That’s an impartial piece of reporting if I ever saw one.
That your legal system works at all is quite amazing….
I would employ a historian and not a lawyer for finding “cool” precedences.
F_alk, we have the best legal system in the world. :roll:
I know nothing of this particular article’s accuracy, or its bias. Just wanted to respond to points it makes for reasons for re-opening the case:
He asserts three major arguments for reopening and overturning the case on the basis of Rule 60(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows for relief on the basis of new evidence, errors or fraud:
The Roe v. Wade decision deprived women of protection from dangerous abortions and exposed them to a much greater risk of being pressured into unwanted abortions. Studies, he says, indicate between 30 and 60 percent of abortions result from the pregnant woman submitting to pressure from her male partner, parents, physicians or others.
This does not surprise me at all. I’ve actually watched a rather matronly ob/gyne suggest very strongly that it was unnecessary for her patients to carry through with the pregnancy. I was amazed as the girls had said that they were not interested in abortion because of their beliefs and that they had other plans rather than terminating the life of their unborn child. Still she pushed the issue. Unbelievable.
At the same time, i don’t believe that this “deprived women of protection from dangerous abortions” - in fact i believe that the opposite is true - that fewer women are seeking back-street abortion clinics (i.e. guys with coat hangers) and obtaining actual medical treatment.
Parker will present affidavits from more than 1,000 women who testify having an abortion has had devastating emotional, physical and psychological effects. This is 1,000 times more evidence than presented in the original case, he says. Also, new scientific evidence indicates abortion is associated with more physical and psychological complications for women than were known about in 1973. In contrast, there have been no scientific studies measuring any significant benefits abortion has produced in women’s lives.
This is something that is left out of the debate far too often. We practice “evidence-based medicine” in almost every aspect. We consider social-psych issues of every patient. Why here, in issues of life and death do we ignore BOTH evidence-based medicine AND social-psych issues? This, if anything, is evidence of a hijacking of medicine by special-interest groups.
While the question, “When does life begin?” was treated as an unanswered philosophical question in 1973, “an explosion of scientific evidence on human life” since then “conclusively answers the question that life begins at conception,” Parker argues.
Well, i’m not sure that this is true. My argument is that we CAN’T know therefore we must go on the assumption that it is conception.
Under a 1999 law, Texas provides for any woman’s unwanted child from birth to 18 years of age with no questions asked, which means women should no longer be forced to dispose of “unwanted” children by ending a human life, insists Parker. Forty states have similar “Baby Moses” laws.
Brilliant. Great way to help infertile couples as well.
@Deviant:Scripter:
F_alk, we have the best legal system in the world. :roll:
Well, i’m pretty sure that THIS isn’t true (and NOT for the reasons JANUS listed . . .).
(deleted)
@cystic:
The Roe v. Wade decision deprived women of protection from dangerous abortions and exposed them to a much greater risk of being pressured into unwanted abortions. Studies, he says, indicate between 30 and 60 percent of abortions result from the pregnant woman submitting to pressure from her male partner, parents, physicians or others.
…
At the same time, i don’t believe that this “deprived women of protection from dangerous abortions” - in fact i believe that the opposite is true - that fewer women are seeking back-street abortion clinics (i.e. guys with coat hangers) and obtaining actual medical treatment.
First: If i see a study with an error as large as the result… well… would you cross that bridge over a chasm that has a 30% chance of breaking down under you?
Second: a very good point by CC here, something that (for me) counts a lot.
…In contrast, there have been no scientific studies measuring any significant benefits abortion has produced in women’s lives.
This is something that is left out of the debate far too often. We practice “evidence-based medicine” in almost every aspect. We consider social-psych issues of every patient. Why here, in issues of life and death do we ignore BOTH evidence-based medicine AND social-psych issues? This, if anything, is evidence of a hijacking of medicine by special-interest groups.
