A woman and her doctor should make the decision about abortion! The facts speak for themselves.

And what if poll respondents were told about the "elective abortion" of Danielle Deaver, a Nebraska woman who, at 22 weeks, was forced to watch her premature child suffocate as a result of Nebraska’s misguided “fetal pain" law:

Deaver, 34, and her husband planned the pregnancy and wanted a second child, she said.
Their dreams ended tragically when they learned, shortly before the premature birth, that the pregnancy could not go to term and that the fetus had virtually no chance to survive. She was in her 22nd week of pregnancy when her water broke…
…Doctors said there was less than a 10 percent chance the fetus would have a heartbeat and the capacity to breathe at birth. If it lived, there was perhaps a 2 percent chance that it  ever would be able function on the most basic level.

After consulting with doctors, the Deavers decided it would be more humane to terminate the pregnancy than to allow the child to be born, merely to suffer for a few brief moments before dying after birth.  Nebraska’s anti-abortion law, however, prevented that from happening:

…After consulting attorneys, doctors told Deaver and her husband that the Nebraska law prohibited an abortion in their case. She had to wait, give birth, and watch the infant die.
Nebraska’s new abortion law forced Danielle Deaver to live through ten excruciating days, waiting to give birth to a baby that she and her doctors knew would die minutes later, fighting for breath that would not come.
And that’s what happened. The one-pound, ten-ounce girl, Elizabeth, was born December 8th. Deaver and husband Robb watched, held and comforted the baby as it gasped for air, hoping she was not suffering. She died 15 minutes later.

This is what happens when you place the government between women and the decision to abort a child at any point during the pregnancy.  Kirsten Powers and the “majority" of Americans who oppose elective late-terms abortions are probably only thinking of situations where a healthy baby is being terminated by a feckless mother, for whom the thought of raising a child is a mere “inconvenience."  But it’s not always that simple.  Powers et al. apparently can’t conceive of a situation where a doctor might refuse to perform an otherwise legitimate abortion out of fear of being subject to scrutiny by law enforcement.  Or a situation where the supposedly “elective" nature of an abortion forces a mother and father to watch their premature child die the second it is born, like Danielle Deaver and her husband.
No abortion law, no matter how carefully drafted, can possibly account for every situation in which a woman who carries a pregnancy past 20 weeks might have a legitimate reason to seek an abortion.  Medical science is not exact, and situations always arise where the risk of death or serious injury—to either mother or fetus—is nebulous enough to make doctors hesitant.  Furthermore, not every pregnancy complication is discovered prior to 20 weeks of gestation.  To assume that this cut-off point is somehow appropriate or “backed by scientific advancement" is ludicrous.  

http://letterstomycountry.tumblr.com/post/54454885414/misrepresenting-women-on-abortion