A very busy day on the  View, today.

First, the co-host Regina King talks briefly about her work.

The women compliment her on her “fantastic” work in “Ray” and in “Year of the Dogs”.

Interesting they did not discuss her work on 24- the highly popular conservative show about a counter terrorist agency that goes after people trying to destroy the United States. I would have liked to hear her comment on working on the show and meeting all of the actors. They could have asked if she met one of Rosie’s favorite talk show hosts, Laura Ingraham, who was on the set recently.

We wouldn't want to promote a show that conservative's enjoy.

The women discussed the Catholic Church’s position on Limbo.

Joy is confused because the Church is getting rid of Limbo- the place that many Catholics thought little babies went if they died before Baptism.

***

Joy: I am a Catholic girl. I grew up a Catholic girl. I had First Communion, Holy Confirmation- whatever they call it these days and they had something called limbo. Barbara doesn’t know – She’s asking me “What is Limbo?” Limbo is a place where little babies who were not baptized went to and their punishment for not being baptized was that they would never see God but that they would not be unhappy. They would have things to do- they would color, whatever. They’re in Limbo
Rosie: It is sort of like they’d be at the mall but God wouldn’t show up.
BW goes on to explain: So the Pope decided that babies who are not baptized cause it’s not their fault do not go to limbo, they go to Heaven.
Joy: They go to Heaven now
***
The Catholic News Service published an article discussing "The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized" on Friday April 20, 2007. This document represents the culmination of years of discussion about an issue that troubled many people. The CNS article (click here to read the article) describes in great detail how the Vatican’s International Theological Commission came to its current conclusion about salvation for these children.

The article noted above explains the history of Limbo: In the fifth century St. Augustine had concluded that unbaptized babies would spend eternity in Hell. In the 13^thcentury the Church referred to “limbo” when discussing where children who had not been baptized might spend eternity. The theologians of the time described limbo as a place where the children would not suffer.

It is not that the Catechism taught that babies went into limbo. (Click here to read the Catechism) In fact, the Catechism taught that:

As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

The Church believes that God is merciful and that Christ’s sacrifice offers hope that these children will be granted salvation.

I hope this helps, Joy.

Rosie is back on her mantra about everything is meant to distract us from the real issues in society:

***
Rosie: The Attorney General is about to be fired for possibly criminal stuff and we are all talking about Alec’s phone call with his daughter.

***

First, the Attorney General is not about to be fired. Maybe Rosie knows something no one else knows, but the man still has a job.

Second, there are people calling for his resignation because they believe Gonzales has failed to perform his responsibilities effectively.  Some people have also alleged incompetence. 

To say that the Attorney General is about to be fired "for possibly criminal stuff" she must be quoting blogosphere lefties.

Where are her facts? That is not to say that he won't resign. Maybe he will. Maybe he should.

The saddest thing about this Gonzales situation is that if he resigns, it will only serve to encourage the Democrats to attack more.  His resignation will be like blood in the water for people like O'Donnell and Pelosi.  Because of this, the "right" thing becomes something Republicans try to avoid.
 
The women go on:

***

Elisabeth: It’s a relatability issue there too, there are a lot of families that go through this and you see this is an extreme situation so I think that is why. People will grab onto something that is absolutely relatable
BW: But they’re not going to grab onto whether Gonzales should be still hold his official position. I think its big news, it should, but I don’t know how much it affects the average person’s life. I can’t see the family sitting around and saying “What do you think about Gonzales?”
Rosie: But I think that’s purposeful because if the news really told you what it is to have the head of the judicial branch of government be corrupt

***

Barbara is correct- most people do not understand or appreciate how much the political events of our times affect the average person's life. Most families do not sit around talking about political issues.  Most families do not discuss Gonzales and the firing of the U.S. attorneys.

Rosie's comment just goes to demonstrate again that she has talking points fed to her.  She does not have a clear grasp of how our government is structured. She does not have a cloudy grasp of how our government is structured.  She doesn't understand the Constitutional framework.

Rosie thinks that Gonzales is the head of the judicial branch, probably because he is an attorney and attorneys work in the judicial system, i.e. they work in front of a judge.

Let's clarify this for her:
The Judicial Branch of the federal government is run by Chief Justice Roberts, of the U.S. Supreme Court. He is the head of the United States Supreme Court and the federal courts. 

