Regarding “Both sides of the fence”http://www.houstonianonline.com/news/329395.html

“The pamphlet passed out by Justice For All printed incorrect information regarding abortions.”

What was incorrect about the pamphlet? Yes, abortions that late are very rare, but you have to remember that in the vocabulary of the ardent supprters of abortion rights, saying “generally limited to … situations when the life or health of the pregant woman is seriously threatened” can include *possible* emotional stresses on her *emotional* health (the definition established by the Supreme Court through a build-up of case law). They just don’t advertise that little caveat when trying to cover up how late a woman can decide to abort.

If you don’t believe that their list of good reasons is that broad, ask people like the National Abortion Federation (quoted in teh article) to define exactly what situations they do think 3rd trimester abortions should be allowed (or barred) – you’ll get a vague answer and a reference to saying that’s a decision between a woman and her doctor , which isn’t an answer at all.

As far as the infrequency of 3rd trimester abortions, by that point most abortion minded mothers have already either felt the baby move or have seen a sonagram, events which have been proven to substantially reduce a mother’s desire to abort. But infrequency does not mean that abortions at that point are restricted legally, it just means that most mothers (and doctors) can’t bear the thought of going through with an abortion at that point.

But, in most states, abortion *is* legal until the baby has been completely delivered. And, according to the Supreme Court, a “good enough” reason is a doctor (who being paid to do a late term abortion) deciding that a woman’s emotional health would be significantly threatened by either carrying her baby to term or delivering it a few weeks early, and that aborting it is the best way to preserve her emotional health. Please folks, that’s *not* a good reason to kill a baby…