35 years after Roe: A legacy of law and morality

cnredd · #1 (**permalink**) 01-22-2008, 11:48 AM

Quote:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Thirty-five years since Roe v. Wade, and little, it seems, has changed.

The January 22, 1973, Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion remains the law of the land, and passions remain high on both sides of the issue, with annual protests on the anniversary. Access to abortion, then and now, is more than just about simple legalities. Social, religious and family values, as well as finances and politics, still play a role in shaping the abortion issue, but many legal and medical experts say the debate has become predictable.

"Much of the controversy about abortion is really stimulated by the interest groups on both sides of the political question, rather than by ordinary Americans," said David Garrow, a law professor at Cambridge University, and a longtime Supreme Court scholar. "The American people and many political leaders have already made up their minds about legal abortion."

Public opinion on abortion has remained remarkably stable over the years. A CNN/Opinion Research survey in October found 36 percent of Americans think abortion should be legal in most or all circumstances, 40 percent believe it should be available in a few circumstances, such as to save the mother's life, and 22 percent say abortion should never be legal. That is almost unchanged in the past 15 years.

The Roe decision did not prompt "abortion on demand," as many opponents of the procedure predicted it would. Nor have various legislatures or court rulings restricted access as much as some supporters claim.

New research from the Alan Guttmacher Institute found the rate of abortions is at its lowest level since Roe, and the total number is also in decline, about 1.2 million in the year 2005, down 25 percent since the all-time high in 1990.

For the Supreme Court justices, Roe reflected earlier cases involving the right to privacy. That "right," wrote Justice Harry Blackmun in the main opinion for the court, is "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."

"Prior to Roe," said Garrow, "whether one could obtain a legal abortion in the face of an unwanted pregnancy was a crapshoot. For 30 years now, it's been a constitutionally guaranteed right."

But the ruling was a qualified one, as many anti-abortion supporters have noted over the years, and that fact has been used by them in their efforts to narrow the scope of other abortion provisions. Blackmun noted the state's "important interests in safeguarding health, maintaining medical standards, and protecting potential life" are compelling enough to justify regulation "at some point in pregnancy."

That "qualified right" found its form in the controversial "trimester analysis" laid out by the justices in Roe: permitting no government regulation during the first three months; allowing limited regulation in the second trimester to protect women's health and safety; and granting government the power to ban abortions during the third trimester -- in which medical consensus has concluded the fetus is capable of living on its own.

I find it kind of amazing that the percentages stay the same after all of this time...You'd think one side would find some startling evidence that turns the tide one way or the other by now...

saltwn · #2 (**permalink**) 01-23-2008, 02:44 AM

My position on this hasn't changed much either. It's a medical procedure and should be treated as such. Go to a gynecologist, let him/her use his own judgment as to whether the (again) medical procedure should take place.Let him write a referral to a clinic. He may choose to first refer the lady to a psychologist if there is an indication the emotional and/or chemical aspects of a procedure may affect the patient in a negative way.
Whatever the qualified doctor chooses to do, it's in his/her hands and best judgment.
The opposite of this scenario, of course, is what we have at present:
You walk into a clinic and lay your money down. The procedure is done There is no counseling for this very potentially depression inducing operation ( ahem! hormones are involved).
And there is no follow-up.
And the doctor who performs it is not a dedicated professional in this line of work. He's a guy who has a practice elsewhere, who slinks into the clinic to make some extra money to pay off his astronomical student loans or gambling debts or two ex-wives....

Idealogically Promiscuous · #3 (**permalink**) 01-23-2008, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saltwn

My position on this hasn't changed much either. It's a medical procedure and should be treated as such. Go to a gynecologist, let him/her use his own judgment as to whether the (again) medical procedure should take place.Let him write a referral to a clinic. He may choose to first refer the lady to a psychologist if there is an indication the emotional and/or chemical aspects of a procedure may affect the patient in a negative way.
Whatever the qualified doctor chooses to do, it's in his/her hands and best judgment.

Does every medical procedure require a referral? This is an elective procedure requiring no referral because the doctor performing the procedure is qualified to make the judgments necessary to ensure the well-being of the patient. Addition of an extra cost does nothing except remove the abortion option from the less fortunate.

