"Partial-birth" abortion ban: What does it accomplish for pro-lifers?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Ok, so the Supreme Court has upheld the ban on so-called “partial-birth” abortions.

I don’t want this to be a deabte on the decision itself, on the Constitutionality of the law or on abortion in general. I just want to know why pro-lifers think this law helps their cause. From the decision:

In the usual second-trimester procedure, “dilation and evacuation” (D&E), the doctor dilates the cervix and then inserts surgical instruments into the uterus and maneuvers them to grab the fetus and pull it back through the cervix and vagina. The fetus is usually ripped apart as it is removed, and the doctor may take 10 to 15 passes to remove it in its entirety. The procedure that prompted
the federal Act and various state statutes, including Nebraska’s, is a variation of the standard D&E, and is herein referred to as “intact D&E.” The main difference between the two procedures is that in intact D&E a doctor extracts the fetus intact or largely intact with only a few passes, pulling out its entire body instead of ripping it apart. In order to allow the head to pass through the cervix, the doctor typically pierces or crushes the skull.

So this law will not prevent any abortions. It’s still legal to chop the fetus up inside the uterus and remove it piece-by-piece. It’s just illegal to pull the fetus partially into the cervix and crush its skull. The intact procedure (the one which is now illegal) is quicker and safer.

I would like to know why pro-lifers think it’s a victory for fetuses that they now have to be ripped apart in utero in a slower and more dangerous procedure. How does this law accomplish anything except to make the procedure more difficult and dangerous to women?

[MovieMogul]

Not a pro-lifer, but here’s an opinion on the implications it will have on Roe:

Still, if Roberts and Alito help simply to overturn that prior decision on partial-birth abortion, my own judgment is that the regime of Roe will have come to its end, even if Roe itself is not explicitly overruled. What the Court would be saying in effect is, “We are now in business to consider seriously, and to sustain, many plausible measures that impose real restrictions on abortion.”

That would invite a flood of measures enacted by the states. They might be restrictions on abortion after the point of viability, for instance, or even earlier, with the first evidence of a beating heart. Or requirements that abortionists use a method more likely to yield the child alive. Or provisions that ban abortions on a child likely to be afflicted with disabilities, such as Down syndrome.

Each restriction would command the support of about 70 or 80 percent of the country, including many people who describe themselves as pro-choice. And step by step, the public would get used to these cardinal notions: that the freedom to order abortions, like any other kind of freedom, may be subject to plausible restrictions; that it is legitimate for legislatures to enact those restrictions; and that it is, in fact, possible for ordinary folk, with ordinary language, to deliberate about the grounds on which abortions could be said to be justified or unjustified. This seems to me the path far more likely to be taken by justices with the judicial temperament of John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

It may also be the better and more prudent path to take. To overturn Roe in one decisive stroke risks setting off a panic among people who have been led to believe that they would be dispossessed, at once, of rights they have come to regard as fundamental. We’ve lately had the spectacle of people even with college degrees apparently seized with the notion that the overruling of Roe would make abortion illegal, overnight, throughout the land. Simply overturning Stenberg v. Carhart this fall would avoid that panic and nonetheless mark the beginning of the end of Roe.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@ArchiveGuy

Not a pro-lifer, but here’s an opinion on the implications it will have on Roe:

None of this makes any sense, though, in light of the fact that the basis for this decision was that it did not interfere (in the majority’s minds) with the right to abortion. If anything the decision tacitly admits that the right does exist. There is an implication in the ruling that if the law prevented women from being able to obtain abortions at all, that it would not have been upheld.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

Given its rarity, I think D&E’s usefulness for pro-lifers is first and foremost as a political issue. Even when discussed in dry, clinical terms, D&E sounds grisly and horrible. Even pro-choice folks like me are troubled by its moral implications. If you wanted to ban all abortions but limited yourself, as a first, tactical step, to a single abortion procedure, it’d be hard to beat D&E. Now that the Supremes have upheld a statutory ban on D&E with no exception for the health or welfare of the mother (long insisted-upon by Justice O’Connor), I think Roe v. Wade is truly endangered.

