danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:A woman who is kidnapped, raped, tortured, etc. should be given no higher priority than a woman who says she was date raped days or weeks after the event?

I would disagree with that.

Priority for what? for the criminal investigation, I would say more serious types of crime need more urgent attention. However, this is not about that, it's about whether rape victims would be entitled to an abortion, or a funded abortion. Now, if there was a quota on such abortions, then 'priority' comes into play. However, if that is not the case, it is utterly irrelevant.

Okay, so statutory rape, date rape, any rape--all should be eligible for Federally-funded abortion. That, of course, means that any woman who wants an abortion can get the government to pay for it. I will go out on a limb and guess stopping this was what the Republicans were trying to achieve.

However, go back to my original statement: rape is not a Federal matter. Abortion only is because of Roe v. Wade. The question was whether there should be Federal funding of abortion in certain cases. The Democrats, of course, want funding for every abortion at all times. In fact, some, like the President, have consistently voted against any restrictions.

So, Democrats are going to have NARAL and Planned Parenthood speak at the DNC.

Great.

Indeed, The Democrats have a wide range of opinions on abortion, although I'm not aware of an actual policy platform of universal funding for abortion up to birth - perhaps you can point me to it?

The pro-life Democrat is an endangered species. There will soon be about five in the House:

Only a few pro-life Democrats are shoo-ins for reelection: Daniel Lipinski (IL-3) and Collin Peterson (MN-7). Henry Cueller (TX-28), recently criticized for his work with Texas Republicans, should also return. Tim Holden (PA-17) and Nick Rahall (WV-3) may face some competition.

There will be fewer in the Senate.

If you're having NARAL speak, that pretty much tells us what their position on abortion is. This is the Party railing against Romney for opposing forcing insurance companies to provide free birth control.

Most Americans are pro-life. One party is extreme--the Democrats.

[citation needed]

Please. Do some research. Do tell me what restrictions on abortion Democrats broadly support--other than post-birth.

I am saying that on policy they are very close. The reasoning behind that may differ, the justification may differ, their way of phrasing their position on the very difficult subject of rape may differ, but the policies... not so much.

In your opinion.

Funny thing is no one knew who this cretin was, except the Democrats funding him, until he popped off.

Still, it may not actually require an Amendment, if the SCOTUS determines at a later point to overturn Roe v Wade (which I believe it could, and is one reason why a lot of pressure surrounds the pro-life/pro-choice views of prospective SCJs).

False.

Overturning Roe would simply give that back to the States.

However, I never said they voted to outlaw abortion, or that they did outlaw it. I corrected Sass who said that they did vote to, by explaining the reality - it was about outlawing federal funding.

I can understand Sass' confusion. If you watch news or read it from Lefty sites, you'd think Ryan wants to bomb abortion clinics.

Do I need to be a mindreader? Don't worry, DF, I'm not trying to claim your superpower as my own...

Or can I just go by the things that Paul Ryan has said and done?

He does not support rape or incest exemptions, and would legislate to remove them. He has been a co-sponsor of legislation that does indeed not include such exemptions.

To not fund them, correct?

Again, why is this a Federal issue? The crime is a State crime. Why is the "solution" a Federal responsibility?

That is the proper way a conservative looks at the matter.

Wikipedia wrote:During Ryan's 1998 campaign for Congress, he "expressed his willingness to let states criminally prosecute women who have abortions," telling the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel at the time that he "would let states decide what criminal penalties would be attached to abortions," and while not stating that he supports jailing women who have an abortion, stated: "if it's illegal, it's illegal."[126] He cosponsored the Sanctity of Life Act, which would provide that fertilized eggs "shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood" and would have given "the Congress, each State, the District of Columbia, and all United States territories [have] the authority to protect the lives of all human beings residing in its respective jurisdictions."[128] This could lead to laws that would "criminalize all abortion, as well as in vitro fertilization and some forms of birth control."[129][130]

So, here's an amazing factoid: the "extremist," Paul Ryan won his district handily in 2008. Who won his district at the presidential level?

That's right: President Obama.

He's in a swing district (actually it tilts blue), wins easily, yet he's an "extremist." Interesting.

Or, a bunch of nonsense concocted by liberal nutters.

It depends on which side of the fence you sit.

I concede that he will accept abortion in cases where the life of the mother is at risk (but opposes more loose 'heath of the mother' exemptions'). However, in such cases, the fetus would not be carried 'to term' anyway, as the mother's death otherwise would also lead to the death of the fetus.

