Res Ipsa Loquitur

I'm not sure I understand what is really up here, but I have to tell you, I don't like the tone of voice the proponents of the bill use when they talk about it. If they are trying to be subtle about this bill being a stepping stone to outlawing abortion altogether, then they are not doing very well at hiding it.

D

Sorry - I think I went a little over the top on the last comment. (Now *there's* a surprise!)

I won't get so long-winded this time but here are a couple of flaws I see with this - one, women (teens especially) are often betrayed by their own biology. In my last pregnancy I didn't know I was pregnant until about the fifth month. That stuff happens...so what if you're a young teen who only finds out you're pregnant by the end of the first trimester? Even if you find out sooner - what of telling your parents and having to get them to give you consent for an abortion? It's a very time-consuming process.

Additionally, it leaves no recourse for the mentally unstable/deficient. If you're depressed or suicidal over the pregnancy that's just too damn bad, you can't have an abortion. Downs Syndrome rape victim whose missed period isn't detected by the workers at the group home until it's too late? No recourse - your a mom unless the state decides you can't *be* a mom, in which case you lose your child. Severely mentally depressed over being pregnant and on the verge of suicide? Sorry 'bout your luck.

Yes, these are drastic examples but I've known girls who have had abortions and it's never taken lightly. I know what's necessary for my own mental health and well being, you know what's best for you...and if that might involve, heaven forbid, a late-term abortion then it's pretty safe to say that you or I have found ourselves in dire straits, indeed.

I don't think any adolescent should have to have a child just because they didn't know they were pregnant until it's too late. I think that's the strongest personal aspect of it all that I am feeling. That's the biggie to me.

Gah - I could go on like this forever but I'll shut up now. I'll save it for my own blog and stop eating up your bandwidth. I'm probably too close to the issue to look at it objectively because I've been at nearly all sides of this debate at one point in time or another. I'm just so sick of unwanted babies being thrown in garbage cans or killed by inept parents who are too young/immature to handle it, ya know? Kinda gets my blood boiling.

Of course, for every one of those, "I don't want this child" people out there, there are probably just as many, "I didn't know I wanted this child until s/he came into my life" parents. I'm not saying what's right or wrong, just that we should have as many options as possible available for whatever our personal needs may be.

Gah - I said I wouldn't get long-winded but did anyway. So, yeah, what David said.

Regardless of what Planned Parenthood tells us, we will never have a situation in this country where women who have been raped or impregnated through incest or who have severely deformed babies or whose health is legitimately endangered by pregnancy cannot get abortions. It isn't possible to get political support for laws that strict, any more than it's possible to get political support for burning copies of Shakespeare's plays. But convenience abortion--which means the vast majority of abortions--is vulnerable. It's especially vulnerable where the baby is likely to be viable and it isn't clear why it has to be killed.

The reason people on the right have a major problem with late-term partial birth abortion is that the killing of the infant seems unnecessary. It's already out of the body, and if it's up in the third trimester, it is probably viable. No one has ever explained to my satisfaction why it has to be killed at that point, and it is reasonable to suspect that the reason is that the mother doesn't want to raise it. After all, that's the reason for almost all abortions.

If the medical profession has a good explanation of the need to kill the infant once it's out, they have done a damn poor job of getting the message out, and lay people on the right can't be blamed for suspecting that there is no explanation. I've been listening to debate on this issue for years, and I have never heard a single medical professional offer clarification.

I posted this elsewhere, but here it is again for Steve:

This law does not ban these late abortions. It bans one of two ways to abort the baby. In fact, it bans what many doctors think is the safer way.

No woman goes to the clinic and says "give me a partial birth abortion." Women go to a clinic and say "I want an abortion." The doctor then decides which procedure is best to use.

Let's take a woman in the 20th week of pregnancy who, for whatever reason, has decided to get an abortion. She goes to the clinic and requests one. She doesn't know what procedure will be performed.

Before this law, her doctor could examine her and decide on one of two options: Dialation and intact extraction, or dialation and evacuation.

The former is "partial birth abortion."

