I know many of my acquaintances have strong feelings about Tim Roemer's candidacy for the DNC chair fearing that the result would be an effort to undermine a woman's right to choose. I sympathize with this position because I can not imagine myself what it would be like to lose the right - the ability to have control over one's own body.

...........................................
............................................

In all honesty, the answer to your question is no way.

I think most of us on thise forum would be able to agree with your post.  In fact, I stated in one of those why we disagree topics that I thought this was one area that we could find common ground on.  I don't know why Mac doesn't think so.

Why don't the Democrats talk about the fact that the abortion rate declined under Bill Clinton and increased under George Bush?  Why don't they talk about the fact that in countries where sex education and birth control are easily available, there is a much lower rate of abortion and, in some countries, delayed sexual activity by young people?

EDUCATION AND PROMOTION OF BIRTH CONTROL WORK FOLKS!!

I think most of us on thise forum would be able to agree with your post.  In fact, I stated in one of those why we disagree topics that I thought this was one area that we could find common ground on.  I don't know why Mac doesn't think so.

Abortion really is an issue where there is no compromise. If you believe otherwise, go to any coffee house and discuss it with 10 people; you would see what I meant.

Abortion really is an issue where there is no compromise. If you believe otherwise, go to any coffee house and discuss it with 10 people; you would see what I meant.

I think most of us on thise forum would be able to agree with your post.  In fact, I stated in one of those why we disagree topics that I thought this was one area that we could find common ground on.  I don't know why Mac doesn't think so.

Why don't the Democrats talk about the fact that the abortion rate declined under Bill Clinton and increased under George Bush?  Why don't they talk about the fact that in countries where sex education and birth control are easily available, there is a much lower rate of abortion and, in some countries, delayed sexual activity by young people?

EDUCATION AND PROMOTION OF BIRTH CONTROL WORK FOLKS!!

How about we let women of child-bearing age to work this out amongst themselves.

Anyone who cannot give birth should not be able to influence this decision.

How about we let women of child-bearing age to work this out amongst themselves.

Anyone who cannot give birth should not be able to influence this decision.

How about we let women of child-bearing age to work this out amongst themselves.

Anyone who cannot give birth should not be able to influence this decision.

There are two areas where I see conflict - parental notification and late-term abortions.  I have mixed feelings about both of these issues.

I don't.  My feelings are pretty clear on both.

#1 parental notification:  Should not be required.  Why?  Because the girl may come from an abusive family, she may be severely "punished" for getting pregnant, she may be pregnant by her own father--using the courts as a way to get around parental notification (with good reason, like some I listed) is a good solution.

#2 late term abortions:  Should only be allowed if the health of the mother, child, or both is in severe jeopordy and the child can not sustain itself on its own.  The way it used to be applied.  What's wrong with this?  Why would we condemn a women to death because she had a bad pregnancy?

I agree with both except number 2 maybe allowed in case of rape and incest as well. If its a child and the rape/incest is not discovered until late in the term of the pregnancy...

Who wouldn't agree that sex education in public schools is a good thing?
There are two areas where I see conflict - parental notification and late-term abortions.  I have mixed feelings about both of these issues.

I don't.  My feelings are pretty clear on both.

#1 parental notification:  Should not be required.  Why?  Because the girl may come from an abusive family, she may be severely "punished" for getting pregnant, she may be pregnant by her own father--using the courts as a way to get around parental notification (with good reason, like some I listed) is a good solution.

#2 late term abortions:  Should only be allowed if the health of the mother, child, or both is in severe jeopordy and the child can not sustain itself on its own.  The way it used to be applied.  What's wrong with this?  Why would we condemn a women to death because she had a bad pregnancy?

I don't.  My feelings are pretty clear on both.

#1 parental notification:  Should not be required.  Why?  Because the girl may come from an abusive family, she may be severely "punished" for getting pregnant, she may be pregnant by her own father--using the courts as a way to get around parental notification (with good reason, like some I listed) is a good solution.

#2 late term abortions:  Should only be allowed if the health of the mother, child, or both is in severe jeopordy and the child can not sustain itself on its own.  The way it used to be applied.  What's wrong with this?  Why would we condemn a women to death because she had a bad pregnancy?

I agree with both except number 2 maybe allowed in case of rape and incest as well. If its a child and the rape/incest is not discovered until late in the term of the pregnancy...

How about we let women of child-bearing age to work this out amongst themselves.

Anyone who cannot give birth should not be able to influence this decision.

Nobody is talking about a compromise.  The two work together.  Roe vs Wade is indispensable, but the measures to prevent unwanted pregnancies are too.

Mac2, just a question.  Are you a woman???

