Planned Parenthood – Post Abortion Rights

[Tesla]

I’m not interested in discussing the pro-life vs. pro-choice abortion rights as I am sure a general discussion would soon devolve and the thread would be rightfully ended. If possible could pro-choice bloggers comment on today’s news as to PP arguing for the post abortion right to terminate the life of a baby born alive due to a botched abortion:

—-

Rep. Jose Oliva followed up, asking the Planned Parenthood official, “You stated that a baby born alive on a table as a result of a botched abortion that that decision should be left to the doctor and the family. Is that what you’re saying?”

Again, Snow replied, “That decision should be between the patient and the health care provider.”

---

As you know, Roe vs. Wade, as controversial as it was at the time limited abortion rights to the first trimester ONLY. So, my opinion is that if the law as passed in Roe v Wade were followed, there would be no live births due to botched abortions and we would not have to decide if these rights give the woman the right to terminate the life of a living baby already born? If this right is granted does anyone agree that this is a new slippery slope which might extend choice to terminate the life of a living baby already born and separate from the mother’s body longer and longer? There used to be an argument as to when a bunchof tissue becomes a viable human thus not eligible to abort..but that argument is moot as there is no time limit anymore. But seriously, post birth right to terminate life of baby? Is this worth fighting no matter if one is prochoice or pro life? If right to terminate living babies set as a legal prescedent, could it be used to allow terminations for living babies not aborted?

Share This

[JanS]

While I am on the pro-choice side…if a baby is born live, then that child, I’m thinking, should have a chance to live. Yes, the birth mother doesn’t want it, but it is alive. Chances are this infant would die a natural death in the near future, as it would be very premature.But…it’s alive outside the womb…

You raise a good question…if given the right to kill these infants, what’s to stop anyone from killing any newborn infant…that would be right around the corner. It’s a slippery slope…

Share This

[Tesla]

Thanks for keeping the discussion focused on post birth rights. I wondered why news stroies re this issue have been increasing so I just did some reasearch and found this document re status rights as of March 23, 2013. I don’t know the bais of the institute, but it seems pretty balanced “just the facts” at first glance anyway.

http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_PLTA.pdf

Possibly the fact that partial birth abortions (which most definetley ensures fetal death) have been banned in many states (after the process was revealed), has forced other procedures which make the chance of live births more possible. There is one doctor on trial now related to a 32 or 33 week fetus.

Primarily I was just so surprised that PP would even start a fight fight for rights to terminate after a live birth. While the mother had time to prepare for the decision to abort…I think it would be cruel to force a quick decision to have her live baby terminated. That is a totally different decision level, I imagine. That’s why I’d fear the courts would eventually allow “sufficient time” (day, week, year?) to make an informed decision; ergo the slippery slope on many levels. I would like to think most people would be in favor of not allowing post birth rights, period.

Share This

[JanS]

“I would like to think most people would be in favor of not allowing post birth rights, period.”

one would hope…but don’t underestimate some people :-

Share This

[JanS]

and thanks for the link..seems pretty much straight forward good info..

Share This

[JoB]

Telsa.. what do you see as the difference between choosing not to extend life support to a baby that has little/no chance for a viable life and choosing not to extend life support to someone who faces death?

Share This

[Tesla]

Excellent question, yet again, JoB!

I think the issue being raised by PP is to leavew “life support” out of the equation for botched abortions. They want the mother and Doctor to have the right to kill the child without putting it on life support if necessarty and even kill it if no life suport is necessary.

I think if a baby born alive was offered life support, then all the rules of law related to when it is ethical and legal to termionate life support if the only reason a human is alive is if kept alive by machines…all those established rules would apply.

So the difference I think is being discussed her is whether a mother and doctor can

1. deny possibiliry life support if mother wants the child to die immediately;

2. Kill the child some way or other to “complete” the intended reason for the abortion, I have no idea how.

Am I on the correct track? Remember, many abortions are allowed even after 30 weeks if the mother’s mental health is at risk so the child might not have such a low % chance to live as we would hope to imagine.

I would choose to offer it life support as a no brainer then follow legal norms…not just terminate it without giving it the same chance as any oreemie, as it is a person with rights out of the mother’s womb.

Share This

[sunshine]

Can you support the assertion that “many abortions are allowed even after 30 weeks if the mother’s mental health is at risk” with any link to prove that statement?