[Apos]

Since when has logic or evidence affected the pro-life position? Many of these people think that single cells have moral interests. I honestly don’t see how one could have a more warped concept of morality than that, but there they go.

Very few of them have even heard of the sorts of reasons why D&Es are done: in other words, they are just flatly ignorant or what they are talking about.

But hey, congrats. Now doctors have one less way to remove a brain dead hydrocephalus baby from a uterus. Now women with brain-dead babies will require C-section in order not to bleed to death. You guys have won a real victory, and you should be proud.

[kanicbird]

One of the Biblical interpretations I have heard is that the soul/spirit enters at the first breath (actually spirit is breath). It seems more likely that the intact D&E partial birth abortion has a greater chance of this happening over slicing the baby up while still floating in the womb.

[Shodan]

Turn the question around - in what way do you think this harms the cause of abortion rights?

Regards,
Shodan

[Der_Trihs]

@Diogenes the Cynic

How does this law accomplish anything except to make the procedure more difficult and dangerous to women?

To quote Randall Terry, “Every woman who dies is a victory for morality.” Hurting or killing women is a victory for them; that’s the point of the “pro-life” movement.

@kanicbird

One of the Biblical interpretations I have heard is that the soul/spirit enters at the first breath (actually spirit is breath). It seems more likely that the intact D&E partial birth abortion has a greater chance of this happening over slicing the baby up while still floating in the womb.

Another example about how believing in the soul leads to evil.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Shodan

Turn the question around - in what way do you think this harms the cause of abortion rights?

I don’t think it does. I just think it harms women.

ETA, upon reflection, I think it hinders abortion rights slightly just by imposing an unnecessary risk on some women. It does not, however, prevent them from getting abortions. That’s why I think the law is useless to pro-lifers.

[Drum_God]

Okay, the daughter-in-law of a friend of mine suffered a loss of a baby. My friend said that the D&E would be on such and such date (a few weeks ago). The D&E came to pass. Is the procedure that my friend’s DIL had illegal (if the relevant law applied in Texas)? I don’t get it. Besides abortion, aren’t there times when this procedure is required to preserve the health of the mother? What was my friend’s DIL supposed to do? Would she have had to carry the dead fetus until – what?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Drum God

Okay, the daughter-in-law of a friend of mine suffered a loss of a baby. My friend said that the D&E would be on such and such date (a few weeks ago). The D&E came to pass. Is the procedure that my friend’s DIL had illegal (if the relevant law applied in Texas)? I don’t get it. Besides abortion, aren’t there times when this procedure is required to preserve the health of the mother? What was my friend’s DIL supposed to do? Would she have had to carry the dead fetus until – what?

The law makes no exception for the health of the mother. It also makes no exceptions for fetuses which are already dead.

[John_Mace]

@Diogenes the Cynic

I would like to know why pro-lifers think it’s a victory for fetuses that they now have to be ripped apart in utero in a slower and more dangerous procedure. How does this law accomplish anything except to make the procedure more difficult and dangerous to women?

Keep in mind that whatever legislation gets passed is often a compromise and ends up not giving the originators quite what they wanted. It could be that this was the only way to ensure a majority in one of the Houses of Congress would vote for it-- we may never know the details of how the bill got crafted exactly as it did.

Furthermore, my understanding is that many pro-lifers have switched tactics from “let’s try to overturn Roe” to “let’s try and put as many restrictions on abortion as we can”. In that case, it makes a lot of sense to work backwards-- start with the least common, late-term type of abortions and then work towards earlier term abortions after that has been accomplished. Or, try and target those aspects of abortion law that most people are opposed to, and then work from there. Most people are opposed to “partial birth abortions” and most people favor parental notification in the case of minors obtaining abortions. Those seem to be two very active fronts in the pro-life movement.

But IANP-L, so I don’t pretend to understand the various motivations involved. I’m just relaying what I read in the press and otherwise.

[Malodorous]

@Diogenes the Cynic

The law makes no exception for the health of the mother. It also makes no exceptions for fetuses which are already dead.