Because "health of the mother" has been stretched to "mental health," etc. If you've followed the partial-birth abortion debate in the US, you know this.

So, I think I am quite correct on what I said. He thinks abotion should be illegal in all cases where a woman can carry to term.

When he says that, you will be right.

He's a Catholic; therefore, he wants to impose his religious views on everyone else.

Let's see, who else is Catholic . . . Pelosi, Biden--both are staunchly pro-life, right?

I never mentioned his religion. Why did you feel the need?

Because it has been cited elsewhere.

I look forward to your exegesis of the President's record on abortion. I would happily allow America to watch that debate.

[quote="danivon"Goalpost movement ahoy!!! Ricky has provided evidence that directly challenges your assertion that 'Most Americans are pro-life'.[/quote]

Trash.

Yes. But only 20% feel that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances.25% feel it should be legal under any circumstance....
the other 53% feel that there are circumstances under which it should be legal. And that could be everything from exceptions for rape and incest, to viability of the fetus etc.

That does not refute my assertion, you are either wrong or lying.

Click on the link. I know, I know, it's tough.

Now, scroll down.

Look at the graph. See that?

50% pro-life; 41% pro-abortion.

Your response is totally irrelevant to that. If Ricky had behaved the same way, you would be (rightly) criticising him and (wrongly) using it as a means to ignore anything else he says.

If you would actually look at his source before posting, you would not be so wrong.

Anyway, Romney is indeed the nominee. What is he standing on? I assume it is the RNC platform that is shortly to be agreed. What does that say about abortion?

Wrong, Brit.

He's not bound by that.

Where is the exemption for rape or incest? I can't see it, perhaps you can show me where it is, because perhaps CNN missed it or (in a typical piece of MSM trickery) deliberately omitted it.

Learn something about platforms and then come back.

Yes, that's dismissive. It should be. You've wasted his money, barrister.

danivon

Goalpost movement ahoy!!! Ricky has provided evidence that directly challenges your assertion that 'Most Americans are pro-life'.

Actually it doesn't "refute" his statement so much as clarifies...
What it clearly shows is that a person can be a self proclaimed "prolife" and still support certain conditions for abortion.
But the information does put the exreme position as proposed in the RNC platform and as previously supported by Ryan as in a small minority. Smaller than those who would take off all limitations on abortion

For the purposes of his black and white arguement Fate has chosen the black and white labels of pro-choice and pro-life without noting that the majority of Americans possess somewhat more shaded opinions...

Doctor Fate wrote:Okay, so statutory rape, date rape, any rape--all should be eligible for Federally-funded abortion. That, of course, means that any woman who wants an abortion can get the government to pay for it.

I fail to see how these two statements are related. Not all women who want an abortion will have been raped. Can you explain how you got from the first to the second?

Most Americans are pro-life. One party is extreme--the Democrats.

[citation needed]

Please. Do some research. Do tell me what restrictions on abortion Democrats broadly support--other than post-birth.

Ahem. Perhaps it was not clear. I was asking for evidence that 'Most Americans are pro-life'.

Funny thing is no one knew who this cretin was, except the Democrats funding him, until he popped off.

Sorry, you are talking about a 6-term Congressman, who has also been funded by Republicans for his past political career? Who won a primary in a key race? Who was, until last week, favourite to win, and become a Senator?

So, here's an amazing factoid: the "extremist," Paul Ryan won his district handily in 2008. Who won his district at the presidential level?

That's right: President Obama

And? Firstly, I never called Ryan an extremist. Secondly, I'm not saying he is one now. I'm saying that his view on abortion policy is very close to that of Akin Thirdly, pseophology is not the issue.

So, I think I am quite correct on what I said. He thinks abotion should be illegal in all cases where a woman can carry to term.

When he says that, you will be right.

Such as what?

"I’m as pro-life as a person gets,"
"You’re not going to have a truce. Judges are going to come up. Issues come up, they’re unavoidable, and I’m never going to not vote pro-life."
(both, Weekly Standard, July 2010)

Telling the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel in 1998 that he opposes abortion, period?

Because it has been cited elsewhere.

Yet you brought it up as if I had said (or, doing your mindreading trick again, as if I thought) that it was his religion that meant I would think he wants to legislate a certain way. That is not what I ever said, and not what I think. It's the way he's voted as a member of the legislature.

