The silver lining of a perforated uterus.
The silver lining of a perforated uterus.
The Washington Post today highlights a rift in the anti-choice movement. Several groups believe the Supreme Court’s recent ruling upholding a ban on late-term abortions “was a disaster for their cause” because some late-term abortion procedures would still be legal. But James Dobson’s Focus on the Family supports the Court’s decision. Its reasoning:
“The old procedure [standard D&E], which is still legal, involves using forceps to pull the baby apart in utero, which means there is greater legal liability and danger of internal bleeding from a perforated uterus. So we firmly believe there will be fewer later-term abortions as a result of this ruling.”
In other words, Marty Lederman writes, the Court’s ruling “is especially desirable precisely because the primary alternative method of late-term abortion endangers the health of women.” Scott Lemieux has more.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
hopefully, it will take the death or disablement
June 4th, 2007 at 2:46 pmof only ONE of these anti-choice women,
to wake them up to the errors of their ways…
…
Here is more TP brainwashing -
ANTI-CHOICE!!!!!!
please… nobody uses this term.
OK, then let’s start saying PRO-DEATH!!!!
Got it everyone!!!!
Man, I can’t believe those liberal PRO-DEATH extremists, it’s like, hey why do you want to kill little babies and shit.
June 4th, 2007 at 2:52 pmMr. Accident, sir?
June 4th, 2007 at 2:59 pmThe Pentagon delegation is here, sir.
Yes sir, to discuss the next generation of nuclear weapons, sir.
I beg your pardon, sir?
No, they don’t like to discuss the aspect of civilian casualties either, sir.
No sir, you won’t have to answer any questions about infant mortality or birth defects, sir.
Yes sir, I’m aware it’s a sensitive subject to you personally, sir.
Sorry sir.
Mr. President,
Anti-choice. Everyone uses this term on here you right wing jackass!!!
I know you would like to frame us as ‘pro-abortions’ but I guess I could say, ‘no one uses that term’
No doctro worth his medical degree uses the term partial birth abortion either. It’s called late term abortion.
The right wing has been very effective at wordsmithing, now they get all riled up when the left has caught up. Get over it loser!!
June 4th, 2007 at 3:02 pmMan, I can’t believe those liberal PRO-DEATH extremists, it’s like, hey why do you want to kill little babies and shit. Comment by Mr. President — June 4, 2007 @ 2:52 pm
Are you referring to “Jesus”, or “GOD”? Since Jesus never bothered to change Old Testament laws that make aborting a “fetus” a “property” issue - and “GOD” that aborts more fetuses than anyone?
You’re such a st*Pid little sh*the*d…
June 4th, 2007 at 3:03 pmF*ck you, TP. What is the reason for my comment at #2 being deleted?
Was it MORE offensive than what Focus on the Family Dobson said?
Put it back!
June 4th, 2007 at 3:07 pmdobby appears to appreciate the threat to doctors this has caused. in fact, it seems to be saying that is the calculated effect, or am I misreading this?
June 4th, 2007 at 3:08 pmreligions interfering with medicine. does that make anyone comfortable?
I know you would like to frame us as ‘pro-abortions’ but I guess I could say, ‘no one uses that term’
Comment by Crump’s Brother — June 4, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
Nah, I’m saying (for those it applies) PRO-DEATH!!!!!
and the point is not that I am pro-life (I don’t give a f*ck), the point is the term “anti-choice” is loaded. It was a strategic move on the part of the PRO-DEATH crowd; instead of addressing moral issues it tries to score points with words… pathetic.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:13 pmdobby appears to appreciate the threat to doctors this has caused. in fact, it seems to be saying that is the calculated effect, or am I misreading this?
religions interfering with medicine. does that make anyone comfortable?
Comment by oldtree
I don’t think the SCOTUS intended there to be a threat to doctors, but these whackjobs have put their tiny nasty little pinheads together and decided that it’s a bonus — that and the potential perforated uterus.
I’m very un easy with religious involvement in medical decision-making.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:15 pmComment by katy — June 4, 2007 @ 2:46 pm
hopefully, it will take the death or disablement
of only ONE of these anti-choice women,
to wake them up to the errors of their ways…
…
Katy, I must be misunderstanding your point. Are you suggesting that it would take the death of only one woman from bleeding or uterine perforation for all women to be afraid of having an abortion? Or that in such a case Mr. Dobson would see the error of his views?
