Kathy In short, you not only want the law to protect the right to an abortion, you want that right to be absolute. That’s the problem I have with the positions of the prochoice lobby in general-it’s not actually about allowing maximum choice according to individual conscience, but instead its about enforcing the view that a fetus has no right to life. Actually, I support the law as decided by Roe v. Wade -- even though it's not ideal. And Roe v. Wade does NOT provide an absolute right to abortion.

Jason, Managing Editor Does that mean you agree that the state has the right to regulate or even prohibit abortions in the second and third trimester, as outlined in Roe?

Kathy Yes, but note the specifics of what "as outlined in Roe means:

To summarize and to repeat: 1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. (b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. (c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. 2. The State may define the term "physician," as it has been employed in the preceding paragraphs of this Part XI of this opinion, to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined.

It seems clear to me that, based on this language, 1) all laws restricting abortion in the first trimester are violative of Roe v. Wade. Which means all of the state laws enacted that require women to receive anti-abortion lectures, view anti-abortion films, go through waiting periods, and notify/obtain the consent of parents if under 18, are unconstitutional because they are not limited to the second trimester. 2) If abortion is regulated by law in the second trimester, it has to be "reasonably related to maternal health." Which means, in my reading, that any restrictions must not prevent or seriously impede a woman's access to safe, legal abortion if a medical doctor determines the continued pregnancy threatens her life *or health.* 3) If abortion is proscribed in the third trimester (after viability), there MUST be exceptions for the life and the *health* of the mother. Which means that the so-called Partial Birth Abortion Act is unconstitutional because it does not include exceptions for either the life or the health of the mother. Plus, it bans an entire specific medical procedure, forcing the doctor to use another procedure that may be more risky to the woman's health or life. Put another way, it not only lacks an exception for the life and health of the mother; it also forbids a woman's doctor -- if he does decide abortion is necessary to save the life or health of the woman -- to use the particular surgical method he decides, in his medical judgment, is safest for the woman. Given the above, it's clear to me that agreeing that "... the state has the right to regulate or even prohibit abortions in the second and third trimester, as outlined in Roe" is not synonymous with agreeing that abortion law as it currently stands is in accordance with Roe v. Wade. Unquestionably, it is not.

Kathy Also note that the driving consideration in the entire system set up by Roe v. Wade is the mother's health not the fetus's; i.e., "For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health."

Jason, Managing Editor How malleable do you interpret the "maternal health" requirement to be? I have read some feminist theorists who argue that all pregnancy is inherently a danger to the physical and/or mental health of the mother, thus making a mandatory "maternal health" limitation on the power of the state to protect even a fully viable fetus functionally infinite even in the absence of a problem pregnancy and even up to the very last second of the natural pregnancy period. Or is that the whole point?

Kathy I don't know anything about the feminist theorists, but common sense would tell you that pregnancy is inherently at least a potential danger to a woman's physical and/or mental health. How could it not be? Pregnancy affects every system in a woman's body. There's all sorts of health conditions that can be worsened or initiated by pregnancy. You've also got to understand that no two women are going to be affected the same way by the same health issue. A pregnancy-caused health problem that is easily handled in one pregnancy good be life-threatening in another. Only the woman's medical doctor knows whether pregnancy is, or is becoming at some point, a serious threat to her health or life. I honestly don't understand what you're getting at when you say "...thus making a mandatory “maternal health” limitation on the power of the state to protect even a fully viable fetus functionally infinite even in the absence of a problem pregnancy and even up to the very last second of the natural pregnancy period." First of all, this is exactly what Roe v. Wade says. There already IS a mandatory maternal health limitation, and not in quotes, throughout pregnancy, including late-term or even last-minute threats to a woman's life or health. What or who determines the legitimacy of that threat! The doctor, of course! Who else would determine it? Which brings me to the second point, which is that your questioning whether the state in such an instance would limit "the power of the state to protect even a fully viable fetus functionally infinite even in the absence of a problem pregnancy and even up to the very last second of the natural pregnancy period." is kind of a red herring, or a strawman, argument, because, in fact and in truth and in reality, the medical doctor in such a situation, if the fetus was about to be born, would always try, mightily, with all his or her skill and professionalism, to deliver the baby alive without putting the woman's life at risk. Why on earth wouldn't he? What earthly motive would a doctor have to kill an emerging fetus unless he was faced with a choice between that, and the woman dying? I'm not a doctor, obviously, but I know there are situations in which all delivery options threaten a woman's life. Roe v. Wade's scheme of balancing the viability of fetal life with interests of the mother and the stage of pregnancy was a recognition of that fact. Finally, your "Or is that the whole point" is unnecessarily snarky, in my view. I know you don't want me to impute ignoble motives to pro-lifers (and in fact I shouldn't), so I don't know why you feel it necessary to make that snide suggestion about the motives of pro-choicers, or ob-gyns who are professionally obligated to protect the health of their patients.