RickyP, since you brought up the varying shades of opinions, would you care to clarify what YOUR opinion is on when abortion should be allowed, and whether government money should be spent on abortion (since it is such a personal issue).

Doctor Fate wrote:That does not refute my assertion, you are either wrong or lying.

rickyp wrote:Actually it doesn't "refute" his statement so much as clarifies...

Ok, guys, please look up the difference between the words 'challenge' and 'refute', and when you have, try and work out why you have both made an error.

Doctor Fate wrote:Click on the link. I know, I know, it's tough.

Now, scroll down.

Look at the graph. See that?

50% pro-life; 41% pro-abortion.

Thanks, Doctor, for yet again being patronising for no reason. I have seen it and read it. Just one question: Since when was 'half' the same as 'most'?

rickyp wrote:What it clearly shows is that a person can be a self proclaimed "prolife" and still support certain conditions for abortion.
But the information does put the exreme position as proposed in the RNC platform and as previously supported by Ryan as in a small minority. Smaller than those who would take off all limitations on abortion

Indeed. Someone can be a self-proclaimed 'Christian', but I am well aware that DF will argue that this does not make them a Christian if they do not have the actual beliefs of a Christian. Similarly, how can someone really be 'pro-life' if they actually accept 'exemptions'? It would take some more detail on what those exemptions are before we can tell how pro-life those who are in that 30% of people who describe themselves as such but think it should be legal under some circumstances.

Which does not, I agree, 'refute' DF's assertion that 'Most Americans are pro-life', but does 'challenge' it. What we can say is that 'Half of Americans say they are 'pro-life', and that 'Most Americans feel that there are circumstances under which abortion should be legal'

Neither of those are the same as what DF has asserted as truth, and to an extent suggest that it may not actually be completely true. Yet apparently I am 'wrong' or 'lying' to point this out.

Anyway, Romney is indeed the nominee. What is he standing on? I assume it is the RNC platform that is shortly to be agreed. What does that say about abortion?

Wrong, Brit.

He's not bound by that.

Again, thanks for the needless patronising language. I realise that the platform is not binding. However, it is the stated platform of the party of which Romney is seeking nomination (along with the c.470 Congressional candidates for November). So, while he may have his own policy views, he will still have 'Republican' next to his name on the ballot paper, and will still support the RNC and it's other nominated candidates as they support him?

Romney's position is not really the issue anyway. Akin's position became an issue because of how he expressed his view. Paul's position is relevant because he votes the same way as Akin, and has expressed the same policy view as Akin, and moving on from the stupidity of how Akin justifies his views, there is still the question of whether people agree that it is it right to deny abortion in cases of rape.

Where is the exemption for rape or incest? I can't see it, perhaps you can show me where it is, because perhaps CNN missed it or (in a typical piece of MSM trickery) deliberately omitted it.

Learn something about platforms and then come back.

[/quote]Sorry, does that tell us where the Republican Party has an exemption for rape an incest in it's platform position on abortion? Does the RNC platform have so little meaning that it matters not what it says? If so, why do they bother to write it out and then debate/pass it at the Conventions?

bbauska

RickyP, since you brought up the varying shades of opinions, would you care to clarify what YOUR opinion is on when abortion
should be allowed, and whether government money should be spent on abortion (since it is such a personal issue

Up to the point that a fetus may become viable outside the womb... I believe the choice to abort is a private choice made by a pregnant female (girl or woman) with the advice of her doctor and, depending on circumstance, with the participation of her spouse or the father.
At and beyond the point where a fetus may become viable, only extreme medical circumstances should allow a doctor to prescribe abortion.
.
An abortion procedure is a medical procedure. I don't beleive the government should deny a woman use of her medical insurance for any medical procedure that her doctor considers necessary, provided that the procedure is part of the approved menu of services. (The latter exception is for things like experimental treatments not recognized as effective or cosmetic surgeries that don't involve reconstruction from accidents or genetic defects.)
Having said that I also beleive it is important that society do everything to empower women with the ability to plan their lives and protect themselves from unwanted pregnancies. Mostly to avoid the use of abortion as it is costly and its use produces an enormous amount of physcological pain . Which it should. Its not a procedure that should be considered without properly weighing the moral issue involved.
But the consequences of either carrying to term or aborting an early term fetus are borne primarily by one person. And the state should not take away that persons right to make the moral choice privately.
I'm speaking from a place where health insurance is a governmnt program. I realize there is a world of difference by what you might say is "government money".
But I don't know that government money is collected only from people with a certain moral position. Nor is it the governments role to limit the right of poor people to make choices concerning their health that rich people can make.
Certainly that is what eliminating government money from funding abortions seeks to do ..... It sets out to make a poor persons ability to respond to a personal dilema less than a rich persons.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:That does not refute my assertion, you are either wrong or lying.

rickyp wrote:Actually it doesn't "refute" his statement so much as clarifies...

