> "Butcher shop" implies that procedures were performed without care, that patients' lives or long-term health were risked. Your issue is with who his patients were, not how they were cared for. This is clearly a very different situation than Gosnell.
>
>I stand by the term "butcher" because of the # of elective procedures he did to unborn infants well beyond 24 weeks (and in some cases, as far as 32 weeks)
>
>I've said before that I'm 100% pro-choice in the first two trimesters. I oppose it (except for the standard exceptions) after that, as do the strong majority of Americans. At that point, you're talking about an unborn life form with a developing nervous system and respiratory system that can distinguish the sound of the mother's voice from other sounds/voices. As Tiller boasted about the # of late term abortions for reasons like "I won't be able to barrel race", "I won't be able to fit into my prom dress", "I won't be able to go to a rock concert" (yes, actual documented cases), I think the term "butcher" is fitting, when considering the victim here.
>
>I have very mixed feelings about late-term abortion. First, no question in my mind that it should be permitted to save the life or long-term health of the mother, as well as when the fetus has no chance of long-term viability. I'd also argue that when a woman has been prevented by legal maneuverings from getting an abortion earlier, she should be allowed to have one later.
>
>I agree with you on this, especially the last part. If a woman has been denied her constitutional right before the point of viability, that is very wrong. As much as I abhor men like Gosnell and Tiller, I've got the same contempt for those who stand in the way of constitutional rights.
>
>The hardest call in all of this, in my view, is mental health. At what point does concern about a woman's mental health override the fetus's viability?
>
>This is where George Tiller took huge, huge liberties. One of the reasons you see such draconian bills (such as the heartbeat bills) is because it's an insane reaction to years of insanity in the other direction.
>
>Incumbent in all my thinking is the idea of the mother as an autonomous being who gets to control her own life. There have to be pretty strong considerations to restrict that autonomy.
>
>I don't disagree - that's why I'm pro-choice for the first two trimesters, though as I said before, I don't debate when states choose to set the limit to 20 weeks.

Yeah, I think we're pretty much on the same page here.

>
>And final note, most important of all, yesterday a federal judge ruled one of the "heartbeat" laws in North Dakota. I said yesterday that many federal judges have come along (and rightly so) to strike down ridiculous bills that pass certain states.

I'm reasonably confident that many of those "heartbeat" bills were passed solely to get into the courts, hoping to overturn Roe.

However, the courts do seem to be letting stand many of the other restrictions, like admitting privileges. Those restrictions, in practice, eliminate abortion in large swaths of the country.

>
>As much as I intensely detest our current president (and believe me, the instrument has yet to be invented that can measure my negative views on his performance), there's only one thing about him I can't complain about - he won't appoint judges that will seek to completely overturn Roe v Wade.

True.

Tamar