Kathy Damn, you've got to get an Edit feature for Comments, Jason: Question mark, not exclamation point, at the end of this sentence: "What or who determines the legitimacy of that threat!" And "... your questioning whether the state in such an instance would limit “the power of the state ..." the first instance of the word "state" should be the maternal health exemption provision in Roe v. Wade, or words to that effect.

Jason, Managing Editor It sounds like you are confirming that you would place no burden of proof on the decision to abort an 8.5-month pregnancy than the verbal say-so of any doctor that the pregnancy represents a mild mental health inconvenience for the mother. Is that correct? If not, what standard would you say is the minimum "maternal health" threat to justify an abortion?

the medical doctor in such a situation, if the fetus was about to be born, would always try, mightily, with all his or her skill and professionalism, to deliver the baby alive without putting the woman’s life at risk

Insofar as abortion has become a political sacrament for a certain segment of extremists, I know for a fact that what you are claiming here is not true. I am generally pro-choice, but I am uncomfortable with the extremism of the purist no-practical-limits position that you appear to be advocating. You keep saying that it is relatively moderate, but you offer no evidence that you would accept ANY limitation other than just trusting the no-exceptions goodwill of the mothers and the doctors. And that's not good enough for me.

Kathy It sounds like you are confirming that you would place no burden of proof on the decision to abort an 8.5-month pregnancy than the verbal say-so of any doctor that the pregnancy represents a mild mental health inconvenience for the mother. Is that correct? No, it's not -- and nothing I wrote could rationally or reasonably be interpreted to mean that. Why would I place a "burden of proof" on a doctor who saves the life of a woman who is in labor but is not able to save the fetus? The doctor is not on trial. The doctor has not committed a crime -- and if he were, the "burden of proof" would be on the prosecution, not the defendant. You keep saying that it is relatively moderate, but you offer no evidence that you would accept ANY limitation other than just trusting the no-exceptions goodwill of the mothers and the doctors. The last part of your sentence above appears to suggest an assumption on your part that pregnant women and their doctors lie about the woman's health needs. And that assumption, in turn, suggests to me that you do not take a pregnant woman's right to her own health and life seriously. Or that you don't believe there *is* any such thing as a legitimate medical reason to prioritize a woman's life over a fetus's. I see no evidence on your part of even a modicum of respect for maternal health and life. If a woman died giving birth but her baby survived, would you suspect the doctor of endangering the woman's life to save the baby? Would you suggest he bore a "burden of proof" to demonstrate that he did not save the baby at the mother's expense? In the end, all this is irrelevant if the debate is over what Roe v. Wade allows and requires. And as to that, I will once again copy and paste from the decision:

"(b) An abortion may be performed in this state only if it is performed: "(1) by a physician licensed to practice medicine [or osteopathy] in this state or by a physician practicing medicine [or osteopathy] in the employ of the government of the United States or of this state, [and the abortion is performed [in the physician's office or in a medical clinic, or] in a hospital approved by the [Department of Health] or operated by the United States, this state, or any department, agency, or political subdivision of either;] or by a female upon herself upon the advice of the physician; and "(2) within [20] weeks after the commencement of the pregnancy [or after [20] weeks only if the physician has reasonable cause to believe (i) there is a substantial risk that continuance of the pregnancy would endanger the life of the mother or would gravely impair the physical or mental health of the mother, (ii) that the child would be born with grave physical or mental defect, or (iii) that the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, or illicit intercourse with a girl under the age of 16 years]

Plain English translation: Abortion is legally permitted up to 20 weeks (five months) from the start of pregnancy, with no restrictions specified. After 20 weeks from the start of pregnancy (from the start of the sixth month), abortion is legally permitted for the following reasons: 1)A serious threat to the life, OR to the physical OR mental health of the mother. 2)If the fetus has a serious physical or mental defect. 3)If the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, OR if the pregnancy is the result of statutory rape and the girl is under 16. With regard to fetal rights versus maternal rights, and late-term pregnancy:

With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the "compelling" point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health. Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like. This means, on the other hand, that, for the period of pregnancy prior to this "compelling" point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State. With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