Zooey, I saw your excellent comment before it was deleted. A precis: Zooey suggested that people like Mr. Dobson considered the rights of women behind those of a dead fetus.
Regards.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:18 pmAnother Semantic Argument, brought to us by Mr P.
Anti-choice
Pro-abortion
If you don’t give a f*ck, as you claim, then go disrupt another thread.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:18 pmConservatives claim to be pro-life when it comes to fetuses but pro-death when it comes to mothers, adults, citizens caught in disasters like katrina, people in poor health without health insurance and our troops fighting overseas.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:18 pmComment by Mr. President — June 4, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
Nah, I’m saying (for those it applies) PRO-DEATH!!!!!
and the point is not that I am pro-life (I don’t give a f*ck), the point is the term “anti-choice†is loaded. It was a strategic move on the part of the PRO-DEATH crowd; instead of addressing moral issues it tries to score points with words… pathetic.
Mr. President, you are therefore also against IVF treatment, yes? It’s a logical assumption to make on my part, because think of all those spare blastocysts that are incinerated (or frozen, which would be child abuse, surely?).
Regards.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:21 pmComment by Covalent Bonder — June 4, 2007 @ 3:18 pm
Thank you, Covalent Bonder.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:22 pmIf you don’t give a f*ck, as you claim, then go disrupt another thread.
Comment by Zooey — June 4, 2007 @ 3:18 pm
Sorry I have to do this.
“I don’t give a f*ck” about abortion. What I do give a fuuk about in *TP’s* abuse of semantics.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:23 pmMr. President, you are therefore also against IVF treatment, yes? It’s a logical assumption to make on my part, because think of all those spare blastocysts that are incinerated (or frozen, which would be child abuse, surely?).
Regards.
Comment by Covalent Bonder — June 4, 2007 @ 3:21 pm
No, reread my previous posts, my beef is with TP’s deliberate abuse of words
June 4th, 2007 at 3:24 pmBasically, the wingnuts are all about upholding the sanctity of life, except when it comes to actual people. If you make it out of the womb alive, you’re on your own.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:25 pmWomen scare the bejesus out of these guys. They’re all Paulists at heart and belileve that a woman’s body is ‘a sink of iniquity.’ Yet another thing they have in common with fundalmentalists of other faiths: because women are tempting, and because my carnal desires are evil, women are evil.
They need to contorl women to control their fear.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:25 pmGet over yourself and stop whining, Mr. President. I can’t count the times you anti-choice freaks have used the term pro-death. Believe me, you are not the first and you won’t be the last.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:25 pm“anti-choice” is “loaded”??? … it’s not even ambiguous…
but “pro-life” is NOT loaded??? … and it is positively hypocritical…
i get many comments - all positive - on my favorite bumper sticker:
June 4th, 2007 at 3:29 pmWAR IS NOT PRO-LIFE,
printed over a picture of a flag draped coffin
…
Get over yourself and stop whining, Mr. President. I can’t count the times you anti-choice freaks have used the term pro-death. Believe me, you are not the first and you won’t be the last.
Comment by JPark — June 4, 2007 @ 3:25 pm
REALLY???
Damn, I thought that I coined the phrase…
(this is not sarcasm, I had really not heard the term before)
June 4th, 2007 at 3:30 pmI wonder if Dobson and the like ever sit back and really really think about What Would Jesus Do and how would he do it.
I doubt celebrating potential pain and suffering because if potentially furthers there cause would be in the tool box.
Why haven’t they figured out that they should stop worrying about what everyone else is doing or not doing and start focusing on their own sins and salvation.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:31 pmMr. Incontinent, sir?
June 4th, 2007 at 3:32 pmThe abuse counselor is here for your appointment, sir.
Yes, that’s correct, the speech counselor.
Yes sir, to help you with your abuse of the English language, sir.
Sorry sir, I did not mean to imply you are the victim of abuse, sir.
I beg your pardon sir?
