"all Partial Birth Abortions are medically unnecessary."
That is not a medical term. Late term abortions are extremely rare and are done strictly for medical reasons. It is obvious enough that a mother does not choose to nurture a zygote into a fetus unless it is wanted. Late term abortions are a terrible event for the mother and for you to mock this issue is simply repugnant.
"D&X is designed primarily to be used in the case of fetuses that are dying, malformed, or threatening the woman's health or life."
In 2003 in Canada less than 1% (.8%) of abortions were late term (after 20 weeks)
Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada October, 2005
Position Paper #23
The Invention of “Partial-Birth” Abortion
The following arguments explain how anti-abortion activists in the United States invented the term “partial-birth” abortion, using it in legal battles meant to curtail abortion rights. It also considers the relevance of this controversial term to the practice of abortion in Canada.
What is “Partial-Birth” Abortion?
“Partial-birth” abortion does not exist; there is no such procedure. The term is not used by the medical
profession, and has never appeared in a medical journal. The phrase was invented in 1995 by anti-choice strategists in the United States hoping to ban late term abortions. Many American courts have ruled that their definition of "partial-birth" abortion is so vague it could apply to a range of abortion
procedures, including the one commonly used for second trimester procedures—dilation and evacuation (D&E). It is often assumed, however, that "partial-birth" abortion refers to the intact dilation and extraction (D&X) procedure, which is a much rarer procedure reserved for late-second
term and third-trimester abortions. D&X is designed primarily to be used in the case of fetuses that are dying, malformed, or threatening the woman's health or life. The procedure involves pulling the fetus from the womb, except for the head which is too large to pass without injuring the woman. The head is then collapsed to allow removal.
Producing a New Category, the “Not Unborn”
Anti-abortion advocates use the term “partial-birth” abortion to create a new category for the fetus as “not unborn.” In 1973, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a fetus is not a person (Roe v.Wade). It did not, however, declare that a fetus in the process of being born is not a person. The main goal of the 1995 Act to ban “partial-birth” abortion was to bypass Roe v. Wade by granting citizenship
to the “not unborn.” The 1995 Act declared that “the term ‘partial-birth abortion’ means an abortion in which the person performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus and completing the delivery” (Charles Canady, Report from the Committee on the Judiciary to
the 104th Congress, 1st sess., House Report 104-267: Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 1995, 2). This definition potentially impacts a wide range of procedures, for if anything enters the vagina from the uterus before fetal demise—even a small piece of umbilical cord—the fetus is transformed from the category of unborn to that of “not unborn” or “partially born.”
Misleading Imagery
The most misleading aspect of anti-abortion accounts of “partial-birth” is the insistence that anything passing into the vagina is outside of a woman’s body and thus “not unborn.” This definition effectively proclaims that women’s vaginas are exterior to their bodies—public rather than private spaces. Such misrepresentation of the female body is standard in anti-abortion imagery. Ubiquitous photographs of miscarried fetuses, for example, erase all signs of the maternal body to create the fantasy that fetuses are autonomous individuals. Yet in order to convince the public that partial-birth” abortion is wrong, anti-abortion advocates have primarily created and disseminated drawings. A popular anti-choice
drawing featured on many web sites purports to depict “A Doctor’s Illustrated Guide to Partial-Birth Abortion.” Scholar Carol Mason explains that this drawing portrays a healthy, viable, and whole toddler (not a fetus) being removed from a uterus. The pregnant woman lacks all other internal organs,
as well as a head, legs, and arms. Her vagina has been entirely erased. This strategic removal of the maternal body allows the viewer to avoid seeing the woman as a person who has made a difficult decision about an unhealthy fetus. It represents the fetus as a child in need of protection, encouraging viewers to identify with it rather than with the pregnant woman (Killing for Life: The Apocalyptic
Narrative of Pro-Life Politics, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2002, 84-85).
Has this Anti-abortion Campaign been Effective?
Yes and no. On November 5, 2003, President George W. Bush signed into law the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Yet over the summer of 2004, judges in three separate federal courts struck down the law, declaring it unconstitutional because it made no exceptions for cases in which a woman’s health is at risk. Although the decisions are being appealed to the Supreme Court, a similar legal challenge has already proven unsuccessful — in June 2000, the Supreme Court struck down a Nebraska statute banning “partial-birth” abortion, saying the procedure should remain legal for, among other reasons, the health of the mother. And in 2005, a three judge panel of the 4th United States Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a Virginia “partial-birth” abortion ban is nconstitutional because it does not contain a health exception. Anti-choice groups oppose most health exceptions because they allow virtually all abortions to remain legal. Since abortion is a health issue, rather than a moral one, it
is unlikely the current ban will withstand the legal proceedings designed to overturn it.
Impact on Canada
At a policy convention in March 2005, some members of the Conservative Party of Canada attempted to debate a clause calling for a "ban on the performing or funding of third trimester ‘partial-birth’ abortion." Other Conservatives supported a resolution indicating a future Tory government would "not initiate any legislation to regulate abortion," rendering the “partial-birth” discussion moot. Clearly, the
anti-choice faction of the Party was attempting to mimic anti-abortion strategies developed in the United States. This American approach cannot, however, simply be transferred to Canada. No third trimester abortions are done in Canada done for "elective" reasons. The Canadian Medical Association's policy is to endorse abortions on request only up to 20 weeks. Hospitals and doctors in Canada comply with this policy. Women who need abortions past 20 weeks for compelling maternal
health reasons or serious fetal abnormalities can get them in a few hospitals in Canada, but more often, these women are referred to clinics in the United States (Kansas, Washington State, and Colorado). These out-of-country procedures are generally funded by provincial governments, on the grounds that they are medically required and not easily available in Canada. The lack of availability occurs because later-term abortions require a high level of skill, experience, and dedication, and there are few providers willing or able to do them in Canada. Condemning “partial-birth” abortion or the D&X
technique in Canada is simply part of a political effort to promote disinformation about abortion, and to undermine all abortion rights.
Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada October, 2005 |