The latter is the procedure generally used during the second trimester. The fetus is basically chopped up in the womb and removed piece by piece.

But by the 16th week, two things have happened: First, the baby's head is too big to remove through the cervix. Second, the baby's bones have calcified, meaning that pieces of them are much more prone to cutting the inside of a woman's body as they are removed.

To deal with these two issues, doctors sometimes choose to perform dialation and intact extration (partial birth abortion). The fetus (which is completely anesthetized) is pulled out feet-first. However, the head is too big to come out. So a small suction tube is used to remove the contents of the skull (the brain, if you want to talk in those terms). The skull collapses, and may be slipped out the cervix.

Obviously this method is less dangerous to the mother.

So what is the effect of the "partial birth abortion ban"? Well, now when our 20-week pregnancy case comes into the clinic and says "I want an abortion," the doctor simply prepares to do the dialation and extraction. It's risky, she may be cut, but there's no alternative.

Nobody will tell this woman "I'm sorry, you can't have an abortion. The government just banned partial birth abortion." They're just going to perform the other option -- dialation and evacuation.

As you can see, this law doesn't do what many people think it does. It's a political game -- done to appeal to anti-abortion voters, but it has no bite. In addition, it actually puts mothers at risk, so not only do we have the same number of abortions, we've got more injured mothers.

Gosh, I'm sorry Rita I forgot to address your actual question. This language confused me, too. But the bottom line is that the exception is to save the LIFE of the mother.

As I mentioned above, the concern in deciding between the two types of abortion is merely the HEALTH of the mother -- she could be internally damaged by the dialation and evacuation method, but that wouldn't be enough to warrant doing the dialation and intact extraction under the law.

I posted a version of the previous post on my blog, if you ever have any interest in linking to the likes of me :-P and want to call attention to the fact that this law doesn't ban any late-term abortions at all -- just mandates one procedure over the other.

Great discussion! Thanks everyone. I don't have much to add except I did find a couple of other interesting things buried in the text of the bill. The doctor who invented the procedure testified to Congress that "he has never encountered a situation where a partial-birth abortion was medically necessary to achieve the desired outcome". And there was apparently a lot of testimony about the serious medical risks of the procedure, which are listed.

BTW, the definition of a partial-birth abortion makes it pretty clear that the baby's entire head is outside the mother's body BEFORE the doctor sucks its brains out. (I'm still trying to figure out how that works for a breech delivery.)

I thought Aaron's comments were going to clear a lot of things up for me, but now Rita says something that restores the confusion.

Aaron says the baby's head is too big to be passed through the cervix. Rita says the whole head is out before the brain is destroyed. Who is right? If the head can't be delivered intact, killing the infant has some justification from a medical point of view--I said "medical"; I am not getting into the moral side of the question. If it can be delivered intact, one still has to wonder why the infant can't be saved.

In any case, Aaron, I appreciate the effort. You are the first person I have ever seen even attempt to explain the rationale behind this procedure.

Sorry Steve. I was just stating the definition that's contained in the bill. I don't know whether it's the correct definition or not. I was hoping some of my readers who are in the medical profession could clear it up for me...but so far, no luck.

I can see where there'd be situations in which the procedure Aaron describes would be medically necessary....but that doesn't seem to be the procedure the bill covers by the wording contained in its definition.

Like I said. Confusing.

Here is a description of "partial birth abortion" on the national right to life site. It's what I described -- feet first, head too big to bring out.

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/index.html

The statute bans BOTH delivery head-first and delivery feet first of a live fetus with intent to kill it outside the womb. Rita, I assume this is where you determined that the headfirst procedure was what was banned:

"delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother,"

The "head-first presentation" I have not heard of. Delivering the head first, while still alive, from what I know (which I admit is limited) is basically way to difficult for any doctor to do in order to abort a baby.

But the ban DOES prevent normal D&E as described by me and on the national right to life site.

Here's another description of PBA and the reasons behind it:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba1.htm

Right Aaron. It covers vaginal as well as breech procedures. I thought from what I've read that the vaginal procedure was the more common of the two. But I could be wrong. I frequently am.