On last Thursday's show, Rosie expressed her concern about there being 5 Justices on the Supreme Court who are Catholic. She believes this demonstrates how we do not have separation of church and state.  She feels her concerns have been validated because the Court upheld a ban on partial birth abortion: This is proof that the Justices' Catholic beliefs prevent them from upholding the Constitution and violate the separation of church and state.

***
Rosie: You know what concerns me? How many of the Supreme Court Justices are Catholic Barbara?
BW: 5
Rosie: 5. 5 are Catholic- separation of church and state- in America
BW: However every one of them when they were going through the senate confirmation hearings said "the fact of my religion does not mean that I will vote a particular way because of my religion" so we can not say that they did it because they are Catholic. It is interesting that they are Catholic
Elisabeth: I think it’s difficult to separate your faith from your everyday life. I think it’s difficult to do that.
BW: they said that they are able to
Rosie: From your everyday life but not hopefully from the foundation of our government- separation of church and state. Judicial, legislative, executive. Judicial now – judicial compromised- Alberto Gonzales, Karl Rove's missing emails- compromised that one. Now we got 2/3s left. Let’s see what we’ll do about that.

***
The separation of church and state refers to the Constitutional requirement  that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" which is written into the First Amendment.

Congress is the Legislative Branch. If Congress were to pass a law establishing religion and the President, who is the head of the Executive Branch, were to sign it the Supreme Court would have a duty to overturn the law as violating the First Amendment.  (By the way, no one seemed to suggest that the Partial Birth Abortion Act represented an establishment of religion.)

The President is the head of the Executive Branch. It is his responsibility to ensure the laws of the UNited States are enforced. The Executive Branch has what is called the enforcement power. The Attorney General serves the Executive Branch, and therefore the President, by offering them advice and opinions about legal matters.  The Attorney General will appear before the Supreme Court at times but the Attorney General does not represent the Judicial Branch of the government.

So back to the Monday show:

This segment ended with Rosie reminding the audience that Bush was "supposedly" elected in 2000 and that since then his guys just keep getting into trouble.

Rosie proudly explains that she does in fact talk politics to her kids.

PLEASE! Someone! Make sure she hires a tutor for her poor children.  Rosie may feel strongly about a lot of things, but she often has no idea what she is talking about.

Her children and all the other children in America need to be taught about the structure of our government. Let's hope we provide them with a better education than the one Rosie received.

Our future depends upon it!

On Alec Baldwin:

The women started the show out with a discussion of the tragedy going on between Alec Baldwin, Kim Basinger and their daughter, Ireland.

***
Rosie: Big Weekend in the news too- for Alec Baldwin’s situation- So tragic. The whole thing is tragic.
Joy: Anger management, Alec.
Elisabeth: Did you all hear that? Did you actually- cause you know I had read it first and then I heard it and after hearing it tears just welled up in my eyes just thinking about what that girl had to hear.
Joy: Who put it out? Who, who lets a tape like that go out? That’s not right.
Elisabeth: Do you think that’s worse?

***
Then Rosie discusses how she knows how much he loves his daughter because he flew to see her every time he had a day off. She refers to him as a "tortured father' because of Basinger. 
Barbara relates her opinion that this is a classic case of parents behaving in a way that is detrimental to their child.

***
BW: Again it’s two sides and what happens is that neither behaves the way they should
Elisabeth: Some are arguing that her putting it out there is actually worse than him saying it.
Rosie: I think that too
Elisabeth: See I think the other. I think hearing something like that from your father could be potentially the worst thing you could ever hear. It doesn’t matter what everyone else says
Rosie: But having all of your school mates and everyone else in the world have heard it- I don’t know.
Elisabeth: But he is the man that she is always going to see as “That’s my Dad. That’s what he said. He just called me a pig.” That to me is so-

*****

This situation exemplifies the worst in divorce situations.

While none of us can begin to know what has been and is going on in this broken family, Mr. Baldwin's language crossed the line.  All he can do now is try to make it up to his daughter by behaving in appropriate ways, in the future.

We don't know how this recording became public. There are suggestions that Basinger released the tape.  The court, in this case, should do everything possible to determine who leaked the tape.  This is a private cell phone so there are limited people who could have accessed the messaging system.

If in fact Ms. Basinger, or another person acting on her behalf, released the tape the court should deal with her harshly.  No matter how embarrassing the call was to Ireland, the public humiliation could only make matters worse.  If Basinger released this tape to put public pressure on Baldwin, his attorneys or the judge she should face custodial consequences.