Basically agree, except let me make it clear that I support parental notification with a judicial bypass precisely for those situations of abusive families.

Well, the topic of the thread implied compromise to me, and I still don't see reaching agreement without it. If I am wrong, then disregard my comments.

  I was not voicing my stand on the abortion issue, my comments were of my experience with people that I have met. Honestly, this issue is so complex that agreements are nearly impossible.

I don't.  My feelings are pretty clear on both.

#1 parental notification:  Should not be required.  Why?  Because the girl may come from an abusive family, she may be severely "punished" for getting pregnant, she may be pregnant by her own father--using the courts as a way to get around parental notification (with good reason, like some I listed) is a good solution.

I agree with 1.  On 2, I think that it should be allowed.  There are no women that do a third term abortion for their pleasure (assuming that late term means third term).  Why cant people believe that women are not monsters for once.

I dont agree with that completely, for several reasons but mainly because some teens are to quick to believe thier parents would not be supportive and may even condemn them by kicking them out or other consequences. Some teens resort to abortion out of fear of what people will think of them, or how thier parents might react, when in reality the teen may want to keep the child. If a teen has supportive parents, then the parents should have a right to know and be able to discuss the situation with the teen, if nothing else but to make sure the teen is either having or not having a abortion with full understanding of what that means and not being swayed either way by outside influence or fear.

I think the parental notification should be a must unless there are circumstances that would make it a threat, or harmful toward the teen like the cases you stated above.

There are more than absusive families.  There are girls that are afraid to tell their parents.  The problem here is that if parental notification is automatic, they will go to illegal abortion centers and put their lives in danger rather than tell their parents (whether they are abusive or not).  As a parent, I would certainly like to know.  But I doubt that a kid that does not dare to tell their parents by themselves is going to go to legal ways if parental notification is automatic except in abusive situations.

I think the idea was that there was legislations (that reduce abortions without forbidding it) where "pro-life" (I hate this term, we have to find something else)  and pro-choice people could agree on in the Democratic party even if they dont agree on the abortion issue by itself, and that we should try to advance those subjects to show that the Republicans are not interesting in reducing abortions, they are interesting in politics only.

The assault on womens rights continues.
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.d...EWS01/502110454

Holding:  Texas laws criminalizing abortion violated women's Fourteenth Amendment right to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy. Judgment of U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas affirmed in part, reversed in part.


The Supreme Court's decision
The Court issued its opinion on January 22, 1973, with a 7-2 majority voting to strike down the law and Justices White and Rehnquist dissenting. On the same day, the same 7-2 majority invalidated a Georgia abortion law in the lesser-known case of Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973), involving Georgia's abortion laws.

[edit]
Abortion
The opinion of the Court, written by Justice Harry Blackmun, notes that "the restrictive criminal abortion laws in effect in a majority of States today are of relatively recent vintage" with criminalization of abortion mostly occurring from law enacted in the latter half of the nineteenth century. Section VI of the opinion was devoted to an analysis of historical attitudes, including those of: the Persian Empire, Greek times, the Roman era, the Hippocratic oath, the common law, English statutory law, American law, the American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association (http://www.apha.org/), and the American Bar Association.

Without finding a historical basis for the laws, the Court identified three justifications in Section VII of the opinion to explain the criminalization of abortion: (1) women who can receive an abortion are more likely to engage in "illicit sexual conduct", (2) the medical procedure was extremely risky prior to the development of antibiotics and, even with modern medical techniques, is still risky in late stages of pregnancy, and (3) the state has an interest in protecting prenatal life. As to the first, "no court or commentator has taken the argument seriously" and the statute failed to "distinguish between married and unwed mothers." However, according to the Court, the second and third constitute valid state interests. In Section X, the Court reiterated, "[T]he State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman ... and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life."

Valid state interests, however, must be weighed against the constitutional rights granted to individuals in order to determine whether a law is a constitutional exercise of power. Even though the "Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy" the court found support for a constitutional right of privacy in the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Ninth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, the penumbra of the Bill of Rights. The court found "this right of privacy" to be "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."

However, the Court determined that "arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive." The Court declared, "We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation."

When weighing the competing interests the Court also noted that if the fetus was defined as a person for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment then the fetus would have a specific right to life under that Amendment. However, given the relatively recent nature of abortion criminalization, the Court determined that the original intent of the Constitution up to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 did not include the unborn. It should be noted that the Court's determination of whether a fetus can enjoy Constitutional protection is separate from the notion of when life begins. To that, the Court said, "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

Relying on the current state of medical knowledge, the decision established a system of trimesters that attempted to balance the state's legitimate interests with the individual's constitutional rights. The Court ruled that the state cannot restrict a woman's right to an abortion during the first trimester, the state can regulate the abortion procedure during the second trimester "in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health," and in the third trimester, demarcating the viability of the fetus, a state can choose to restrict or even to proscribe abortion as it sees fit.