Oh, yes, well, we are all unpopular sometimes because of our actions, sir.
I beg your pardon sir?
Are you threatening me sir?
Oh, certainly, sir, by all means fire me sir!
Please sir!
Sir?
Mr. President, you are therefore also against IVF treatment, yes? It’s a logical assumption to make on my part, because think of all those spare blastocysts that are incinerated (or frozen, which would be child abuse, surely?).
Regards.
Comment by Covalent Bonder — June 4, 2007 @ 3:21 pm
No, reread my previous posts, my beef is with TP’s deliberate abuse of words
Comment by Mr. President — June 4, 2007 @ 3:24 pm
My apologies if I misunderstood your position.
My beef is with the anti abortionists hijacking the term pro life. I’m pro life, myself. I love life, and I want my fellow humans to love life, too. I also believe in the right of a woman to chose her own life and destiny.
But are you pro IVF? Just curious…
Regards.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:33 pmMr. President, the abortion issue has been on the back burner for some time. Stick around for some abortion debates and you will see it. It is very common.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:33 pm“I don’t give a f*ck†about abortion. What I do give a fuuk about in *TP’s* abuse of semantics.
Comment by Mr. President
Send TP a f*cking email and bitch about it.
WE GOT THE POINT!
June 4th, 2007 at 3:37 pmComment by Covalent Bonder — June 4, 2007 @ 3:18 pm
i’m not sure why you are confused… let me repeat:
hopefully, it will take the death or disablement
of only ONE of these anti-choice women,
to wake them up to the errors of their ways…
…
but, it will probably take many deaths and disablements
June 4th, 2007 at 3:42 pmto allow doctors to do what they are supposed to do…
…
Comment by Zooey — June 4, 2007 @ 3:22 pm
Thank you, Covalent Bonder.
You are most welcome :-)
Regards.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:43 pmMr. President
Why is semantics when TP says anti-choice, and it isn’t semantics when righties say pro-life? Isn’t it the same tactic?
June 4th, 2007 at 3:46 pmmr.p needs to read up on frank luntz…
the master of word smithing… for the righties…
talk about “abuse of semantics”…
June 4th, 2007 at 3:49 pm…
and the point is not that I am pro-life (I don’t give a f*ck), the point is the term “anti-choice†is loaded. Comment by Mr. President — June 4, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
And “pro-life” isn’t loaded? BAHAHA, st*pid little b!tch!!!
It was a strategic move on the part of the PRO-DEATH crowd; instead of addressing moral issues it tries to score points with words… pathetic. Comment by Mr. President — June 4, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
Exactly what I’m referring to. Nothing “loaded” about PRO-DEATH. I say what I always say to you - wingnut - PROJECT MUCH?
So tell me, wingnut. When you prevent a woman from having an abortion, who’s baby if “born” will likely kill her, while assuredly being dead at birth. How again are you “pro-life?
Hypocrite.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:54 pmTo Crump’s Brother: Actually, I believe the medical community uses the term “Intact Dilation & Extraction” for the procedure. The term “late-term abortion” is as non-medical as “partial-birth abortion” (which, incidentally, replaced “brain-suction abortion” since that term was apparently deemed “too graphic”). As far as I can tell from my use of “the Google” (on “intact dilation & extraction”), it was a Congressman, Charles Canady, who coined “partial-birth abortion”. Canady (a LAWYER, of all things) couldn’t find the procedure listed in any medical textbook, so he and his aides named it themselves. (Of course, since the term “dilation & extraction” itself had only been coined a few years earlier in 1992, it might have been a bit difficult for even that term to appear in a medical text in 1995. I’m supposing that Canady didn’t bother to check any medical JOURNALS of ththe day, however–sources which might have had ample coverage of IDX.)
