Why not allow the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban" to have a provision that takes into account the women's safety?

Shouldn't the life of the woman be taken into account? If a partial birth abortion could save a woman's life, shouldn't it be a viable option?

Update:

Bill Clinton said that he would have signed such a ban if it took into account women's safety, but the Republicans refused to put such a provision into the bill, why?

17 Answers

Relevance
  • Mutt
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act was signed by President Bush in 2003. This version DOES have an exception for the safety of the mother. And in 2007, the Supreme Court heard a case on this law (Gonzales v. Carhart), where they decided (5-4) that the law did not violate the Constitution.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    4 years ago

    I don't think most people know what it is. And to those who don't: Partial Birth abortion is when the birth actually happens. The child's head is out. And then a surgical hammer is used to crack the child's skull. It gets real bad when the child still continues to breathe after the skull crack. This is what just about everyone, once they know what it is, has a problem with. Late term abortion and dead or diseased fetus extraction are totally different terms used to try and confuse the subject. Can you believe doctors have actually, and are actually in some places, performing these types of abortions? Oh my God----I feel queasy!

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    You are spewing the lie that socialists spew. There has always been a known provision that a baby should be taken if the life of the mother is in jeoprody. If a child is just about born there is the presumption that it will live. The hospitals are a little more equipped to handle any problems a mother would have. I have just heard about a child that was removed from the womb and kept alive while the mother had cancer surgery. It was reimplanted in the womb, survived, was born and is doing fine! Have you ever seen a partial birth abortion? Have you ever seen them stick a scissors into the rear of the skull of a baby that is partially hanging out of the mother? Look at it and I defy you not to call it murder!!! Unless you are a soicialist, then lies are true when it benefits the liar.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Could you honestly take a baby that is almost full term, not just a mass if that should matter still- and hold it's precious head in your hand and feel the warmth of it and then jab a scissors into the back of it's neck and kill it??? Look up the procedure and tell me if the mothers health at that late stage is something to consider? Granted I'm against all abortion but partial birth is no longer abortion, it's murder!!!! How can anyone with any kind of heart do something like this??????

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Because there has never been such a case.

    The partial birth abortion procedure is not a lifesaving one in any way. The very way it is performed would make it too late to do the mother any good, and as such it is 100% elective.

    To even ask such a question shows that you do not understand how the partial birth abortion differs from a regular one. Anyone who researches the procedure will see that it CAN"T save the mothers life or well being.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Because republicans value a mass of cells over a full grown adult woman. It's all rhetorical. Makes them feel good about themselves to say they are protecting the vulnerable. But they refuse to support it once it's born with social programs. Most babies which were aborted in this extremely rare procedure were severely handicapped and had little to no life expectancy. A republican will never tell you that.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    If it's a matter of a woman's life then every action should be taken to preserve it; however, it's the non-medical, late term trepanation of the infant that is heinous.

    I can offer no explanation as to why some lawmakers disagree with this opinion just as I have no idea why Obama voted to withhold medical care from babies that survived abortive procedures

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    How pulling a child out of a woman's womb while she's under anesthesia and stabbing the child with scissors is going to save anyone's life is beyond me-

    Seems a Cesarean would work just fine these babies are born alive so there's no reason to kill them unless that's what mommy wants-

    How does killing the baby with scissors help mommy?

    It doesn't- You'd have to be a moron to think it would.

    http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/keymedical.html

    http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBA%20NYT%20lied....

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    There is no reason to do a partial birth abortion! It's just plain murder! A partial birth abortion CAN NOT save a woman's life! Do you realize how they do them? The baby's head is about to come out so they shove something into it's brain to kill it, then the body comes out!!! How can that save a woman? How would the baby staying alive cause her to die over the body being dead when it comes out??? You have bought into a bunch of garbage!! PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTIONS ARE JUST A WAY OF COMMITING MURDER AND GETTING AWAY WITH IT!!! Don't get me wrong, I am pro choice, but only in the first trimister!!!

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Because it was a political ploy to make Clinton look bad...then they could go back and say..."look at this horrific act Clinton supports"....politics as usual.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.