>>Thomas-you have to understand that the goal of the people writing and passing these laws is to eliminate abortion. They can't pass laws to prohibit it, so they're doing everything they can to make it as hard as possible to get one. Sadly, the courts seem to be allowing this crap to stand.
>
>Tamar, I am generally pro-choice (in the first 2 trimesters), but it's important to remember some of the history that has led to what we have today. I agree that some of the proposed legislation in certain states is intended to eliminate abortion. But some of it is an attempt (a rather strident one) to undo some of the social and political damage done by certain politicians, certain doctors, and Planned Parenthood.
>
>The Kermit Gosnell case in Philadelphia is a prime example. This man went unchecked for years in violating state laws on performing abortions after 24 weeks. Grand Jury testimony brought out that the Ridge Administration was afraid to go after Gosnell, for fear of being vilified by vocal feminist/abortion rights groups. Grand Jury testimony also brought out that Planned Parenthood referred women who wanted to have elective late-term abortions to Gosnell (even while knowing what a butcher shop it was) on the condition that the patient would never say that Planned Parenthood sent her. So certainly "some" of what you're seeing now in states like Texas is to protect against this happening again (and yes, some of it is political payback for Planned Parenthood, who quite frankly, could use some humble pie).
>
>I know liberals (even well meaning ones) who refuse to talk about Gosnell - they are afraid to. That's part of what led to the mess to begin with.
>

Gosnell was a butcher who deserves whatever punishment comes his way. But he's being used as a poster child in order to promote an agenda that many of those pointing to him had before Gosnell became national news.

>Then look at the atrocities in Kansas while Kathleen Sebelius was governor - she and the state attorney general at the time frequently looked the other way while George Tiller performed in his butcher shop. There's a trail of political contributions and blood in that entire story (and yes, Tiller was killed by an anti-abortion psycho). Again, some of the new bills being proposed are to turn the tide from reckless activity left unchecked - though I'll acknowledge that some go too far the other way.

I've never heard of Tiller doing anything wrong. Got a cite?

>One of the things I've always found disturbing about this entire topic is that many (present company might be excluded) do not even understand what's "in" the Supreme Court decisions and can only speak on the topic in highly emotional terms. What is the objection to a doctor having admitting privileges???
>

The objection is that abortion is actually a very safe procedure and the law doesn't require doctors performing much riskier procedures in out-patient centers to have admitting privileges. If a state wants to decide that no out-patient surgery can be performed without admitting privileges nearby, that's one thing. If a state wants to look at outcomes and pick some procedures that seem to be particularly high-risk and restrict those, I can understand. But as far as I know, they're focusing only on abortion. It's just a pretext to make it harder for women to get abortions.

>Also, I saw an interview with Wendy Davis a few months ago, and she just fell apart in trying to define late term and partial birth abortion....and ultimately concluded with, "Well, the Supreme Court says a woman has a right to an abortion at any time". Uhm, no, it never said that.
>

No, it didn't.

>There's also a good amount of misreporting on the issue. Anytime I hear a news story from MSNBC on abortion, I'll verify it, because I know there's a good chance their story is misleading or even wrong. The other day they tried to get people to believe that Alaska was pushing through a bill that would outlaw all abortions at any stage unless there was a documented medical reason. The actual bill is setting medical reason limits on abortions funded through State Medicaid. BIG difference.
>
>So again, some of the "crap" you're seeing is partly due to irresponsible behavior and "look the other direction" attitudes.

Actually, I think what we're seeing now is the anti-abortion folks realizing they can accomplish much of what they want at the state level without actually overturning Roe v. Wade. At the same time, I think that many of the new laws are designed to get cases in front of SCOTUS to try to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Tamar