The government tried to get access to private medical records of a bunch of hospitals acorss the country as a fishing expedition to help them in their endeavor to show the evil PBA. Some hospitals fought them, not all of them did and not all won. If there were any evidence of the D&X procedure done in anything but the most dire of circumstances, the information would have been waved around like a banner.

There's a perception that people use abortion as a method of contraception which seems irresponsible. Logic would dictate that if you don't want to become pregnant, you avoid sex that puts you at risk for pregnancy or you take other precautions to avoid it, anything else is irresponsible.

you can google it just as easy as I can.

The way the ridiculous right always talks, you would think it happened a million times a week.
The face we should put on it, is the poor minority girl/woman (African American) who is butchered in a back alley back when it was illegal.Or mutilated and shall never again give birth or have sex for that matter.

If it save even ONE person all these years, it was worth it.

(and how moral is the right to assassinate a doctor for doing his God given ability as a doctor to perform a LEGAL procedure. And what gives them the right
to in your face hassle you if you are walking down the street. They are the things that should be banned.)

What too about girls who give up their baby for adoption, only to have their adopted family kill them (Joel Steinberg and Hedda Nussbaum for one)...

These people should get a life. As I am starting to get really annoyed, best to give it a rest.

Hallelujah!

The goal is to put the burden of asking these question to people on the right.

This is a post Mr.blue sky made back in November .(always like to see who I am arguing with)....so, as you are in pre-med,

let's say you are asked to perform a procedure that you disagreed with.
What comes first? Your preference or your oath
Would you personally perform an abortion?

How about letting women 18 and older work out this issue? That way, those of us who are past child bearing age can put in our 2 cents.

You offer some very good insight. That human face I was talking about.

I have to take Graham's side on one issue here, the use of the word "Responsibility" in a slogan. Now, no one should be against responsibility, but using this in the abortion issue leaves an ugly taste in my mouth. IMO it tends to make this an issue of blaming the woman for irresonponsibility, although I know this is not the intent of the vast majority, if not everyone, who is proposing this. The issue is what is the worth of the fetus, and we all know that we have vastly different opinions on that. I like "Options" better.

One thing on adoption. (Or maybe to reiterate.) I don't think it is "crap" (I don't take this personally, Beamer) to propose it as one tool. I don't think that it should be the only or main tool, indeed it is vastly perferable that women be helped to avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

As far as why if it is okay to abort (something I personally don't agree with for most cases) then why should it be rare, the answer is basically: It's more complicated than that. One can say abortion is wrong but making it illegal is a poor solution so let's do other things. Or that a lot of women are unsure about the morality themselves. Or that they may think the fetus has more value than a piece of tissue if less value than an individual human being. Or just in general that women, the ones who have to go through with either the pregnancy or the abortion, have a lot of mixed feelings about all of these kinds of issues and that it is unfair to expect that their conclusions about the meaning of abortion would be so neat. I think that a lot of women want the right, but don't consider the possibility of abortion without serious misgivings.

Wow...very good digging. I do want to state that I have always been upfront about who I am and my belifes and whatnot. I made a lot of informative posts on abortion too on that old board and in other threads...those are worth looking up as well... ;-)



Very good question and one that I have pondered. If it were to save the life of a mother, yes. Otherwise, I would consider performing the act a destruction of human life and thus a deep violation of medical ethics.

BTW, the modern Hippocratic Oath reads as follows:



whoops...forgot my source: http://www.geocities.com/everwild7/noharm.html
(as well as other sites one can google)

I respect you for answering the post. Thanks.
As such, you are entitled to your opinion (not that you need my permission of course.)

I guess there was disagreement even among the Greeks.

Apparently the Hippocratic Oath is not as widely used as it once was and has been modified over the years.

From wikipedia.org

I love wikipedia.org. You can find anything there.

The only people who would be offended by the word "responsibility" are the irresponsible and the not responsible. That's exactly the people the right-winger doesn't want having the right to choose.

