This abortion procedure is a medical procedure that should be decided between a woman and her doctor, not the Supreme Court and not the Congress. The Ban carves out no exemptions for the health of the mother.

"The government may use its voice and its regulatory authority to show its profound respect for the life within the woman,"says Justice Kennedy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/18/AR2007041800710.html?hpid=topnews

This is a massive intrusion into medical privacy that allows the Court and Congress to elevate their own opinions over those of trained medical professionals. This is a dangerous precedent.

ATSJer, a newborn baby needs the care of another to sustain life. A toddler needs the care of another to sustain life. A severely mentally-disabled adult needs the care of another to sustain life. A very weak elderly person needs the care of another to sustain life.

The difference between all of these people and a fetus, an embryo or an "unborn baby," is that any of the people above could live and thrive so long as someone takes care of them. In the case of the fetus, embryo or "unborn baby," it can only be sustained by the woman's own nutrients, the woman's own body. She can't drop it off at the sitter or daycare center.

Hence the term "welcome parasite." It's a description with some merit, but more than anything I think it just inflames passions and alienates people. It also doesn't adequately take into account that this "welcome parasite" can mean a lot to a lot of people because of what it has the potential to become.

Jennilaya writes "They took some of our rights let's take some of theirs!! Let's work on this gun control thing, seriously."

It's true. It's only a matter of time before we start hearing about fetal rights to bear arms. The fetus has a right to arm itself against abortion!

ASJer writes: "Take the baby from the womb that is about to be aborted via this proceedure and give it the same attention that the child born naturally receives and see what happens."

What would happen would be a long stay in the Neo-natal Intensive Care Unit, not going home with mom.

But I'm not going to argue this with you, ASJer, because most of us agree that Third Trimester abortions are very different from First Trimester ones. Less than 1% of all abortions take place in the Third Trimester, which reflects this general recognition. As the fetus becomes more and more like a living, breathing, thinking baby, the less acceptable abortion becomes.

I don't like to argue the extremes of circumstances, and Third Trimester abortions are the extreme in the abortion debate, and so-called "partial-birth" abortions are the extreme of the extreme.

What bothers me so much about this SCOTUS ruling is that it makes no exemptions for the health of the mother and substitutes Congressional passions for what should be a private decision between a woman and her doctor. Yes, it's easy to find the procedure ugly, which is why I believe a woman and her doctor must have a good reason for choosing it. And because I see it as such a gray area, I believe it's a decision best left to a woman and her doctor, not Congress and not SCOTUS.

vchtalkwrites: "Give us statistics and real stories, not the he said/she said stories the MSM are giving us."

To be fair, there just isn't a lot of good, complete information out there. A tour of the NIH website brings up next to nothing.

That being said, MSM should use the term "dilation and extraction" more and explain what the procedure is better than it's been done. It's appalling how many of us are prepared to outlaw a procedure we know nothing about as opposed to being humble enough to allow women and doctors to make their own informed decisions.

P.S. I just checked The Planned Parenthood website and it has some women's stories: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/news-articles-press/politics-policy-issues/abortion-access/abortion-ban-6185.htm

"The decision is a hodge-podge of assertions"

You're obviously talking about Roe v. Wade, right?

--Anonymous

I actually think this is a good point, though perhaps not the point Anonymous was going for. Roe v. Wade was a messy decision. This was a messy decision. In matters involving women's reproductive rights, the legislature and the courts don't do a very good job.

And why? Because these are messy, personal decisions best decided by dispassionate medical advice and a woman's individual choice. Only these parties have the necessary information to do what is best.

Anonymous writes: "the baby in the womb is undeniably human, the science of which is indisputable"

Please cites your scientific sources on the undeniable, indisputable humanity of a "baby in the womb."

You have still not cited any actual sources. You yourself say "Sounds human to me." I'm not asking for your personal opinion.

I don't mean to sound so harsh, but don't say you're answering a question when you're really not.