# Partial birth abortions rare and medically necessary or elective and not uncommon? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 22, 2003, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-rare-and-medically-necessary-or-elective-and-not-uncommon/170348 "2003-04-22T17:00:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2003, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-rare-and-medically-necessary-or-elective-and-not-uncommon/170348/1 "2003-04-22T17:00:04Z")
Different web sites and info sources (pro and con restricting PBA) I’ve visited all seem to have a different take and different set of stats on whether this is super rare procedure and used only in medically necessary cases, or a not so rare procedure utilized by desperate women, and categorized by abortion providers on a regular basis as “medically necessary” for almost any reason. Any hard numbers on the “medical necessity” aspect of PBA? Here of some of the sources I’ve visited [Likely Ban on Abortion Technique Leaves Doctors Uneasy - NY Times](http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/22/health/womenshealth/22ABOR.html?ex=1051588800&en=0a9505dd6c78c796&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE) > [@](#): > > [sub]As a ban on a procedure that opponents call partial-birth abortion makes its way through Congress, many of the doctors who provide abortions say they remain confused about what will be banned and fear it will apply to other procedures used in the second trimester of pregnancy. > > The procedure at issue — what doctors now call intact dilatation and extraction, or intact D&X — involves pulling the fetus’s legs and torso out of the uterus and then crushing its skull before removing it entirely. It is not known how often it is performed in the United States, but its use is limited to the latter weeks of the second trimester. Even then, it is not always the procedure doctors choose. > > In fact, it is practiced very rarely. Many doctors who perform abortions say they do not use the technique at all. Yet they agree that in certain situations, it may be the safest way to perform an abortion. > > “There are times, quite frankly, when this is the procedure of choice,” said Dr. Deborah Oyer, a family practitioner in Seattle who provides abortions, but not late enough in pregnancy to practice the method. > > Doctors say they fear that even if they give up this particular procedure, the law will still apply to other techniques that are regularly used to end pregnancies after 16 weeks. The law, many experts say, is vaguely written. It does not spell out the intact D&X procedure. [/sub] [Partial-Birth Abortions: A Closer Look](http://www.prolifeinfo.org/pba2.html) > [@](#): > > [sub]Aren’t “third trimester” abortions rare? At what stage in pregnancy do partial-birth abortions occur? Are these babies “viable”? > > It appears that the substantial majority of partial-birth abortions are performed late in the second trimester – that is, before the 27-week mark – but usually after 20 weeks (4 1/2 months). There is compelling evidence that the overwhelming majority of these pre-week-27 partial-birth abortions are performed for purely “social” reasons. > > At least one partial-birth abortion specialist, the late Dr. James McMahon, regularly performed the procedure even after 26 weeks-- even into the ninth month. In 1995, Dr. McMahon submitted to the House Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee a graph and explanation that explicitly showed that he aborted healthy (“not flawed”) babies even in the third trimester (after 26 weeks of pregnancy). Dr. McMahon’s own graph showed, for example, that at 29 or 30 weeks, one-fourth of the aborted babies had no “flaw” whatsoever. [/sub] ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2003, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-rare-and-medically-necessary-or-elective-and-not-uncommon/170348/2 "2003-04-22T18:24:35Z")
They would only be performed when the pregnancy is too far advanced to abort by safer methods such as vacuum aspiration or D&C. If outlawed or restricted, even more invasive procedures would have to be used. ---
**Author:** ![mok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/edb3f5/32.png) [@mok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mok)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2003, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-rare-and-medically-necessary-or-elective-and-not-uncommon/170348/3 "2003-04-22T19:12:16Z")
**AHunter3** , do you have a citation supporting that? When this procedure is actually medically indicated, it really has nothing to do with the pregnancy being “too far advanced”, nor is it a “safer” method. Indeed, the only medical indication for this procedure is for the condition of extreme hydrocephaly, and even that is up for some debate. According to the AMA ( [http://www.ama-assn.org/apps/pf\_online/pf\_online?f\_n=browse&doc=policyfiles/HOD/H-5.982.HTM](http://www.ama-assn.org/apps/pf_online/pf_online?f_n=browse&doc=policyfiles/HOD/H-5.982.HTM) ): > [@](#): > > According to the scientific literature, there does not appear to be any identified situation in which intact D&X is the only appropriate procedure to induce abortion And according to the AMA it is actually not clear that D&X is safer even in cases of extreme hydrocephalus (Epner et al. JAMA.1998; 280: 724-729.): > [@](#): > > In the absence of controlled studies, the relative advantages and disadvantages of the procedure in specific circumstances remain unknown. See the thread [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=169560](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=169560) for a number of supporting citations and discussion. -mok ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2003, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-rare-and-medically-necessary-or-elective-and-not-uncommon/170348/4 "2003-04-22T19:17:38Z")
I suppose I could dig up a cite, but why for the love of pete would a woman (or a doctor) elect for a D&E if it were safe to do a vacuum or D&C procedure? More dangerous, more time consuming, more expensive, less standard (& therefore less likely to be covered by insurance carriers)…? ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2003, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-rare-and-medically-necessary-or-elective-and-not-uncommon/170348/5 "2003-04-22T20:45:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by AHunter3 \* > \*\*I suppose I could dig up a cite, but why for the love of pete would a woman (or a doctor) elect for a D&E if it were safe to do a vacuum or D&C procedure? More dangerous, more time consuming, more expensive, less standard (& therefore less likely to be covered by insurance carriers)…? \*\* Organ harvesting. This has to be done while blood flow is still present, which precludes vacuum aspiration or dilation and curettage. ---
**Author:** ![NurseCarmen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5daacb/32.png) [@NurseCarmen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NurseCarmen)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2003, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-rare-and-medically-necessary-or-elective-and-not-uncommon/170348/6 "2003-04-22T21:06:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > \*\*Organ harvesting. This has to be done while blood flow is still present, which precludes vacuum aspiration or dilation and curettage. \*\* Whoa, it seems the neferious profits behind the procedure now rear their ugly head. In other words: I’m gonna need a cite for _that_ claim. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 7:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-rare-and-medically-necessary-or-elective-and-not-uncommon/170348/7 "2003-04-23T07:51:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by NurseCarmen \* > \*\*Whoa, it seems the neferious profits behind the procedure now rear their ugly head. > > In other words: I’m gonna need a cite for _that_ claim. \*\* Gladly. How about the testimony of [a former abortionist](http://www.aero-vision.com/~licl/H&S0899.html)? One which is corroborated by [additional testimony](http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17246)? ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 10:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-rare-and-medically-necessary-or-elective-and-not-uncommon/170348/8 "2003-04-23T10:10:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > \*\*Gladly. How about the testimony of [a former abortionist](http://www.aero-vision.com/~licl/H&S0899.html)? One which is corroborated by [additional testimony](http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17246)? \*\* A cite in the medical field is not usually some propaganda pamphlets without any corroborating evidence, but rather a reference to a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Given the low percentage of partial birth abortions and the limited use of the organs that could be gained in such a fashion, I seriously doubt these claims. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-rare-and-medically-necessary-or-elective-and-not-uncommon/170348/9 "2003-04-23T14:18:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by OliverH \* > \*\*A cite in the medical field is not usually some propaganda pamphlets without any corroborating evidence, but rather a reference to a peer-reviewed scientific journal. \*\* This claim is of an entirely different nature, though. **AHunter3** asked **what possible motive** an abortionist would have for performing a D&X procedure. It seems to me that the testimony of a former abortionist is more than adequate for shedding light on such matters, especially since this is not the sort of subject matter which peer-reviewed journals are likely to cover. ---
**Author:** ![NurseCarmen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5daacb/32.png) [@NurseCarmen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NurseCarmen)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-rare-and-medically-necessary-or-elective-and-not-uncommon/170348/10 "2003-04-23T14:28:13Z")
But you have to admit **JThunder** , both cites are from sources with an agenda. But I’ll agree, you answered the question “what _possible_ motive”. Another _possible_ motive is the government is supplying the aliens with food. ---
**Author:** ![Priam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/77aa72/32.png) [@Priam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Priam)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-rare-and-medically-necessary-or-elective-and-not-uncommon/170348/11 "2003-04-23T14:29:37Z")
Lets see… One link comes from the Long Island Coalition for Life. Hardly sounds like an unbiased source. The other comes from WorldNetDaily which, today, is also carrying such banner headlines as “‘Gays’ attack senator for ‘mainstream’ view” and “Time magazine targets Christian missionaries”. Its a bastion of biased conservative articles which often play rather fast and loose with facts at hand. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-rare-and-medically-necessary-or-elective-and-not-uncommon/170348/12 "2003-04-23T14:44:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Priam \* > \*\*Lets see… > > One link comes from the Long Island Coalition for Life. Hardly sounds like an unbiased source. > > The other comes from WorldNetDaily which, today, is also carrying such banner headlines as “‘Gays’ attack senator for ‘mainstream’ view” and “Time magazine targets Christian missionaries”. > > Its a bastion of biased conservative articles which often play rather fast and loose with facts at hand. \*\* So you’re attacking the source, rather than the arguments or the evidence. Sadly, that’s all too common when it comes to dismissing pro-life arguments. “It comes from a pro-life source! We must reject it!” Yep, I’ve lost track of how many times we’ve seen such statements on the SDMB. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-rare-and-medically-necessary-or-elective-and-not-uncommon/170348/13 "2003-04-23T14:46:52Z")