The judge is in a difficult position because the tape suggests Baldwin still struggles with anger issues.  No matter how angry he may have been, he should have directed his anger towards Basinger by using the courts.  If Basinger did release the tape she could also be seen as having poor parental decision-making skills.  She should have simply turned the tape over to the judge along with a motion to reduce phone contact.
 
When a court orders visitation or phone visits, the custodial parent has an obligation to facilitate those visits.  If the child resists, the custodial parent has a duty to support the child through the visits or calls.  If the child refuses contact with the non-custodial parent, the custodial parent should document her efforts to encourage the contact and inform the court of the refusals.

It is too easy for custodial parents to either subtly or overtly undermine the other parent's relationship with the child by avoiding calls or missing visits.  Courts should be extremely demanding of custodial parents. 

There can be no denying the error of Baldwin's ways. He obviously realizes he went over the line.  Whether or not his daughter accepts it, he has now publicly apologized. 

We should all hope Baldwin and Basinger turn this situation into an opportunity to begin to rebuild relationships.  These people will have to find a way to get along because they have a lifetime of experiences ahead of them.  For Ireland's sake, they need to find a way to get along.

And Alec should buy and then actually read the book: Strong Fathers, Strong Daughters  by Meg Meeker. It might help him to understand how important he really is to his daughter and encourage him to do whatever it takes to turn their relationship around.

The View had Sigourney Weaver on as a guest to promote her upcoming movie, Snow Cake. This is supposedly a drama about the relationships between an autistic woman, the man responsible for her daughter's death and her neighbor. The clip shown on the View is a clip in which the woman asks the man if has has ever had an orgasm.

I was interested in the choice of clip. My experience is that when a dramatic film has to use cheap references to sex to hook potential viewers, it's a very bad sign. I went to the film's website to view the trailer and sure enough the clip is a part of the trailer, as well. (Click here for movie homepage)

As the mom of a couple of kids with Autism and a person who has worked with many kids and adults with Autism, I can say I am not optimistic about this movie, no matter how much Rosie liked it.  The fact that Elisabeth cried at the end also does not move me.

I could be wrong, but my advice: wait for it to come out on video and then rent it only if it's all that's available.

In one of the more interesting segments recently, Whoopi Goldberg noted that the advent of cell phones with video capability has changed the reality of our lives in some very scary ways:

***

Whoopi: You know what I discovered over the weekend though? I did a show in Maine and I saw all these folks with cameras and their cell phones and I thought you know what-now I am editing
Rosie: Yes For YouTube
Whoopi: Yes because I don’t want it to end up on YouTube out of context. We’re in a very strange flux right now
Elisabeth: You are right because the immediate audience wouldn’t necessarily hear it but now everyone else does
Rosie: You can edit this little tiny sound bite out of context
Whoopi: it’s a whole new world
Rosie: and it’s a whole new world.
Whoopi: And you know all of you all out there are subject to what we're subject to because if you park wrong or if you yell at a kid in school you’re gonna be on YouTube – Welcome to our world

****

Anyone can take  a video of anyone else and place it on the web for all to see, over and over and over again.  These videos can be edited, have sound added, special effects, you name it and anyone can be made to look good or bad at the whim of a cell phone owner.

YouTube is obviously the most popular website to show these sorts of videos but they also appear on myspace and other sites.  Even when a site tries to remove a clip, it will have been copied and renamed if anyone else finds it remotely interesting or funny.

Once information is out there, it is out there.

As the government and legal systems try to determine how to protect the rights of the average person from being infringed upon,  they hit roadblock after roadblock. People can't be easily tracked and found. They change their names, dump information anonymously, or load it through companies or sites that are not based in the U.S.  No one should want the government to prohibit cell phone videos but a remedy should be readily available to those whose privacy is violated in a damaging way.

Whoopi is right about this- everyone now has to understand that anyone could be the next celebrity, whether they like it or not.

Rosie gave her two cents about the need to allow those with dissenting political opinions to have the right to keep their soapbox, as long as it's on the air.

