partial birth abortion

Specialties Ob/Gyn

Published

THE OUTCOME of what is almost certain to be a legal battle fought all the way to Supreme Court will hinge on whether the justices accept the findings of Congress that the procedure is never medically necessary and poses additional health risks to the mother.

DENOUNCED AS 'UNCONSTITUTIONAL'

Abortion rights supporters have pledged a court challenge. "This bill is unconstitutional," argued Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., citing the lack of an exemption in cases where the health of the mother is in jeopardy. The bill does exempt a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother.

The procedure involves partial delivery of a fetus until the head or part of the lower body is outside the mother's body.

At that point, the doctor punctures the skull of the fetus with a scissors, then inserts a suction tube and vacuums out the developing brain, killing the fetus.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., says the procedure "blurs the line between abortion and infanticide in the killing of a partially born child just inches from birth."

It was approved by a vote of 64 to 33, with 16 Democrats joining 48 Republicans in supporting it, while three Republicans and independent Jim Jeffords of Vermont joined 29 Democrats in opposing it.

Advertisement

Not voting were Sens. Joe Biden, John Edwards and John Kerry, all Democrats.

The House is expected to pass the bill in about a month. Congress twice before passed legislation to impose a ban, but former President Clinton vetoed both measures.

JAIL SENTENCE OR FINE

The bill says that anyone who performs the procedure known as partial-birth abortion "thereby kills a human fetus" and will be fined or imprisoned for not more than two years.

A woman upon whom a partial-birth abortion is performed may not be prosecuted under the bill.

The Santorum bill includes a non-binding amendment, approved by a 52 to 46 vote Wednesday, that says it is the sense of the Senate that the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which legalized most abortions in every state, "secures an important constitutional right" and should not be overturned.

Supreme Court Justices

MSNBC Interactive

* Nine who have the final say

The battle after Bush signs the bill will center on how much deference the courts give to the findings of fact that Congress made with regard to the abortion procedure.

The bill says that based on testimony Congress has found that "a partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman" and "poses significant health risks to a woman upon whom the procedure is performed."

The legislation also says that Congress found that "the gruesome and inhumane nature of the partial-birth abortion procedure and its disturbing similarity to the killing of a newborn infant promotes a complete disregard for infant human life."

SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT

In a 2000 decision called Stenberg v. Carhart, the Supreme Court affirmed lower court rulings that had struck down a Nebraska abortion statute similar to the Santorum bill.

A five-justice majority held that the Nebraska law was invalid because it lacked an exception for the preservation of the health of the mother.

The majority also said the Nebraska law imposed an undue burden on a woman's ability to get an abortion. The court had ruled in a case called Casey v. Planned Parenthood in 1992 that states could regulate abortion but not place "a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus," that is, a fetus that could not survive outside the mother's womb.

The majority relied on a lower federal court's factual findings that the partial-birth abortion procedure was medically as safe as, and in many cases safer than, alternative abortion procedures. The Santorum bill relies on congressional testimony that disputes that federal court's findings.

MSNBC.com's

If you've ever worked high risk L&D, you would know why they are the best choice in some rare circumstances such as those the previous post mentioned. Those are done on babies we would let die after birth anyways. Perhaps you'd call that a post birth abortion. Some of us call it letting nature take its course and feel it's the most compassionate thing to do sometimes. I'll leave this thread at that. This procedure is such a red herring anyways. They banned it, but late term abortions in general are not banned so it makes little difference.

People just have to decide what their equivalent of nature taking its course is and what their conscience will let them live with. Is the natural way always best? Do we allow a sick baby to be born and nurse it as best as we know how or pull out the ol' scissors? Had a teacher in school who was also an OB nurse tell the class she assisted to deliver a weak premature baby. It was going to die. After she delivered (it was a baby girl) the fetus (as some feel more comfortable referring it to) was attempting to breathe. There happened to be a pan filled with sterile water closeby and the doctor nonchalantly stuck the baby er, fetus in it face down. This nurse told us it was the only time she assaulted a doctor (follwed him out in the hall, grabbed him by the shirt, slammed him back against the wall -yes, she is a big woman- and told him NEVER do a thing like that again.) Some will say it was more merciful to do that than let it suffocate longer...but is it? Is that nature taking its course? My heart would tell me no. Forget emotions, you can't fail when you listen to what your heart tells you. The baby might suffer and die anyway, but my instincts would tell me to cuddle and hold that baby and make the attempt even if it is a feeble one to make that baby more comfortable.

I've tried and tried to look at the other side of partial-birth and late-term abortion but my conscience gets in the way every time.

