"curb" on abortion

warning that this blog contains kind of graphic descriptions of a medical procedure.

yesterday, the supreme court upheld the ban on late-term abortion. according to the washington post, the justices "approved an abortion restriction that did not contain an exception for the health of the woman. it does, however, provide an exception to save the woman's life." so the procedure will only be legal if a late-term abortion will save her life, not her health. it's fine that she is forced to live in poorer health post-partum, probably making motherhood much harder, and in effect, probably affecting the child, i would bet, not positively.

i agree that the procedure they're banning is horrific. intact dilation and evacuation (IDX) involves delivering the fetus in one piece and crushing the skull of the fetus to make the removal of it easier. yeah, if any decent woman knew the details of this procedure, i doubt she would agree to it. the reason that doctors would recommend this method of abortion is because it "carries a lower risk of bleeding, infections and permanent injury." the alternative is to remove the fetus in pieces (dilation and evacuation) which is still pretty frightening.

ginsburg said it right as to why i oppose this decision: "...the court deprives women of the right to make an autonomous choice...this way of thinking reflects ancient notions about women's place in the family and under the Constitution -- ideas that have long since been discredited." women should be educated in the matter, something that they deserve as a human being. this is why i don't understand bush's statement in response to the ruling: "the decision 'affirms that the Constitution does not stand in the way of the people's representatives enacting laws reflecting the compassion and humanity of america.'" what kind of compassion and humanity is involved in assuming that the woman and doctor, a medically trained professional whose job it is to save/improve lives, have no respect for the life of the fetus?

besides, exactly how many IDX are performed, say, each year? what is the rate of this procedure? is it that common that a LAW needs to be implemented? it sounds like something saved as a last resort. someone please educate me on the statistics of this procedure. if it really is a procedure that occurs all the time, then maybe i can see a validity to the law, as much as i may disagree with it. however, if it is a rarely performed procedure, then basically, yesterday's decision is a political move. it's the beginning of the conservatives making way to overturn roe v. wade.

in 2000, the supreme court overturned a nebraska law banning partial-birth abortions. the 5 justices who consisted of the majority were the same justices who dissented yesterday's decision, minus o'connor, which made them the minority with the more recent decision. i hope that i'm wrong to feel like we're the only first world country moving backwards in terms of human rights. it would turn my parents' efforts to immigrate to this country for the sake of my sister's and my lives futile.