***

Rosie: I think racist is one thing but when people start to say “well this person has a dissenting political opinion therefore we want them off the air” that’s when we’re in dangerous territory. That’s what I think
Joy: Then you’re in Nazi Germany
Elisabeth: People will always take it beyond the step that it needs to
Whoopi: You have to really be clear about it- you say to people you know what you speak responsibly, even if you’re a comic. You speak responsibly, if people don’t disagree, if they don’t agree you know there’s a chance people are going to do an uprising

***
Apparently Rosie thinks that comics and talk show hosts should be free to dissent politically.  Her issue seems to be that politicians don't have the right to dissent politically.  Those politicians (who are elected by constituents who expect them to take particular political positions and then take the necessary political action to back up the political policy) who disagree with Rosie should be impeached, tried as criminals, thrown to the wolves...

If politicians are not able to act on behalf of their constituents, then what is the point of having elections? What is the point of pretending to let people vote.  We should just let Rosie and Joy pick the people who they think would best run the country.

Joy's comment about Nazi Germany is interesting.  It is not conservatives like George Bush who create the threat of Fascism: conservatives don't fear the working class- conservatives are the working class. The current threat to America is a form of fascism that pits the elites and the welfare class against the working class.

It is not conservatives who want to limit speech- it is liberals who seek to bring back the fairness doctrine and limit conservative voices on the airwaves.  Rosie speaks as though she is all for political speech but her comment about racist talk being different from political talk is telling.

Whoopi correctly says that people should be responsible with their speech or those who disagree will do an uprising.  When conservatives "do an uprising" its often viewed as moralistic or demonstrates an effort to censor.  When the left rises up, it's seen as "it's about time."

At what point is a conservative who talks about a political issue that disproportionately affects a certain racial group crossing the line between political speech and racist speech.  I for one am uncomfortable with people like Rosie and Joy making these distinctions. 

 
Today was prerecorded so the "Hot Topics" aren't so hot but:

Whoopi was the Guest host today.  Rosie asked her to comment on the Imus flap:

***

Whoopi: A lot of Black women have this thing that happens and it is particular with Black women because somehow it feels like often times no matter what you achieve its just easy to call you that word. It’s easy to call you that word. It’s easy to dismiss everything you’ve done.

***

One would think that someone would have asked Whoopi why she called her production company One Ho Productions. 

Well, lets not call attention to the hypocrisy here.

When Rosie gets upset, she often doesn't know what she is saying:

***
Rosie: But Elisabeth the baby is usually deformed or dead

***
Doctors don't perform abortions on babies who are already dead. They may tell women the baby is going to die but that is an entirely different situation

As they go on, Rosie lets slip her ignorance about cleft lips by using a term that has been out of favor for a very long time - harelip:

***
Elisabeth: If I were going to give birth and I knew that I was having a baby that was going to have a deformity or some sort of illness
Rosie: not a hare-lip, not a limb missing- severely

***
I wonder if Rosie thinks about the slippery slope of deciding what is a disability that merits abortion?Some people may think a child with a cleft lip is severely disabled.  Some people believe that abortion based on gender is reasonable- particularly in developing countries. 

Has she thought about what would happen if scientists discovered a "gay" gene? What if parents could test their developing child and learn if the child carried a gene that indicated homosexuality? Would a parent who considered homosexuality a disability be justified in aborting the baby?

They go on:

***
Elisabeth: It would not make me want to abort that child or believe that child doesn’t have the right to live
Rosie: but guess what- that’s your choice
Elisabeth: I am just saying me
Rosie: That’s your choice and every woman deserves that choice
BW: Nobody’s saying that you must or you should or you shouldn’t. What they are saying is- Choice
***

I guess based on their arguments today, parents- or at least moms- who could learn if their child was gay would have every right to make that choice.

Joy has missed the boat:

***
Joy: but you would usually say the government should stay out of people’s business- this is an example of that- this would be between a women and her doctor not the government, right?
Elisabeth: Well I also believe in the right to life and I believe this is a grotesque way of
(Rosie cut her off)

***
The government should generally stay out of people's private lives.  Partial birth abortion is not about the relationship between a woman and her doctor.

This decision is about a woman, her doctor and a baby who is viable, even if it may have a disability.

The woman and her doctor had plenty of time to keep this decision between themselves, as determined by Roe v. Wade.

So Joy, it is completely consistent for a person to be pro-limited government and pro-life. This position requires the woman and the baby be put on equal footing. If one believes the baby has the right to pursue life, then the mother doesn't have a unilateral right to interfere with the baby's pursuit of life. The baby is pursuing life as long as it remains viable in the womb.