To “Mr President”: Your opinion and concerns would hold a touch more validity if you hadn’t been so busy bombing the crap out of innocent Iraqis during the “shock & awe” phase of your war. Talk about someone being “pro-death”–only a RepubliCON could talk out of both sides of his mouth and actually believe he says what he means. The simple fact IS that when someone OPPOSES a woman’s CHOICE, then (get ready for a bit of logic) that makes the person ANTI-CHOICE; believe it or not, “anti” means “opposes”–so you’ll better grasp the use, think of the term “Anti-Christ” and what it means. The PRO-CHOICE movement believes that a woman can CHOOSE to carry the child to term or have an abortion; it’s HER choice (and, under ideal circumstances, a choice made by consulting her doctor and the fetus’ father and her family). The so-called “pro-life” movement is OPPOSED to her having a choice other than giving birth (and then, the “pro-life” movement completely loses interest as far as that BABY is concerned–time to move on to the next fetus).
June 4th, 2007 at 3:56 pmSorry I have to do this.
“I don’t give a f*ck†about abortion. What I do give a fuuk about in *TP’s* abuse of semantics.
Comment by Mr. President — June 4, 2007 @ 3:23 pm
Yet, you seem to have no concern for the Semantics of yourself and your fellow wingnuts. Hypocrite.
Tell me, have you ALWAYS been for RAPISTS RIGHTS? You know, rape a woman, and she’s “required” to have your baby because abortion is illegal?
Tell me, have you ALWAYS been for PEDOPHILE RIGHTS? You know, where a pedophile can molest an underage girl, and get her pregnant and you then require her to have his baby?
Tell me, have you ALWAYS been for INCEST RIGHTS? You know, where a relative can molest a child/young woman, and get her pregnant and you then require her to have his baby?
I didn’t know you were such a proponent of perversion - wingnut! Maybe that explains why you’re such a whiny little b!tch, that’s prone to using St*pid semantics?
Idiot.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:57 pmBut are you pro IVF? Just curious…
Regards.
Comment by Covalent Bonder — June 4, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
I see nothing wrong with that procedure, as long as eugenics are not involved.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:58 pmMr. President
Why is semantics when TP says anti-choice, and it isn’t semantics when righties say pro-life? Isn’t it the same tactic?
Comment by Crump’s Brother — June 4, 2007 @ 3:46 pm
No, because the righties chose “pro-life” (from what I understand).
June 4th, 2007 at 4:01 pmHowever, it is the same if a prolifer were to call a prochoicer “pro-death”.
Exactly what I’m referring to. Nothing “loaded†about PRO-DEATH. I say what I always say to you - wingnut - PROJECT MUCH?
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — June 4, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
I take it you saw the other thread?
June 4th, 2007 at 4:02 pmTo “Mr Presidentâ€: Your opinion and concerns would hold a touch more validity if you hadn’t been so busy bombing the crap out of innocent Iraqis during the “shock & awe†phase of your war. Talk about someone being “pro-deathâ€â€“only a RepubliCON could talk out of both sides of his mouth and actually believe he says what he means. The simple fact IS that when someone OPPOSES a woman’s CHOICE, then (get ready for a bit of logic) that makes the person ANTI-CHOICE; believe it or not, “anti†means “opposesâ€â€“so you’ll better grasp the use, think of the term “Anti-Christ†and what it means. The PRO-CHOICE movement believes that a woman can CHOOSE to carry the child to term or have an abortion; it’s HER choice (and, under ideal circumstances, a choice made by consulting her doctor and the fetus’ father and her family). The so-called “pro-life†movement is OPPOSED to her having a choice other than giving birth (and then, the “pro-life†movement completely loses interest as far as that BABY is concerned–time to move on to the next fetus).
Comment by JosephW — June 4, 2007 @ 3:56 pm
ummm… you know I’m not really the president, right?
But still, how does my argument here relate to Iraq?
No need to embarrass yourself any more than necessary, so think before you respond.
June 4th, 2007 at 4:05 pmBut are you pro IVF? Just curious…
Regards.
Comment by Covalent Bonder — June 4, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
I see nothing wrong with that procedure, as long as eugenics are not involved.
Comment by Mr. President — June 4, 2007 @ 3:58 pm
I see nothing wrong with IVF, either (and I never mentioned eugenics). But the spare blastocysts are either frozen and ultimately incinerated. That which we call a rose by any other name is still abortion. So I guess you’re pro choice. We are in agreement. Choice is good. Excellent!
Regards.
June 4th, 2007 at 4:08 pmSo I guess you’re pro choice. We are in agreement. Choice is good. Excellent!