Justice Byron White, joined by Justice William H. Rehnquist, vigorously dissented, calling the Court's decision "an exercise of raw judicial power." He wrote:

I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand.

The 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey overturned Roe's strict trimester formula, and emphasized the right to abortion as grounded in the general sense of liberty protected under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, rather than a generalized right to privacy. Advancements in medical technology, expected to continue, meant that a fetus might be considered viable, and thus have some basis of a right to life, at 22 or 23 weeks rather than at the 28 that was more common at the time Roe was decided. For this reason, the old trimester formula was ruled obsolete, with a new focus on viability of the fetus.

Currently in the United States 50% of all abortions are performed in the first eight weeks of pregnancy and 89% in the first twelve weeks. There were 21.3 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44 in the United States in 2001-02; the highest rate was 29.3 per 1,000 in 1980-81.

Holding: A Pennsylvania law that required spousal notification prior to obtaining an abortion was invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment because it created an undue burden on married women seeking an abortion. Parental notification, informed consent, and 24-hour waiting period were constitutionally valid regulations. Judgment of Second Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part.


Background of the case
Four provisions of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982 were being challenged as unconstitutional under Roe v. Wade, which first recognized a constitutional right to have an abortion in the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The "informed consent" rule under the Act required doctors to provide women with information about the health risks and possible complications of having an abortion before one could be performed. The "spousal notification" rule required women to give prior notice to their husbands, and the "parental notification" rule required the same of minors to their parents. The fourth provision imposed a 24-hour waiting period before obtaining an abortion. When the case came before the Court on review, Pennsylvania defended the Act in part by urging the Court to overturn Roe as having been wrongly decided.

The case was a seminal one in the history of abortion rights in the United States, as it was the first direct challenge of Roe since the liberal Justice Brennan was replaced in 1990 with the Bush-appointed and ostensibly conservative Justice Souter. Even most pro choice advocates expected Roe to be overruled and were gearing up for a subsequent State-by-State campaign against particular laws. However, Souter defied expectations and voted to uphold the constitutional right to have an abortion, preserving the precarious 5-4 Court vote in favor, though still changing the Court's abortion rights jurisprudence.

[edit]
The Court's opinions
Casey is a divided judgment, in that none of the Justices' opinions was joined by a majority of justices. However, the plurality decision jointly written by Justices Souter, O'Connor, and Kennedy is recognized as the lead opinion with precedential weight because each of its parts were concurred in by at least two other Justices, albeit different ones for each part.

Justices Blackmun and Stevens concurred with the parts of the Court's decision that upheld Roe and invalidated one of the Pennsylvania regulations. On the other side, Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Scalia each wrote opinions concurring in the parts of the Court's decisions that weakened Roe and upheld abortion regulations and dissented from the rest. Both Rehnquist and Scalia joined each other's concurrence/dissent, and Justice White joined both.

[edit]
The O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter plurality opinion
Though the plurality opinion stated that it was upholding what it called the "essential holding" of Roe, it did not leave it intact. The Court emphasized the right to abortion as "grounded in the general sense of liberty" under the Fourteenth Amendment, rather than recognizing a general right to privacy that had been implied in previous cases.

However, the Court overturned the strict trimester formula used in Roe to weigh the woman's interest in obtaining an abortion against the State's interest in the life of the fetus. Continuing advancements in medical technology meant that at the time Casey was decided, a fetus might be considered viable at 22 or 23 weeks rather than at the 28 weeks that was more common at the time of Roe. The Court recognized viability as the point at which the State interest in the life of the fetus outweighs the rights of the woman and abortion may be banned entirely.

The Court also replaced the heightened scrutiny of abortion regulations under Roe, which was standard for fundamental rights in the Court's case law, with a lesser "undue burden" standard previously unknown in the Court's case law. A legal restriction posing an undue burden was defined as one having "the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus."

Applying this new standard to the Pennsylvania Act under challenge, the Court struck the spousal notification requirement, stating that it gave too much power to husbands over their wives and would worsen situations of spousal abuse. The Court upheld the State's 24 hour waiting period, informed consent, and parental notification requirements, holding that none constituted an undue burden.