Quoted by Captain Amazing in the pit thread:

@SCOTUS decision

First, since the doctor must “vaginally delive[r] a living fetus,” §1531(b)(1)(A), the Act does not restrict abortions involving delivery of an expired fetus or those not involving vaginal delivery, e.g., hysterotomy or hysterectomy.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Diogenes the Cynic

It also makes no exceptions for fetuses which are already dead.

I take this back. After looking at the language of the law, I see that is specifies a living fetus.

That still doesn’t justify it, of course.

ETA, I see Malodorous beat me to it.

[Captain_Amazing]

@Diogenes the Cynic

The law makes no exception for the health of the mother. It also makes no exceptions for fetuses which are already dead.

It does make an exception for fetuses which are already dead, and also for the life of the mother, if not her health. The Supreme Court ruling points that out:

Among other things, the Act prohibits “knowingly perform[ing] a partial-birth abortion . . .that is [not] necessary to save the life of a mother”

also

First, since the doctor must “vaginally delive[r] a living fetus,” §1531(b)(1)(A), the Act does not restrict abortions involving delivery of an expired fetus or those not involving vaginal delivery, e.g., hysterotomy or hysterectomy.

It also addresses the health of the mother question here:

Other considerations also support the Court’s conclusion, including the fact that safe alternatives to the prohibited procedure, such as D&E, are available. In addition, if intact D&E is truly necessary in some circumstances, a prior injection to kill the fetus allows a doctor to perform the procedure, given that the Act’s prohibition only applies to the delivery of “a living fetus,”

So, the act can still be performed to save the life of the mother, can still be performed on a dead fetus, and can be performed for the health of the mother, if the fetus is first euthanized.

Err…as was already pointed out.

[Guinastasia]

@kanicbird

One of the Biblical interpretations I have heard is that the soul/spirit enters at the first breath (actually spirit is breath). It seems more likely that the intact D&E partial birth abortion has a greater chance of this happening over slicing the baby up while still floating in the womb.

Which should have fuck all to do with the law, because of the Establishment Clause.

Perhaps you’ve heard of it?

[John_Mace]

@Guinastasia

Which should have fuck all to do with the law, because of the Establishment Clause.

Perhaps you’ve heard of it?

Perhaps he was just trying to explain, and not espouse, that position…

[Apos]

@Shodan

Turn the question around - in what way do you think this harms the cause of abortion rights?

Regards,
Shodan

If you’d read the thread, you’d see that most people already implicitly answered the question.

But then reading the thread isn’t necessary for snarking drive-bys.

[Guinastasia]

@John Mace

Perhaps he was just trying to explain, and not espouse, that position…

Maybe so, but I’ve seen Kanicbird make incredibly anti-choice statements before, and perhaps that influenced by response.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Captain Amazing

It does make an exception for fetuses which are already dead, and also for the life of the mother, if not her health. The Supreme Court ruling points that out:

also

It also addresses the health of the mother question here:

So, the act can still be performed to save the life of the mother, can still be performed on a dead fetus, and can be performed for the health of the mother, if the fetus is first euthanized.

Err…as was already pointed out.

No. This part is disingenuous. It limits health execeptions to those which are life threatening and mandates that the intact procedure be “necessary.” That’s disingenuous because the intact procedure is rarely if ever “necessary,” it’s just safer.

I still haven’t gotten much of an answer to how this law helps the pro-life movement. It certainly doesn’t help fetuses.

I wonder how many rank and filers are actually aware that this law does not prevent abortions. A lot of them seem surprised when I tell them. Even after they know, they still support the ban, even though they can’t give a reason as to why.

I think that as a political move, it’s just a lot of shuck and jive. It makes it look like they’re doing something to restrict abortions when they aren’t. It’s a law which jeopardizes women but does nothing for the “unborn,” and nothing to undermine Roe. You never see the Congressional proponents of this law ever pointing out that the procedure which would replace it would seem every bit as gruesome to their constituents as the banned procedure, nor do they mention that it’s less safe.
I think that among the rank and filers, there’s a combination of ignorance as to what the law actually says and (I believe) an undercurrent of pure spite.