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

"thereby kills a human fetus"

My theory is that this language is what keeps hard-line pro-choice people from backing this law. I don't think there are all that many people out there who really believe this procedure is a good thing but I do think there are people out there who believe that If you legislate the fetus into personhood--that comes with certain rights, and that can spell the end of even first trimester abortions.

But if that is true then why isn't the pro-choice lobby attacking the language instead of promoting it as a last ditch protect the Mom kind of thing? I think that situation could come up once in a blue moon certainly, but working to change the language so that earlier abortions would still be protected seems like it would be a more productive way to promote the pro-choice cause.

It's like both sides believe it has to be all or nothing. But most people I know are somewhere in the middle.

Kim

Specializes in LDRP; Education.

I'm a pro-choice advocate but THIS I can not tolerate.

One of the many reasons I voted for Bush.

I am impressed by the thoughtful and articulate comments expressed in these posts concerning PBA.

It is apparent that the majority of posters, whether Pro-Life, or Pro-Choice, are horrified by the barbaric actions taken to actually perform this procedure. And, I agree with you.

It is not difficult to get a "visual image" of what occurs. Visualizing scissors inserted in the base of the skull, sucking out brains, etc., is truly horrifying. Visualizing a squirming, partially born, otherwise healthy baby trying to get away from the surgeon's scissors is nightmarish. I agree with some of the posters who have called this practice murderous.

Here's my question to some of the posters. Why does your outrage extend only to partial birth abortions?

It is a well documented fact that first trimester fetuses have been shown to feel the pain of being aborted. They attempt to get away from the surgeon's instruments. The have been shown to recoil in pain. And, once the abortion is completed the visual image of severed legs, arms, torsos, etc., of a tiny human is equally horrific. I don't know which visual image is worse. But, neither image should be acceptable in any society. I agree with the poster who said we treat our animals better.

We can take 10,000 credit hours of Biology and the fact remains that human embryos develop into humans--not monkeys, fish, or anything else. In my opinion, the pre versus post viability issue makes the visual image no less horrific.

Unless the life of the mother is in imminent danger we should be outraged and horrified by the visual images of any abortion.

Instead, I would rather "visualize" on correcting, dealing with, and helping sort through the circumstances that would drive women to resort to such awful means. God help us.

Respectfully,

Walt

I am very glad that everyone pro-life or pro-choice, feel that this is barbaric. Yes, I also agree with the above post, but I don't really want to get into that debate either.

My question is, does anyone know of the circumstances behind why this procedure is done? I know they say it is to save the life of the mother, but does anyone have examples of what was wrong with the mother that this needed to be done?

I am just baffled, as I cannot think of ONE THING that would necessetate (sp?) this procedure!

I always get so sad when I read pro-choice vs por life arguments.First of all I agree with the post that stated that we should be equally appalled at abortion done at any stage. That said, I want to point out that I am PRO-CHOICE, sort of.

I believe a women has a choice of using the pill, condoms, depo-provera, ect, deciding if and when she wants to have sex and with whom or not. Many choices here. If she is at the point of choosing an abortion, it is becuase she didnt make any choices or not the right ones anyway. There are adobtion lines miles long of couples who would love that baby. King Solomon pointed out that it is a REAL mother who would rather give up her baby to another that to see it dead. I think that wisdom still stands. Please dont throw flames here...JMHO

I also agree with the above posts. what could be the danger to the mother that this would even be considered. And if she is in so much danger why is a C-section not done??? Let God decide if the child is viable. And if the child is deformed or has some disorder let God decide its fate. If the child is simply not wanted there is adoption.

I am the mother of 5 teenage boys. 2 of them are naturally mine,3 we are legal guardians for. Daniel 18 is autistic and couldn't be cared for by his natural mother. When his grandmother passed away suddenly we took over his care. He is wonderful, funny and makes my life whole. Tony 14 and willy12 also could not be cared for by there natural father. Tony is also developmentally challenged.

We are a busy happy family. Am I stressed somedays. Of course.

But I wouldn't change my life for anything in this world. If we could we would take in every unwanted challenged child.

Yes I am still pro choice I just don't understand how anyone besides perhaps a rape victim could abort after seeing the tapes of what will happen to there unborn child.

Are people still shown these tapes before they abort? If not they should be

I live in CA and I have a friend that recently had an abortion...... She brought home the informational packet and I was reading, as I was really interested in what was going on at that clinic. I found out that this clinic (a big one in very big city) performs ALL elective abortions where the baby is not thought to have any abnormalities or birth defects and the mother was in no danger. The packet explained thinbs in very very gentle terms that made these things sound very humane. First trimester aboortions were done using the traditional method using the canula and vacume and dilation if needed. Second trimester abortions were done using the D&E model as wel as using digoxin to stop the baby's heart BUT in the packet it said that this medicine (digoxin) would be injected into the amniotic sac (not the heart) and that this medicine would cause fetal demise SO THAT THE BABY WOULD NOT FEEL ANYTHING!!!! Well no shat the baby is dead.... Anyways after the second trimester the offered what the called the partial birth D&X??? Later my friend found out that this was just what you are describing soooooo it does still happen.... and I guess the rational is that as long as the baby's head is still in the mother it is not murder. Just wanted to add my experience. Thanks for listening guys

I heard this obstetrician on the radio say in his 30+ yrs of practice he has never once seen a situation for a medically necessary partial birth abortion.

I also heard it described what happens during this disgusting procedure.

What made me the sickest is when they desribed the doctor (I hate to even give them the dignity of being called doctor) pushes the instrument through the skull the baby's arms and legs which are moving jerk outward in a sudden motion (Moro Reflex) and then go limp.

I honestly believe I could harm any monster I saw doing this.

Oh, there is also such a thing as post-birth abortions.

I am pro-life but try to be pro-choice, because I have never been in a situation where I have had to choose.

This makes me sick. Aside from any other arguments, if I found out my baby had a terrible anomaly incompatible with life, the last thing I would want is for their only sensation in life to be that of scissors piercing their skull and the excrutiating pain it must cause. I cannot imagine what kind of person it would take to be able to perform this. I can easily see how a woman could be fooled by that provvider into thinking it is a good choice though, it happens everyday with many procedures.

Specializes in High Risk In Patient OB/GYN.

Partial birth abortions (or more medically accurate-an intact D&X) do happen, and the MAJORITY of those performed are on non-viable or dead feti.

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.

Think of babies like this (warning-may be disturbing)http://www.pjms.com.pk/issues/janmar05/figures%20&%20tables/grotesques.GIF

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v65n4/991022/fg1.h.jpg

In the whopping 2 times that I know of that this has been done in my hospital (we do D&Es very frequently) the doctor injected digoxin into the amniotic sac--yes they do that, it's not always a shot into the heart!--first so that the baby would not feel any pain. In one, which I assisted in, they removed over 1250mLs of fluid (no, not 125mL--1250, as in over a liter!) from the cranial cavity...there was no sucking out of brains.

This site has some excellent, generally unbiased information, complete with sorces. Note that the #1 reason the procedure is performed is an IUFD, read: the "baby" is already dead.

The quotes on frequency of the procedure are often over inflated (as a shock and awe form of propaganda) being based solely on NJ's numbers.

Why is that flawed? Because NJ was victim to a very unethical (and later to be rightfully determined, criminal) doctor who performed the procedure at an extremely alarming rate, lied to his patients, and was basically in it for the money. He was later arrested, sued, and had his license revoked. The jerk had been lying to patients about the procedure itself, the age of the fetus, the risks, etc. Anyway, for that year or two that he violated these women and babies, the numbers were super high, and many prolife proponents have used this one figure to bump up the numbers.

One reason some women "wait so long" to make a choice is because some states require parental or spousal consent or notification. In cases of abuse, this may not be the best thing for the woman, who often times must save up not only hundreds of dollars for the procedure, but hundreds more to travel out of state. Now, this is NOT an excuse for having a D&X, and any doctor performing a D&X for this reason alone is violating law and ethics.

In order to perform a D&X a doctor must have another doctor (who is not legally or financially connected to him/her) concur that it is medically necessary, except in the case of an already present IUFD.

And aside from that, I can assure you that there is no glut of women lined up waiting to abort their healthy 30, 32, 34 week fetus. i've never known a woman who didn't agonize over the choice at any stage of pregnancy, or one who didn't want to end the pregnancy as soon as possible after making the choice.

D&Xs account for around 0.2% of all abortions performed, and this number INCLUDES procedures done on already dead babies, as well as those incompatible with life.

on-z-go, That line of thinking regarding choice would assume that condoms and oral contraceptives and other BC methods always work. It also assumes that a sex is always consentual. This line of thinking is flawed. I can't tell you how many TOPs we've seen on women with IUDs in place. Or women who were taking the pill and had an Oops baby. I myself took emergency contraception when my partner's condom broke (read: used two methods-barrier and hormonal) and obviously neither worked because I'm in the process of aborting. :o Glad I had that extra choice.

But that is neither here nor there, as we're discussing a D&X specifically.

You can sugar coat anything to not sound so bad but talk is cheap and facts are facts and I'm sure for every so-called therapeutic partial-birth abortion you have plenty of others done out of convenience. It can be called a fetus or bundle of tissue but if it's not a baby you're not pregnant (I'm speaking to no one in particular here).

I'm pro-choice not because I believe in a woman's "right" specifically I'm just libertarian. I can't control others' actions. You will always have the arguments and proponents have said abortion should be safe, legal and rare--I don't know why it should be rare if there is nothing wrong with it, though.

If there is nothing wrong with partial-birth abortions there is nothing wrong with post-birth abortions, either.

If there is nothing wrong with partial-birth abortions there is nothing wrong with post-birth abortions, either.

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.

+ Add a Comment