Reply #95: not necessarily. [View All]

Senator Durbin had a compromise proposal when the late-term stuff came up last year -- if memory serves me correctly, for a late term abortion a panel of docs would have to determine that there was a SERIOUS threat to the health of the mother. The argument, as you no doubt know, is individual docs make the determination of a health consequence if there is the least adverse impact. His was an excellent compromise, but it didn't get anywhere.
As for viability -- we know when that is, and for safety, since there was just a 24 weeker that lived, I believe the youngest ever, we might have to shave a few weeks, say determine viability to be 22 wks -- at least until science reaches the point that younger ones can be saved.
I think late term abortions are probably the only place where there is fertile ground for compromise. I don't want unfettered access after viability, but would have been ok with Durbin's proposal, even though I think that when one is that far along, any exception should be limited to life of the mother. Since I am not a doc, I'd compromise to serious health consequence established by a panel.
So far, I have never heard of a situation when delivering late term
would jeopardize the life of the mother more than a late term abortion and I am not so sure one can determine a serious health impact from a delivery at that point, either. Using late term abortions because the fetus is fatally compromised, to me, is not justifiable, but that is what it is most often used for. One can make an argument that the child will die shortly after birth anyway, so why put the parents through it and add to the medical costs. Although I understand and sympathize, I just can't go that far.