Plain English translation (summarized): Viability is the point at which the state's obligation to protect fetal life begins. At that point, the reasons why a woman can have a legal abortion are reduced, but not eliminated. After viability, the state can, if it wishes, make abortion illegal, EXCEPT when abortion is necessary to preserve the health or the life of the mother. Period, Jason. There is nothing about "What if the fetus is 8.5 months and the mother is just pretending to be sick," or "What if the fetus is 8.5 months and the doctor doesn't want the mother to be inconvenienced with a baby." There is nothing about "What legitimate reason could there possibly be to terminate a pregnancy at 8.5 months, and if a doctor does that he should be immediately suspected of murdering the fetus for no good reason at all." The ruling doesn't say anything like that at all, Jason -- because those are absurdities meant to obfuscate and not to help or enlighten. After the point of viability, no abortions for any reason EXCEPT if a woman's medical doctor determines that there is a serious threat to her health or her life. That seems pretty clear to me. And that’s not good enough for me. It doesn't have to be, and I don't need it to be. Fortunately, your man is not in the White House.

C Stanley Haven't had a chance to read through all of these latest comments, but this one struck me, Kathy: I don’t know anything about the feminist theorists, but common sense would tell you that pregnancy is inherently at least a potential danger to a woman’s physical and/or mental health. How could it not be? Pregnancy affects every system in a woman’s body. There’s all sorts of health conditions that can be worsened or initiated by pregnancy. The problem with your logic here is that you don't acknowledge that abortion doesn't reverse all of the health risks of pregnancy and in fact carries its own health risks- most of which are not accurately reported. In fact the pro-abortion lobby (I'm specifically calling it that because I'm talking about a subset of the 'prochoice' movement that truly is proabortion as far as I'm concerned, as defined by this group's actions and rhetoric) actively seeks to suppress such information. Unfortunately even people who are far more moderate have been propagandized to believe that there is no significant health risk, and few people realize the extent to which this information is simply unavailable; then when groups like the Eliot group that I linked to earlier attempt to report on it their information is routinely dismissed as prolife propaganda. I find it completely unacceptable that those who argue that a woman's right to choose abortion hinges on her right to protect her own physical and mental health are unwilling to admit evidence that shows physical and mental harm from the choice to abort. And from what I've read of Jason's comments so far, Kathy, I agree that we can't give the benefit of the doubt to all abortionists (and related medical personnel)as though they don't have a proabortion bias. That is why I believe that informed consent including in some cases films or sonograms are necessary; if society gives the entire choice of determination of a fetus' human rights over to the pregnant woman and the medical personnel with whom she consults, then those individuals must at least meet the burden of a fair hearing of all sides of the argument; that should include accurate information about the developmental state of the fetus that is potentially going to be killed as well as real health risks of terminating a pregnancy in addition to the information they are already being given regarding health risks of continuing the pregnancy. Without some of the laws that states have now enacted, the women involved are often given only one side of the story.

Jason, Managing Editor Kathy, you were warned repeatedly against misrepresenting the views of others as a way to gain improper advantage in your discussions with them. In short, you've been warned not to make lying a tactic. This is a big pet peeve of mine, as you well know. You have chosen to continue doing it anyway. Now you are banned.

C Stanley It's your call on banning commenters, Jason, but FWIW I agree with Kathy here when she said that she was accurately stating my view. I truly don't think there should be exceptions to prohibition on abortion except when the mother's life is at stake- because right to life is right to life. We don't make exceptions for that in any other instance, and I have no qualms about owning that opinion. Of course, Kathy did choose to use a difficult, emotionally stirring example of a 'twelve year old incest survivor' to highlight why she opposes my view, and I think readers can draw their own conclusions about her need to do this It's funny how many on the prochoice side say that prolifers tend to use emotionally charged situations and rhetoric to sway opinion, yet they routinely use these tactics- not only in this example, but also when Kathy cites cases like Becky Bell (a case in which the facts are far from clear, and even if one accepts that she died of an illegal abortion because parental consent laws led her from seeking a legal one, this one anecdote is equalled by many anecdotes of underaged women who have died of legal abortions after parents were denied the ability to counsel their own child before the procedure was 'chosen'.)

Jason, Managing Editor I am sorry, Christine, if I interrupted a good conversation, and I tried to delay action for that exact reason. But when Kathy used the snotty (and as you know completely inaccurate) "your man is not in the White House" snipe and to accuse me of being completely insensitive to issues of maternal health and choice radically even after I explicitly said I was pro-choice, that was the last straw for me. Kathy has shown time and again that she is a fundamentally dishonest discussant whenever she is confronted by anyone who dissents from her purist/absolutist views and I choose not to support such people by continuing to publish their comments.