As objective as I try to be with all things this is an area where it is extremely hard to do. Yet, I have tried to look at things from the other side because I've found it helps me to understand the opposite side's point of view. From this I have concluded that I am against abortion--in general. I tried to think how I would feel if I became pregnant because of forced intercourse. I know the sickening feeling of having been through it but I don't know how it would feel to be pregnant because of it, so I don't feel at liberty to have an opinion on that aspect of it because the world is not black and white. I can say, though, I still can't justify in my mind why anyone could participate in PBA's and be okay with it.

Specializes in Specializes in L/D, newborn, GYN, LTC, Dialysis.

I do not see sugar-coating in that post above yours Motorcycle, but a lot of factual content. It's easy to get emotional about such issues like abortion, either pro or con. It's more of a challenge to try and see all the sides that are involved in such hot issues, however.

That is all I will say on this subject.

I do not see sugar-coating in that post above yours Motorcycle, but a lot of factual content. It's easy to get emotional about such issues like abortion, either pro or con. It's more of a challenge to try and see all the sides that are involved in such hot issues, however.

That is all I will say on this subject.

Wasn't referring to that post in particular.

Yes, it's draining trying to look at these issues from all sides.

I'm tired.

Oh, wait, that was (one of) the posts I was referring to. I didn't really have an issue with anything in that post except the fetus vs. baby deal.

People just have to decide what their equivalent of nature taking its course is and what their conscience will let them live with. Is the natural way always best? Do we allow a sick baby to be born and nurse it as best as we know how or pull out the ol' scissors? Had a teacher in school who was also an OB nurse tell the class she assisted to deliver a weak premature baby. It was going to die. After she delivered (it was a baby girl) the fetus (as some feel more comfortable referring it to) was attempting to breathe. There happened to be a pan filled with sterile water closeby and the doctor nonchalantly stuck the baby er, fetus in it face down. This nurse told us it was the only time she assaulted a doctor (follwed him out in the hall, grabbed him by the shirt, slammed him back against the wall -yes, she is a big woman- and told him NEVER do a thing like that again.) Some will say it was more merciful to do that than let it suffocate longer...but is it? Is that nature taking its course? My heart would tell me no. Forget emotions, you can't fail when you listen to what your heart tells you. The baby might suffer and die anyway, but my instincts would tell me to cuddle and hold that baby and make the attempt even if it is a feeble one to make that baby more comfortable.

I've tried and tried to look at the other side of partial-birth and late-term abortion but my conscience gets in the way every time.

As objective as I try to be with all things this is an area where it is extremely hard to do. Yet, I have tried to look at things from the other side because I've found it helps me to understand the opposite side's point of view. From this I have concluded that I am against abortion--in general. I tried to think how I would feel if I became pregnant because of forced intercourse. I know the sickening feeling of having been through it but I don't know how it would feel to be pregnant because of it, so I don't feel at liberty to have an opinion on that aspect of it because the world is not black and white. I can say, though, I still can't justify in my mind why anyone could participate in PBA's and be okay with it.

I think it is normal to have trouble with this issue.

We have friends who knew their baby had birth defects incompatible with life and chose to continue the pregnancy. They got to hold their child as she died and it was the right thing to do for them. I would do the same thing.

I also know a woman who was raped, got pregnant, gave the baby away to be adopted. This baby is now an adult with her own children and has recently met her bio-mom. And told her thank you.

I'm sure there are lots of stories on the opposite side too.

steph

One of the most common reasons is hydrocephaly with or without anencephaly. I'm not talking about the hydrocephaly where the girl goes on to be a happy 12 year old--I'm talking about an extremely malformed fetus, sometimes with a head so large the primip mother is 28 weeks and looks closer to 38. The head can reasonably be over 250% or larger than a "normal" head. And as most of us OB nurses know, hydro or anencephaly are not usually detected until the 2nd trimester or later.

One of the most common reasons is hydrocephaly with or without anencephaly. I'm not talking about the hydrocephaly where the girl goes on to be a happy 12 year old--I'm talking about an extremely malformed fetus, sometimes with a head so large the primip mother is 28 weeks and looks closer to 38. The head can reasonably be over 250% or larger than a "normal" head. And as most of us OB nurses know, hydro or anencephaly are not usually detected until the 2nd trimester or later.

.

I think the main issue for me is the pain the fetus/baby would suffer with this procedure. I am thinking even a baby suffering from a lethal condition would have the ability to feel the procedure and I could not reconcile putting my child through that, even if it meant I had a c-section in the case of hydrocephaly.

I think the main issue for me is the pain the fetus/baby would suffer with this procedure. I am thinking even a baby suffering from a lethal condition would have the ability to feel the procedure and I could not reconcile putting my child through that, even if it meant I had a c-section in the case of hydrocephaly.

Me too . . .I would have a cesarean first. I've had one and for me personally, it was not a big deal.

