Incomprehensible Fundamentalist bloviating aside, this recent ruling in Nebraska allowing partial-birth abortion is simply too much. At the risk of beating a horse the American Public led to the knacker a long time ago…
I don’t see how any reasonable person could see this method of abortion as anything other than infanticide. By the way, I’m not Christian…just a concerned citizen.
The key to any discussion of “partial birth abortion” is to realize that the word “abortion” is included in the name as a way to put it under the larger “abortion” umbrella.
In fact, the procedure involves taking a viable fetus (if it weren’t still in the womb it would be called a baby) birthing the body and limbs, and killed the part that was unfortunate enough to come through the birth canal last. i.e. the head.
Infanticide. Any other description is simply looking at things through rose colored glasses.
Sigh . . . it’s not as if women are having partial-birth abortions for fun, guys . . . it’s almost always done to save a woman’s life, not because a girl gets to the eighth month and changes her mind.
As I understand it, much of the debate about banning this procedure (both on the state and national levels) has centered around including provisional language allowing the option of this method in cases of rape, or where the life of the mother is threatened.
Bills have been introduced, or riders attached (including on the national level) that call for a ban, but include the “provisional” language, and these have been tabled or scrapped repeatedly because of a contingent that insists on an all-or-nothing approach.
When you say that Nebraska voted to “allow” this procedure, what exactly did they agree to allow? In which cases?
P.S. I’m not trying to defend the use of this procedure here. Or for that matter argue against it. Just want some clarity on what transpired.
um, what about delivering the baby except for the final 6 inches or so is MORE dangerous to the woman than pulling it the rest of the way out? Once you’ve already induced labor, finished 95% of a breech-birth, and done all but pull out the head, what is the danger in the final few inches? I don’t get it.
It’s just a fancy name for infanticide. How else can you look at it?
Excerpted from an online Reuter’s article:
‘The last ruling on abortion occurred in 1992, when the Supreme Court reaffirmed the core holding of its landmark 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision that women have a basic constitutional right to end a pregnancy.
Nebraska argued the law only applied to the seldom-used abortion method called dilation and extraction,'' which involves partially extracting a fetus, legs first, through the birth canal, cutting the skull and draining its contents. Nebraska said the law -- which itself is unclear -- does not apply to a more common abortion procedure called dilation and evacuation.’’
The law made it a crime for doctors to perform partial birth abortions, punishable by up to 20 years in prison. The law contained no exception for a pregnant woman’s health.
The law defined partial birth abortion as a procedure in which a person deliberately and intentionally delivers into the vagina a living unborn child, or a substantial portion thereof, for the purpose of performing a procedure'' that the person knows will kill the unborn child.’’
Although many people on both sides acknowledge there really aren’t any reliable numbers, supporters of the ban estimated the procedure has been used about 3,000 to 5,000 times a year in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy.’
Translation:
Nebraska was attempting to pass a state law that would ban partial-birth abortions. In their continuing effort to hasten the apolcolypse, however, the Supreme Court (batting 0-3 lately, in my mind) overruled said hypothetical law.
As for it being a matter of safety for the mother-to-be…I really don’t know how that works (i.e. why doing this to the baby would save the mommy). Could someone explain?
Sigh . . . to believe this I need resolution to two items.
At what point is someone going to give facts to back up these claims?
Can someone explain to me how birthing a baby, taking care to kill it the instant before the head leaves the womb is less traumatic to the woman than the birthing process without the power tools?
But some prominent person (maybe even Dr Koop) said that in his experience he had never seen a case of partial birth abortion in which the life of the mother was at risk.
However, the buzz word here is “health,” which can probably be construed to mean just about anything including state of mind.
Southernstyle:
The partial birth abortion is invasive to the mother because the infant’s head is by far the largest portion of its body. Having the skull clear the cervix from the breech position can be difficult (which is why babies are generally born head first, and why a breech presentation in a first time mother is an automatic caesarian.)
The artificial dilation of the cervix makes it doubly difficult to pass the skull. In order to do so the head is removed, the skull is evacuated of material, broken or collapsed, and removed without damaging the cervix.
This procedure is also used to remove late term babies who have died in the womb, and in that case, it is certainly preferable to invasive surgery.
This procedure - which is not known to me, but which sounds quite archaic - is less dangerous to the health of the mother than a Caesarian section? Surely not. The only point of it seems to be to kill the baby.
The party line that we learned in medical school was :
Intact dilation and extraction is usually (unclear on numbers, this is the party line) done after a botched vaginal delivery or breech birth manipulation. What happens is that an arm or a leg comes out of the vagina with the fetus still inside. At this point, the fetus is inviable, and nearly every case (again, don’t have numbers) of attempted delivery will result in both death of mother and loss of fetus. So, you have to do intact D&E.
