rickyp wrote: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

In the U.S., a federal statute defines "partial-birth abortion" as any abortion in which the fetus is extracted "past the navel [of the fetus]... outside the body of the mother," or "in the case of head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother," if the fetus has already passed. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the terms "partial-birth abortion" and "intact dilation and extraction" are basically synonymous.

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

Under the Intact D&X method, the largest part of the fetus (the head) is reduced in diameter to allow vaginal passage. According to the American Medical Association, this procedure has four main elements.[3] Usually, preliminary procedures are performed over a period of two to three days, to gradually dilate the cervix using laminaria tents (sticks of seaweed which absorb fluid and swell). Sometimes drugs such as pitocin, a synthetic form of oxytocin, are used to induce labor. Once the cervix is sufficiently dilated, the doctor uses an ultrasound and forceps to grasp the fetus's leg. The fetus is turned to a breech position, if necessary, and the doctor pulls one or both legs out of the cervix, which some refer to as 'partial birth' of the fetus. The doctor subsequently extracts the rest of the fetus, leaving only the head still inside the uterus. An incision is made at the base of the skull, a blunt dissector (such as a Kelly clamp) is inserted into the incision and opened to widen the opening,[4] and then a suction catheter is inserted into the opening. The brain is suctioned out, which causes the skull to collapse and allows the fetus to pass more easily through the cervix. The placenta is removed and the uterine wall is vacuum aspirated using a cannula.

But, Ryan, well, he has actually voted the same way as Akin so he must agree with him on rape . . . and abortion.

rickyp wrote:fate

But, Ryan, well, he has actually voted the same way as Akin so he must agree with him on rape . . . and abortion.

he didn't just vote with Akin. He was a co-sponsor of the bill. That is a major difference that you neglected to include. Perhaps becasue the term describes his commitment to the law in starker terms? Language is important.

WHich is what the bill Ryan co-sponsored was all about. A bill that sought to introduce the term "forcible rape" into law.

The language of law becomes very important in a court of law. Thats why the term "partial birth abortion" was invented (by politicians not doctors) as well. It suggests that the fetus being aborted was alive, when this is not the case.

A Penal Code 261 pc "rape" occurs...under California rape law...when an individual engages in sexual intercourse with another person when the sexual act is accomplished (1) against that person's will, or (2) without that person's consent...and by means of2


force,


violence,


duress (a direct or implied threat sufficient to (1) coerce a reasonable person to perform an act which he/she would not otherwise have performed, or (2) agree to an act to which he/she otherwise would not have submitted. Convincing an alleged victim that he/she will be arrested, incarcerated, or deported, for example),


menace (a threat, declaration, or act that shows an intention to inflict an injury upon another),


fear of bodily harm to oneself or to another (the alleged victim's fear must be actual and reasonable under the circumstances, or if unreasonable, the accused must know of the victim's fear and take advantage of it),


fear of retaliation (a threat to kidnap, falsely imprison, or inflict serious pain, injury, or death upon the alleged victim or another person),


fraud (either because the accused (1) fraudulently convinces the alleged victim that they are married, or (2) fraudulently convinces the alleged victim that the sexual act serves a "professional" purpose even though it does no such thing). This might be the case if, for example, you are a therapist and convince your patient that having sex with you might help resolve his/her sexual dysfunction issues,
OR


the alleged victim is


too intoxicated to consent to the activity,


unable to give consent due to a mental disorder or physical disability which the accused knows or reasonably should know about, or


unconscious about the nature of the act (either because he/she is asleep, unconscious, or fraudulently induced into having sexual intercourse and the accused knows or reasonably should know that this is the case).

If you have sex with another person under any of these circumstances, prosecutors could charge you with rape under California Penal Code 261.

No one is denying that the actual facts of the procedure are difficult if not repugnant. But the language invented conveys a sense that isn't justifiable.

Just because it became a legal term, doesn't mean it is accurate. After all, if Ryan had his wish there would be a thing called "forcible rape", and you'd be claiming the language was appropriate because it got enough votes.

The term forcible rape is just a more specific term used to describe the potentially violent manner in which the crime may have occurred, or as a precursor to an aggravated rape charge which carries a higher statutory sentence.

rickyp wrote:Using the rare occurence of IDX as an iconic image to label all abortion procedure, including morning after pills for instance is in the same league as attempting to change law by inserting vague language in a bill.

Gestational Age Percentage Yearly Total
Less than 9 weeks 61.8% 749,232
9-10 weeks 17.1% 207,312
11-12 weeks 9.1% 110,324
13-15 weeks 6.6% 80,015
16-20 weeks 3.8% 46,069
21+ weeks 1.5% 18,185

Or inventing an inflammatory term to describe a rare medical procedure. (A procedure that is what doctors have to resort to when a womans health is at risk or when the fetus is hopelessly compromised...)

