Pro-Life Issues
Partial Birth Abortion and the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003
In 1992, Dr. Martin Haskell, an abortionist who owned clinics in Ohio, presented a paper on an abortion method he was using "routinely" for abortions at 20 to 26 weeks, which he called Dilation and Extraction, or D&X[1]. He personally claimed to have done over 700 himself, and estimated that 80% of the partial-birth abortions he performed were "purely elective."
In a D&X, Dr. Haskell explained, the abortionist uses forceps and his fingers to pull the fetus feet-first from the uterus. Only the head of the fetus remains inside.
[T]he surgeon then forces [a pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum] scissors into the base of the skull...Having safely entered the skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening. The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents. With the catheter still in place, he applies traction to the fetus, removing it completely from the patient.[2]
In 1995, congressman Charles Canady (R-FL) introduced legislation to ban the procedure. In response, Planned Parenthood claimed "The procedure, dilation and extraction (D&X), is extremely rare and one only in cases when the woman's life is in danger or in cases of extreme fetal abnormality."[3] Others in favor of the procedure argued that this was done very rarely, only 500 to 600 times a year.
In November 1995, the House voted 288-139 to ban partial birth abortion, and the Senate voted 54-44 for the ban. However, in April 1996, President Bill Clinton vetoed the ban. (The ban was reintroduced in 1997 and again in 1999. Both times it was passed by both houses of Congress, and both times it was vetoed by President Cliniton.)
In September 1996, Ruth Padawer, writing in the New Jersey Sunday Record, uncovered the fact that a local clinic performed 1,500 partial birth abortions per year - more than the claimed total nationwide, and that "doctors say only a 'miniscule amount' are for medical reasons."[4]. The Washington Post also reported that it was "possible - and maybe even likely - that the majority of these abortions are performed on normal fetuses."[5].
In February 1997, Ron Fitzsimmons, the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, told the New York Times that "in the vast majority of cases" the method is used on "a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along."[6]
In the June 2000 case, Stenberg vs. Carhart, the Supreme Court by a vote of 5-4, struck down a Nebraska statute which had banned partial-birth abortion. Nebraska, as well as over two dozen other states, had banned this procedure, but the Court said the procedure should remain legal. One of the reasons given was that any proposed ban must allow the procedure "for the health of the mother."[8]
The American Medical Association did not believe the practice to ever be medically necessary.[9] The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which opposed the bans, admitted that "a select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure...would be the only option to save the life of preserve the health of the woman."[10] There are in fact absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered in this country which require a partially delivered human fetus to be destroyed to preserve the life or health of the mother.[11] And up until the Stenberg case, no medical schools taught the procedure.
On November 5, 2003, President George W. Bush signed into law the Partial-birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which had been passed by Congress.[12] Lawsuits were filed to block the enforcement of the ban. Federal Courts in the 2nd, 8th, and 9th Circuits ruled the ban unconstitutional. Judge Richard Casey, who ruled against the bans, stated that in no case could the National Abortion Federation or its witnesses "point to a specific patient or actual circumstance in which D&X was necessary to protect a woman's health." Casey called partial-birth abortion a "gruesome, brutal, barbaric and uncivilized" procedure that probably subjects fetuses to "severe pain."[13]
The matter went to the Supreme Court, which agreed to review decisions of the 8th and 9th Circuit courts. On April 18, 2007 the Supreme Court announced its decision in Gonzales v. Carhart to uphold the ban on partial-birth abortion, finally allowing the ban to go into effect.[14]
Notes:
1 Haskell, Martin, Second Trimester Abortion: From Every Angle. Online: http://www.priestsforlife.org/prochoice/haskell1.htm
2 Ibid.
3 Planned Parenthood Federation of America, news release, Nov. 1, 1995..
4 Padawer, Ruth, "The Facts on Partial-Birth Abortion, The Sunday Record, Sept. 15, 1996.
5 Brown, David and Vobejda, Barbara, "Discomfiting Details of Late-Term Abortions Intensify Dispute" and "Late Term Abortions: Who Gets Them and Why", Washington Post, Sept 17, 1996.
6 New York Times, Feb. 26, 1997. Online: http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBA%20NYT%20lied.pdf
7 Finer, Lawrence B. and Henshaw, Stanley K. "Abortion Incidence and Services in the United States in 2000," Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, Volume 35, Number 1, January/February 2003, p. 13. online: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3500603.html
8 Online: http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999/1999_99_830/.
9 "Our panel could not find any identified circumstance in which the procedure was the only safe and effective abortion method." Daniel H. Johnson Jr., M.D. President, American Medical Association Letter to the Editor The New York Times, May 26, 1997.
10 ACOG Statement of Policy, Sept. 2000..
11 Smith, MD, Pamela Senate Hearing Record, p.82: Partial Birth Abortion Ban Medical Testimony
12 The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, online: http://news.findlaw.com/usatoday/docs/abortion/2003s3.html
13 Coffin, Shannen, "Take It Up With the Supremes," National Review Online, online: http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/coffin/coffin200408270832.asp
14 Online: http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2006/2006_05_380/.