Again, I don’t have any evidence, just what was taught to us in medical school. I’ll try to dig some up in my books at home, but I am at work now. I do know it is fleetingly rare, and obviously not used on a whim.
The point from the medical line is that the primary purpose of this procedure is for situations like this. I am unclear if there is any other alternative, but elimination of this procedure would cause doctors to have one less tool to use.
Ed
Yes, the quote is from Dr. Koop, from an interview reported in The American Medical News (1993), published by the American Medical Association.
The health issue is also interesting. When the wording is “physical health,” this does not pass muster with the pro-abortion rights lobby. Too restrictive.
The term “health” does not pass muster with the pro-life lobby, presumably because mental health issues such as strss, depression, or grief could come under a mental health umbrella, thus making the restriction virtually worthless.
Has anyone yet read the Decision yet? Respectfully, it doesn’t seem so. A couple of points worth noting.
The Nebraska law is broader than it has been represented in messages to date in this topic, and includes pre-viability procedures.
A very big point in the Supreme Court’s opinion is that this law did not have an explicit “out” for the life of the mother.
Whether or not partial birth abortions should be allowed when the fetus is viable and when the mother’s life is not threatened, is NOT the same as whether this decision is right or not.
Just my two cents, as a lurker trying to keep the discussion on track…
Intact dilation and extraction, as “partial-birth abortion” is known in medical circles, is a rare procedure and is almost exclusively late-term. The majority of abortions are performed well before the end of the first trimester. Here in Virginia, I believe the legal limit is around 13 weeks. DC allows for a little further along, but anything in the second or third trimester, as I understand it, would involve a stay in the hospital rather than a women’s clinic.
The problem arises from what SouthernStyle has pointed out - bringing intact D&E under the larger “abortion” umbrella. Proposed laws against intact D&E have been so vaguely worded that clinics in states that have passed them, though they don’t perform the procedure, have voluntarily closed down for fear of prosecution. Opponents of abortion are using D&E laws as a wedge to further chip away at a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy if she so chooses.
If you want to call it ‘infanticide’ you go right ahead. You don’t have to have an abortion if you don’t want to. (Not that I think anyone on this thread, Lissa excepted, is able to get pregnant.) Keep your opinions to yourself and keep restrictive laws like the anti-D&E legislation off the books.
Schimmel said:
“This procedure - which is not known to me, but which sounds quite archaic - is less dangerous to the health of the mother than a
Caesarian section? Surely not. The only point of it seems to be to kill the baby.”
IT is assuredly much less dangerous and invasive then a caesarian section.
Look at it this way. Pretend you got a blockage in your colon. Would you rather have them attempt to break it up where it is so that it can come out naturally, or would you rather be sliced in half and have it removed that way?
Very true. I’ve seen figures that say > 90% of abortions are done in the first trimester. There are a lot less places that even perform second trimester abortions , and a second trimester abortion is a two day process. Here in IL for example there are only two places in the entire STATE that perform them (second trimester) and there is no place that does “partial birth abortions” AFAIK.
Sometimes the intact D&E is used on a baby that has died in utero in order to deliver it. A caeserean section is abdominal surgery and it’s less risky for the mother to deliver vaginally.
Until the people who want to ban abortion will take care of every unwanted child, abortion will still exist. And if it has to be done, it’s far better to have it done safely under sterile conditions than in a motel room or on a kitchen table.
–tygre
Scylla
In the example you give, of course I can only agree with you. And if the only situation where this procedure was used were when the birth canal was clogged with a dead or unsaveable foetus, then again, it’s difficult to disagree. I note also the other posts above which give further medical grounds for the valid use of the procedure in those or similar circumstances, the usefulness of which seems to underlie the decision not to ban the procedure.
There still seems though to be some question over whether or not it might not sometimes be used as a cover for late-term abortion. Presumably the feeling is that the abuse happens too seldom, in comparison with its use in bona fide cases, to justify banning it…
The Planned Parenthood website ( http://www.plannedparenthood.org ) used to claim that only 1 out of every 10,000 abortions was performed after the 24th week (i.e. in the 3rd trimester). I can’t find the quote on their website any more, though.
Schimmel:
An excellent point. You do not want to create a loophole where a “difficult birth procedure” could be used as an excuse to abort late 3rd trimester babies illegally.
I would like to think our Drs. would tend to act ethically.
In that same vein…here’s a shocker: you don’t have to get PREGNANT (save rape cases) if you don’t want to, a fact to which 3/4ths of the world’s population seems oblivious.
So, what’s the consensus then with the partial-birth abortions? It’s used in extreme cases to save the mother, but rarely so…and it’s abused, a medical loophole through which viable fetuses can be legally killed, but, once again, rarely so. Well, I would rather save one innocent than let one blah blah blah, etc.