Partial-birth abortion
The term partial-birth abortion refers to a class of late term abortion of a partially vaginally-delivered fetus or fetuses (see intact dilation and extraction).This procedure engenders extreme, emotionally-charged controversy, especially within the United States, as both pro-choice and pro-life advocates see the partial-birth abortion debate as a central battleground in the more general abortion debate. 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 pro-life advocates because they believe the procedure most clearly illustrates why abortions, and especially late-term abortions, are immoral. On the other hand, pro-choice advocates believe all decisions regarding pregnancy and abortion should ultimately be made by the pregnant woman and her doctor.
The use of the term partial-birth abortion is a central part of the debate: many pro-choice advocates frequently counter that the phrase is a "non-medical" one, implying that opponents of the procedure are creating propaganda, while pro-life groups point out that the term preferred by the pro-choice camp, "intact dilation & extraction" (see below), was coined by two physicians just over a decade ago and appears in no peer-reviewed journals or medical texts.
Opponents of laws banning partial-birth abortions voice concern that the definition of partial-birth abortion is too vague and that it could have a negative impact on the practice of so-called "reproductive medicine." 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 after the first trimeester.
Proponents of laws banning partial-birth abortion call the procedure immoral (because it kills an otherwise viable baby), and say that it's never medically necessary, seeing it as just another form of abortion-on-demand.
| Table of contents |
|
2 Controversy over Life and Health 3 Law in the United States 4 See Also: 5 External links: |
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 and pro-life groups have tussled over the ethical and legal aspects of the procedure since the early 1990s. As previously stated, pro-choice advocates object to the graphic term "partial-birth abortion," while pro-life advocates prefer it to more clinical terms such as "intact dilation and extraction". The choice of terminology has thus been a major factor in the political battle over the legality and morality of the procedure.
Much of the controversy over partial-birth abortion has centered around "life and health" exceptions in proposed partial-birth abortion laws. Pro-choice groups believe that these are vital to preserving a woman's right to freely access necessary health care. During his term, President Clinton twice vetoed partial-birth legislation 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. Pro-life 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 now believe that they have 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. There is apparently no preceding case of Congress attempting to overturn a Supreme Court decision through the findings section of legislation.
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 partial abortion 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.
Controversy over Life and Health
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:
Note that this definition of "partial-birth abortion" is not equivalent to "intact dilation & extraction," and covers a different range of procedures.See Also:
External links: