Here is a link to the news and bill

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-05-2003
Here is a link to the news and bill
9
Wed, 11-05-2003 - 2:29pm
that was signed into law today - which PP and NOW are trying to overturn. Compassion and love eh? I truely don't see it in these orgs. I am very sorry my PC friends, I wish that I did.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:S.3:

Avatar for munchies
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-12-2003
Wed, 11-05-2003 - 3:36pm
Hey!

Kim mom to Brad, Matt, Emma, Sarah, and Meagan

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-19-2003
Wed, 11-05-2003 - 3:51pm

Why does each version include this in Section 2, (14), (O):


"For these reasons, Congress finds that partial-birth abortion is never medically indicated to preserve the health of the mother; is in fact unrecognized as a valid abortion procedure by the mainstream medical community; poses additional health risks to the mother; blurs the line between abortion and infanticide in the killing of a partially-born child just inches from birth; and confuses the role of the physician in childbirth and should, therefore, be banned."

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-05-2003
Wed, 11-05-2003 - 3:57pm
I think it is there because it defines the reason that PBA is now banned. I think that it is a reason as simple as that.
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-05-2003
Wed, 11-05-2003 - 4:02pm
I just highlight, copy and past munchies. I wish I could tell you that I did something different so to help you out, but all I did was go to the page, select the addy, and copy/paste. If I figure out that I did something differently, I will let you know. These pesky computers are all so different, or so it seems!
Avatar for munchies
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-12-2003
Wed, 11-05-2003 - 4:13pm
Well, I just C&P the documents from there.

Kim mom to Brad, Matt, Emma, Sarah, and Meagan

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-19-2003
Wed, 11-05-2003 - 5:22pm
Well A. , I am just NOT ready to relinquish the decision as to proper medical care to CONGRESS instead of an OB/GYN. My lack of support on this bill is simple as that. With the language in the bill, I am too suspicious.
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-05-2003
Wed, 11-05-2003 - 10:48pm
Why aren't you recognizing that the AMA stated that the majority of it's members also state that this proceedure is not a life-saving proceedure for the mother? It is written in the bill spacifically to offer back up to the credence of the bill.

Ask a few docors, just on the fly. Make a few annonus calls as if you are doing an independent study. See what you get back. Then, ask abortion doctors what they belive. Tell me if you don't see a major discrpency? It would make me rething this if the information were compelling and reliable.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-19-2003
Thu, 11-06-2003 - 8:18am

<<Why aren't you recognizing that the AMA stated that the majority of it's members also state that this proceedure is not a life-saving proceedure for the mother? >>


I've never been one to be cowed by peer pressure. As long as some of the sources I deem credible are expressing doubt or outright rejection of the bill as it is now written, I will withhold my support as well. As someone else mentioned, both sides are claiming 2 opposite interpretations of the protection afforded to a pregnant woman.

Avatar for munchies
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-12-2003
Thu, 11-06-2003 - 8:27am

Please keep in mind that many news sources are not objective on this issue and are not presenting all of the information.

Kim mom to Brad, Matt, Emma, Sarah, and Meagan