A Question for Barack Obama

This is a very strange promise, because Obama should know it has not a hope of passing. The democratic majority is slim, and the republicans will vote en mass against it. The only way to overcome that would be if the democrats gave it near-unaminous support - but there are more democrats who would vote no than republicans who would vote yes. There just isn't the political possibility of this law even making it as far as presidental signing. It's an empty promise.

It's like when Bush promised to ban same-sex marriage in the constitution - it was obvious the democrats would almost all vote against it, so there was no chance of getting a 2/3 majority. It was a proposed law intended to please the base, he can't have actually thought it would pass. He just had to promise to try in order to energise voters.

Obama is pulling the same stunt, from the other end of the spectrum - promise to pass a law he knows he can't pass, in order to gain the support of a voting block.

Us pro-choicers are highly suspicious of parential notification. It's not that we object much to the princible - it's more that we don't trust pro-lifers, and regard the parential notification laws as a justification to make abortion as expensive, slow, paperwork-filled and difficult a process as possible. And, as the above commenters point out, there is that major issue of bad parents which the bills fail to properly address. While most parents arn't going to be a problem, there will always be a few who are. The abusive ones, the extremally religious ones who would disown their daughter for having premarital sex, and so on.

The court review idea is so complicated, the girls have to hire a lawyer just to know it exists.

It should be noted that parential notification is a de facto requirement for parential consent: If a parent knows their daughter is seeking an abortion, it's a relatively simple measure for them to prevent it. All they need to is lock the daughter in their room for a time while they call on their pro-life family and church for some continuous supervision. Or, if that fails, send the daughter off to a religious camp for the remainder of the pregnency. Even the basic threats would work on all but the most rebellious of daughters: The classic 'If you have that abortion I'll throw you out on the street!' will convince most.

The FOCA is disgraceful and for some of you to support is really sad. The proposal ends virtually all pro-life legislation. This includes common sense pro-life laws that the vast majority of Americans support. It can be in risk for the Partial birth abortion ban to be gone. It can also force taxpayers to fund abortion that Obama supports. This is bigger than parental nortification laws. Also, Raven's using false stereotypes against Pro-Life citizens is silly. First, abuse of young girls and criminal abuse is already illegal in America. Not to mention that the barbarous action of ripping a baby's body parts limb from limb is really just as much abuse as harming girls. Also, the religious camp nonesense Raven is a convinent excuse for you to ignore the dangerous health, physical, and psychological effects that abortion has caused women for decades. You ignore that. FOCA would make any restriction on abortion illegal.

I never said Obama is faking support. I'm sure he would be happy to sign it, just as Bush would have signed the marriage ammendment if he had been able to. I'm sure Bush worked hard for it, and expect Obama to work on FOCA too. But still, both election promises share that one vital characteristic: The candidates knew that it would be very unlikely they would be able to fulfill the promise, no matter how hard they try.

So in both cases, although the candidates try to give the impression of a promise of 'I will pass this,' what they are really thinking is 'I'll try, but I know the opposing party will stop me.'

Timothy, I cannot address your comment because I can't understand it. Rewrite in more coherent form, and learn to use paragraphs.

I find it annoying that the debate is so polarised. All the moderates have given up now - the only factions that remain are the extreme pro-lifers (Ban all abortion, even if it means woman die needlessly) and the extreme pro-choicers (Abortion on demand, anything less is repressive). Neither of these represents a consensus or majority oppinion, it's just that only those with a fanatical dedication to one extreme or the other are able to effectively take part in the politics. Moderates are just people hated by both sides.

Timothy, I think you are confusing Raven with me.

The idea that a health exception isn't necessary is just abominable, and no, they didn't prove it. It's one thing to suppose that the fetus is a person; that one can go either way. It's quite another to act like the woman isn't, and that is just what this law does.

Partial birth abortion is pure barbarism and FOCA is barbarism since it can ban all pro-life laws period.

Politically motivation? There are other doctors who aren't in the pocket of any party that have expressed dissent with partial birth abortion. They include Dr. Nancy Romer, Ron Fitzsimmons (a pro-abortionist I might add), and Dr. Curtis Cook. Dr. Cook flat out said that the procedure is so abhorent that it isn't necessary to save the life of the mother at all. Not to mention on many occasion, the health of the mother have been exploited to include almost anything from a cold to a headache. There is a D and E procedure as you say. Regardless of that, there is no escape the horrible risk factors that partial birth abortion had done upon women (many of which I've already mentioned). Also, abortion isn't a holy procedure. It's the intentional destruction of human life by ripping a baby's body parts. Somehow, pro-abortionists don't want people to realize this.

DRF, you are good at this!

Timothy, the medical need for a health exception isn't the only one - there was also a legal need. One of the main objectives of the ban was to pass an abortion restriction that *doesn't* have a health exception, and then have it survive a supreme court challenge - by passing a slightly restrictive and very popular law without an exception, it becomes far easier for less popular laws without a health exception to survive in court because there is a precident to cite arguing that no health exception was needed then.

DRF is also right in that the term 'partial birth abortion' was made up specifically for that law - it isn't a recognised medical term. As with so much in politics, words have power. By making up a sufficiently scarey term, popular support can be assured.