Isn't dilation and extraction the only medically safe procedure available for pregnant women

Czolgosz

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Apr-18-07 02:06 PM
Original message

Isn't dilation and extraction the only medically safe procedure available for pregnant women

diagnosed with leukemia?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Cleita

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Apr-18-07 02:10 PM
Response to Original message

1. It's safer for most women seeking abortions regardless of how

far along they are. Now they will have to have an operation through their abdomen. This is much riskier in any trimester.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Warpy

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Apr-18-07 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #1

4. No, saline abortions can still be done

but the woman will have to go through labor and delivery of a dead fetus.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Cleita

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Apr-18-07 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #4

6. That has to be mentally traumatic if there is another choice

to avoid it. I really wish we would pass a law stating that men have no say in legislating what are strictly women's matters, like pregnancy, breast feeding, etc. things that they will never do and should have no say in.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Marnieworld

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Apr-18-07 02:11 PM
Response to Original message

2. apparently not a "large enough" fraction of those affected

You need a larger amount of people to get together with a problem before they have Constitutional rights now. Of course they never define what that number is but if you aren't in the lucky group you are just screwed. Sure, that's American. That's what the founders were after. :eyes: :grr:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

northernsoul

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Apr-18-07 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #2

3. I agree, this makes no effing sense at all

Granted, I haven't read the decision myself yet. But it sure seems like the larger upshot of the majority opinion is that as long as a law is only unconstitutional 49% of the time, then it's okey-dokey with them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

kiahzero

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Apr-18-07 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #3

5. No, that's not what the majority is saying.

For a facial challenge to be sustained, it has to be impossible for the law to be applied in a constitutional manner. The Court held that there were permissible applications of this law, and so held that it could survive a facial challenge, but perhaps not an as-applied challenge.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Tue Apr 30th 2024, 09:39 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.