Quote:

The opposite of this scenario, of course, is what we have at present:
You walk into a clinic and lay your money down. The procedure is done There is no counseling for this very potentially depression inducing operation ( ahem! hormones are involved).
And there is no follow-up.

Are you sure about that? Would you like an opportunity to do a little research before you commit to that assertion?

Quote:

And the doctor who performs it is not a dedicated professional in this line of work. He's a guy who has a practice elsewhere, who slinks into the clinic to make some extra money to pay off his astronomical student loans or gambling debts or two ex-wives....

Statements like this are completely counterproductive to the abortion debate. Do you have any evidence to support your characterization (or vilification, as it were) of the doctor performing the abortion? Some statistics that state "abortion doctors are more prone to gambling debts and failed marriages"? Are you prepared to require that every doctor who performs suturing be "a dedicated professional" to that procedure alone? Vilifications and hysterical, unfounded accusations applied to whole groups with one broad brush are never productive.

lackluster · #4 (**permalink**) 01-23-2008, 05:42 PM

Yes, the arguments are certainly predictable and so much so that attitdes for or against the procedure have become sacred cows, but one little monkey wrench I'd like to introduce into the debate would be to ask whether there might be an alternate "liberal" position to the one now considered "liberal"

Seems to me that one of the central tenets of liberalism is the willingness to come to bat for those either without a voice or whose voice is drowned out by the cacaphony of the majority. Liberals fight for the rights of minorities, for the disposessed and downtroddden. Liberals fight for those who are the victims of systematic oppression, as indeed, the term involves a commitment to social justice as opposed to the conservation of social order. In the discussion of abortion, though, liberals may convince themselves they are doing just that, as the regard for women's rights is what motivates the positions thus taken, but I would like to ask is what about the fetus? How is it liberal to dismiss the rights of the most powerless of all in this transaction, and how is it really a liberal value to dehumanize another in doing so -- quite literally, in fact, as one needs to convince themself that the fetus is something other than human in order to abort it.

I try to think logically, myself, and so I question what the results would have been had my mother aborted me? Well, that is obvious in that I wouldn't be here, and it also follows that I wouldn't be here were she to have aborted me at one month, three months, eight months or any other time during gestation. Now, since I rather like being me, and would certainly rather live than not live, how could I in all empathy and compassion commit another to an oblivion I would not wish for myself? Seems to me, that a LIBERAL position here would involve the use of such empathy to stand up for the rights of one who is unable to plead their case and say what any of us here would say should someone wish to take our life away, "no thank you, I prefer living".

I've long considered myself a liberal, and like most liberals of the seventies, saw abortion as one of those sacred cows. The more I have thought about it since, the more uncomfortable I am with the idea, and for the reasons I have given. Am I no longer a liberal? Have I betrayed my label, and do I need to hand in my card? I think I am being consistant with liberal values here, myself, and so wonder whether it is possible for the discussion to evolve in the national arena to the point where arguments AREN'T so codified by political orientation.

Why is it "liberal" to accept the elimination of another who would become a fully fledged human being were it only not for such an abortion?

Idealogically Promiscuous · #5 (**permalink**) 01-23-2008, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lackluster

Why is it "liberal" to accept the elimination of another who would becomea fully fledged human being were it only not for such an abortion?

I am considered more conservative than liberal and I find that this unnecessary granting of rights based on potentials rather than actualities to be a little offensive. I find this desire to force an empathy between a mass of cells with no individuality or personality and persons granted rights under the Constitution to be preposterous on every level.

saltwn · #6 (**permalink**) 01-24-2008, 01:28 AM

Quote:

Idealogically Promiscuous;14880]Does every medical procedure require a referral? This is an elective procedure requiring no referral because the doctor performing the procedure is qualified to make the judgments necessary to ensure the well-being of the patient. Addition of an extra cost does nothing except remove the abortion option from the less fortunate

.
This is not cosmetic surgery, but involves two living organisms and the separation of them from each other; separation from the natural state of things.

Quote:

Are you sure about that? Would you like an opportunity to do a little research before you commit to that assertion?

