Some states protect women's rights

From The New York Times: Supreme Court Will Not Hear Bid to Revive Alabama Abortion BanIn 2016 Alabama enacted a law that would have prohibited the dilation and extraction method of abortion. Lower courts have struck the law down, and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court has announced it will not hear the case, allowing the lower courts ruling to stand.What is interesting is that, if I understand the rules correctly, it would have taken only four members of the Court to hear the case. Could be that the Court is waiting for the best, most definitive case to come up; could be that Roberts and one of the conservative justices feel that Roe v Wade is settled law.

I finally found a few references to the laws I was talking about.I know y'all don't think there's any censorship on Google but I certainly do. It's almost impossible to find a conservative viewpoint even on subjects where they used to show up at the top of a Google page. Finding the kind of information I had in mind took some work, but Wikipedia does have information on the law in New York and the bill in Virginia though it's pretty short shrift in my opinion.So I was referring to a law recently passed in New York for one, and a bill that I guess didn't pass in Virginia, expanding abortion rights through the third trimester if necessary according to medical standards.This is the one passed in New York City (From Wikipedia): "At any time."Here's an the Virginia bill has provoked a swift backlash from conservatives. But that response was compounded by comments Northam made on WTOP radio Wednesday when asked about the bill.
"When we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of obviously the mother, with the consent of the physicians, more than one physician, by the way," Northam said. "And it's done in cases where there amy be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that's non-viable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother. So I think this was really blown out of proportion."

Good. You found a law in NY that allows late term abortion when the mother’s health is gravely affected. You found another in VA to further give such rights to women.Fact. All states allow late term abortions.Half of the states have no restrictions on abortion late term or any other time. As it should be. The other half restrict abortions after 20+- weeks to cases of medical need.You oppose this why?Now the next step in your emotional straw man.Show me the 39-week abortion. Show me why it was done. Show me a 39-week abortion contrary to medical necessity.Do you expect/require a woman to carry the fetus to her own death? Do you expect/require a woman to carry a fetus that is already dead? Does a woman need your permission or the permission of a bunch of religiously inspired old white republicans in the legislature before she can abort under these conditions?I see it as the essence of human dignity that we should be free in our own bodies. It is at the very core of how we will allow governments of law to treat human beings. A woman’s right, as anyone’s right for their own body, should be seen as absolute.If we cannot protect a woman’s rights in this most basic of moments then protections exist for no one. She must be allowed to decide in her own way free from the interference of government just as we all demand for our own bodies. The government has no right to any part of my body or anyone’s body. That concept needs to be set as a corner stone of modern law. And we set that precedent for all of us by acknowledging, in law and in court, a woman’s right to her own.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

But we have all kinds of laws regulating medical practice.To say such laws are "dictating" is an abuse of language.

But not entirely bodily integrity issues. Absolutes are tricky.

From across the pond

quote:

---

EXCLUSIVE: MP outrage at 39-week abortion | UK | News | Express.co.uk

​

EXCLUSIVE: MP outrage at 39-week abortion

​

SHOCKED MPs have called for a change to Britain’s “medieval and cruel” abortion laws after a termination was carried out on a baby only days before it was due to be born By Caroline Wheeler PUBLISHED: 00:00, Sun, Jul 13, 2014

​

It was aborted 39 weeks into pregnancy under guidelines that allow termination where there is a “significant risk” the child will be disabled.

​

Department of Health figures show that last year a further three abortions were carried out on mothers who were 38 weeks pregnant and two more on women 37 weeks into pregnancy.

​

Conservative MP Fiona Bruce, co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Pro-life Group, said: “I do not understand how we can have a law which allows the life of a baby with a disability to be ended at full term. It is a graphic illustration of society’s inconsistency on disability.

​

“After birth we work hard to ensure equality, but before birth we have laws to prevent the disabled taking their first breath. This medieval, cruel, discriminatory law must change.”

​

Labour MP Rob Flello added: “We have a Jekyll and Hyde approach to disability. One one hand the entire country can be united in praise of paralympians. On the other we can permit the abortion of children at nine months simply for the crime of having a disability.

​

NHS guidelines consider a baby is full-term at 37 weeks, though most women go into labour between 38 and 42 weeks into their pregnancy.

​

Abortion beyond 24 weeks can only legally be carried out if there is a grave risk to the life of the mother or there is severe foetal abnormality.

​

Such a procedure routinely involves giving the baby an injection, usually of potassium, into its heart so it dies before the process starts.

​

Last year there were 190 abortions beyond the 24-week limit, almost 20 per cent up on the previous year.

​

Most were carried out under a legal definition known as Ground E, where there is “substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped”.

​

Last year a parliamentary commission called for change in the law after hearing rules even allowed abortions at 40 weeks on grounds of disability.

​

It learned that abortions can be carried out on babies with a cleft lip or club foot, conditions that can be rectified after birth. One doctor reported that on some occasions a wrong diagnosis had been given and the dead foetus was found to have no disability.

​

So far there has been no official Government response to the report.
IPSO Regulated Copyright ©2019 Express Newspapers. "Daily Express" is a registered trademark. All rights reserved.

---

You asked for the definition of the term. I gave you the definition of the term. If you don't like that definition, you're free to dispute it!

Purely as a matter of opinion polling, yes, there are many people who consider regulations to prevent abortion of a 1-week gestation fetus to be unduly intrusive but on the other hand consider an abortion performed at 39 weeks gestation to be extraordinarily crass.

That's what courts are for.

Ok, but you were asking what I thought. I hope your question has been answered.

Why do I oppose late term abortion? Something about feeling sik to my stomach at the thought of killing a fully formed baby.No, of course I'm not for the woman to carry a dead child, what a ridiculous idea. And I've always said a threat to the mother's life always has highest pririoty. However that situation is extremely rare.I think the post (Message 216) about the UK's report on actual 39, 38, 37 week abortions and the schizophrenia toward disabled babies is particularly interesting.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Except we're not talking the UK but a 39-week abortion outside of medical necessity here in the USofA. The UK health law recognizing sever fetal handicap as sufficient to request such a late termination is not the topic here.I suspect around these parts any such incident would have a justification that we all might look at and say, "Oh, Ok."You know they have to be out there. So let's see one.

What I said in Message 204 is ...the point is not that an abortion has yet been performed at birth but that the law now specifically accepts it....But although we are not the UK I do think it's interesting that they actually have a record of such abortions being performedEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

Do we have laws that force people to walk around with a gangrenous limb? Or with a tumour? I have no problem at all with calling that dictating.

I noticed that article is five years old. What is the followup? Did the law get changed?They also don't specify the disability. Was it as treatable as a cleft palate? Or would it have been a far more serious, quality of life issue for the child as well as for those who would have had to raised it?