A SCOTUS First

This is terrible news for the people of this nation. I grew up to believe the Supreme Court was the great protector of minorities. And with the abuse of powers visited upon us daily by Bush-Cheney, we need protection now more than ever.

I don't that I've ever been more disappointed in my country than today.

Sent by Mike from Charlotte, NC WFAE 90.7 | 4:00 PM | 4-18-2007

This is a tragic day for our country. Five lawyers are defying the organized medical community and denying optimal medical care to select women. A rare but necessary medical procedure has become a criminal activity.

Sent by mamadoc | 4:03 PM | 4-18-2007

I find it appalling that abortion opponents consider the alternative to Intact Dialation and Extraction- disarticulation, or cutting up the fetus to remove it - a better alternative to leave in place. It seems a far kinder method in my mind to leave the child as close to in-tact as possible, for mother and child.

No one wants to suffer through this procedure. It seems abortion opponents would like to leave us with the most inhumane methods only, in some sick twist to further deter a woman from a procedure that may very well save her life.

Sent by Sakura Tower | 4:05 PM | 4-18-2007

While few women have the D & X procedure, today's ruling sets a dangerous precedent for all. The Supreme Court has chosen to usurp the authority of ACOG in determining the safest medical procedures. All Americans should be concerned at the thought of lawyers directing their medical care based on ideology and aesthetics of the procedure rather than safety and efficacy.

Sent by Cindy in Spokane | 5:33 PM | 4-18-2007

Here in Minneapolis a young woman recently performed an "extra-vaginal" abortion on her fetus by slicing it up and disposing of it.

Had she left merely a toe of the fetus inside the birth canal and asked assistance in it's slicing and dicing she would have been exercising "choice" instead of committing an act of murder.

I think the court saw the absurdity of this notion and quite rightly rejected the made up "right" to murder ones child under such circumstances. One of the most egregious aspects of our modern day holocaust is finished and that's a good thing

Sent by Bruce Frykman | 6:20 PM | 4-18-2007

The woman who called from Ann Arbor, Michigan on April 18 was right. The medically safest and easiest procedure to end a pregnancy is not surgery, but to induce labor and vaginal delivery with medications.*

Your guest was hopelessly out of date in citing medical testimony from a Nebraska trial in the 1990s.

I know as a Family Physician in practice for 20 years and having attended over 1,000 births. "Intact Dilation and Extraction" is an out-moded procedure that no doctor I know would prefer or even choose. (Those upset about losing "a procedure that very well save a woman's life" have NOTHING to worry about.)

The issue of Partial Birth Abortion is this: if a fetus is delivered early because of horrible birth defects, what does one do after the birth:
#1: do you hold and love the newborn for the few moments remaining in its short life, or
#2: on the way out, do you perform a second procedure- a maiming akin to dashing its head against the rocks- in order preclude any further life?

I see families doing the first. As a doctor I do not need to do the second.

*See New England Journal of Medicine Aug 25, 2005 pages 761-9.

Sent by Stephen Sladek MD | 10:07 PM | 4-18-2007

finally some comom sence in the supreme court, let's not forget experts said this procedure is never necesary for the health of a woman, is this was to be perform is animals it will be a giant outcry but since is done in humans many think is o.k. to do

Sent by alex constanza | 9:22 PM | 4-19-2007

In most states, an abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy prior to fetal viability with the aim other than to produce a live birth. As such, the term "partial birth abortion" has no legal meaning. It does, unfortunately, have a strong propaganda resonance.

The Court's decision must be seen for what it really is -- the culmination of over thirty years of anti-abortion political activism. No one who voted for a Republican presidential candidate since 1980 can claim to be shocked, since the party platform clearly stated their intent to appoint federal judges hostile to the right to abortion.

The blithe references to alternative procedures to intact dilation and extraction, ignore the reality that intact D&E may be the safest and preferred method in some cases. The Supreme Court's decision endangers the health of women.

Sent by Tom E Stickler | 9:55 PM | 4-20-2007