Maybe times have changed, but if any thing, I think the concern here would be less than it was in the seventies and eighties. Then, I had friends who had had it done for one reason or another. Not one ever mentioned follow up. I actually took one to the clinic. Went through the little rooms and watched her pay the money. It goes without saying I had tried to talk her into adoption. But once her decision was made, I did stand by her. But they didn't care what stage of pregnancy she was in. They gave her no counseling. They didn't know that the woman's husband had given her an ultimatum: Abort or leave my house. She had no skills, no parents, and except for me, no help.

And as for the hormone thing, heck yeah. Any time you give birth or miscarry, your body releases certain chemicals. Some women have post partum depression. Couple that fact for those individuals with the fact there's no baby. No psychological counseling.
And she probably won't tell her closest friend. Because she is ashamed. Why do you think that is?

Quote:

Statements like this are completely counterproductive to the abortion debate. Do you have any evidence to support your characterization (or vilification, as it were) of the doctor performing the abortion? Some statistics that state "abortion doctors are more prone to gambling debts and failed marriages"? Are you prepared to require that every doctor who performs suturing be "a dedicated professional" to that procedure alone? Vilifications and hysterical, unfounded accusations applied to whole groups with one broad brush are never productive.

Every time I hear of a doctor being attacked who works at a clinic, it's someone who drives in from another community where his other patients don't know about his other job at an abortion clinic. Why do you think these doctors try to hide this fact from their regular contacts?

A cat that won't raise her kittens isn't worth a nickel. In fact it's usually a little crazy to begin with.
Most men won't have anything to do with a gal who killed her own baby, no matter at what stage of the pregnancy.
Those are natural instincts. And they are right on.

Idealogically Promiscuous · #7 (**permalink**) 01-24-2008, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saltwn

.This is not cosmetic surgery, but involves two living organisms and the separation of them from each other; separation from the natural state of things.

That still fails to address your assertion that referrals are needed for this procedure in particular. The doctor performing the procedure is qualified in the diagnosis of pregnancy, the performance of the procedure, and any post-procedural care. Why do you want referrals for this procedure specifically when you don't require referrals for, say, a lasik eye surgery?

Quote:

Maybe times have changed, but if any thing, I think the concern here would be less than it was in the seventies and eighties. Then, I had friends who had had it done for one reason or another. Not one ever mentioned follow up. I actually took one to the clinic. Went through the little rooms and watched her pay the money. It goes without saying I had tried to talk her into adoption. But once her decision was made, I did stand by her. But they didn't care what stage of pregnancy she was in. They gave her no counseling. They didn't know that the woman's husband had given her an ultimatum: Abort or leave my house. She had no skills, no parents, and except for me, no help.

Though anecdotal evidence is rarely acceptable in an intellectual debate, I think your example is representative of how abortion was treated in the seventies and eighties. However, if I may ask, what stage of pregnancy was she in?

Quote:

And as for the hormone thing, heck yeah. Any time you give birth or miscarry, your body releases certain chemicals. Some women have post partum depression. Couple that fact for those individuals with the fact there's no baby. No psychological counseling.
And she probably won't tell her closest friend. Because she is ashamed. Why do you think that is?

I certainly wasn't about to argue that there are hormonal considerations. However, to answer your question about shame; that can probably be attributed to the fact that she had to walk through a picket line being called a whore and a slut. Also, women in our society who exert sexual independence are looked at as being a little loose. Shame has nothing to do with the abortion issue; an ingrained misogyny in our society is where the shame comes from.

Quote:

Every time I hear of a doctor being attacked who works at a clinic, it's someone who drives in from another community where his other patients don't know about his other job at an abortion clinic. Why do you think these doctors try to hide this fact from their regular contacts?

A cat that won't raise her kittens isn't worth a nickel. In fact it's usually a little crazy to begin with.
Most men won't have anything to do with a gal who killed her own baby, no matter at what stage of the pregnancy.
Those are natural instincts. And they are right on.

Again, until I see statistic that show this to be a behavior or practice of a significant number of doctors who perform abortions, it's not true.

saltwn · #8 (**permalink**) 01-24-2008, 06:25 PM

That still fails to address your assertion that referrals are needed for this procedure in particular. The doctor performing the procedure is qualified in the diagnosis of pregnancy, the performance of the procedure, and any post-procedural care. Why do you want referrals for this procedure specifically when you don't require referrals for, say, a lasik eye surgery?