Don't you get it, the worst it could do is push people on the left, further left. They would be pro-choice anyway. Don't you see, pro-lifers can't argue with pro-responsibility.

This is not about preaching to women. It's about giving the right-wingers, less of a reason to preach to women. It is a political slogan to counter the political slogan, pro-life.

I remember pre-Roe vs. Wade era, and I protested with feminist women for the right to a safe legal abortion for women in MN.
There are several factors which must be kept in mind:

1) for sexually active women there is no 100% effective birth control method, except having their tubes tied.

2) Many anti abortion forces also oppose birth control, and oppose condom distributions which also help prevent AIDS.

3) Even if Roe vs. Wade was reversed many states had pre-Roe vs Wade abortion laws in place.

4) If somehow all abortions were made illegal, rich women would again travel to other countries for their abortions, and poor women would go to back alleys or attempt self induced abortions.

5) If abstinence-only is taught they also must teach birth control,and disease prevention information,(and not just for heterosexuals), and a scientific board must approve curiculum as being honest, not fear mongering.

6) Bottom line there will continue to be some abortions, are they going to be unduly difficult to obtain with infringing laws? are they going to be safe for all women, regardless of monetary concerns, age, health of the woman?

I wish men would get out of this arguement and let women decide, it's their bodies, and we men will never have to face this decision.

I have to agree with Bill. As someone called irresponsible for making the decision to terminate for medical reasons when I was not at risk of death, irresponsible for not always using multiple forms of birth control in case one failed (as it did) and irresponsble for having sex with someone I had no intention of marrying, I like the idea of making it clear that despite what others think I feel I made a well thought out, informed and responsible decision.

I think Options would cause the same problem as Pro-Choice. We'll hear the baby has no options, etc.

It really is about being responsible in every sense of the word and doesn't penalize women for the reason she got pregnant.

this is my position written clearer than I did above.

And I too agree --- men who are against abortion have no right whatsoever
to be part of the discussion.

Amen!

Wishing won't get the issue off of the table. Republicans have made it a political football. We have to beat them at their own game or we will be trampled.

True, but we have to let the women decide and we have to stand behind them. Our best chance to fight this issue are the Ladies in Congress.
I plan to write to my congresswoman,(Ms Northop) and see where she stands on the offer made by NARAL Pro choice America. I would suggest others do the same.
We need to call their bluff. See where they stand on a Common Sense issue such as this.

And you the same, of course.



Condoms + pill is almost unbeatable. Now, its certainly not my place to judge, but I think we would do good to, while advising about birth control, let people know that if the odds offered by the above combination aren't good enough, it really might be a wise idea not to be sexually active at the time.



You are correct, in my humble opinion, that this is unfortuate.



This is also, in my opinion, an unfortunate viewpoint. Reproduction and sexuality are issues that involve men and women. These children (or fetuses if you prefer...) contain the genetic information from both partners and as such to exclude men from the abortion debate is inherantly unfair. It encourages men to take less responsibility and sends the message that they have no role in childbearing. While from a purely physical standpoint this is of course true, it should not be true from an emotional and caring perspective. I think it is unhealthy for men and women in society to relegate men to "sperm doners" who have little role after the initial act.

Furthermore, a very substancial amount of women in this nation agree that abortion should be more restricted from a legal viewpoint:

From page 9 of a study conducted by the Center for the Advancement of Women (done in conjucture with Princeton) http://www.advancewomen.org./womens_research/PartTwo.pdf



(BTW, sorry for the odd characters...copy\paste is acting up...)

