Gov. Kathleen Blanco has signed into law two bills banning a controversial form of late-term abortions, making Louisiana the first state outlaw the procedure after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a federal ban in April.
Under two bills, which went into effect Friday, anyone convicted of performing “a partial birth abortion … thereby kills a human fetus” and can be imprisoned for one to 10 years, fined from $10,000 to $100,000, or both. Women who have the procedure will not be subjected to fines or jail time under the new laws.
A doctor charged with the crime can seek a hearing before the State Board of Medical Examiners to determine whether the procedure was necessary to save the mother’s life, an exemption under the new laws.
[blockquote] So-called “partial-birth abortions” account for roughly 3 percent of the 11,000-plus abortions performed in Louisiana each year.[/blockquote]
Is this going to be the first test of the legality of the procedures now that the Supreme Court has ruled that they do not violate “privacy”?
I guess I can understand an extreme case where such a procedure might be warranted (though I’ve not come across one yet that makes sense to me). But surely 3% of all procedures would lead one to suspect that this procedure is more likely to be done as a form of birth-control than anything else. And birth-control and/or convenience are specifically mentioned as non-acceptable reasons for abortion according to the one statement that General Convention has made on the subject.
Nick, I don’t follow you. Why would the 3% figure mean what you say? Could you unpack that for me, please?
Deja Vi — so that would mean 330 abortions a year done in Louisiana as partial birth abortions.
Very nice to see Louisiana doing this. Hope other states will follow.
Yeah, Nick, I need some help on that one, too. As you pointed to, one of the factoids presented to General Convention when the abortion resolution was passed many years ago was that the overwhelming number of abortions were in effect contraception, and yet outright banning of abortion would not take into pastoral consideration those pregnancies that were of extreme nature (abuse, rape, serious malformation, mother or child, etc). Those extreme cases were the 3%, or less.
So, I’ve got that 3% figure in my mind as the “allowable” abortions.
I’m not sure if the comment you made will not end up unintentionally as a diversion to the issue, anyway.
What is really at issue here is the struggle people have with defining abortion as murder, that is, is the fetus in the womb a human being (as suggested by scripture passages), or an “undeveloped” human being, and thus somehow not accountable to moral law regarding “killing” and “murder.” Thus, in either case, when a child is “partially” born does that not imply entrance into visible existence as a human being; it is exactly the visual graphic that demands the admission of human reality, and pushes overtly the emotional buttons of those who “see”, driving political action.
Louisiana has succombed to the argument of visual reality (and probably even more to maternal and paternal emotion), and every Episcopalian for Life should be glad for it, and for the foot in the door.
RGEaton
Hi all – sorry to be cryptic. I meant that 3% of all abortions being late-term abortions would seem too high a number to me for them all to represent danger to the mother’s life.
My point about the General Convention resolutions that effectively state that while there are some rare cases that are open to interpretation, the vast majority of rationales for abortion are not in keeping with a christian understanding of life.
Hey – I’ve marched with NOEL in my days as a priest, so I’m happy to see this law enacted.
(Rob – were you once a priest in the Diocese of Pittsburgh? At Zelianopole?)
Yes Sarah,
I was think that 330 is a small number in that the law does not effect the majority of abortion seekers. And these are the most worst type of abortion. Even people who support choice are able to understand this needs to be ended. Only people who have such an extreme agenda that they can’t acknowledge any abortion is wrong are against this type of law. Also I am thinking that women who have this type of abortion may be most prone to “buyer’s remorse”.
I’m not so sure about this law. Did you look at who can file the lawsuit?
[blockquote]The law says those who can file a “wrongful death” or injury lawsuit are the biological father of the fetus, unless his “criminal conduct” caused the pregnancy, as in a rape; the mother of the fetus, unless she was an adult and consented to the procedure; or the mother’s guardians, if the mother was a minor at the time–unless the parents consented to the abortion. [/blockquote]
It would appear that if the father agrees to the procedure and does not rape the mother, if the mother is of age and requests/consents to the procedure, and/or if the mother’s guardians (if she is a minor) consent to the procedure, it is NOT illegal. Help me to understand: if any or all of the above conditions are in place, than the procedure is NOT illegal and the partial birth abortion can be obtained, right? That doesn’t look like a ban on partial birth abortions. Governor Blanco is blowing smoke!
Nick,
Moving to the SW can make one cryptic. Be very careful.
No, not me in Zelienople. Peter Eaton+ (Denver cathedral) was in CPa, and W. Albert Eaton+ was in the diocese of Pittsburgh (now in Florida retired I believe), but not in Z. There’s no Episcopal church in Z., but there is a guy there at the Calvin Presby Church who grew up both in Episcopal and Presby congregations, and he has written an Alban Institute book which looks very interesting, based on NCD stuff; in one bio it says he is a “spiritual director” for the diocese of Pittsburgh. But his name is Standish.
Sorry.
RGEaton
From #7, Nick says: [blockquote]My point about the General Convention resolutions that effectively state that while there are some rare cases that are open to interpretation, the vast majority of rationales for abortion are not in keeping with a christian understanding of life. [/blockquote]
Yet, since January 2006, by vote of the Executive Council, ECUSA is an affiliated member of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC), a pro-abortion group that supports partial birth abortion. So I have to question ECUSA’s commitment to “rare cases.” Also, NOEL or Episcopalians for Life has changed its name (as of a few months ago) to [url=http://www.anglicansforlife.org/index/]Anglicans for Life[/url]. They deserve support!
Man! AFL sounds like a football group… NOEL had a cool ring to it! Oh well, can’t be helped, I guess. But surely they could have come up with a name that gave us a better acronym???