Quote:
Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Yes, mostly. Additionally, it is drafted broadly enough to, in some circumstances, ban procedures that aren't PBA and have otherwise been found constitutionally protected. But basically, its undoing is that the thing is drafted like a piece of shit. It is not difficult to draft anti-PBA legislation that would pass constitutional muster, they just, inexplicably, didn't do it. I'd like to think the congressional pro-choicers got very devious and figured out some way to sink this through extremism, but I frankly don't give them the credit.
I agree with what you are getting at here - this is so miniscule and marginal it is basically a non-issue.
I'll bet there are some. My vague understanding is that, in fact, they are usually performed only in fairly severe emergency circumstances. In terms of someone willing to stand up and take a bow about it in the current political climate ... I doubt we'll find that. So say hello to your hat for me.
|
as compared to saying good-bye to my hat?
Two things:
If something isn't PBA and has "otherwise been found constitutionally protected", then I would very much like to strangle the drafters. If "otherwise... found constitutionally protected" means something beyond a single doctor's assertion that a PBA is necessary, then our definitions of "constitutionally protected" coincide. Which leads to my other point.
My understanding is that they are "usually performed" by the same doctors in, mostly rural states, for completely inexplicable reasons.
A few years ago I'd swear that I read something like 80% are performed by only 5 doctors. And it wasn't like people were travelling out of state to find these doctors in emergencies. It was basically a large part of their practice.
I'll try to find an article though to support my suggestions here.