Ok, guys, please look up the difference between the words 'challenge' and 'refute', and when you have, try and work out why you have both made an error.

So wait . . . are you actually claiming to know what rickyp intended better than rickyp?

I'm not ruling it out--just asking.

Doctor Fate wrote:Click on the link. I know, I know, it's tough.

Now, scroll down.

Look at the graph. See that?

50% pro-life; 41% pro-abortion.

Thanks, Doctor, for yet again being patronising for no reason. I have seen it and read it. Just one question: Since when was 'half' the same as 'most'?

No, there was a reason. It should have been obvious, but it will become obvious in just a moment.

adjective, superl. of much or many with more as compar.
1.
in the greatest quantity, amount, measure, degree, or number: to win the most votes.
2.
in the majority of instances: Most operations are successful.

Let's see. 50% pro-life, 41% pro-abortion, 9% haven't got a clue.

Is 50 a "greater" quantity than 41 or 9?

[/patronism]

Which does not, I agree, 'refute' DF's assertion that 'Most Americans are pro-life', but does 'challenge' it. What we can say is that 'Half of Americans say they are 'pro-life', and that 'Most Americans feel that there are circumstances under which abortion should be legal'

Now who is moving the goalposts? I did not define "pro-life" as "opposing abortion in any and every case."

Again, thanks for the needless patronising language. I realise that the platform is not binding.

Let's make a deal: stop writing stupid things that you "know" aren't true and I'll stop being patronizing.

However, it is the stated platform of the party of which Romney is seeking nomination (along with the c.470 Congressional candidates for November). So, while he may have his own policy views, he will still have 'Republican' next to his name on the ballot paper, and will still support the RNC and it's other nominated candidates as they support him?

When he's President and busts out his Amendment to ban abortion, do let me know, won't you?

Look, what you're writing is not the real world. Period.

Romney's position is not really the issue anyway. Akin's position became an issue because of how he expressed his view.

Okay, and you should feel free to lambaste him for saying something dumb. The whole thing about rape had nothing to do with his view on abortion. There are a myriad of ways he could have expressed that, even saying something as "extreme" as, "I personally am opposed to abortion in all cases." That might have lost him the election, but it would not have been as patently idiotic as what he said.

Paul's position is relevant because he votes the same way as Akin, and has expressed the same policy view as Akin, and moving on from the stupidity of how Akin justifies his views, there is still the question of whether people agree that it is it right to deny abortion in cases of rape.

Sounds like "guilt by association." You know, the thing you and your ilk claimed was "irrelevant" when Obama ran. Wright? Ayers? Communists in college? Shady real estate deals? It's all just innuendo really.

But, Ryan, well, he has actually voted the same way as Akin so he must agree with him on rape . . . and abortion. Don't listen to what Ryan says . . . who cares about that? We "know" Akin is scum and Ryan, well, Ryan even eats BLT's--just like Akin!

And, if Ryan wants to outlaw abortion, then Romney must agree.

In court, you would get laughed right out. In a logic class, you'd flunk. But, in the rarefied air of the Left's Echo Chamber it all makes perfect sense.

Sorry, does that tell us where the Republican Party has an exemption for rape an incest in it's platform position on abortion? Does the RNC platform have so little meaning that it matters not what it says?

It's been the same for many years.

If so, why do they bother to write it out and then debate/pass it at the Conventions?

For the same reason Democrats are going to put nutty things in theirs that the President isn't going to run on (see the plank in support of gay marriage)--it makes the base happy. If they didn't get to do stuff like that, they would not stuff envelopes and hand out flyers.

rickyp wrote:bbauska

RickyP, since you brought up the varying shades of opinions, would you care to clarify what YOUR opinion is on when abortion
should be allowed, and whether government money should be spent on abortion (since it is such a personal issue

Up to the point that a fetus may become viable outside the womb... I believe the choice to abort is a private choice made by a pregnant female (girl or woman) with the advice of her doctor and, depending on circumstance, with the participation of her spouse or the father.
At and beyond the point where a fetus may become viable, only extreme medical circumstances should allow a doctor to prescribe abortion.