BTW, if you’re going to dismiss the Long Island Coalition for Life’s statements on the grounds that they “hardly sound like an unbiased source,” then I hope you’re prepared to dismiss the claims of abortionists who attest that D&X is rare and medically necessary. After all, they are clearly biased – even more so, since they base their livelihood on people supporting the abortion industry. ---
**Author:** ![NurseCarmen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5daacb/32.png) [@NurseCarmen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NurseCarmen)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-rare-and-medically-necessary-or-elective-and-not-uncommon/170348/14 "2003-04-23T14:50:08Z")
**JT** , if we were relying on just any old source on the net, a duck’s quack _still_ wouldn’t be echoing. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-rare-and-medically-necessary-or-elective-and-not-uncommon/170348/15 "2003-04-23T14:53:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by NurseCarmen \* > \*\*But you have to admit **JThunder** , both cites are from sources with an agenda. \*\* As I said, if you’re prepared to dismiss a source on the grounds that it has “an agenda,” then one should likewise dismiss all the pro-choice statements uttered in defense of partial-birth abortion. > [@](#): > > \*\* But I’ll agree, you answered the question “what _possible_ motive”. Another _possible_ motive is the government is supplying the aliens with food. \*\* That motive is hardly analogous. There is absolutely no evidence that the government is attempting to feed aliens; in fact, we have ample reason to believe otherwise. In contrast, we have direct testimony that partial-birth abortion IS being used for harvesting fetal organs. In fact, such testimony is consistent with the AMA’s claim that partial-birth abortion is not medically necessary. So apart from snarkiness, the two claims simply are not comparable. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-rare-and-medically-necessary-or-elective-and-not-uncommon/170348/16 "2003-04-23T14:57:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by NurseCarmen \* > \*\ ***JT** , if we were relying on just any old source on the net, a duck’s quack _still_ wouldn’t be echoing. \*\* So the direct testimony of a former abortionist is “just any old source on the net”? Even though this completely affirms the AMA’s claims regarding the needlessness of PBA? Sounds to me like you’re doggedly determined to deny the evidence. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-rare-and-medically-necessary-or-elective-and-not-uncommon/170348/17 "2003-04-23T14:58:54Z")
So…umm…you’re arguing that D&E’s are being done under circumstances where simpler procedures would suffice for purposes of acquiring fetal organs? ::checks leg for signs of pullage:: Ummm…I have no political difficulty giving my support to any bill that requires medical providers to document the necessity of resorting to intact D&E instead of using vacuum aspiration or D&C or the RU pill, etc. Women throughout America will be safer, insurance premiums will plummet, waiting times in waiting rooms will decrease, etc…in direct proportion to the number of D&E’s that are replaced with the simpler and less invasive operations as a result of this bill. Feminists everywhere will be glad to see a stop put to this exploitative practice. Or something like that. ::checks leg again:: You been reading _Coma_ again? ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-rare-and-medically-necessary-or-elective-and-not-uncommon/170348/18 "2003-04-23T15:17:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by AHunter3 \* > \*\*So…umm…you’re arguing that D&E’s are being done under circumstances where simpler procedures would suffice for purposes of acquiring fetal organs? > > ::checks leg for signs of pullage:: \*\* Such as? Look, you need blood flow in order for the organs to be harvested. That’s why you can’t just snatch donor organs from any old corpse. It also means that D&E lends itself particularly well to organ harvesting. How would you propose doing so otherwise? ---
**Author:** ![NurseCarmen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5daacb/32.png) [@NurseCarmen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NurseCarmen)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-rare-and-medically-necessary-or-elective-and-not-uncommon/170348/19 "2003-04-23T16:41:17Z")
Are you claiming that those with an agenda don’t lower themselves to the level of complete works of fiction? Are they beyond stating false [cites](http://www.davidicke.com/icke/articles3/offley2.html) to further their agenda? I just spent a good chunk of time attempting to find more information on Dr. Harrah, the “former abortionist” quoted heavily in the article. Oddly, I could find nothing more on him than the same cut and pasted glurge on website after website. Repeat a fiction enough, and it becomes true? ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-rare-and-medically-necessary-or-elective-and-not-uncommon/170348/20 "2003-04-23T16:41:28Z")
Do you have any substantive credible evidence whatsoever that fetal organs are harvested without the informed consent of the maternal donor, ever, anywhere, either as a byproduct of abortion or under any other circumstances whatsoever, and used for any purpose whatsoever, on any scale? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortions-rare-and-medically-necessary-or-elective-and-not-uncommon/170348.md?page=2)