Share This

[JoB]

Telsa..

i would put your statements about killing in another way..

i would ask if the mother ..

the person responsible for making medical decisions for her child…

has the same right to choose not to place her child on life support

that you or i have for any person for whom we are the designated medical decision maker?

what makes this issue different because it is a baby?

or because it is somehow linked to a failed abortion?

Share This

[Spring Chicken]

Regarding this being “in today’s news” Tesla I could only find the quote you referenced on “pro life” websites and not in any legitimate news source.

At issue is Florida House Bill 1129, which “Provides that infant born alive during or immediately after attempted abortion is entitled to same rights, powers, & privileges as any other child born alive in course of natural birth; requires health care practitioners to preserve life & health of such infant born alive, if possible; provides for transport & admittance of infant to hospital; provides certain services for infant; requires health care practitioner or employees who have knowledge of any violations with respect to infants born alive after attempted abortion to report those violations to DOH; provides penalty; provides for construction; revises reporting requirements.”

This bill is another attempt by Republicans in Florida to ban all abortions. The words “infant”, “child”, and “born alive” are deliberately misused because none of these describe conditions in a legal abortion. The bill is unnecessary because current laws already restrict abortions performed after viability. The ultimate goal of this bill is to set a legal precedent by giving fetuses the same legal rights in Florida as babies, so that later laws will be able to restrict all abortions as “killing” babies. Once the law requires life support for fetuses, the next step will be abortion banned as murder.

Here’s a link to the Florida Legislative Session from which the quote was taken (starts about minute 40): http://tinyurl.com/floridalegsession

Notice the way Rep. Oliva words his questions to inflame emotions. His questions aren’t about seeking medical information. This is all political. He tries to pressure the Planned Parenthood representative into agreeing with the proposed law, but she won’t play his game (as a result, she’s been labeled an inhuman monster in the right wing blogosphere). He describes “infants”, “born alive on tables”, “struggling for life” none of which happen in a legal abortion procedure. There is no epidemic of “botched abortions” or “partial birth abortions” or “post birth abortions” these words are all political creations, not medical terms!

When you told us there’s a doctor on trial for unlawful abortions, that only proves existing laws are adequate and enforced.

I urge you to reconsider your sources for “news”, watch the clip and notice how your quotation above has taken words from this interview out of context. Think for yourself, don’t allow your emotions to be manipulated!

Share This

[Tesla]

Hi Sunshine and Spring Chicken…To quickly address your thoughtful assertions above:

First, may I emphasize that this thread is not meant to argue for pro-choice or pro-life as most all of us have decided and if this question devolves into this, it could only end up horribly divisive and should be ended. Just wondering about thoughts on ethical post birth opinions)

Sunshine ~ Thank you for prompting me to back-up my general assertions relying only on memory with related links. I also get frustrated when others do this and after I get my taxes to my accountant hopefully by Wed., I’ll look at 2012 citations. The one citation I did include above does speak to the mental health exemption and whether state by state the exception can be granted by one doctor or if second opinions are required and/or if as in some states, a psychiatrist must so certify.

Spring Chicken: You didn’t look very hard for non-pro-life cites to the Florida event. I got the link from Reuters, lost it then just Googled it before first posting and saw many links as it was posted nationwide by AP and I assume Reuters. (Having lost 70% of my hearing at 19 I haven’t had a TV since so just visit very generic set of sites to keep up and have no time to waste on sites of either opinion.) just saying…

While your tone is a bit harsh, I appreciate your time, effort and fine writing skills to further explain the short piece linked to the video which I did not view.

I agree, as you point out that the legislator’s verbiage was uber-dramatic, yet, I still don’t get why PP would condone limiting the choice whether or not to terminate the life of a being/entity still “alive” after a botched abortion be granted solely to the mother and doctor. Nor do I understand why efforts to clarify the medical and legal ethics/law in these situations constitutes an effort to stop all abortion rights?!??? I happen to think PP should concentrate their efforts and support for mothers pre-birth. Should not the “entity” have a chance to live if still alive after a botched abortion?

Is it fair to assume that these situations must exist/have existed for PP to have formed a position on post birth abortion rights in the first place? As I am ignorant as to whether PP policy is directed state by state as each state has different laws, or if directed nationally, I plan to check that out too.

Thanks for your input!

