Abortion

Since the comments in my post on the Presidential debates have turned into a lively discussion (so far mostly civil thankfully) on abortion I thought I would put up an entire abortion post. The two issues of contention were partial birth abortion and parental notification. Before I get into this two specific issues let me say right off that abortion is a troubling issue to all people of good conscience. All but the most strident pro-abortionists regard every abortion with a certain degree of regret and an with an acknowledgement that in a better world this procedure would never be needed in the first place. Conversely, the vast majority of those who disprove of abortion realize that government regulation of a very private and personal aspect of a woman's life is troubling and must be considered with deliberation and caution if such a thing is to occur. On the issue of partial birth abortion I have come down unequivocally against it. From what I have read, this is never a medically needed procedure. He are some quotes from doctors concerning this:

AMA President Daniel Johnson, Jr., M.D.: "The partial delivery of a living fetus for the purpose of killing it outside the womb is ethically offensive to most Americans and physicians. Our panel could not find any identified circumstance in which the procedure was the only safe and effective abortion method." Letter to the Editors, New York Times, May 26, 1997 Board of Trustees of the American Medical Association: "According to the scientific literature, there does not appear to be any identified situation in which intact D&X is the only appropriate procedure to induce abortion, and ethical concerns have been raised about D&X." Report of May 1997 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: "A select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstance under which this procedure...would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the women. Statement of Policy, January 12, 1997 Former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop "I believe that Mr. Clinton was misled by his medical advisors on what is fact and what is fiction in reference to late-term abortions. Because in no way can I twist my mind to see that the late term abortion as described--you know, partial birth, and then destruction of the unborn child before the head is born--is a medical necessitity for the mother. It certainly can't be a medical necessity for the baby." American Medical News, August 19, 1996 Abortionist Warren Hern: "I have very serious reservations about this procedure...You really can't defend it. I'm not going to tell somebody else that they should not do this procedure. But I'm not going to do it...I would dispute any statement that this is the safest procedure to use." American Medical News, November 20, 1995 Drs. Nancy Romer, Pamela Smith, Curtis Cook, and Joseph DeCook of physicians' Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth (PHACT): "None of this risk is ever necessary for any reason. We and many other doctors across the U.S. regularly treat women whose unborn children suffer the same conditions as those cited by the women who appeared at Mr. Clinton's veto ceremony. Never is the partial-birth procedure necessary." Wall Street Journal, September 19, 1996

Admittedly I got these quotes from a anti-partial birth abortion website. They do however match the congressional findings:

(2) Rather than being an abortion procedure that is embraced by the medical community, particularly among physicians who routinely perform other abortion procedures, partial-birth abortion remains a disfavored procedure that is not only unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother, but in fact poses serious risks to the long-term health of women and in some circumstances, their lives. As a result, at least 27 States banned the procedure as did the United States Congress which voted to ban the procedure during the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses. (3) In Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 932 (2000), the United States Supreme Court opined `that significant medical authority supports the proposition that in some circumstances, [partial birth abortion] would be the safest procedure' for pregnant women who wish to undergo an abortion. Thus, the Court struck down the State of Nebraska's ban on partial-birth abortion procedures, concluding that it placed an `undue burden' on women seeking abortions because it failed to include an exception for partial-birth abortions deemed necessary to preserve the `health' of the mother. (4) In reaching this conclusion, the Court deferred to the Federal district court's factual findings that the partial-birth abortion procedure was statistically and medically as safe as, and in many circumstances safer than, alternative abortion procedures. (5) However, substantial evidence presented at the Stenberg trial and overwhelming evidence presented and compiled at extensive congressional hearings, much of which was compiled after the district court hearing in Stenberg, and thus not included in the Stenberg trial record, demonstrates that a partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman, poses significant health risks to a woman upon whom the procedure is performed and is outside the standard of medical care.

I believe this to be an accurate analysis of the medical necessity of partial birth abortion. I also believe it to be a barbaric procedure that, unless it was medically needed for the life of the mother, would have absolutely no justification. The other lively issue is parental notification. As I said in the comments of my other post, I think in general that we infantasize our teenagers too much and would favor them having more rights and responsibilities in a broad swath of issues. However, currently teenagers are dependents of their parents. Andrew said in the comments:

Kerry's words: 'judicial intervention'. He wanted one clause in the parental notification bill, saying that the courts could intervene in specific cases when a judge deemed it appropriate. He wasn't trying to add some overly specific "not if her father raped her..." clause, but one that would allow occasional intervention by an interpreter of the law.

The problems that I see with this is that it is obviously impossible to investigate whether the parents should be denied their 'notification right' without notifying them. They will have no opportunity to defend their rights, theoretically they would not even be aware that they had been denied this right. Add in the probability that 'judge shopping' could occur where a very pro-abortion judge could be found that would cart-blanche approve non-parental notifications and I fear that the 'parental notification' clause would effectively moot the law. Remember also that the courts already have general oversight of parental rights. With cause, a court can strip a parent of all right over their children and make them wards of the state or grant custody to other relatives. The 'her father raped her' example is a clear example of when this should be done. I can think of no situation when it would be appropriate to strip a parent of this one right when it would not be appropriate to strip them of all parental rights so I don't see any positive benefit to adding the judicial oversite provision to parental notification law. As I hinted at above, one could argue that parental notification should not be required for any minors but that is certainly a different argument with an entirely different set of pros and cons. It is also clearly not the argument that John Kerry is making, although I suspect that he at is least catering to those who do support that idea. As I stated, one can easily imagine that a judicial oversite provision could effectively make parental notification a moot point. I also want to speak to a point Cube made in the comments that I think is flat wrong:

"Congress isn't to be a deliberative body that battles over the specifics? " actually i don't think that is their job at all. http://bensguide.gpo.gov/3-5/government/national/judicial.html "Courts decide arguments about the meaning of laws, how they are applied, and whether they break the rules of the Constitution." "He's for them! He said so! He just didn't believe that the bills that came to vote were sufficiently detailed. " define sufficient detail, if you would have put they required clause in there, someone else would have found somthing else. Their is a point in time when the people who write the laws can only do so much.

Congress does in fact need to make sure that laws are explicity defined in scope and what exceptions if any, apply to them. Detail in the law is very important to help ensure equal enforcement and protections for all people. Obviously the congress can't do a perfect job and sometimes they don't think of things that come up later or the law might have applications that they didn't expect but the should do their best to avoid this. The courts serve as a backup, interpreting the law when congress fails to sufficiently define something as well as ruling on the constitutionality of any given law. The existence of a backup however does not justify failure to properly do the job in the first place. Congress should not knowingly pass a law that is unconstitutional, similarly they should not pass a law that they know is vague or poorly defined. As always, I welcome all comments. Personally I particularly like comments that disagree with me as it helps me expand my views and test my thinking. I do ask exercise courtesy, and I think it would be helpful to assume that even those that don't share your views still have the best of motives at heart.