NEWS: SCOTUS: The Government Has the Right to Ban Medical Care (for Women)

POLITICS: SCOTUS: The Government Has the Right to Ban Medical Care (for Women)

Ladies, we're offically second-class citizens. This according to the Supreme Court, which today found that it's constitutional for lawmakers (aka white men) to decide what kind of medical care we need. In short, the Court upheld the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban." Despite the fact that "partial birth abortion" is not a medically recognized term.

What is medically recognized:

• 90% of abortions occur in the first trimester.


• Intact dilation and extraction (also known as IDX, or sometimes just D&X) is used in approximately .17% of all abortions.


• It is probable (though definitive data do not exist) that the majority of IDX procedures are performed because of fetal abnormalities.


• IDX, because it delivers a fetus whole, creates less risk of uterine perforation from bone fragments than other forms of late-term abortion.


• IDX has less risk of infection than other forms of late-term abortion, because it takes less time and requires the insertion of fewer instruments into the uterus.


• IDX (like other late-term abortion procedures) can prevent a woman who has found that her fetus is dead or not viable from having to undergo labor and delivery of a dead fetus.


• IDX can allow women whose fetuses are not viable to view and hold their dead babies after delivery.


• Most IDX procedures are performed between 20-24 weeks gestation--that is, within the second trimester, and before fetal viability.
  In cases where a fetus has severe hydrocephalus (water on the brain, which can cause a fetuses head to be grotesquely enlarged), the options to a woman may be IDX or a Cesarean section--that is, a three-day outpatient procedure or major surgery, with attendant potential complications.


• The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists explicitly opposed the ban.

The law allows for IDX to be performed to save a woman's life--but not to save, say, her uterus. Because there are other surgical options for late-term abortions, it is highly unlikely that banning IDX will prevent a single abortion. It may, however, prevent some women from having the safest procedure for their particular circumstances.

What the court's decided, in essence, is that a woman's right to make her own medical decisions is less important than preventing legislators from getting an ooky feeling by thinking about fetal heads being punctured. Our safety is less important than their feelings.

Sources consulted for this article:

• Salon: "A Doctor's Right to Choose."


• Library of Congress Congressional Research Services report 95-1101 SPR: "Abortion Procedures"


• Suzanne Batchelor, "Abortion Procedures Ban Limits Endings for Doomed Pregnancies"


• Planned Parenthood Federation of America: "PPA Opposes Abortion Ban Legislation"


• Religious Tolerance.org: "D&X / PBA Procedures"


• Wikipedia entry on Intact Dilation and Extraction


• Wikipedia entry on hydrocephalus

Bitch_PhD, who doesn't really have it in her to make snarky jokes about this decision, has cross-posted this at her own blog.

Best cartoon ever. ^^^

not to mention that precedent is conveniently chucked out the window in gonzales and the opinion doesn't even attempt to disguise the court's distaste for abortion in general.

it's just another of what will probably be a long line of cases that chip at roe bit by bit like a dismembered fetus in a D&E.

"Precedent" is just a buzzword used by the courts to legitimize their decisions. The idea is that current decisions will be based on past ones -- they aren't just pulling shit out of their hats, in other words. That doesn't mean they can't change the laws, or reverse previous decisions by previous courts.

I haven't read this decision yet, but have you ever actually read Roe v. Wade? I'll be the first to stand up for a woman's right to an abortion, but talk about baseless court decisions. We've been lucky it's stood this long, as far as I'm concerned.

Guess this is what is wrong with the "Supreme Court Justice for Life" term.

Also... is that an old picture... cause you say "White men" and I clearly see a Black man. In the back row.

that image up at the top is sorely lacking a caption. might i suggest "Bunch of Douchebags"?

There's a woman too. Exceptionalism means precisely that: exceptions. To the rule.

Oh here we go. Look this decision isn't going to overturn Roe vs. Wade, it isn't even going to come close. As a matter of fact, people should be really happy with the court's make up right now. There are 4 consistenly Liberal voting judges, 4 consistently Conservative voting judges, and 1 guy that just seems to do what he thinks THE CONSTITUTION would do. Which is of course the whole damn point in the first place.

And the justice in question has already upheld Roe vs. Wade once before.

And in my honest opinion, I agree with the courts decision.

Oh and just to keep ya in the know, that whole "fetal viability" thing, yeah they actually have a child that was born after 21 weeks 6 days gestation and is now a healthy baby girl.

That cartoon is PERFECT!

i am familiar with the definition of stare decisis thanks so much and i'm aware of how courts change their minds over time. it just irks me to see how they weasel out of the stenberg requirement for a health of the mother exception while totally disregarding evidence of credible doctors.

yes, i have read roe and i agree, it doesn't exactly have a strong foundation, but given that the other stuff that's been magically pulled out of the constitution, i can't really say it's a bad thing.

perfect cartoon. this ban is FUCKED UP, thanks for the rundown.

I've got to start getting more political.

oh my god please tell me that was a joke?

Also, I'm not a lawyer, but I have to think that the Supreme Court's upholding of Roe Wade under various different attacks over a period of 30 years in and of itself lends strength and legitamacy to it.

While you're praying for unlikely blessings, could you mention I'd like a unicorn?

That'd be awesome.

This is a terrible delay, all the worse because Bush has placed judges in these key courts, that will continue to support these dangerous policies towards abortion, even after we are no longer saddled with Bush. Women should have the right to abortion, her body and decisions concerning herself, her health, and reproductive rights should be her own to decide and not for some reactionary judge to play god.

haha will do.
would you like some magic beans too?

As a matter of fact, yes. Those will take me to Blueberry castle, which is where the dandelion fluff fairies live. That's where it all goes down, you know. Where the magic happens.

The Supreme Court are not lawmakers.

Well that, and the fact that the white men referred to are lawmakers not Justices.

'Course there's some black men in the legislature (white women, too!!) among others. But yeah, overwhelmingly white and male. ... And old.


edit: ASSHOLE's faster than me.

Hell, they made law today!

In regards to the matter, I think we should be deferring to The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (who explicitly oppose the ban). But hell, what do I know.

Also, what's the legal basis of this ban in reference to Roe v. Wade or are they using an entirely different precedent?

you guys are really lawyers ? Or you just play them on . . .

anyhoo, pfft. Activist Presidents. Legislating from the White House. What the hell ?