What confuses me about this garbage argument of "providing for heath of the woman" is: What special medical characteristics are there that are exclusive to late term pregnancies that need to be accounted for? My thought is none... except cases of car accidents or some other unforseen act of God (or "nature"). In those cases, the women have obviously chosen to keep their baby and I'm willing to bet that no less than 99% of them would rather die than abort their baby.
There is no reason for this barbaric procedure.
After finally being 'outed' for what he is...B.O.Reilly will reveal his overt leftiness and seek the comfort and protection of his fellow perverts and their party
imo
Parenthetically, I've spoken with Dr. Bernard Nathanson, the abortion pioneer who later regretted his crimes against humanity and joined the pro-life movement.
He said that given the level of medical care available at practically any US hospital, the number of situations where the health of the mother is truly in direct jeopardy is about four or five cases annually.
The Democrat scam here is that if you put in a "health of the mother" clause it's so vague as to justify almost anything. All you need is a note from a psychiatrist saying that becoming a mother at this fragile stage in your life is dangerous to your mental health.
Even if Bill O'Reilly did read your letter (you're off to a bad start by getting his name wrong), he wouldn't understand it -- I didn't.
Second, the issue is not just the physical "health of the mother" -- it includes the mental/emotional "health of the mother".
Adding an exception for the health of the mother essentially negates the statute.