Bush signed the bill

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-22-2003
Bush signed the bill
Fri, 11-07-2003 - 5:54pm
I am so angry right now at President Bush. This week he made it the law to stop late term abortions (2nd & 3rd trimester). I totally disagree with his decision. First of all he is not a woman and does not know what it feels like to be pregnant. He has no right to decide that a woman must keep her baby if she does not want to. My main concern is women with medical conditions that become pregnant (women still become pregnant using birth control, no sex is the safest method) and are faced with a life or death situation. They are the ones that will suffer behind this. So many are pregnant and have to face if they want to live and abort the baby for medical reasons or do they want to die and let their baby live.

Someone need to address this issue to him. I support a woman's decision to have an abortion, afterall, it is her body and no one owns it, not even President Bush!


iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-2003
Fri, 11-07-2003 - 6:07pm
First, I thought he signed a bill to stop partial birth abortions which happen in the 3rd trimester.

Second, I belive the bill allowed for loopholes in case a medical condition did arise.

Third, now this is if I am right about it just preventing 3rd trimester abortions, I'm sorry, but if you can't figure out in 6 months whether or not you want the baby, you have no right allowing a doctor to induce labor just so he can stab it in the back of the head when it is halfway to being BORN.

What makes me angry is some CA judge is allowing 900 PP offices to continue with late-term abortions. Sorry judge. It's the law.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-09-2003
Fri, 11-07-2003 - 6:19pm
Calm down Karmen, I don't believe you have your facts straight. No one's life is in jeopardy (except the fetus who will be killed regardless). First of all, if a woman's life is in jeopardy, the AMA has stated that NEVER would a partial birth abortion be done to save her- a C-section would. Second, Late term abortions are still legal(you can still decide at any time-usually up to 26 weeks- to kill your fetus), a doctor just cannot use the method of delivering its writhing little body and then shoving a pair of scissors into its skull to kill it. The only time this procedure would really be needed is when a fetal condition called hydroencephaly exists, and I believe there is a health exception for that. Otherwise all the fuss is over the health clause- and let me make this clear- we are NOT talking "life or death" situations. The fuss is over "future fertility", which ANY PROCEDURE can alter (just ask my infertile friends who have had abortions in the past) not just a C-section. Personally, such concern over future fertility while one is desperately trying to kill one's offspring seems a little ironic.


iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 11-07-2003 - 7:14pm
Good point..."I'm worried about my future children while I'm killing this one now" sheesh.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-26-2003
Sat, 11-08-2003 - 12:33pm
I am very pleased with the presidents decision. Now I must say if you want to start a debate or for that matter even have an opinion I think that you need to get your facts straight. Do some research and then come to a sound decision. You might find that after reading the full bill you may agree with his decision. Then again you may not but atleast you will have all of the facts.
Image hosting by Photobucket   &n
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sat, 11-08-2003 - 1:15pm
Welcome to the board. Contrary to how you've been "greeted", there are several posters on both sides of the issue here that are interested in an open-minded respectful debate.

Here is a link to the actual bill:


Hope you stick around,