quick follow-up
Apr. 18th, 2007 04:51 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
fr_defenestratoNo, I don't do anything all day but LJ.
1. I found on the American College of Ob-Gyns webpage their press release re the amicus brief they filed last November when the SCOTUS argued the case it just decided. As![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
pereginr8 quoted, they maintain that intact D&E is sometimes the best and most appropriate procedure to preserve a woman's health. They provide no detail or medical rationale, but they'd certainly know more than I about it. I do not understand, for example, why non-intact D&E (didn't they used to call this D&C, dilation and curettage?) or lethal injection prior to D&E are not alternatives. Anyone know?
2. I find it fascinating and repulsive that my google search on "When is a fetus viable" produced NOT A SINGLE medical opinion or fact—just a bunch of politicking, philosophizing, and praise the LARDing.
1. I found on the American College of Ob-Gyns webpage their press release re the amicus brief they filed last November when the SCOTUS argued the case it just decided. As
pereginr8 quoted, they maintain that intact D&E is sometimes the best and most appropriate procedure to preserve a woman's health. They provide no detail or medical rationale, but they'd certainly know more than I about it. I do not understand, for example, why non-intact D&E (didn't they used to call this D&C, dilation and curettage?) or lethal injection prior to D&E are not alternatives. Anyone know?2. I find it fascinating and repulsive that my google search on "When is a fetus viable" produced NOT A SINGLE medical opinion or fact—just a bunch of politicking, philosophizing, and praise the LARDing.