; )

I'm still trying to confirm that this bill was the one signed into law, but haven't found anything yet.

Re read secton a, about killing a fetus. Regardless of whaat procedure is used, an abortion is just that; termination of the pregnancy and the fetus dies regardless of the method used.

Dead is dead.

"knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and *thereby* kills a human fetus"

That's the section you're referring to? It's limited to killing of a fetus by "partial birth abortion." Any other method of killing a fetus is A-OK. At any time in the pregnancy. At no time will disallowing partial birth abortion stop an abortion; it simply requires the doctor not pull out the fetus' feet or head before killing it.

Forms of abortion that are not partial-birth abortion can (and will) still be performed. The doctor is simply limited to a particular procedure -- one that as I said, is sometimes more dangerous than partial birth abortion.

Rita: My understanding of a "breech" birth is that it's feet first. That's what I thought "breech" meant. If I'm wrong I apologize

Again, in my understanding of this law (and my understanding is suported by the right to life site I linked to) is that all this law bans is aborting a late-term baby in a particular WAY -- by pulling its feet (or head, if a doctor should ever be intersted in doing it that way) before killing the fetus. The answer: Kill the fetus before you pull it out. That's all.

This will not stop any abortions; doctors simply kill the fetus BEFORE pulling it out. This is riskier because it's harder to kill a fetus you don't have a good grip on. But it's done all the time. It will continute to be done at all stages of pregnancy. No abortions will be stopped by this law.

...I've known girls who have had abortions and it's never taken lightly.

And I've known women who use it as birth control.

After reading the comments, and becoming rather better informed, I want to thank Rita for allowing this discussion, for posting the insights, and for letting me have my say.

I think the penalty then, is that once the fetus is viable outside the womb, then the dr. will be fined if he kills it. As long as the fetus is killed in utero, then it is considered an abortion?

Now, don't misunderstand me here, but basically
a late term fetus that could theoretically survive as an infant or baby would not be killed
outside the uterus. Is my understanding correct?

Cricket, you're not alone in your confusion. But I don't believe the law says anything about viablility at all. The only thing the law prohibits is removing any part of the fetus (head or legs) before killing it.

Here's a quote from the national right to life FAQ on the ban:

"it is inaccurate to report, as CBS Evening News has done repeatedly, that the bill is a "late-term abortion ban." It is a ban not of "late-term abortion" but of a defined method -- and the legal definition of that method has never referred to a point in "term," but rather, to the location of the living baby when he or she is killed."

This is the misunderstanding that I think both sides should be working harder to correct -- right to lifers because this doesn't stop any abortions, and pro-choicers because this law essentially forces doctors to perform their abortions a certain way.

The following link describes the observations of a woma (who's admittedly very pro-choice) watching the two types of lat-term abortion procedures. The first procedure she sees is banned by this bill -- the second one isn't. Here are brief quotes:

Partial Birth abortion: "Once the entire fetal body was out of the womb, the doctor quickly made an incision into the base of the skull that remained lodged against the woman's cervix and inserted a suction catheter into the perforation to drain the brain matter and allow the full removal of the fetus. The placenta came next and the doctors finished suctioning the uterus to drain any remaining blood."

Second -- dialation and evacuation: "the resident inserted a long-handled metal instrument into the woman's uterus -- called a Bierer forcep -- and began what the doctor called "blind" pulling. I watched as the doctor instructed the resident to "Stop and feel where you are! Put your hand on the abdomen. No, you're not getting it! Watch out! Don't get the cervix. Time after time, the resident plunged the Bierer into the woman's womb, removing a leg, then an arm, then the liver, then the placenta, which the doctor ranted about, because this can make the fetal head extraction more difficult. The last step that I saw was the collapse of the skull and the removal of the brain matter."

Here's the full description: http://archive.salon.com/mwt/feature/2002/07/24/late_term/index2.html

The second procedure isn't banned by the partial birth abortion law. The first one is. Why? I dunno ... it makes no practical sense to me from either side.