Honestly, I feel it is a shame that an issue of this magnitude has been shoved under the rug. It is an issue that society should be openly debating and discussing from a scientific, factual, and ethical viewpoint, not from a political one. Once again, just my two cents on the matter.

http://www.rense.com/general60/ddoe.htm
11-29-4

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A majority of Americans say U.S. President George W. Bush's next choice for an opening on the Supreme Court should be willing to uphold the landmark court decision protecting abortion rights, an Associated Press poll found.
The poll found that 59 per cent say Mr. Bush should choose a nominee who would uphold the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion. About three in 10, 31 per cent, said they want a nominee who would overturn the decision, according to the poll conducted for the AP by Ipsos-Public Affairs.
"While I don't have a strong feeling about abortions personally, I wouldn't want the law overturned and return to the days of backdoor abortions," said Colleen Dunn, 40, a Republican and community college teacher who lives outside Philadelphia.

I really am concerned about sexual activity in teenagers (that Katie Couric special weirded me out). I know teens don't want to hear they're not mature enough because they all think they're very mature, but there has got to be way to get the message across that there's something to be said for life experiences (outside of sex) that enhance their understanding of the world and will greatly affect their decisions (in other words, maturity), and that while sex can be great it's better to wait it's best for them to wait until they have a more life experience and are able to take care of themselves before facing the potential consequences of sexual intimacy. I think a lot of the kids who are sexually active ignore the "wait" message because it's frequently in conjunction of abstinence only education with the henny-penny hysteria (you must wait until you're married; sex outside of marriage is a sin), instead of something less judgmental.


I couldn't agree with you more. Last December I got into a huge debate (on this forum) with someone who thought it was ridiculous that I (as a woman) would say that ideally the father should be involved in decisions regarding pregnancy. While, ultimately, the woman is the final arbiter if there's a difference of opinion (base solely on biology). The "it's my body and none of his business" attitude is extremely unhealthy. Men are affected by these decisions (even when they agree with termination, men do have feelings); I would never be so callous to say a man isn't hurt when his partner miscarries or there's a stillbirth, so how can you sumarily dismiss the feelings of all men regardless of the situation?



This doesn't surprise me, I think a lot of this stems from the increase in fertility problems. Women who used to be adamantly pro-choice are now having problems getting pregnant and resent women who do have abortions and/or consider them careless or selfish (despite the fact they may have had one themselves in the past that they don't necessarily regret).



again, couldn't agree with you more

I don't remember if you said where you are in Med School (MS3?) but I have a few questions, if you don't mind my asking:

#1 are you/will you be required as a student (or intern/resident not in an OB/GYN program) to perform an elective D & C abortion regardless of your personal beliefs? I don't recall this being a training requirement of the Dept of Medicine at the hospital I used to work at (or being required by all Med Students there) but certain organizations claim it is a requirement of all med schools and training programs.

#2 how is the revised hippocratic oath regarding abortion of "unique human life" applied? This would imply (as the pro-life movement is moving from the ensoulment argument to single-cell diploid organism) that human life does begin at conception and a proscription against termination except in cases of immminent threat to the mother's life. I'd think this is inconsistent with allowing termination based on results of pre-natal testing as well as discarding embryos based on pre-implantation testing.

#3 (this one may be too personal, so feel free to disregard since I'm just being curious) you'd mentioned if necessary, you could perform an abortion when a mother's life was imminently in danger - would you consider performing one in the case of significant genetic defect (i.e., Patau's or Edwards) or are you wise enough to avoid OB/GYN so you don't have to face those conundrums?

SAICP,

You're views are a breath of fresh air! I appreciate your comments and agree with almost everything you have stated.



Just pre-med right now: hopefully, I'll be accepted into medical school when I apply this upcoming fall.



I think in almost all cases it is not required given the moral and ethical considerations. I remember reading that, I think, NY was wanting to make it mandatory, regardless of religious or personal views, but I don't think that went anywhere.

I am looking to return to Kentucky to attend med school (Uof Kentucky or Uof Louisville) and practice there as well...given Kentucky's status as a solid "red" state, I doubt their state schools are going to mandate practicing abortion.



It appears there are other oaths that are used that dont mention abortion at all. I agree that it appears to be contradictory. I'll be quite honest, I had never read through the oath in its entirity until looking it up for this thread. I was quite surprised to see aborton mentioned in the "modern version." I know that for me elective abortion seemed like a major violation of ethics, but to see it codifed into the oath was interesting.