I never realized that the women's movement was solely about partial birth abortion.

Rosie continues the discussion about the Court's ruling and the slippery slope:

*** 

Rosie: Correct- but why is it brought up? Because it is a way to get in to start eroding Roe v. Wade
BW: That is what the scare is. The scare is Does this begin, is this the slippery slope? And we don’t know- we’ll see
Rosie: It is as if the women’s movement never happened

***

Does she think at all before she speaks.  This is a great example of her need to over reach her argument.  I am not a member of  NOW, but I do believe their agenda is broader than this one aspect of this one issue.

On the other hand, they are, I am sure pretty upset today.

This attitude is why so many women have begun to turn away from the women's movement. I always thought the women's movement was about a woman's right to pursue her dreams- to make her own decisions about her education, her career of choice, her relationships, her family life ... 
 
The  leadership of the women's movement has become myopic. Most women are opposed to partial birth abortion.  This is simply a fight that the far left should give up.

***
Elisabeth: I don’t think its that
Rosie: I certainly do- it is frightening to me
Joy: I never thought it would be overturned but it probably will be at some point just like the Brady Bill was overturned. It could happen

***

Real quick point for Joy: Roe v. Wade is a Supreme Court Decision and the Brady Bill was a piece of legislation.

Rosie can acknowledge the barbaric nature of partial birth abortion but she can not get over how few of these procedures are performed.  It's as though there is a magic number at which we should care and unless we hit that number, the babies killed by partial birth abortion are irrelevant.

****

Rosie: but Elisabeth its .15 percent
Elisabeth: 2000 lives- we count the lives
Rosie: 0.15 % and mostly the baby is severely ill or the mother’s life is at risk. Nobody voluntarily goes in and says please give me a partial birth abortion because I would like to physically injure –it is a grotesque procedure

***

Those 2000 lives should be counted.  Doctors should also have been required to document why the partial birth abortion had to be performed- for example what was the defect identified.  We'll never know how many of these babies  could have survived and contributed to our society.

We also don't know how many of those babies could have been delivered, saved and given up for adoption.  Many of the women could have carried the baby a few more weeks and then delivered the baby.

The exchange continues:

***
Elisabeth: It is grotesque. They remove the child and crush the skull. That child is born into this earth
Rosie: Usually the woman’s life is at risk Elisabeth
Elisabeth: But there is an exemption here- if the womans life is at risk it wouldn’t even be- it’s a moot issue

***

The notion that these mothers were themselves in life-threatening situations is simply not true.  That is why the health exception is so important to the far left in this situation.  Rarely can they claim a life of the mother risk.  The health of the mother allows any reason to suffice.

Oh Elisabeth, why do you make Rosie listen to facts?

After Elisabeth tries to explain this was a bi-partisan effort Rosie explains:

***
Rosie: I don’t think its partisan, I think it’s women. I think Women: we are half the population and we can have our bodies legislated by the government. If men could get pregnant abortion would be a sacrament
Elisabeth: but I think we have to be careful. This is not
Rosie: Gloria Steinem
Elisabeth: this is not a ban on abortion. What happened yesterday was actually probably more representative of what the majority of Americans want. We are in a country where people, not myself because I am anti-abortion-
BW: How do you know that it is what the major
Elisabeth: I think that people want their right to their abortions. Women want the right to their own bodies in this country
Rosie: yes that’s right women’s reproduction freedom
Elisabeth: right but they most of the people, 2/3 of this country do not want partial birth abortion to be legal so it’s representative of our country

***

IN 2002, a Gallup study  found that 53% of Americans thought abortion was morally wrong.

If the American people had to listen to the description of the partial birth abortion procedure as outlined in the Court's ruling yesterday there would be virtually no support for it.

The far left uses rhetoric to try to scare women into thinking that the Court has just given the government carte blanche to interfere in a woman's total right to reproductive freedom. 

This Court decision is narrowly defined because the Act is very narrowly defined.  Roe is not really even at issue in this case.  The federal law that the Court upheld only addressed a specific version of the partial birth abortion procedure. Doctors still have the ability to perform partial birth abortions, as long as the fetus is dismembered in the womb or killed before either the head delivers in a head first delivery or the upper half of the body is delivered in a breach delivery.