So, if technology advances, then the legal restrictions . . .?

As an aside, I have a very liberal friend who use to work for a Congressman. He and his wife had several miscarriages. You know what he told me recently? That for the first time he and his wife have begun questioning their pro-abortion position. Why? Because they didn't lose a "fetus."
.
Try telling anyone who has been through that experience that it's "only tissue."

Doctor Fate wrote:So wait . . . are you actually claiming to know what rickyp intended better than rickyp?

Nope. I'm just saying that you made an assertion, and that in my view, ricky's link challenges it. Whatever he intended is not the point.

Is 50 a "greater" quantity than 41 or 9?

[/patronism]

Yes. However, it is still not 'most' of 100. Most Americans who expressed an preference, yes. but not 'Most Americans'.

Now who is moving the goalposts? I did not define "pro-life" as "opposing abortion in any and every case."

Nope, but we have no idea what the 'circumstances' are that this 30% of 'pro-life' people will accept. Until we get a clearer idea, it's not certain where they really stand. Yes, we can see that a significant minority (20%) are resolute. There are figures for previous years on particular situations.

Most (more than 50%) favour legal abortion for the following questions at the last poll that asked them (June 2011)

When the woman's life is endangered (83%)
When the woman's physical health is endangered (82%)
When the woman's mental health is endangered (61%)
When there is evidence that the baby may be mentally impaired (51%)
When the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest (75%)
In the first three months of pregnancy (62%)


I also note that 50% also agreed with legal abortion in cases where there is evidence that the baby may be physically impaired, which means that a majority does not think it should be illegal.

Which of those positions is consistent with being pro-life?

But, Ryan, well, he has actually voted the same way as Akin so he must agree with him on rape . . . and abortion. Don't listen to what Ryan says . . . who cares about that? We "know" Akin is scum and Ryan, well, Ryan even eats BLT's--just like Akin!

Are you on crack? Seriously, is it affecting your ability to read or something?

Ryan voted the same way as Akin on bills intended to restrict abortion in cases of rape. That's not 'guilt by association', it's noting how he voted. I'm going to take how a member of the legislature votes as an indicator of the policies they want to see in law. And here's where I state it clearly. I'm not saying that Ryan agrees with Akin on women's bodies being able to prevent pregnancy in rape. I'm am saying that Ryan and Akin both oppose abortion in cases of rape as a matter of policy.

If that's not the case, please show me the actual clear obvious policy differences between Akin and Ryan on abortions and rape.

Not what Ryan believes about biology, what he thinks the law should be.

I have seen what he's said in the past. He's 'as pro-life as you can get', according to Paul Ryan. Of course now he's striking a slightly more concilatory tone and deferring to Romney - he can see a storm caused and doesn't want to be a part of it, hence being one of the first to call for Akin to stand. But what was he voting for and saying before Akin made his stupid statements?

And, if Ryan wants to outlaw abortion, then Romney must agree.

Never said that. Your inference.

Sorry, does that tell us where the Republican Party has an exemption for rape an incest in it's platform position on abortion? Does the RNC platform have so little meaning that it matters not what it says?

It's been the same for many years.

I know. I mentioned that before. So where does that tell us they have an exemption for abortion in cases of rape or incest?

If so, why do they bother to write it out and then debate/pass it at the Conventions?

For the same reason Democrats are going to put nutty things in theirs that the President isn't going to run on (see the plank in support of gay marriage)--it makes the base happy. If they didn't get to do stuff like that, they would not stuff envelopes and hand out flyers.

[/quote]So, ummm, does that mean they agree with it, or they are just saying it so people vote for them and give them money?

One is honest. The other is taking the 'base' for a ride.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:So wait . . . are you actually claiming to know what rickyp intended better than rickyp?

Nope. I'm just saying that you made an assertion, and that in my view, ricky's link challenges it. Whatever he intended is not the point.

Is 50 a "greater" quantity than 41 or 9?

[/patronism]

Yes. However, it is still not 'most' of 100. Most Americans who expressed an preference, yes. but not 'Most Americans'.

Let's see . . . I'll settle for this: that is the MOST fatuous thing you've ever written.

