h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"Senators are not appointed by the President or his administration."
And a good thing, too! If they were, the President would be able to handpick those who'd agree with him, and then force the country into backing whatever he wanted.
(Just jumped in cos he covered this in Politics the other day...)

marking

as -- thank you muchly

everyone brings up such great points!

that would be azahar ... sorry, i'm such a crappy typist ... *sniff* sorry!!!

Well, the main problem with the D&X procedure (and for some just the idea of terminations in general) is that it creates a very emotional situation.

And the main problem with banning ALL D&X procedures is that this will end up with the unnecessary deaths of women who are seriously in need of this procedure.

I don't think anyone on this forum has been advocating the use of D&X for any situation that is not a life-and-death one for the woman.


Shotgun,

Since you know far more about US politics than I do, can you tell me if once a bill has been passed by the Senate and signed by the President if people can still fight against that ruling to any effect? Would it depend on which Senators voted? Say, if one state had no Senators that voted for this, then would that state still be able to legally perform this procedure?

az

Also if the Federal government makes something illegal, can state governments legalise it?

hi Ferretbadger,

I think that was also my question. Though I may not have presented it as clearly as you did.

az

*awaiting more information*

I think I might regret setting myself up as an ersatz expert on U.S. governmental procedures, but I work in the wonderful world of Washington D.C., so here goes.

For a bill to become a law, it must be voted on and passed in identical form by both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives. Once the President signs it, it becomes a law.
There are ways to undo what's been done though. It can be challenged in court (as high as the U.S. Supreme Court) and declared unconstitutional. Or Congress can pass a law that pretty much undoes the first one (a new President and a reshuffling of legislators would probably be needed for that to happen).
If Congress passes a law, it's a law throughout the entire country. Every state must abide by it. Now, states have their own governments and elected officials that make laws applying to their own state, but the feds trump everyone. This has created no end of occasional problems, most recently and notably the California measure that legalized the growing and sale and use of marijuana for medical purposes. According to federal law, marijuana is a no-no across the board, even if you've got a note from your doctor. So, this has created some friction between the California state government and the federal government with the DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency, a federal agency) coming to California to bust medicinal marijuana-growers, users and sellers that the state law enforcement would otherwise just well enough leave alone.
Maryland (the wonderful little state where I live) got around the conflict by recently passing a law that would reduce the fine for possession of marijuana for medicinal purposes to such a pittance, that it might as well be legalized.
If you want more detailed information, check out www.house.gov/house/Educate - the House of Rep. site. It gives a complete description of how a bill becomes a law.

And for my two cents regarding the topic of this forum. The pro-life contingent in America won as soon as they got everybody to call it "partial-birth" abortion. He who wins the war of words, wins the war.

Also, ain't there something called an initiative or something? Where a big enough petition is legally binding on the government to act on it?

Many states have a process where citizens can gather signatures on a petition to force an issue onto a statewide ballot - usually an amendment to the state constitution.
As far as I know, there's not a federal equivelant of this.
The petition itself isn't legally binding, but once its put on a ballot and the entire state (or as many people that bother to show up) votes on it, and if it passes, then it will be law.
It's probably more complicated than that, and different states might have different procedures for it.

So it is not that much different from Europe then, individual member states can legislate but EU law takes precedent.

(I couldn't get on, because of single sign on. )

Only just encountered that? I thought it was dead and buried in a corner, something best forgotten...

If you mean single sign on, it wouldn't acknowledge me for *2 weeks* because I hadn't answered a confirmation email! I hadn't received the darn thing, because the DNA system wouldn't talk to my email system and vice versa. Eventually someone explained that, I changed my email and here I am!

hi Adele,

That's really weird. When I had to sign in again it took five minutes and I didn't receive any email. For a couple of days I was sometimes called 'welcome unknown hiker' but that was it. There was nothing said about a confirmation email. Anyhow, never mind. You're back now.



az

Hi again,

Last week a friend of mine underwent surgery for an ectopic pregnancy, which is when the site of implantation occurs outside the uterus. And so, there is no chance of the foetus ever becoming a human, and the surgery involves the removal of the foetus in order to save the life of the mother.