Status of the Law
[edit]
June 1, 2004
Federal District Judge Phyllis Hamilton of California struck it down on June 1, 2004 on three grounds (2):

Because it places an 'undue burden' (i.e., "a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus.") on women seeking abortion.
Because its language is unconstitutionally vague.
Because it lacks constitutionally-required provisions to preserve women's health (the law only provides for cases in which a woman's life is at risk).
A nationwide injunction was withheld while waiting for similar decisions from Federal Courts of Nebraska and New York.

[edit]
August 26, 2004
United States District Judge Richard C. Casey found the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional. He ruled that the act must contain exceptions to protect a woman's life and health; the text of the act allows an exception to the ban in the case of risk to the woman's life, but it does not consider risks to her health.

I dont agree with that completely, for several reasons but mainly because some teens are to quick to believe thier parents would not be supportive and may even condemn them by kicking them out or other consequences. Some teens resort to abortion out of fear of what people will think of them, or how thier parents might react, when in reality the teen may want to keep the child. If a teen has supportive parents, then the parents should have a right to know and be able to discuss the situation with the teen, if nothing else but to make sure the teen is either having or not having a abortion with full understanding of what that means and not being swayed either way by outside influence or fear.

I think the parental notification should be a must unless there are circumstances that would make it a threat, or harmful toward the teen like the cases you stated above.

That was my thinking - the we should become the pro-life party by advancing policy position which preserve a woman's right to decide for herself - but also provide women with greater options and greater support if they want to have a choice to bring a child to term and place it up for adoption.

We use tax credits and deductions and rebates to promote so many things - so may argue using them to save lives is just wrong - but why - why not use them to advance what we find most precious. Life.

In this way we can show the Rs to be what they are - politically expedient - twisting issues to their advantage - issues which I do not believe they even really care about.

And we can show that we do care - and that we are not going to wait for that day which may (and hopefully) never come where aboritons are outlawed - but rather we are going to do something about the problem now.

What if we advanced the Pro-Life Adoption Advancement Act which promoted tax credits for adoptions, health insurance for all women during pregnancy and afterwards for their children, day care, and education.

We would have the Republicans fall out of their seats...

I won't argue that this isn't a valid worry.  But we have parental notification in a lot of states, is there any indication how often this actually happens?  There was one heavily publicized (but disputed) case in Indiana some years ago. 

As a parent of a 4-year old girl let me say that I would not want her to have the freedom of getting an abortion without my knowledge when she becomes that age.  I think that she would not have the maturity as a teenager to make that kind of decision by herself.  (I certainly hope that I can make it clear to her that while I strongly don't want her to become pregnant that I would never withold my love and support from her if she did.)  I don't say this as a way of trying to close off discussion.

It is not a question of having the right to know.  It is a question of helping the kid make a difficult decision.  Obviously, if the kids trust the parents, they will go to the parents and not to the doctor.  In addition, a good doctor should try to get the kid to talk to the parents if this is not done.

I understand, but I would want to believe that you have a relationship with her that is open enough that she would come to you first, and that you would not need the notification.

But I think that you are making a flawed assumption here, that while you cannot always trust the parents you can always trust that the girl will not make a bad decision on her own and wouldn't make the mistake of not telling her parents out of fear, even if they are the most supportive parents around, or at least the doctor would most likely be able to convince the girl to do the right thing.

Who here as a teenager didn't keep big secrets from their parents, even if they were the greatest kinds of parents?

It is not a question of having the right to know.  It is a question of helping the kid make a difficult decision.  Obviously, if the kids trust the parents, they will go to the parents and not to the doctor.  In addition, a good doctor should try to get the kid to talk to the parents if this is not done.

And most teen girls only trust thier parents to a certain degree, im sure many parents would be shocked at how when it comes to pregnancies and sex teen girls have little trust in them and many misconceptions about how thier parents would react.

How many teen girls do you know that would without a second thought go to thier parents and say im having sex, or im pregnant if they had another choice, regardless of how close they are to thier parents?

But i agree with you about the Doctor should try to get the teens to talk to the parents.

What if we advanced the Pro-Life Adoption Advancement Act which promoted tax credits for adoptions, health insurance for all women during pregnancy and afterwards for their children, day care, and education.

We would have the Republicans fall out of their seats...

I agree except for me adoption is not where the focus should be: prevention is and heath insurance and help for families that want to keep their child, but cant afford it.

I am conflicted about promoted adoption because I think that this will only add to the mother's difficulty.  I have trouble to see how you can carry a baby to its term, give birth to him, and let him go without severe emotionnal damages.  It is certainly an alternative for a woman that wants to do it, but for me, this is not where the effort should be made.

And please, also add support for those women who have to have an abortion if there are alone.

No, I am just afraid that if notification is mandatory, this same kid will go to places that dont bother with the law and that she would have an abortion, but only in an unsafe environment.