To determine what stage of pregnancy, to talk with the woman to determine what her concerns are, to determine if there are any circumstances present pertaining to her history and physical (which her family gynecologist would have on file). Maybe this woman's mother was an occasional ovulator, which would indicate she may be also. She should be given the information this may be her only pregnancy under such circumstances. There's a whole host of things the gynecologist or even a well rounded family doctor would be able to put into the mix to asses besides just determining you are pregnant and knowing how to terminate it.

Though anecdotal evidence is rarely acceptable in an intellectual debate, I think your example is representative of how abortion was treated in the seventies and eighties. However, if I may ask, what stage of pregnancy was she in?
going into the fifth month and neither of us had any idea they would perform it at that stage. (She had had a hard time determining how far along she was since her husband-an AHole-had insisted on sex when she came home from the hospital with their first baby). So she must have gotten pregnant right away. When we dropped her old man off at a buffet luncheon -no kidding, and went to my house so she could rest, my kids had been watching PBS. They decided to air a documentary that day of all days about unborn fetuses.
Before I could turn off the TV, someone held up a little pink foot-already with a crease in it. The stage that baby was at at abortion was EXACTLY where she had been-4 1/2 months.
INFORMATION is what these people need to make WHATEVER decision they want to make.
But people on both sides of this issue want to give only one sided facts.

I certainly wasn't about to argue that there are hormonal considerations. However, to answer your question about shame; that can probably be attributed to the fact that she had to walk through a picket line being called a whore and a slut. Also, women in our society who exert sexual independence are looked at as being a little loose. Shame has nothing to do with the abortion issue; an ingrained misogyny in our society is where the shame comes from.

There were no picket lines then. People-especially women-knew it was wrong, and at best a very last resort.

Again, until I see statistic that show this to be a behavior or practice of a significant number of doctors who perform abortions, it's not true.

All doctors who perform abortions are doing so against their Hippocratic oath unless it is to save the mother's life.
While I don't advocate letting a woman suffer cruelly to let her baby live,
I do go a long with the 40% crowd who would do it in a more necessary circumstance than inconvenience.

Idealogically Promiscuous · #9 (**permalink**) 01-24-2008, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saltwn;15021[QUOTE

To determine what stage of pregnancy, to talk with the woman to determine what her concerns are, to determine if there are any circumstances present pertaining to her history and physical (which her family gynecologist would have on file). Maybe this woman's mother was an occasional ovulator, which would indicate she may be also. She should be given the information this may be her only pregnancy under such circumstances. There's a whole host of things the gynecologist or even a well rounded family doctor would be able to put into the mix to asses besides just determining you are pregnant and knowing how to terminate it.

I have to admit, I have actually been moved and persuaded by your argument here. Those are not issues I would have even conceived of before you made your case. However, I will point out that if she had those problems as part of her medical history, her ob/gyn probably had already related that to her.

Quote:

going into the fifth month and neither of us had any idea they would perform it at that stage. (She had had a hard time determining how far along she was since her husband-an AHole-had insisted on sex when she came home from the hospital with their first baby). So she must have gotten pregnant right away. When we dropped her old man off at a buffet luncheon -no kidding, and went to my house so she could rest, my kids had been watching PBS. They decided to air a documentary that day of all days about unborn fetuses.
Before I could turn off the TV, someone held up a little pink foot-already with a crease in it. The stage that baby was at at abortion was EXACTLY where she had been-4 1/2 months.
INFORMATION is what these people need to make WHATEVER decision they want to make.
But people on both sides of this issue want to give only one sided facts.

There's an issue you bring up which I think needs to be addressed further: the one-sided facts. Now I think it is obvious from our exchange that I am prochoice. I think that abortion is a decision that should be available when needed but it should rarely ever actually be necessary. However, being that I believe in personal responsibility, I think that gathering facts is the responsibility of the person making the decision. It's her body and it truly is her choice.