Thats another very good question and another that I pondered. Honestly, at this point, I will probably avoid OB/GYN (not simply to avoid facing those issues...but there are other fields that interest me more not to mention the insurance rates and whatnot). However, to answer your question: I would feel very hesitant on doing it--it would really depend on the situation and the actual condition of the infant, but I would lean strongly towards no-my longtime girlfriend works extensivly with people with disabilities (many very severely disabled) and it really is quite remarkable what these individuals are able to do and acomplish with their lives. I think we run into major problems whenever we start catagorizing subsets of humanity based on age or ability or any other such trait into "lesser humans" whose fate we have the authority to decide. Just my two cents...thanks for the insightful questions.

more lesbians , zero abortions

Excuse my error graham4anything. I find it interesting that men are the ones bally-hooing this topic. Women will decide what is right for them. Making it a political issue is just plain dumb. I agree with teacher731? that we need to leave this one to the women and move on with the other issues.

BTW, WOMEN WILL DECIDE THIS, whether abortion is legal or not.

I agree with these sentiments. I am a baby boomer woman who experienced the "free love" movement and its aftermath. During those times, there was much idealism in the culture and a feeling of equality between the sexes and a sense of brotherhood.

As we moved into the mid-70s and afterward, the idealism and sense of brotherhood faded, but the free love remained. And I think women started to be thought of more as sex objects than sisters on the path toward a true brotherhood of man. After all, many women were on the pill and women were expected to have sex or be thought of as not with it.

This is how things have remained. One can see the evidence by the widespread practice of women receiving breast implants and other plastic surgery enhancements.

I did not see the Katie Couric special, so I don't know what was addressed, but I too see younger and younger women engaging in sexual activity and behaving and dressing in a way that cheapens their femininity. And, I blame much of this on the culture as presented by the mainstream media and corporations that promote Britney Spears and others like her as a model for young women.

Many on the religious right and in the red states believe it was the 60s and the baby boomers and people on the left who changed the "innocence" and propriety of the 50s to the "hedonism" that they see in the culture today. What they're choosing to ignore is the role of the huge media conglomerates in promoting hedonism as a lifestyle. This isn't a bunch of aging hippies. These are business people looking at the bottom line. Sex sells, apparently.

I think that here again, prevention of unwanted pregnancy is the key to the abortion problem. Teaching young people in a non-judgmental way that it is best to wait and have sex when they're older is part of this. SAICS: I love your paragraph about this. It's very eloquent.

The 60's male radicals were every bit as misogynist as their mainstream parents.This and the beginning of lesbians becoming visible and vocal, helped to launch the country to women's liberation movement. The women's movement fractured, when lesbians were expelled for a year before rejoining their forces. The rift against gay womyn may have been harboured by republican women, also as young radical women matured many married and became more conservative than they were in their college years.

The answer is no, and we shouldn't compromise on this. If we do, what's the next right Big Brother will take away from us? We can't let a lunatic right-wing fringe cause us to cave in. And Hillary has lost whatever integrity she gained. That's not a sign of a leader, that's a LOSER!

Thanks


A little warning on applying to Med school: the application process is downright degrading
Should you choose to look outside of KY and have an interest in Public Health Medicine, look into East TN State's med. school - they specialized in public health programs and maintained small class size. I will also put in a plug for specializing in Pulmonary & Critical Care Medicine


I didn't recall all schools mandating it and was pretty sure that only ACOG accredited GYN training programs would require it (for obvious reasons). That lady who comments on my blog swears they all require it.



They're definitely not lesser humans; probably quite the opposite in many respects. I have to admit, I've thought about this a lot as I have been criticized for the reason I decided to terminate (I also briefly considered gong into genetic counseling when I left the lab). There are anomalies that I would terminate for (Patau's, Edwards - luckily I'm not a carrier for Tay Sachs, so that's nota concern) and obviously, there are things I don't understand why someone would consider terminating over. It's those gray areas that I hope (should I ever cross that bridge) I can maintain perspective over because, as you know, there's an amazing light (for lack of a better word) that shines from those we consider "handicapped".