The Guttmacher Institute in 1968 was founded as the "Center for Family Planning Program Development", a semi-autonomous division of The Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

The bill had nothing to do with the bizarre pronouncement on rape.

Also, if the baby is not alive during the procedure, how did he/she die?

rickyp wrote:fate

The bill had nothing to do with the bizarre pronouncement on rape.

No. But it says a lot about Ryans medieval attitude towards women.

The law didn't pass because it was considered extreme.

fate

Also, if the baby is not alive during the procedure, how did he/she die?

Its not a baby. Its a fetus. And it's not alive.

freeman2 wrote:I guess when Ricky demolishes your argument that PC 261 distinguishes different of rapes (as Ricky points out the punishment is the same but Ryan Akins et al were trying to distinguish what rapes were "legitimate" enough to allow medicaid funding for abortions) it is time to resort to name calling, DF.

Rape is a felony. If convicted of this crime, you face any or all of the following:


formal probation (typically only imposed if the rape didn't involve force or violence)14,


three, six, or eight years in the California State Prison15,


a possible additional three to five years in the state prison if the alleged victim sustains a great bodily injury (defined as a significant or substantial physical injury)16,


a maximum fine of $10,000,17

Ryan says rape is rape in interviews but that is not what his bill said --it would not have allowed for medicaid to pay for abortions that resulted from rape if the rape was not forcible.

So if a 50 year impregnated a 14 year old and it was not forcible then I guess she has to carry that baby to term huh, DF? I'm sure most Americans are ok with that, right?

Or what if she were unconscious-- still ok? What about if the woman was extremely mentally disabled--still ok? If Ryan's bill weren't so absolutely stupid and offensive to women he wouldn't be backing away from it now.

People are making a big deal out of the term legitimate rape, but that pretty much is what bill is doing--it is deciding that only forcible rape is real rape You can sugarcoat it all you want, but that is what that bill did.

And Ryan co-sponsored it Look, if you want to have the conviction that abortion is wrong in all circumstances, regardless of how the pregnancy originated, fine. But don't demean women by trying to say which rapes are serious enough to count as real rape so as to reduce the number of abortions.

bbauska wrote:Good post Freeman2

It would never even occur to the media to apply this standard to abortion. Under the guise of upholding abortion rights, Barack Obama could favor denying legal protection to babies after they are born and the press wouldn’t bat an eyelash. In fact—he did.
In the Illinois legislature, he opposed the “Born-Alive Infants Protection Act” three times. The bill recognized babies born after attempted abortions as persons and required doctors to give them care. Obama’s stalwart opposition to the bill came up during the 2008 campaign, and his team responded with a farrago of obfuscation and distortions.
The bill was supposedly redundant. Except it wasn’t. Protections for infants who survived abortions were shot through with loopholes, which is why the bill was offered in the first place. (Abortion doctors were leaving infants to die without any care.) The bill was supposedly a threat to abortion rights. Except it wasn’t. Obama opposed a version that stipulated it didn’t affect the legal status of infants still in the womb.
About a year after his final vote against the bill, Obama gave his famous 2004 Democratic convention speech extolling post-partisan moderation. But he couldn’t even bring himself to protect infants brutalized and utterly alone in some medical facility taking what might be only a few fragile breaths on this Earth. Some moderation. The federal version of the bill that he opposed in Illinois passed the U.S. Senate unanimously. Some post-partisanship.
President Obama is an extremist on abortion. He has never supported any meaningful restriction on it, and never will.
He opposed a partial-birth abortion bill in Illinois, even as the federal version passed the House with 282 votes and the Senate with 64 votes and was signed into law by President Bush in 2003. He arrived in the U.S. Senate in time to denounce the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the ban.
In 2007, he told the Planned Parenthood Action Fund that his first act as president would be signing the Freedom of Choice Act. The act would enshrine in federal law a right to abortion more far-reaching than in Roe v. Wade and eliminate basically all federal and state-level restrictions on abortion. This isn’t a point its supporters contest; it’s one they brag about. The National Organization for Women says it would “sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies.”

. . .

In May, a bi-partisan majority of the House, including 20 Democrats, voted to ban abortion for the purpose of sex selection. As the National Right to Life Committee noted, it didn’t occur to reporters to ask the White House about the president’s position on the legislation, with the honorable exception of Jake Tapper (who, for some reason, is always the honorable exception).

A White House spokeswoman said: “The government should not intrude in medical decisions or private family matters in this way.” In other words, gender-based discrimination is OK—so long as it results in an abortion.
According to a poll commissioned by the Charlotte Lozier Institute about 80 percent of people oppose sex-selective abortions.

Large majorities support bans on second- and third-trimester abortion, on sex-selective abortion and on the controversial “partial birth” procedure.

These are issues where many Democratic politicians have something in common with Akin: They have abortion positions well outside the American mainstream.

bbauska wrote:Perhaps you should ask me why?

freeman2 wrote:Brad is an officer and a gentleman--others would do well to follow his example of treating other posters with respect.