My question is, how is this different from a D&X procedure? Okay, I do know that a D&X is performed on a much more developed foetus, but I have never heard of anti-abortionists being against the removal of a foetus in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. Though I could be wrong about this. And so I wonder why anti-abortionists have focussed on D&X, including calling it Partial-birth abortion, when an ectopic pregnancy is quite the same thing. An impossible birth situation which seriously threatens the life of the woman.

For further information on ectopic pregnancies you can check out:

http://www.womens-health.co.uk/ectopic.htm

My personal take is that there is no difference between the two procedures except that one deals with a more developed foetus. Both situations deal with the concept of saving the life of the woman.

az

It's all to do with primary and secondary aim, azahar. A friend of mine had an ectopic pregnancy and nearly died...
The point is, that with an ectopic pregnancy, the surgeon's aim is to remove the tubal pregnancy to save the mother's life. (Inadvertently, the baby is killed, and I can't see anyone in her right mind wanting that!)
The aim in abortion is to be rid of the baby. It's that simple. Partial birth abortion is for the sake of abortion. If it's for another reason, delivering a baby with hydrocephalus for instance, then it's *not* an abortion. (I work with people with disabilities - people with hydrocephalus are perfectly capable of living. A caesarian delivery may be required however.) Surgeons should ask themselves, what state of affairs are they aiming at? I note in the backlog, that Hoo person told a story about poor women having hydrocephalic babies and how they needed an abortion. Only if they think that a hydrocephalic baby needs killing! Otherwise they can have a caesarian.
I am very much against the view that the best way to 'help' people with disabilities is by killing them! It's like eliminating poverty by killing the poor. Would that Hoo person approve of that?

Della,

<>

A 'baby' in a tube? It is a foetus, Della.

<>

What?

<>

Well, that's good!

The point that keeps coming up on this thread is that some people think their personal anti-abortion stance should include people other than themselves. Della, do you truly want to save every foetus that was ever fertilized? How do you dare to speak for other people who have made very difficult choices by saying what they did was *wrong*? I'm really curious to know how and why you think you have this right.

I am pro-life. I have said that here before. I am pro-life for myself only. For the rest of the people out there, I am pro-choice. Because I do not believe that my personal beliefs should be imposed on others.

az

disclaimer:
no anger or hostility was felt or expressed during this posting.

Err I believe that you are both wrong. Ectopic pregnancies are ( I have been told) capable of being carried to term but can cause complications that may in severe cases threaten the mothers life. Hydrocephaluls is a conditon that like wise can have varying effects, so sometimes it is thought less medically dangerous to perform a D&X than a ceasarian to deliver a baby that may in the doctors informed opinion only survive for a short itme out side the womb anyway. The doctor has to way up the effects on the mother balanced the few hors or days of life for the infant. Even then it is still the mothers choice. As it should be. Not anyone elses.

The aim in abortion is to be rid of the baby. Tt's that simple.

Things may not always be that simple and although in some cases it may be and as unfortunate as that is it is still no reason to deny termination to women who have deeper and more pressing compulsions to get terminations.

Partial birth abortion is for the sake of abortion.

What are you on about.

Are you trying to say the doctors do it for fun? After months of preganacy women just change their minds on a whim?

If you're not just talking rubbish please explain why you say this?

If it's for another reason, delivering a baby with hydrocephalus for instance, then it's *not* an abortion.

Well no its a termination why you insist on using the wrong terminology is beyond me, but ieven if you could manage to call a spade a spade it would not help in the understanding of what you mean. D&X to remove a baby with hydrocephalus IS a termination despite what you say.

(I work with people with disabilities - people with hydrocephalus are perfectly capable of living. A caesarian delivery may be required however.)

As I have already explained hyrocephlus can vary, you should know this. Thank you for talling us about your work with poeple with disabilities, I give up some of my free time to teach sports to people with disabilities. (see I do care).

Surgeons should ask themselves, what state of affairs are they aiming at?

They are trying to earn a living and give medical attention to people who need it a far as I can tell. What state of affairs are you aiming for? Let me tell you this, that the state of affairs you seem to want may well not end up being the one that would come about from a ban on terminations.

a bunch of seperated cells aint a person. You aint a human being til your in my phone book