There are just as many stories that would support it, as ones that are against it, Im not sure on the laws of all states on this, but isnt forcing a teen into adoption or abortion either one against thier rights?

Also I know there are many places the teen could of went or called for help.

She could of also applied to be an emacipated minor, and many teen homes, and chance, halfway ect offer help for teens in situations like your friends.

Is the parental consent issue for real? I mean, do Right to Lifers really care whether or not parents know what's going on, or do they see the issue as another means of restricting choice, as in the story above?
I'd be willing to bet if you produced a statistic that indicated parents decided on pregnancy termination more often than the daughter, they'd immediately back off. Notice though, they never propose mandatory pregnancy notification, only mandatory abortion notification. If that doesn't demonstrate their true agenda, I don't know anything more telling.
Rationale: How can a child be expected to go through an invasive surgical procedure without partental notification? (complication rate from legal abortion 2% or less)
But teen pregnancy? Much, much higher complication rate. No self respecting Pro Choice citizen should fall for the parental notification argument. Unless, of course you believe no medical information should be witheld from parents under any circumstance, which is pretty radical.

It's funny, if you ask Annie at AfterAbortion and the Pro-lifers - they are adamant about parental notification and think Pro-Choice folks are dead set against it; ironically, they claim that parents, grandparents, co-workers, bf, friends, etc. force/coerce most women into abortions they really don't want, make them think they want it b/c they are confused and then years later a vast majority of women suffer from post-abortion trauma syndrome/guilt. If they think parents are forcing kids into it, why would they want parental notification laws?

I actually think that under the age of 18, parents have the legal (and moral) right to be notified and involved unless there is a legitimate reason for them not to be (judicial by-pass should be available for those who fear notifying their parents). The entire reason that 18 year old girl died from septic abortion after ru-486 w/misoprostol is not the drug or PPs fault (as the parents claim), it's the fault of the girl and her bf for being too immature to tell anyone she'd had an abortion. Had any responsible adult known she'd just had an abortion and was sick, they would have taken her to get medical attention as appropriate and she'd be alive today; unfortunately, she and her bf were too concerned about anybody knowing to think rationally. I also think that young adults who rely on family members for support and/or financial assistance should also be open and honest with their parents; they don't need to go into details but going out of your way to lie and make claims of virginity when you're sexually active is the height of immaturity, the same goes for having an abortion if you're recovering in their home.

Surgical abortion is an invasive procedure that, like miscarriage and medical abortion, has potential complications. Women should not go through it alone and a responsible adult should be available to ensure they do not hemmorrhage and/or get an infection, and to get them appropriate medical care if they show signs of complications. The are a whole lot of stories of parents saying they wish their daughters had told them what was going on, they'd have been upset but at least they could have prevented unnecessary complications experienced by their daughter's focus on hiding why they were sick.

If you guys want to read a very sad tale of "realization" by someone who march with the pro-life movement, check this out:
Crossing Over

All true, but wouldn't you agree that it is not always in the interest of a pregnant teenager to involve parents? And should the courts really intervene in that scenario?
Teenagers certainly have a right to take birth control without parental consent, and that has some risks too.
They also have a right to seek treatments for STD's, some of which can get invasive as well.
And no one questions their right to carry a pregnancy to term over the wishes of their parents.
How does one reconcile these facts with a concept of the need for parental notification?

Yes you can, I am, I do not personally believe in abortion and would never for any reason have one, but I also do not believe i have a right to enforce my beliefs on someone else, so I support pro-choice, I am reasonably pro-life and pro-choice.

double post, sorry!

Yes its for real, a teen living at home cannot hide a pregnancy at least not forever from a parent, but you can hide a abortion.

