there seems to be some real confusion about your position on third-trimester and partial-birth abortions. Can you clarify your stance for us?
... I have repeatedly said that I think it's entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother.
Ahha your right. Yeah my CRTL-F does not work in IE for some reason.
He is talking about 3rd trimester in this interview but he uses the language 'late term' which is defined as can start at 12 weeks (see my block quote above).
But I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he calls 3rd trimester as later term.
Now on partial birth abortions: Partial birth abortion law speaks only to the method of abortion used. It is a method used before the 3rd trimester or was used since it is banned now.
Not withstanding his 3rd trimester position. I still stand by the statement that you cannot call yourself pro-choice if you don't leave a choice to the woman. If you restrict that right even in the 3rd trimester you are not Pro -Choice.
Um, yes you can.
I'm gonna have to write a diary about Casey v. Planned Parenthood, which controls the abortion question (it superceded Roe v. Wade, yet nearly nobody seems to have noticed that).
You have a right to an abortion up until the point of viability, under the Constitution. Your right is not unfettered.
None of your rights are unfettered. Every single right you have can be, and is, regulated and restricted at times by your government.
I'm sorry but what does Supreme Court case law have to do with the definition of the term pro-choice?
Have I missed something in this conversation?
I'll compose the diary and make my point that way.
I can't really do that effectively in the confines of a traditional comment. I'm not dodging, either. This isn't an easy topic to wade into, and I would prefer to do it right.