Share This

[Tesla]

Well, Sunshine, the reports of live post abortion births are so wildly weird and grotesque (true or not true?) from both csmps, I can’t find reports neutral and unbaised enough not to enrage believers from both camps. Of COURSE the Florida iNcident is getting play worldwide as the event was so mind blowing to most no mater their preference. There are live botched abortion stats from the UK, Canada and Australia which are more sober and not sensationalized to lunacy. I will include the worst, TRULY EVIL, ethics analysis of the worst high brow discussion asserting whether living infants no mater the process resulting in a live birth attain the same moral status (what does that mean) as ACTUAL PERSONS” ! I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP! “Abstract from:

Read and weep for what some are trying to force as ethically and morally true…Orwell and NewSpeak live on, for sure:

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full

“Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

—-PUKING IN PAIN—-

Share This

[JoB]

and again..

i would point out to you

that live births have exactly the same rights as the rest of us have when facing medical circumstances where life support and/or treatment will not result in recovery.

my husband and my best friend both have my medical power of attorneys which will allow them to choose not to put me on life support if there is no outcome other than prolonging breathing…

however.. parents don’t need to jump through those paperwork hoops..

it comes in the contract.

why anyone thinks requiring parents to condemn a child that has no chance of sustainable life to the kind of trauma and misery that goes along with heroic measures would benefit anyone is beyond me.

do you really believe that the cruel and unusual punishment involved in those measures is inflicted only upon the parents?

it’s time for a reality check here

Share This

[Spring Chicken]

Tesla’s original question about what was said by the Republican senator and PP has been addressed already. My response linked to the official Florida House of Representatives website containing the full unedited legislative session and a starting time for the PP questions. Tesla admits she did not view the video, which shows that her original misquote of PP had been taken out of context.

Tesla has provided only links to a summary of abortion laws by state and to an opinion letter written by an Australian doctor to a medical ethics journal.

Tesla has not provided any links to facts or data to back up her opinion that babies are being killed after legal abortions performed in the USA (BECAUSE IT IS NOT TRUE).

Share This

[DBP]

Hm. Wonder why there’s no guys in here.

Could it be because men are incredibly squeamish about this stuff?

Mmmm . . . could be.

   

Share This

[dhg]

This thread is studded with landmines.

I do not believe there has been at any time whatsoever in the past 50 years of legalized abortions a time where a “botched” abortion happened with the result of a viable baby. That is flat out crazy talk that is pumped up by the anti-abortionists and, as we know, there is no arguing with them. They just spin these stories out, tell them to each other, enlarge on them, get louder and more strident, more indignant and at the end, you have this nonsense.

Legal abortions are performed during the first trimester. The fetus is not viable. Later abortions are extremely rare and late, “botched” abortions (oh dear, the baby is breathing!!!!!) do not exist.

Why doesn’t Planned Parenthood play along with the Florida line of questioning? Because it is spinning nonsense.

Share This

[dhg]

Tesla’s request that we deal with this subject without getting into the issue of abortion itself, reminds me of a full page ad in the national newspapers taken out in 1982 (or so). It was from the Pope, pleading to find common ground with pro-choice individuals. The starting point, by his logic, was that we could all agree that abortion is murder. I am not making this up.

Share This

[Tesla]

Hi Spring Chick:

I should have clarified above that I “initially” did not watch the video. I have watched a 36 minute video of the discussion. Is there a longer version that makes Snow come off a little more sane to support your contentions? I’ve only seen the 36 minute version which has gone viral globally.

There are hundreds of links discussing the live birth post abortion statistics in 2011 and 2012 in the US, Canada who consider it a huge issue, uk, and so on such as numerous links contending 500 babies born alive last year after failed abortions and “left to die”. But as I am able to “think for myself” unlike what you contend, many of the sites as I mentioned to Sunshine seem to vomit a frothing bias — both ways. It would be healthier for purposes of this narrow focused WSB discussion thread for those few interested to Google phrases such as “2011 2012 live births failed abortions” or 2011 2012 news live births” after failed abortion”, “2011 2012 2013 medical ethic reports news live birth abortions”…and not try to list a plethora of links then attempt to parce the truth from the lies as that most certainly would need to bring in pre birth issues already argued ad naueum.

The Chick will note if she searches that some loony-scary-wacko groups are using the AP report on the globally viral “Florida Incident” to scaremonger waaaaay beyond my non-baised (in my opinion) query as to why PP is involved in trying to establis/influenceh code of law for live births differennt than what exists for natural live births.

Chick: What is clear even after wading through the muck is that you are quite (willfully?) IGNORANT or intentionsally employing devious misdirection, insults and so on to boldly remonstrate as you do above

“…that babies are being killed after legal abortions performed in the USA (BECAUSE IT IS NOT TRUE). ” Prove it. You can not. Chick, I’ll mark you down as pro termination no limits. no biggie….