Regards.
Comment by Covalent Bonder — June 4, 2007 @ 4:08 pm
No need to guess, I am pro choice (that is, if I were involved with politics, you know… like voting and stuff).
June 4th, 2007 at 4:12 pmBald-faced hypocrites passing judgement on something they will never experience.
Evangelical policy in a nutshell.
June 4th, 2007 at 4:13 pm“I don’t give a f*ck†about abortion. What I do give a fuuk about in *TP’s* abuse of semantics.
Comment by Mr. President — June 4, 2007 @ 3:23 pm
Spoken like a true yellow elephant keyboard warrior.
Screw the issues - I have you on semantics.
Idjit.
June 4th, 2007 at 4:16 pmComment by Covalent Bonder — June 4, 2007 @ 3:18 pm
i’m not sure why you are confused… let me repeat:
hopefully, it will take the death or disablement
of only ONE of these anti-choice women,
to wake them up to the errors of their ways…
…
but, it will probably take many deaths and disablements
to allow doctors to do what they are supposed to do…
Thanks for the clarification, Katy. It was the term “anti-choice” that confused me. I was ambiguous about your position.
I agree–let’s hope they realize the error of their extreme views.
Ah, semantics.
Regards.
June 4th, 2007 at 4:24 pmIt perfectly Ok to read what the man himself has to say about the decision ending this procedure.
He says it plainly and without deceptive language.
http://www.focusaction.org/Articles/A000000246.cfm
Dr. Dobson puts a huge amount of energy into making the USA a nation worth perserving.
June 4th, 2007 at 5:22 pmbitbit - viability should NOT be an issue. It is a woman’s choice regardless - however, the vast majority of abortions take place in the first 8 weeks. Later term abortions are usually for medical reasons, and refusing to allow exceptions for a woman’s life makes clear that this is not care for the fetus but hatred of the woman. And no one should be forced to have an ultrasound - this is just abuse of the woman. I really don’t understand why you and all the other so-called ‘pro-life’ people feel that you have the right to control women’s lives and fertility. You’re no better than the pathetic women on daytime teevee who don’t think it’s a sin to screw 3 or 4 guys in a week, but have the baby because abortion is a sin. If you think abortion is a sin, fine - don’t have one. But you have no right, none, zip to tell any other woman that she has to do it your way. And men can all just shut up, period. I’ll listen to what you have to say when you get pregant.
To quote the great Gloria Steinam:
If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.
June 4th, 2007 at 5:41 pmDr. Dobson puts a huge amount of energy into making the USA a nation worth perserving.
Comment by bitblt
Your Dr Dobson wishes for women having a legal medical procedure to have their uterus perforated, so the doctor will be sued and then refuse to do necessary abortions in the future, all to achieve the goal of forcing women to carry a pregnancy to term.
Who cares if the fetus has died, or is microcephalic, or will cause the death of the mother being born? Dr Dobson — and you — have an agenda to stick to.
Mind your own business.
June 4th, 2007 at 5:59 pmDid anyone read the decision? It is still perfectly legal for doctors to perform the procedure. They just have to use an injection to kill the baby before they slice open or smash it’s skull. Why do liberals insist on keeping the baby alive for the skull slicing? You still get to kill the baby. C’mon, you can give in on the torture part, cain’t ya? ;)
June 5th, 2007 at 2:20 am“In addition, if intact D&E is truly necessary in some circumstances, a prior injection to kill the fetus allows a doctor to perform the procedure, given that the Act’s prohibition only applies to the delivery of “a living fetus, ”
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-380.pdf
you people really should stop aborting your future voter blocks . I mean every time a liberal girl aborts her baby because it is just not convenient to carry for 9 months and gets in the way of partying and school she cut the throat of another liberal voter in 18yrs.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:48 amMr. President they want to kill little babies so that they can feel good when they say that the troops that they profess to support kill iraqi children and babies , makes liberal sense thats why I call them DEMWITS
June 5th, 2007 at 11:51 amLiberals Pro Death for Babies and Pro Life for Murders Rapist and other Criminals . that is why they call me a Troll : ) I am just the opposite
June 5th, 2007 at 11:55 am