Just the physical act . . . . turns my stomach.

steph

I think the main issue for me is the pain the fetus/baby would suffer with this procedure. I am thinking even a baby suffering from a lethal condition would have the ability to feel the procedure and I could not reconcile putting my child through that, even if it meant I had a c-section in the case of hydrocephaly.

In most cases the fetus is dead before the skull is evacuated. They aren't feeling anything. Doctors can inject them with a lethal dose of medication before the procedure.

When you have to drain over a litre of fluid out of a baby's skull, a normal c-section isn't really an option. You're looking at a BIG incision and surgery carries risks, not to mention the impact it will have on your future fertility (inability to give birth lady partslly again, limiting the number of children you can have without putting you at risk for a lovely uterine rupture). Plus, if parents want to hold and mourn for their child, they will look better after a D&X than they would taken out with a skull 5times the normal size. It may not matter to you and it may not be your choice, but it isn't a callous choice either. Some women really don't want a surgery if they can avoid it and they want an intact body to mourn over.

Specializes in High Risk In Patient OB/GYN.

If it makes any difference to you CEG and Stevielynn, I mentioned that the amniotic fluid was injected with dig beforehand, so the fetus had already died in utero before the syringe was injected into the skull (no scissors were used to "tear a hole in the base of the skull" or anything like that). I'll be the 1st to "admit", it was an awful, horribly sad case, for all involved. 1250mL of fluid...unimaginable! The poor mother and father...god, it was a tear jerker for sure.

Motorcycle Mama, no one who knows anything in the medical field would call the infant in your story a fetus. Once it is born it loses it's fetal status and become a neonate or infant. But I'm sure you knew that. :)

I'm confused as to why the use of medical terms bothers you or makes you feel like I'm "sugar coating" something. This thread was asking for facts and I was trying to provide them. I thought it quite appropriate to use the proper, accepted medical terms on a board where the majority hold college degrees in the scientific/medical field that is nursing (refering to the OB board, where most of us are RNs).

Also to clear something up: very rarely does the fetus have to be manipulated into a breech position. Again, being OB RNs here, we know most 2nd trimesters are not in a cephalic/vertex presentation.

ETA: Since my cross post with fergus reminded me of something....many doctors are of the "Once a c/s, always a c/s" mentality. For a primip, having a hysterotomy (c/s on an IUFD), this means all future births will be a c/s. It also may mean a classical incision for a severely hydrocephalic fetus. If this is a mother who plans on having 4 or 5 children, she would now be subjected to the risks of 4 or 5 more major abdominal surgeries (putting her and her future children at risk).

We're experiencing a rush of accretas on my floor--it's in the water I guess. We have 3 right now. One is also an increta into the cervix, the other is a percreta into the bladder. The two more "involved" women are expected to require a hystorectomy. All are expected to require a transfusion and must be delivered in the main OR. ALL 3 have a hx of 3 or more c/s. I've only had one accreta in my experience who had no prior hx of a c/s. This is on top of the usual risks of bleeding out, infection, rupture, adverse reactions to anesthesia, etc etc etc.

= I still can't justify in my mind why anyone could participate in PBA's and be okay with it.

I'll tell you why if you really want to know. If not ignore the rest...

I see no reason to force a woman to have surgery to deliver a dead baby if it can be delivered lady partslly and with its body basically intact. I don't see why her choice should be for a cesarean (which places her health and future fertility at risk) or a D&E (where her babies body will be ripped apart in the womb and sucked out piece by piece). She and her partner should be able to mourn their child with his body intact. That baby and his family deserve to be treated with as much respect and compassion as possible. I know some nurses can't do it, so I will. It isn't fun for me but it is necessary.

I see no difference between this particular procedure and any other procedure used to terminate pregnancies in the second and third trimester. I've worked with patients who induced labor at 8 months to deliver their dead babies. I've worked with patients who had c-sections to deliver their dead babies. I don't see why one couple's choice makes them noble and the other makes them bad people. I treat them all with compassion and without judgement.

What makes the c-section better? I don't see why leaving an extra liter of fluid in a kid's head is better than not leaving it. We don't let our living babies exist like that. We give them shunts or we do taps to remove the extra fluid.

I don't doubt that it is an extremely difficult decision for anyone who chooses it. I (with the luxury of not having had to do it) think that I would chose to carry an "incompatible with life" fetus to term no matter what the circumstances because I feel that's the right choice for me.

Although I would choose differently I think I could provide care to patients undergoing this procedure. They certainly deserve compassionate care at that time. I do think I might have a little difficulty at the actual moment of the procedure. It hasn't been an issue yet...

Future health and pregnancies are definitely an important consideration. Especially the info about the classical incision and per/incretas- not something to be taken lightly. Thanks for all the good info Fergus and KellNY.

Thanks for all the good info Fergus and KellNY.

:yeahthat:

And thanks to you, CEG, for asking a question and actually pondering the answers.

:)

+ Add a Comment