Gee if “NOT TRUE” why all the international fuss to define codes and ethics to address the problem? Chick also negates and probably has not read the entire report by the ethicists cited above and an abstract repeated again in its DISTURBING GLORY:

“Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”

Do I need to insult the normally bright bloggers here by detailing the problems with this statement? I just found a lot of similarly focused reports I’ll have to read to determine if sanizized (sane) enough tp post here. Obama’s med ethics team, usually focused on elderly issues apparently has a new report on this post abortion live birth issue even those the issue is “NOT TRUE” according to the Chick. I need to read prior to posting links, but no one seems to care much.

In sumary:

This issue does exist, does not involve soley critically injured “Potential Actual Persons” . Gee, will adults soon need to meet “actual person” standards?

Share This

[Jiggers]

Abortion should be a right in every State. Once religion is dictating those rights, you lose all credibility with me Leave religion out of the conversation. Same thing with stem-cell research. Don’t twist it into a religious bash. Lets argue the issues without bringing god into it.

Share This

[dhg]

OK, so I googled, just as Tesla says, and I don’t find anything credible, except for one.

Share This

[Tesla]

Hi Jiggers,

Who brought up God? You, perhaps? Plus this thread is not discussing abortion rights PRE LIVE BIRTH. It is solely focused on what is a legally and medically acceptasble process to follow if a baby is born alive due to a failed abortion attempt…which the states will codify into law.

Share This

[DBP]

Tezz, every topic should be a wanted topic. And so far, this is a wanted topic.

So I’ll try my best not to abort it

. . . but frankly, I do not get how you can say this topic doesn’t have diddly-to-do with abortion. I believe that 110 bloggers out of 100 would probably have to go ahead and disagree with you there.

(For the record, I’m against abortion myself. I think it should be strongly discouraged. But . . . since it’s complicated, and since I’m not a woman and will never have to bear the full consequences of having or not having an abortion, I’m gonna have to go ahead and say abortion should be legal, subject to conditions.)

Also for the record: How many times has this post-abortion killing thing occurred, would you say?

I won’t question your sources. I just want a count of the total from you, and I’ll take you at your word.

Once we get the count, it will help me decide just how much weight to give the issue.

Is this really something we need to be searching our collective soul on?

Or is it another hurricane in a handbag?

(“offensive to meteorologists and women”)

Share This

[AAR]

This is probably not the suitable place for laughs, but I had to because of Tesla’s comment:

“Gee, will adults soon need to meet “actual person” standards?”

So many “people” come to mind….

Anyway, I don’t think I could bear to research the topic, I am quite convinced there have been cases of after-birth abortions, in the US and abroad. Given the now-higher scrutiny, I do hope the conversations – and any resulting decisions – are secular and not religious-based. Sadly, I doubt that will be the case.

Share This

[Tesla]

Hi DBP,

Nice to read to thoughts on this. The other day while perusing my news sites I clikked a liknk which stated PP was arguing that the decision of what to do with a live baby after a failed abortion should be decided between the mother and doctor only. I wondered if even pro-choice advocates might think this extreme. Of course it starts with abortion, but can you imagine a general pro-choice or pro-life battle so I asked discussion be limited to the post birth ethics.

I’m still trying to finish my taxes for my CPA today and hope to find some non-baised stats on how often this is happening. This is one of those issues when some fevered zealots scream not allowing post birth death choice threatens ALL abortion rights in general while others allege seeing 400 + failed aborted infants born alive then left to die which is probably just as much hogwash. Medical info is private, but I have access to lexus and other clipping services which may help give unbaised stats…AFTER I finish my taxes!

Personally I worry a bit as to whether or not I meet the standards to be considered an “Actual Person” by that ethics cabal, and if not…thus eligible for termination. Am I actual or trendiing virtual or worse?!!!?

Oh, please send your email again as most threads we join get canned. AND just for the record, I AM the worst typist in the galaxy…I can spell, just not type well.

Share This

[Tesla]

Hi AAR,

It is stomach churning research on so many levels and I wish I hadn’t asked the ?? starting the topic but have soldiered on in an effort to determine the extenxt of problem and pro-choice thoughts on this extention of PP rights.

Yep, I am now more worried about masteriing the “Actual Person” requirements set by those wacko ethicis (Oh I am so intelligent god-ish group) so as not to be suddenly terminated. Notice they do not mention time limits on if/when one is dained an “Actual Person” . Perhaps I was Actual but have screwd up and become a non-Actual person again?

Share This

[Author]

Posts