So, WHY would someone want a late-term abortion?

Wow Pitu. Tough one.

While I appreciate this story, any woman's right to choose, my main concern is that people can go overboard. Meaning, if a mother finds out her baby will be mildly mentally retarded, minimally visually impaired, or even a different skin color than her spouse, that she would decide to terminate. It's a slippery slope.

Why would someone want a late-term abortion?

I can only assume because they don't want the child for whatever reason.


Horray Roe v. Wade!

great article. thank you.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104817397

I agree with Pitu's list of issues. Affordability and accessability are important issues. Money matters and having doctors willing to perform and knowledgable in the procedures matters.

Carmen wrote: [quote=pitu][quote=Carmen]Why would someone want a late-term abortion?

I can only assume because they don't want the child for whatever reason.


Horray Roe v. Wade!

Carmen, I agree with you regarding safe abortion on demand and without apology, BUT . . .
I posted this because Roe v Wade isn't doing a damn thing for late term abortion, which is currently unavailable in most of the USA. And I *think* most folks tend to think about abortion in terms of accidental pregnancy and not wanting the baby, not fetal viability which would often compel a later termination.

Most of that article is about one's couple's experience with spina bifida. Towards the end of the piece, there's a shorter story about a woman covered by US government-issued health insurance through the Air Force -- abortion is covered for "health of the mother" but not for "non-viable fetus" forget about "for whatever reason".


I think we have an extremely long way to go before "late-term" abortion is legalized in most states and i would doubt that I'll see it covered by insurance within my lifetime... I'm busy being panicked over the right to ANY reproductive rights being taken away which I think is and has been much closer to reality than a lot of people think... hell, sex-ed in this country is still in the dark ages in most places ("you can get HIV from a mosquito!") While I sympathize for the many, MANY women and couples who bear the financial burden of an abortion, I think we need to chose our battles when it comes to such a touchy subject.

As a sidenote, I have personally experienced (vicariously through a close friend) the hell that is trying to obtain a third trimester abortion as we traveled multiple states in an attempt to terminate her malformed/90%-chance-braindead fetus. It cost us thousands of dollars and literally weeks of research and travel. Not a fun time during an already incredibly emotional time in her life. I'm pro-choice in every circumstance, every case, every time until the cord is cut... but, as I said, I think there are bigger battles to be fought in this war...


You're a good friend.

my mother says:

if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.


mougar, i kind of see what you're saying, but a non-viable fetus abortion ought to be considered "for the health of the mother", if only because childbirth is -- wait for it -- pretty rough on the body.

sweet tea wrote: my mother says:

if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.


mougar, i kind of see what you're saying, but a non-viable fetus abortion ought to be considered "for the health of the mother", if only because childbirth is -- wait for it -- pretty rough on the body.

When I say 'medically necessary', I mean what an insurance company would call medically necessary. Not what a rational person or a doctor would call medically necessary.

In any event, "people should be able to do whatever they want" pretty much sums up my views on abortion, sex, drugs, and rock and roll.

sweet tea wrote: as for the "states' rights" line -- which has historically NEVER EVER been a problem! -- i find this is a much easier tack to take if you have never lived in the states where whatever you're talking about wouldn't be legal, and especially easy if you look down a bit on those who do. also: please tell me all about liberal new york's no-fault divorce laws.

Why do you feel it has NEVER EVER been a problem? (at least with abortion) You wouldn't have a problem with any state making abortion a crime?

And yeah, I do not live where whatever I'm talking about wouldn't be legal, and yeah, the states that would no legalize whatever I'm talking about I probably do look down a bit on (a bunch of backwoods motherfuckers IMO), and maybe liberal NYS needs to have a no-fault divorce (which may or may not be a good thing), but really, if you do not like the laws of one state you are free to move to another.

But...if you could marry whoever you wanted we wouldn't get to be sister-wives and live in a compound on mougs roof!!!



...carry on.

The reason there is not no-fault divorces has nothing to do with marriage equality and more to do with lawyers wallets, IMO.

And yeah, I'm already planning my escape as even liberal NYS or CA ain't liberal enough for me.

Just about everything should be a "states rights" issue. Then we would have 50 little "countries". At least it would be more interesting, hopefully, if nothing else.

Re: STATE rights overriding MY rights...

This is the tiniest of exerpts from Roe v Wade; the concurring opinion of Justice Stewart:

"Several decisions of this Court make clear that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 ; Griswold v. Connecticut, supra; Pierce v. Society of Sisters, supra; Meyer v. Nebraska, supra. See also Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 ; Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 . As recently as last Term, in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453 , we recognized "the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person [410 U.S. 113, 170] as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." That right necessarily includes the right of a woman to decide whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. "Certainly the interests of a woman in giving of her physical and emotional self during pregnancy and the interests that will be affected throughout her life by the birth and raising of a child are of a far greater degree of significance and personal intimacy than the right to send a child to private school protected in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), or the right to teach a foreign language protected in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)." Abele v. Markle, 351 F. Supp. 224, 227 (Conn. 1972).

Clearly, therefore, the Court today is correct in holding that the right asserted by Jane Roe is embraced within the personal liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

Interestingly, the bill of rights weren't applied to the states until relatively recently. For that matter, some of them still aren't. They limited the power of the federal goverenment, but states were not bound by them.

Some examples:

States establishment of religion - 1947
Freedom of speech - 1925
Unreasonable search and seizure - 1961
Impartial jury - 1968
Cruel and unusual punishment - 1962