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

Specializes in Gerontological, cardiac, med-surg, peds.

From Tiller's web page:

Kansas law allows for post-viability abortion procedures when continuing the pregnancy is detrimental to the pregnant woman's health.

Translation.... That means right up to the time of delivery, folks.

I, for one, am SO glad that this barbaric pratice is about to be banned. Latest statistics on this procedure... around 2000-3000 occurring annually in the United States... mostly healthy, viable unborn children. :crying2: :o

uyt I've been an obstetrical nurse for 20+ yrs. I can't remember when i was this upset over a so called procedure. I don't believe i'm going to be able to get this picture out of my head tonight.What the heck are we doing? where does this stop?

Originally posted by Texagain

I just wanted to say that if you have a hydrocephalic anencaphalic fetus whose head is too large to deliver (and some of you may know that the heads can grow to astounding proportions), then this proceedure would be appropriate for delivery. Why have a hysterotomy when you can have a vag?

Incidently, I do not believe the propaganda about the frequency of the proceedure, nor is the name of the proceedure a medical term, so I doubt that also. The only time I have ever heard of a proceedure remotely close to this involved a severly macerated fetus whose head separated, did not deliver, and had to be removed. Most people cannot imagine the many and horrible ways pregnancies can and do go wrong.

Personally, I don't like congress deciding how or what my doctor should do to me. Perhaps if any of them were doctors... I think the whole issue is hype and won't change the way doctors treat patients. On OB-GYN-L, many of the docs have offered to be test cases for best practice. These kinds of situations and decisions should remain where they have been, a private situation between a patient and her doc.

D&X is not with out risks, person can be left with incompetent cervix,lacerations infections etc. and if it were only used for hydrocephalic non viable fetus that would be one thing but to be used for viable pregnacy termination is another.this is what people need to realize.usually it is notice earlier than last trimester and it does not mean it is not a viable fetus(baby). especially with proper treatment

it is not propaganda it is fact that this does occur,more often than people think. sticking your head in the sand and ignoring it will not make it go away.

congress and the goverment already make decision concerning health care, for example drugs or regulated human testing etc just to name a few. murder or infanticide is all this is. if you ever witness one first hand as i have you would know. it is the most horrible discusting thing I have ever witnessed. and by the way the fetus concerned was 30 weeks and would have been fine if left to develope or deliver. it was done because mother was "being emotionally harmed by the pregnancy" to me that is a crock of shyt!

Originally posted by stevielynn

Emerald - If we find the procedure appalling and there is never a medical necessity for it, it shouldn't matter if the pro-life community may use this as a way to further their agenda. We should be judging the procedure on its own lack of merits. It is intellectually dishonest to do otherwise.

steph

EXACTLY! this is not a debate on ending legalized abortion just the ending of a barbaric procedure. I myself do not see how a doctor could even be willing to perform such an act, there is never a good enough reason for murder!

I agree with most everyone. I am pro choice. But this is murder. Not all hydrocyphilic children are non viable. I took care of a beautiful 12 year old at camp once. She was beautiful. her family loved her deeply.

In my eyes this is just plain murder.

Perhaps the doctors performing this nasty procedure have alterior motives.

Are these fetus organs being harvested???

It's not for me to judge that is God's job.

Specializes in Gerontological, cardiac, med-surg, peds.
I've been an obstetrical nurse for 20+ yrs. I can't remember when i was this upset over a so called procedure. I don't believe i'm going to be able to get this picture out of my head tonight.What the heck are we doing? where does this stop?

It's called the slippery slope and the process doesn't stop until the last shred of human decency and conscience is gone from a society.

011201.gif

I'm disgusted. I've always been prochoice with early pregnancies believing I had the right to choose my future, not the government. In all honesty I had stayed away from this topic many times because it makes me physically sick to imagine this occurs. Rare would be the exception of a mother's life, but for the life of me I could never condone this. (insert nasy nasty words). Our society has made it so simple and easy to take away blame and responsibility from our actions and it is time that the consequences are faced. I'm not trying to preach or sprout off anger, I am just truly disgusted that some would go this road and horrified the pain that the child would bear.

Specializes in ED staff.

The only reason I cansee to do this kind of procedure is if the baby/fetus is already dead or is so malformed that it cannot survive outside the womb.

I find it hard to believe, that a doctor, who sworn the Hippocrates, would do a procedure as unethical as this.

I find it even harder to understand, that a woman would something like this to herself, but above all to her child.

As one of the millions, not able to get a biological child, this hurts right into my very being.

My poor eyes were glued to this entire thread while my head kept telling me to stop reading. I'm in shock that anyone would consider this a medical procedure of any value. The image that keeps replaying in my head is of the parents I see in the NICU hovering over their premature babies praying for a miracle that would spare their precious child....Very sad all of this. I would rather lose my job than ever participate in such an act.

Peatness

I'm pro choice, but I agree this is stretching it. Why would somebody wait that long before making a choice?

Rachel

Specializes in LTC, assisted living, med-surg, psych.

I've always been pro-choice, but this "procedure" should NEVER have been an option. I don't agree with much of what Bush and his Republican Congress do, but banning partial-birth abortions is a necessity if we are to call ourselves a civilized society. Killing a viable, pre-born infant is not a "choice", it's cold-blooded MURDER.

+ Add a Comment