Few people, men or women, will stand to publicly justify a partial birth abortion. Even the politicians who speak out against the Court's ruling are often careful to avoid talk of the actual decision.  Instead they speak in general terms about lost rights, which really weren't lost:

 

 

The women seem to think that the Court's decision chips away at Roe:

***
BW: The worry about this is not the partial birth abortion, well yes it is but the worry one of the dissenters Ruth Bader Ginsberg said and I am going to read it: “The majority opinion can not be understood in anything other than an effort than to chip away at a right declared again and again by the Court and that is Roe V. Wade.” They are afraid that this begins to chip away
Rosie: It does
Joy: But this is what the NRA says too though about gun control they also say that if you ban certain guns then you are chipping away at the Second Amendment. Everybody has the same argument
***

There is no chipping in this decision.  Roe v. Wade prohibited the government from intervening in a woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy before the fetus was viable- meaning it could survive outside the womb.  This viability was determined to occur at the quickening or at approximately 20 weeks.

The very nature of partial birth abortions require they occur after this point in time.  Partial birth abortions are performed because a woman has learned her baby has a disability. These determinations are generally made following a triple screen or an ultrasound. These tests are generally performed at between 15 and 18 weeks of gestation.

If a woman has an abnormal blood test or ultrasound, she will almost always be referred for further testing, which will often take one to two weeks to schedule.  Once a prenatal diagnosis of a disability is confirmed, the woman, and her partner if there is one, will be counseled about their options. 

I know from my personal experiences working with families who have children with disabilities that many doctors encourage women to abort children who will have disabilities.  This is true even if the disability may be relatively easy to manage.  For example, most children born today with Down Syndrome have few medical problems that can't be easily managed. Most children with Down Syndrome can be effectively integrated into school programs and enjoy activities n the community.  There are hundreds of thousands of adults living with Down Syndrome today.  Many sources now indicate that over 80% of babies testing positive prenatally for Down Syndrome are aborted.  

Prenatal Partners for Life is a non-profit that can help women and their partners who have received a prenatal diagnosis get information about their diagnosis.

Rosie is quite upset today. The Women’s Movement has been completely usurped

Yesterday the United States Supreme Court upheld the “Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003, which banned only one form of partial birth abortion unless the life of the mother was in danger. (Click here to read the Court’s opinion)

***
Rosie: And speaking of back to where we started, also Supreme Court came down for the first time since 1973 with a partial abortion ban
BW: 5 to 4
Rosie:5 to 4 was the Supreme Court vote. Now it’s shocking to me. This is the first time since 1973, everyone agrees partial birth abortion is horrific. It’s horrific for anyone who has to decide it. 1.3 million abortions done in America every year. 2000 partial birth abortions. What is that? Zero point 1 percent 0.1

***

Her implication seems to be that the fact that so few of the total abortions are Partial Birth that it is shocking that the Court would undermine Roe because of them.

They go on:

***
Elisabeth: That represents 2000 lives
Rosie: Well that represents 2000 women who were at risk and this was there only option. This is not, no one electively chooses to have this kind of abortion

***
Actually, Rosie is wrong here. This was not the only option facing these women. These women were not at risk. Women whose lives are at risk would either deliver their babies or have an emergency c-section. Both would be faster.

These women are faced with having a child with a disability. They want to elect to not have to face the thought or raising that child or of giving the child up for adoption.

Elisabeth tries to explain this to Rosie:

 ***

Elisabeth: In the Partial Birth Abortion Act there is an exemption where if the women’s life were at risk
BW: only her life not her health
Elisabeth: not her health because people could probably claim and have their doctors vouch for them that it would cause undue stress anxiety there’s a lot of blurriness
BW: most women would not want to have after the first three months, most women would not want to have an abortion
Rosie: This is not an elective abortion

***
There has been quite a bit of debate about clauses referring to a woman's health.  The word health can be determined to be anything ranging from being emotionally upset to having a serious complication. Because the word health is so completely subjective, Congress omitted the term.

This procedure is so extreme that the Congress believed that the only reason it should be performed is when the life of the mother is in danger.

Barbara is correct that most women would not want to have an abortion after three months.  Most women would never want to have an abortion. Women who choose abortion often make the choice with a heavy heart and many women struggle with the choice for years, if not for the rest of their lives. 

Because so many women struggled post-abortion with no support for decades, there are now organizations to help women heal after abortion. Rachel's Vineyard is one of the largest organizations to address this issue.