But the more im reading about parental notification arguments in this topic, the more i think it may be being misunderstood, I would want to be notified if my daughter wanted an abortion, I would want at least a few days to discuss it with her, but I do not believe I should have a right to stop her if after hearing all choices and the possible ramifications of all she decides a abortion is her choice.


What i seem to be hearing is that is what most parents want that believe in parental notification, but for some reason its getting mixed up with the issue of parental consent.

Parental notification and parental consent should be two very different topics.

you must have missed it in my babbling, so I've highlighted in blue:


Parental notification laws have been ruled unconstitutional (as they should be) if they do not have a reasonable judical bypass system for those girls who are legitimately at risk by notifying parents. There are significantly greater risks to not treating STDs, than there are to routine therapies. To be honest, I'm not sure how/if girls get access to prescription contraceptives through a clinic on a non-emergent basis without parental permission - there would be an exceptional amount of liability to that.

BTW - I added a "Pro-Responsibility" post to my blog, I hope nobody minds (I think Annie at After Abortion and I are the only ones who read it and she's focused on my PP/adoption posting)

As far as I know, all Title X funded family planning centers take teenaged girls confidentially, and do not require parental consent for treatment. There's no liability. Under HIPAA, parents are not entitled to information on contraception.

It's only a matter of time before the parents of a teen-aged girl sue a clinic for supplying hormonal contraceptives when their innocent little girl throws a PE after being in a cast from a broken leg and doesn't know to discontinue use of hormonal contraceptives because she failed to the doctor who casted her leg that she was using the meds. PP's pretty good about telling you not to start smoking when you're using hormonal contraceptives, I don't think anyone routinely warns people about the need to temporarily discontinue use if their lowere extremities have to be immobilized (cast/brace) for a period of time (though, when I was in college, the PA at PP called my Orthopedic surgeon and read him the riot act for not telling me to discontinue my pill after knee surgery).

If parents of pregnant teens get the notification law passed, I'm fairly certain young women will run off, and have the abortion where ever they can, and it may permanently fracture families.

Most states already have parental notification laws (w/judicial override) and they really haven't been too problematic. I honestly think a lot of the girls who think they can't tell their parents probably can (the one decision most parents don't support is one to have and raise the child)

"Democrats Sound a New Note on Abortion"
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/front/10943732.htm


Perhaps less strident pro-choice voices will help those on both sides of the issue to find some common ground. Hope so!

Kan. AG Seeks Late-Term Abortion Records
Updated 1:21 PM ET February 24, 2005

http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pr...88f1mb80&src=ap

By JOHN MILBURN

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) - Attorney General Phill Kline is seeking the complete medical records of nearly 90 women who received late-term abortions to search for evidence of crimes, according to court documents.

The secret investigation began in October, according to written legal arguments filed Tuesday by two medical clinics that are opposing Kline's effort. They are asking the Kansas Supreme Court to intercede, saying if it doesn't, "a woman who exercised her constitutional right to privacy" could find government agents knocking at her door.

Kline, an abortion opponent, scheduled a news conference for Thursday afternoon, and his office said he would discuss "questions raised relating to child rape and abortion in Kansas."

The clinics' brief said Kline had demanded their complete, unedited medical records for women who sought abortions at least 22 weeks into their pregnancies. Court papers did not identify the clinics.

The records would include the patient's name, medical history, details of her sex life, birth control practices and psychological profile. The clinics, who say nearly 90 women would be affected, are offering to provide records with some key information, including names, edited out.

"These women's rights will be sacrificed if this fishing expedition is not halted or narrowed," the clinics' brief said.

On Oct. 21, Shawnee County District Judge Richard Anderson ruled that Kline could have the files. The clinics then appealed. The clinics' appeal is on an expedited schedule, said Ron Keefover, the Supreme Court's spokesman.

The clinics filed their request with the Supreme Court in October and outlined their legal arguments in a brief filed Tuesday. Though other documents in the case remain sealed, the brief filed Tuesday was not. The Wichita Eagle disclosed Kline's investigation in a story published Thursday.

