![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conuly
"Late term" abortion ban ruled unconstitutional
Oh, how horrible. Oh, how terrible.
Except.
Um.
The bill they're refering to didn't only ban late-term abortions. It didn't use any specific medical terms, instead using the non-medical phrase "partial-birth abortion". It was so vague that it could've been used to prevent abortions from occuring as early as 13 weeks. That's not late-term. And that's why the bill was struck down.
The damn thing wasn't even called the late-term abortion bill, or anything, so I don't know why they named the article that.
Oh, how horrible. Oh, how terrible.
Except.
Um.
The bill they're refering to didn't only ban late-term abortions. It didn't use any specific medical terms, instead using the non-medical phrase "partial-birth abortion". It was so vague that it could've been used to prevent abortions from occuring as early as 13 weeks. That's not late-term. And that's why the bill was struck down.
The damn thing wasn't even called the late-term abortion bill, or anything, so I don't know why they named the article that.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-08-28 01:03 pm (UTC)Because the bill's ostensible goal was to ban late-term abortions. The fact that it effectively banned nearly ALL abortions was just, y'know, unimportant semantics. :P
It sounds to me like they're trying to misinform the people who only browse the headlines.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-28 02:27 pm (UTC)Ya think?
And this from the "liberal" news sources!