge who ruled in the Nebraska case, who managed to kill another tree with his 480+ page ruling, wasn’t even concerned about calling his impartiality into question. He refused to allow any doctor to testify as an expert witness who hadn’t performed a PBA.
In another case, The Washington Times reported on September 10 on page A-8 that Oklahoma prosecutors have charged a woman with first-degree murder after she gave birth to a dead baby boy. They claim that her illicit drug use during her pregnancy caused his death.
This is another example that, when it comes to killing unborn children, we are living in parallel legal universes where the rules differ according to who does the killing. If the charges are true, should she be prosecuted? Absolutely.
But what if she finds some “expert witness” who testifies in her defense: “It was a late-term abortion using a safer procedure. This woman is a long-term drug user whose health is less threatened by using drugs to induce abortion. Any other procedure would be far riskier for her.” And what if the judge won’t allow the state’s expert to testify if he or she has never prescribed illicit drugs? And who are these prosecutors to invade her privacy and interfere with her “reproductive freedom”?
But there’s another story with a happy ending. As Hurricane Frances roared through Stuart, Florida, on September 4, Amanda Jones, who was almost nine months pregnant, sought shelter with her family in the Suburban Lodge. In the midst of the storm, Amanda’s water broke, and there was no way to get to a hospital.
Earlier in the afternoon, Amanda met Lori Nelson, a woman in the room two doors down. Lori just happened to be a midwife who has delivered almost 1,000 babies. She had decided at the last minute to take her tools with her as she left her home seeking refuge from Frances. After giving Amanda a courtesy examination, the women parted with a joke about being prepared if anything happened. At 7:11 p.m., with the able help of Lori, Maranda Lynn Bennett was born, and her father David cut the umbilical cord.
Lori told a reporter for the St. Petersburg Times, “It’s really kind of amazing, how we got brought together. It was just one of those destiny things.”
* In a D&E, or dilation and evacuation, abortion, which is used in the second trimester, the abortionist dilates the cervix and then uses a forceps to cut up the baby and remove it piece by piece from the uterus.
~ Posted by Jean M. Heimann
(CWA) 9/14/2004
By Jan LaRue, CWA’s Chief Counsel
Tragically, surviving the womb depends on seeking shelter with mother rather than from mother.
Three federal judges have now declared that the ban on partial-birth abortion (PBA) is unconstitutional because it has no exception for preserving a woman’s health. All three cite the mandate in the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in 2000 in Stenberg v. Carhart.
Most folks probably think that the Court is referring only to a risk to her health that stems from the pregnancy itself. And they would be very wrong. But they shouldn’t be embarrassed; Justice Clarence Thomas thought the same thing.
The “health risk” is more than that. According to the majority in Stenberg, it means that a woman with a perfectly healthy pregnancy of any gestation may not be denied a particular abortion procedure, no matter how barbaric or inhumane it may be, if she and her abortionist think it’s safer for her as compared to another abortion method. Lest you find that hard to believe, here’s what Justice Stephen Breyer, who wrote for the majority, said in Stenberg:
Justice Thomas says that the cases just cited limit this principle to situations where the pregnancy itself creates a threat to health. He is wrong. The cited cases, reaffirmed in Casey, recognize that a State cannot subject women’s health to significant risks both in that context, AND ALSO where state regulations force women to use riskier methods of abortion. Our cases have repeatedly invalidated statutes that in the process of regulating the methods of abortion, imposed significant health risks.
… The State fails to demonstrate that banning D&X [the medical term for partial-birth abortion] without a health exception may not create significant health risks for women, because the record shows that significant medical authority supports the proposition that in some circumstances, D&X would be the safest procedure. [Emphasis in original.]
Just as an aside, we weren’t aware of any “force[d]” abortions other than in China. What we do have in Breyer’s statements is an admission that abortion is risky and some methods impose “significant health risks.” Women, take note.
Martin Haskell, M.D., who perfected the breech version of the D&X procedure, testified at trial when the Wisconsin PBA ban was litigated in the federal district court. The U.S. Court of Appeals referred to Haskell’s damaging testimony when it upheld the Wisconsin and Illinois PBA bans in Hope Clinic v. Ryan in 1999:
None of the physicians would state unequivocally that the D&X procedure is safer than the D&E* procedure. Broekhuizen conceded that further study of the procedures is required. Smith admitted that he had never encountered a situation where D&X would have been the best procedure to use. Haskell, who invented the procedure, admitted that the D&X procedure is never medically necessary to save the life or preserve the health of a woman. Giles agreed.
When it comes to weighing conflicting expert testimony, you would think that the Supremes would do what the 7th Circuit did—take it from the horse’s mouth. It’s never “medically necessary.”
The last judge who ruled in the Nebraska case, who managed to kill another tree with his 480+ page ruling, wasn’t even concerned about calling his impartiality into question. He refused to allow any doctor to testify as an expert witness who hadn’t performed a PBA.
In another case, The Washington Times reported on September 10 on page A-8 that Oklahoma prosecutors have charged a woman with first-degree murder after she gave birth to a dead baby boy. They claim that her illicit drug use during her pregnancy caused his death.
This is another example that, when it comes to killing unborn children, we are living in parallel legal universes where the rules differ according to who does the killing. If the charges are true, should she be prosecuted? Absolutely.
But what if she finds some “expert witness” who testifies in her defense: “It was a late-term abortion using a safer procedure. This woman is a long-term drug user whose health is less threatened by using drugs to induce abortion. Any other procedure would be far riskier for her.” And what if the judge won’t allow the state’s expert to testify if he or she has never prescribed illicit drugs? And who are these prosecutors to invade her privacy and interfere with her “reproductive freedom”?
But there’s another story with a happy ending. As Hurricane Frances roared through Stuart, Florida, on September 4, Amanda Jones, who was almost nine months pregnant, sought shelter with her family in the Suburban Lodge. In the midst of the storm, Amanda’s water broke, and there was no way to get to a hospital.
Earlier in the afternoon, Amanda met Lori Nelson, a woman in the room two doors down. Lori just happened to be a midwife who has delivered almost 1,000 babies. She had decided at the last minute to take her tools with her as she left her home seeking refuge from Frances. After giving Amanda a courtesy examination, the women parted with a joke about being prepared if anything happened. At 7:11 p.m., with the able help of Lori, Maranda Lynn Bennett was born, and her father David cut the umbilical cord.
Lori told a reporter for the St. Petersburg Times, “It’s really kind of amazing, how we got brought together. It was just one of those destiny things.”
* In a D&E, or dilation and evacuation, abortion, which is used in the second trimester, the abortionist dilates the cervix and then uses a forceps to cut up the baby and remove it piece by piece from the uterus.
~ Posted by Jean M. Heimann
Comments
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated and are published at the blogger's discretion.