In their brief, the clinics' attorneys said a gag order prevents the clinics from even disclosing to patients that their records are being sought. Attorneys declined to comment Thursday, citing the order.

"You can see our desire to discuss as much as possible, but we feel constrained," said Wichita attorney Lee Thompson, who is representing one of the two clinics.

Thompson declined to say if his client was Dr. George Tiller, whose Wichita clinic is known as a provider of late-term abortions and is a frequent target of abortion opponents.

Kline began pushing in June 2003 to require health care professionals to report underage sexual activity. He contends state law requires such reporting because sex involving someone under 16 is illegal in Kansas, whatever the circumstances.

But after several health care providers sued, a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order, citing the confidential patient-doctor privilege. The case is still pending.

Where is the point of compromise, a coat hanger or safe legal abortions decided between a woman and her Dr.?
The reality is you are going to have one or the other.

If courts start giving out women's private medical records you make the former 10 times more likely!

Here they go again...

U.S. Pushes U.N. on Abortion Declaration
Updated 2:11 AM ET February 28, 2005

http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pr...88hc8500&src=ap

By EDITH M. LEDERER

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Ten years after the world's nations pledged to achieve equality for women, a follow-up meeting has become embroiled in controversy over a U.S. demand that its final declaration state that women are not guaranteed the right to abortion.

In informal consultations ahead of Monday's meeting to take stock of progress in implementing the landmark platform adopted at the 1995 U.N. women's conference in Beijing, the United States raised the abortion issue as a first order of business.

The U.N. Commission on the Status of Women, which organized the high-level meeting, had hoped the two-week session would focus on overcoming the roadblocks to women's equality in 12 critical areas from health, education and employment to political participation and human rights.

But the dispute over abortion is likely to dominate the headlines and the closed-door debate on the final declaration.....

On Friday, the United States proposed an amendment to the draft declaration that would reaffirm the Beijing platform and declaration _ but only "while reaffirming that they do not create any new international human rights, and that they do not include the right to abortion," according to the text obtained by The Associated Press.

Kyung-wha Kang, who chairs the commission, said the declaration is not meant to add anything new but simply "to give Beijing further momentum for further implementation."

The Beijing platform is a policy document with specific recommendations that all nations agreed to, she stressed, not a legally binding treaty which is where human rights are enshrined.

"It's not a human rights convention," Kang said. "It's a policy document. In that sense, I personally as chair do not think it should be seen as creating any new human rights."

But Richard Grenell, spokesman for the U.S. Mission to the United Nations, said "These amendments are consistent with U.S. government views."

Look, even if it were a treaty - I don't know whythe US has a problem with it, BushCo keep treaties.

Tax credits to people who put their children up for adoption??? So that if I am in bankruptcy someone might actually suggest it?? What an odd idea.

Don't get me wrong, I am completely for legal abortion. No one decides to have one lightly. And women would still have abortions even if they were not legal. Just at some back alley operation that might or might not be safe. We all know that legal abortions cuts down abortions by coat hangers. It is far more safe and humane and civilized and christian to allow a woman a safe option to what she would do anyway.

Parental Notification unless there is judicial bypass??? Oh, please. Not everyone doesn't want to tell their parents just because it will make them angry to know their little girl is no longer a virgin. There are girls out there being raped by their fathers and their uncles. Making parental notification necessary can be quite dangerous for these unfortunates.

Judicail bypass. Have you ever been through court? It can take weeks and years to get a court date. By then, it could easily be too late.

No, if she is old enough to get pregnant, then she is old enough to decide what to do about it.

I personally would prefer to see the abortion debate framed from the point liberal lady just made. I remember when Roe v Wade was enacted, and at least in my circle and the adults I knew all thought in terms of ending back-alley abortions and the death and tragedy they caused. I can't imagine anyone wants to go back to those days. Criminalising abortion does not end it, it just sends it underground. Let's keep abortion legal, safe and rare!