Here's another poll:

52% say it should either be legal in a "few" circumstances or illegal.

Now who is moving the goalposts? I did not define "pro-life" as "opposing abortion in any and every case."

Nope, but we have no idea what the 'circumstances' are that this 30% of 'pro-life' people will accept. Until we get a clearer idea, it's not certain where they really stand. Yes, we can see that a significant minority (20%) are resolute. There are figures for previous years on particular situations.

What is generally accepted is rape, incest and the physical health of the mother.

Ryan voted the same way as Akin on bills intended to restrict abortion in cases of rape. That's not 'guilt by association', it's noting how he voted.

Except that's not true.

Please cite one bill he voted for that would ban all abortions.

Not what Ryan believes about biology, what he thinks the law should be.

I have seen what he's said in the past. He's 'as pro-life as you can get', according to Paul Ryan.

Right, which means what? That he's against Federal funding of abortion (consistent with any Constitutionalist) and he would not support abortion, but you've yet to demonstrate he has actively sought to make abortion a crime.

I know. I mentioned that before. So where does that tell us they have an exemption for abortion in cases of rape or incest?

I've told you. You just refuse to believe it.

Did GWB try to outlaw abortion? Same plank in the platform.

So, ummm, does that mean they agree with it, or they are just saying it so people vote for them and give them money?

Neither one and I'm not going to educate you about our political system. Life is too short.

One is honest. The other is taking the 'base' for a ride.

Shame on Barack Hussein Obama.

danivon wrote:Anyway, Romney is indeed the nominee. What is he standing on? I assume it is the RNC platform that is shortly to be agreed.

Point of order: nominees always differ with their party's official platform. I know that seems weird, especially to someone used to a parliamentary system, but that's the way it is. Platforms really haven't meant much of anything for at least the last forty years or so. (Maybe longer!) They provide fodder for some irrelevant arguments like might be occurring here - otherwise they merely provide a general idea of where the average party hack sits. They do not determine how party leaders in Congress determine legislative priorities and they certainly don't govern a presidential candidate.

Doctor Fate wrote:

Now who is moving the goalposts? I did not define "pro-life" as "opposing abortion in any and every case."

Nope, but we have no idea what the 'circumstances' are that this 30% of 'pro-life' people will accept. Until we get a clearer idea, it's not certain where they really stand. Yes, we can see that a significant minority (20%) are resolute. There are figures for previous years on particular situations.

What is generally accepted is rape, incest and the physical health of the mother.[/quote]OK. So if a majority say it should be legal for:

When the woman's mental health is endangered (61%)
When there is evidence that the baby may be mentally impaired (51%)

does that mean that most Americans might actually not be in favour of the generally accepted 'pro-life' position?

I think it's actually more indicative that America is about evenly split on the issue. Some situations will see 'pro-life' people actually concede a more 'pro-choice' position.

As for the rest...

Let's talk about the President's position. How many Americans know he supports partial-birth abortion? How many know he voted to withhold care from babies who survive that?

Go ahead. Tell me how mainstream that is.

partial birth abortion is a wholly made up term.Its not a medical term. It was invented for use in the political debate. It spreads the same kinds of misconceptions as Rep. Akins had regarding the powers of women to avoid rape sperm...

Intact dilation and extraction (IDX) is a type of late term abortion. It is also known as intact dilation and evacuation, dilation and extraction (D&X, or DNX), intrauterine cranial decompression and, vernacularly in the United States, as partial birth abortion. The procedure may also be used to remove a fetus that is developed enough to require dilation of the cervix for its extraction.[1]

Though the procedure has had a low rate of use, representing 0.17% (2,232 of 1,313,000) of all abortions in the United States in the year 2000, according to voluntary responses to an Alan Guttmacher Institute survey,[2] it has developed into a focal point of the abortion debate. In the United States, intact dilation and extraction was made illegal in most circumstances by the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in 2003, which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart

.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... _myth.html

The facts don’t really back them up. Partial-birth abortions (see, you can have your silly, unscientific name, and I’ll still win) account for less than 0.2 percent of all abortions in the United States. Of those, most are performed at 20-24 weeks of gestation, or late into the second trimester but within the Supreme Court’s time frame. A study conducted in 1996 could only locate two cases of “partial birth abortion” performed after 24 weeks in that year in the United States.

http://rawstory.com/exclusives/avery/pa ... ad_831.htm