I guess the problem is to do EBM here. How could you do a RCT? No way. double-blind? A chance of less than zero to accomplish that ;)
And then, how would you measure the benefits of abortion? Do financial benefits count? Or the lower chance to reinfect yourself with “childrens diseases”, or the good effect of cuddling and caressing, and caring for someone (like seen in homes for the elderly… buy a dog?).
You surely could make a study that shows the positve and negative effects of an abortion. But you can’t make it in EBM, and then the question is how valid this study really is.
Well, i’m not sure that this is true. My argument is that we CAN’T know therefore we must go on the assumption that it is conception.
a valid position.
I do not believe this case will get past the screening process.
I appreciate cc’s input as a doc2B, :D
I know the doctor who was the head of the best known US pro-life(There you go, LJ, with your extreme right conservative propaganda hogwash!!) doctor, an intelligent man with a great bedside/doc demeanor. He has asked for 30+ years for ONE(read as “1”) victim of coathanger abortion to come forward for examination. NONE(read as “ZERO, ZILCH, NADA”) came forward. I know three other doctors who have sought the same thing with the same results. Oh, it’s shown in the MD. textbooks, I am sure, but that’s one or two, maybe ten or twenty (on the east and west coasts, most likely[See, LJ! Extreme anti-feminist, anti-intellectual propaganda!!]).
One woman FEELING THE GUILT OF 43M+ abortions(note that I am being appropriate here and not saying"murder." (LJ!!!)She needs therapy not a date with the US Supreme Court.
@F_alk:
…In contrast, there have been no scientific studies measuring any significant benefits abortion has produced in women’s lives.
This is something that is left out of the debate far too often. We practice “evidence-based medicine” in almost every aspect. We consider social-psych issues of every patient. Why here, in issues of life and death do we ignore BOTH evidence-based medicine AND social-psych issues? This, if anything, is evidence of a hijacking of medicine by special-interest groups.
I guess the problem is to do EBM here. How could you do a RCT? No way. double-blind? A chance of less than zero to accomplish that ;)
And then, how would you measure the benefits of abortion? Do financial benefits count? Or the lower chance to reinfect yourself with “childrens diseases”, or the good effect of cuddling and caressing, and caring for someone (like seen in homes for the elderly… buy a dog?).
You surely could make a study that shows the positve and negative effects of an abortion. But you can’t make it in EBM, and then the question is how valid this study really is.
Obviously you’re right in that any kind of prospective RCT (that’s “randomized, placebo-controlled trial”) would be impossibly inappropriate). At the same time, one could probably get an ob/gyn, a psychiatrist and a statistician together for a retrospective study - even if it’s a simple questionaire. This could provide the fodder for a better high-powered study. It could simply analyze feelings, thoughts etc. in the before, during/immediately after, and 1, 3 and-5 years post-abortion. Clinical depression is evaluable, as is anxiety, PTSD, and one can measure drug intake if your state/province has a DPIN system. Other out-comes too might be evaluated in terms of 3, 5, and 10 year morbidity, mortality etc. (i do believe some have been done with some equivocal data).
@cystic:
At the same time, one could probably get an ob/gyn, a psychiatrist and a statistician together for a retrospective study - even if it’s a simple questionaire. … It could simply analyze feelings, thoughts etc. … Clinical depression is evaluable, as is anxiety, PTSD, and one can measure drug intake if your state/province has a DPIN system. Other out-comes too might be evaluated in terms of 3, 5, and 10 year morbidity, mortality etc. (i do believe some have been done with some equivocal data).
True, with the first. Though the problem with questionaires is that you have to be extremely careful with the wording. I fear that any study on this can very easily be manipulated by the according interest group who launched it. So, you could make a study testing depression etc., but that then must be done to women who have given birth, have aborted, have not been pregnant, and no question should somehow relate to pregancy.
Then, after evaluated for these three different groups, you could start to make some statitics out of that.
But, i fear that the above-mentioned statistics did not pay enough attention to that, something i conclude from the “30% to 60%”, an error i can not accept when having 1000, say “datapoints”.
