Sorry, I don’t watch your propaganda videos. You see, you phoneys have lied for so long that the general public is now desensitised to any honest arguments (if there ever were any) against fundamental rights and freedoms. You have dug yourself into a deep well with your contrived line drawings and your pictures of children being cut out of a “womb” where the mother is completely absent! You simply offend intelligent people with your contrived and deliberate fabrications: So that if you ever did have an argument, it is lost in your shrill pretences and your dishonest presentation.
So give it up, Princess. The more civilized society becomes in honouring the immanent rights of women (and your rights too, pudgy face) to their own life and to their bodies…the more abortions decrease and the earlier unwanted pregnancies are terminated. DEMS DE FACTS, PRINCESS! heh heh
"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"
Position Paper #23
The Invention of “Partial-Birth” Abortion
“The following arguments explain how anti-abortion activists in the United States invented the term “partialbirth” 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. State and federal laws were introduced to ban “partial-birth” abortions, although President Clinton vetoed the federal law twice. In the states, manycourts ruled that their definition of "partial-birth" abortion was 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 thirdtrimester 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 through the vagina is outside of a woman’s body and thus “not unborn.” This definition effectively
Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada revised January, 2010 page 2 of 2
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, antiabortion 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?
Unfortunately, yes. In June 2000, the Supreme Court struck down a Nebraska statute banning “partialbirth”
abortion, saying the procedure should remain legal for the health of the mother and other reasons
(Stenberg v. Carhart). In 2005, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a Virginia “partial-birth”
abortion ban is unconstitutional because it does not contain an exception to protect a woman’s health.
However, in 2003, President George W. Bush signed into law the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003,
which more narrowly defined “partial-birth” abortion as intact D&X. Over the next year, judges in three
separate federal courts struck down the law as unconstitutional because it had no health exception. The
federal government appealed the district court rulings, which were affirmed by three courts of appeals. But
the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Carhart case and upheld the statute in 2007 in a 5-4 decision
(Gonzales v. Carhart). Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
dissented, joined by Justices Breyer, Souter, and Stevens. Ginsburg argued that the decision departed from
established abortion jurisprudence, and the lack of a health exception "jeopardizes women’s health and
places doctors in an untenable position.” Ginsberg also said that the majority used “flimsy and transparent
justifications for upholding a nationwide ban,” and that the majority reasoning was sexist and paternalistic,
relying on anti-abortion beliefs about women’s “fragile emotional state” and the need to preserve the “bond
of love the mother has for her child.”
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 (Washington State, Nebraska, 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.” |
