Daniel, that's interesting that you pointed out an article from a part of the medical community. Did you know that the AMA has gone on the record supporting the ban on partial birth abortion? Did you also know that C. Everett Koop has stated that partial birth abortion has never been used to prevent risk to the mothers health? Here's an interesting article regarding this issue...
______________________________________________________________________
Some Key Facts on Partial-Birth Abortions
Partial-birth abortions are performed in the fifth month of pregnancy and later. In a partial-birth abortion, the abortionist pulls a living baby feet-first out of the womb and into the birth canal (vagina), except for the head, which the abortionist purposely keeps lodged just inside the cervix (the opening to the womb). The abortionist punctures the base of the skull with a long surgical scissors, with a hollow metal tube called a trochar, or with some other surgical instrument. He then inserts a catheter (tube) into the wound, and removes the baby's brain with a powerful suction machine. This causes the skull to collapse, after which the abortionist completes the delivery of the now-dead baby. Abortionist Dr. Martin Haskell described step-by-step how to perform such an abortion in his 1992 paper "Dilation and Extraction for Late Second-Trimester Abortion," available on request from NRLC.
Under both state and federal laws, a "birth" occurs when a baby is entirely expelled from the mother and shows any signs of life, however briefly-- regardless of whether or not the baby is old enough to be sustained with neo-natal medical assistance. Even at 42 months (20 weeks), the earliest point at which a partial-birth abortion is usually performed, physician specialists say that if a baby is expelled or removed completely from the uterus, she will usually gasp for breath and sometimes survive for an hour or more, even though lung development is still insufficient to permit successful sustained respiration. Thus, the term "partial-birth" is perfectly accurately.
Moreover, many of the babies who are killed by partial-birth abortion are old enough to survive independently of the mother. According to the landmark survey of neonatal units in the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network, conducted in 1987 and 1988 by Dr. Maureen Heck and others, babies born at 23 weeks had on average a 23% chance of long-term survival, rising to 34% at 24 weeks, and to 54% at 25 weeks. Some more recent studies at specific institutions show even better survival rates.
Based on the large body of evidence on the public record, it appears that the great majority of partial-birth abortion-- quite likely over 90%-- are performed in the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy (that is, before the 27th week). The overwhelming majority of these are performed for purely non-medical, "personal" reasons.
Contrary to various press reports, President Clinton, Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD), and other pro-abortion policymakers have not proposed that partial-birth abortions be banned except for certain limited exceptions. Rather, their proposals would apply no restriction whatever to partial-birth abortions performed in the fifth and sixth months-- the overwhelming majority of partial-birth abortions. Furthermore, the Clinton-Daschle proposal would allow partial-birth abortions even in the seventh month and later if an abortionist asserts that it would protect a mother from "serious" health damage, including risk to her "future fertility"-- legally elastic language would grant abortionists ample authority to perform third-trimester partial-birth abortions at will.
Although usually used in the fifth and sixth months, the partial-birth abortion method has also been used to perform many abortions in the third trimester-- that is, the seventh month and later-- most notably by the developer of the method, the late Dr. James McMahon. In a written submission to the House Judiciary Committee in June, 1995, Dr. McMahon described using method to abort babies with various disorders and anomalies, ranging from the minor to the profound. But he also explicitly acknowledged that he performed such abortions on babies with no "flaw" whatever, even in the third trimester, for such reasons as mere youth of the mother, or for "psychiatric" difficulties. Indeed, even at 29 weeks-- well into the seventh month-- Dr. McMahon indicated that one-fourth of the babies he aborted had no "flaw," however minor. Dr. McMahon died in October, 1995.
The Physicians' Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth (PHACT)-- a group of over 300 physician-specialists (mostly in obstetrics, perinatology, and related disciplines) spoke out to dispute President Clinton's assertions that certain women had required partial-birth abortions to escape serious physical injury. PHACT said in a letter to Congress, "We, and many other doctors across the United States, regularly treat women whose unborn children suffer these and other serious conditions. Never is the partial-birth procedure medically indicated. Rather, such infants are regularly and safely delivered live, vaginally, with no threat to the mother's health or fertility." In September, former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop and other PHACT members issued a statement that "partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect a mother's health or future fertility. On the contrary, this procedure can pose a significant threat to both."
To justify his veto of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, President Clinton has repeatedly referred to the cases of the five women who appeared with him at his April 10, 1996 "veto ceremony" on the bill. These five women all intended to carry their babies to term, until they learned that the babies had grave, incurable disorders. After so discovering, they all five women received partial-birth abortions from the late Dr. James McMahon. Clinton claims that the lives or future childbearing capacity of these women would have been jeopardized had they not received the procedure-- a contention disputed by hundreds of medical specialists (see above). Even one of the five women, Claudia Crown Ades, has acknowledged, "My procedure was elective. This is considered an elective procedure, as were the procedures of Coreen Costello and Tammy Watts and Mary Dorothy-Line and all the other women who were at the White House yesterday. All of our procedures were considered elective."
In remarks on May 23 and December 13, 1996, President Clinton has claimed that the partial-birth abortion procedure is necessary to prevent grave injury to women whose unborn babies have greatly enlarged heads. This condition, known as hydrocephaly, is caused by the collection of excess fluid in the baby's skull. Clinton's claim has been refuted by eminent medical specialists, who say that such cases are typically handled by removal of the excess fluid through a narrow needle, after which the baby -- usually alive although brain-damaged -- is delivered without jeopardy to the mother. (Hydrocephaly was involved in only 4% of over 2,000 late-term abortions enumerated by Dr. McMahon is his June, 1995 submission to the House Judiciary Committee.)
Some prominent defenders of partial-birth abortions, such as NARAL's Kate Michelman and syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman, have insisted that anesthesia kills the babies before they are removed from the womb. This is entirely untrue. The babies are alive and experience great pain when they are subjected to a partial-birth abortion. In congressional testimony on March 21, 1996, the heads of the American Society of Anesthesiologists and of the Society for Obstetric Anesthesia, and other top experts, testified that anesthesia (even general anesthesia) given to the mother has little or no effect on the baby. Jean A. Wright, associate professor of pediatrics and anesthesia at Emory University, testified that recent research shows that by the time a baby is developed enough to be a "candidate" for a partial-birth abortion, the fetus is sensitive to pain-- perhaps even more sensitive than a full-term infant. She added, "This procedure, if it was done on an animal in my institution, would not make it through the institutional review process. The animal would be more protected than this child is." |
