Partial-birth abortion
The term partial-birth abortion is a political term, not a medical term, that refers to abortion without the trimester of pregnancy specified in which the fetus or fetuses enter the vaginal (birth) canal, which is called a "delivery." The term does not correspond to any medical term. While its advocates say it refers to late-term abortions, the definition could prohibit even first-trimester abortions.
This procedure engenders extreme, emotionally-charged controversy, especially within the United States, as both pro-choice and anti-abortion advocates who call themselves pro-life see the partial-birth abortion debate as a central battleground in the more general abortion debate. Both sides claim the "pro-life" title. Pro-choice advocates are working to preserve the life of the pregant woman or girl, who is given the same level of protection as an embryo or fetus. The legislation has included no exceptions for the life or health of the woman and has been struck down by both state and federal courts around the United States.
Late-term abortions in general, especially beyond the point in pregnancy where the fetus is viable, are also extremely controversial. Partial-birth abortions are a target of anti-abortion advocates because they believe the procedure most clearly illustrates why abortions, and especially late-term abortions, are immoral. However, the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade allows states to impose increasingly more restrictions upon second- and third-trimester abortions, so that late-term abortions, which comprise some one per cent of all abortions, may be performed in only the most dire of cases under state laws. Typically,the fetus is severely malformed and is dead or dying. The late-term abortion avoids the grieving woman from having to undergo child birth or abdominal and uterine incisions of a Caesarian Section (C-Section) when the child would not survive. Advocates of reproductive rights including libertarians point out that a late-term abortion clearly cannot be an optional procedure and in practice involves a tragic situation in which the government should not intervene to cause more suffering to the woman by requiring painful labor and delivery or abdominal surgery.
The use of the term partial-birth abortion is a central part of the debate: pro-choice advocates frequently counter that the "non-medical" phrase is only propaganda, while self-styled pro-life groups point out that "intact dilation & extraction" (called D & X)(see below), was coined by two physicians just over a decade ago and appears in no peer-reviewed journals or medical texts. However, the medical procedure most likely affected is the dilation and evaculation method (called D & E),preferred by most obstetricians and gynecologists as safest and most likely to preserve the fertility of the woman for future pregnancies.
Opponents of the so-called partial-birth abortion ban point out that the definition of partial-birth abortion is so vague that the law would have a chilling effect on physicians performing any abortion or other gynecological procedures such as D & C (dilation and curetage), used for various conditions of the uterus. Anti-abortion activists have argued that the ban would prevent only a few thousand abortions a year, while pro-choice activists have argued that it could be construed to ban many regularly used abortion methods and possibly all abortions even in the first trimester in which the embryo and uterine tissue are vacuumed out the vaginal cavity.
Proponents of the ban on so-called partial-birth abortion call the procedure immoral because it kills an otherwise viable "baby." They subscribe to the religious belief that life begins at conception or shortly thereafter. However. this not only contradicts the First Amendment prohibition by legislating certain religious beliefs, it contradicts the Biblical principle, later adopted by common-law and case law by federal and state courts, that personhood begins at birth. For example in Exodus 21:22-25 a man who accidentally strikes a pregnant woman and causes a miscarriage is required to pay money damages rather than face the penalty for homicide.
Distinction from "intact dilation and extraction"
The term is sometimes used interchangeably with the more medical sounding intact dilation and extraction (ID&X), and some claim this usage is misleading or erroneous. "Intact dilation and extraction" specifically covers a range of procedures beyond those defined by legal definitions of "partial-birth abortion." (See HR 1833 below.)
Pro-choice groups and anti-abortion groups who call themselves pro-life groups have debated the ethical and legal aspects of the procedure since the early 1990s. Pro-choice advocates object to the misleading and vague term "partial-birth abortion," while anti-abortion advocates prefer it to more clinical terms. The choice of terminology by proponents of this ban has been used to confuse rather than clarify.
Controversy over Life and Health
Anti-abortion advocates have consistently omitted "life and health" exceptions in proposed so-called partial-birth abortion laws. Pro-choice groups point to the danger to the lives and health of women and girls. During his term, President Clinton twice vetoed so-called partial-birth bans because he felt it did not adequately address this issue. The Supreme Court likewise struck down as unconstitutional a Nebraska state law in Stenberg v. Carhart that did not include a health exception. Anti-abortion advocates were staunchly against including a health exception because they believed that under the current legal definition of "health," mental health could be included, essentially nullifying the law. They believed that they adequately addressed this in the findings section of the most recent version of the legislation (cited below), because they have included with the legislation a large amount of supporting documentation -- including a statement by the American Medical Association -- which they argue demonstrates that there is no medical situation under which this procedure could be used to preserve the physical health of the mother. However, federal courts in 2004 in San Francisco, Nebraska and New York have already rejected the Congressional findings as not being accurate.
Law in the United States
On November 5, 2003, President George W. Bush signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (HR 760, S 3), which defined partial-birth abortions as:
- . . . [A]n abortion in which the person performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus and completing the delivery.
Note that this definition of "partial-birth abortion" is not equivalent to "intact dilation & extraction," and covers a different range of procedures. However, this definition could include even the first-trimester vacuum aspiration of embryos through the vaginal canal and the late-term "dilation and evacuation" (D & E)
The Act did not include a provision allowing for such abortions to take place when the health of the mother was endangered. This ran directly counter to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's deciding opinion in Stenberg v. Carhart, in which the Supreme Court struck down the Nebraska law. O'Connor explicitly stated that any ban would have to include an exception should the life or health of the mother be endangered.
As a result, federal judges in San Francisco, New York and Lincoln, Nebraska tentatively blocked the implementation of the law while court cases were being argued. On June 1, 2004, Judge Phyllis Harmon struck down the law in the San Francisco case, stating that the "The act poses an undue burden on a woman's right to choose an abortion." The New York and Lincoln cases are ongoing. Whatever the outcome is, the three cases seem likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court eventually.
See Also:
External links:
- - Reason Magazine article comparing the politically motivated naming of "partial birth abortion" with the politically motivated naming of "assault weapons".
-
- http://www.priestsforlife.org/
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