I find it a little disingenuous and a slight against the independence and intelligence of women that you think someone should be responsible for providing her with information without her requesting it. I think it goes back to that whole misogyny issue we have in western society of always defaulting to a victim status on behalf of the woman. It's like, just because she is a woman, we have to take some extra care to make sure the poor little thing has assistance making her decisions.

Quote:

There were no picket lines then. People-especially women-knew it was wrong, and at best a very last resort.

It should still be looked at as a last resort now.

Quote:

All doctors who perform abortions are doing so against their Hippocratic oath unless it is to save the mother's life.
While I don't advocate letting a woman suffer cruelly to let her baby live,
I do go a long with the 40% crowd who would do it in a more necessary circumstance than inconvenience.

The Hippocratic Oath issue was not brought up until now. You still failed to address this assertion you made that doctors who perform abortions are doing so shadily and with some kind of shame. You also began by vilifying them with accusations of gambling debts and multiple failed marriages. Please address those points you made before moving on to a completely different topic. Otherwise, concede that you made unfounded accusations.

As for you statement about the Hippocratic Oath, let's take a look at it:

The Modern Hippocratic Oath

Quote:

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

This is the Oath that physicians take. Now you tell me where there is a violation of this oath when the physician performs an abortion.

saltwn · #10 (**permalink**) 01-26-2008, 07:55 PM

Quote:

quote=Idealogically Promiscuous;15029]

I have to admit, I have actually been moved and persuaded by your argument here. Those are not issues I would have even conceived of before you made your case. However, I will point out that if she had those problems as part of her medical history, her ob/gyn probably had already related that to her.

There's an issue you bring up which I think needs to be addressed further: the one-sided facts. Now I think it is obvious from our exchange that I am prochoice. I think that abortion is a decision that should be available when needed but it should rarely ever actually be necessary. However, being that I believe in personal responsibility, I think that gathering facts is the responsibility of the person making the decision. It's her body and it truly is her choice.

I find it a little disingenuous and a slight against the independence and intelligence of women that you think someone should be responsible for providing her with information without her requesting it. I think it goes back to that whole misogyny issue we have in western society of always defaulting to a victim status on behalf of the woman. It's like, just because she is a woman, we have to take some extra care to make sure the poor little thing has assistance making her decisions.

Equate it with any serious health event. Cancer comes to mind. A person with cancer doesn't have all the questions much less the answers. Pregnant women come in all varieties. Some learned wisdom from their mothers or previous family doctors. Some have a few clues, some none.
If (as a society) we are pointing a young uneducated-or very shy- person, toward abortion as a possible solution to her health related problem, then we are already taking some responsibility for assisting her. Shouldn't we make certain she has good access to all available factors? I think a family physician or gynecologist is best suited to do preliminary history and physical and any indicated tests. Unless abortion clinics were strictly regulated so that a person makes two visits. One for her "work-up", we'll call it. The other for the procedure. In the interim, she would be notified of any contraindications pertaining to health and such things as I previously outlined.
Something like the above could maybe go a long way in bringing the entire industry out of the "back alley" where it still languishes.

Quote:

It should still be looked at as a last resort now.

You still failed to address this assertion you made that doctors who perform abortions are doing so shadily and with some kind of shame. You also began by vilifying them with accusations of gambling debts and multiple failed marriages. Please address those points you made before moving on to a completely different topic. Otherwise, concede that you made unfounded accusations.

I will concede,

this is an impression I got from the news when all the bombings were occurring. I don't know if there is a way to prove one way or the other due to the doctor's privacy rights.

Quote:

As for you statement about the Hippocratic Oath, let's take a look at it:

This is the part I was talking about which is often quoted as "do no harm" and often misquoted as "above all do no harm". I must admit I thought it contained that later phrase. This is from the ancient/classic oath viewable here:NOVA Online | Survivor M.D. | The Hippocratic Oath -- Classical Version

I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.

Quote:

This is the Oath that physicians take. Now you tell me where there is a violation of this oath when the physician performs an abortion.

In my interpretation it violates life and nature itself. I did not realize so many interpretations could be wrought. I'll have to think about that a little.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following User Says Thank You to Idealogically Promiscuous For This Useful Post:
crazyflamingos