The Supremes, A Woman's Right to Choose And The Myth of Late Term Abortions

Doug at All Things Democrat hails our attention to this story; before you read it, understand if you do not already that the anti-woman's life types (those who unabashedly refer to themselves as pro-life and then vote against any of their money helping to pay for the children born to those who did not want them) perpetuate huge lies related to "partial birth" and "late term" abortions.

They would have you believe that doctors rip from the womb a fully developed child who, with the miracle of speech, begs the big, bad abortionist not to pull him apart and dump him in a Dumpster. This is not at all the case. It's just not.

From Doug:

Just one day after the upcoming election, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on two cases challenging the “Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003″. These cases will test the right-wing’s power to limit medical options for women.

From USA Today (via Naral.org)-

‘It was just after Mother’s Day in May 2003 when Ilene Jaroslaw, about four months pregnant, learned that the fetus she was carrying had a fatal spinal cord and brain defect.’

‘Jaroslaw, then a mother of two, says she was devastated but decided immediately to have an abortion. Because she wanted to have another child — and because she had had two previous cesarean-section deliveries and an unrelated surgery on her uterus — she agreed with her doctor’s recommendation to undergo a procedure that would do as little damage as possible to the uterus.’

‘Under a federal law passed by Congress in October 2003 and tied up in the courts ever since, Jaroslaw could not legally have undergone the procedure because her life was not in danger.’

This is another reason Karl Rove cannot be allowed to claim victory on November 7th.