« How Many Dead Equal Failed Government? | Home | Supreme Ct Kills Range of State Banking Laws in Gift to Predatory Lenders »
The history of the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act"
I'm not especially knowledgeable about reproductive rights politics and policies; it hasn't been my area. So after today's Supreme Court decision, I went looking for more information. I came upon Cynthia Gorney's amazingly thorough piece of reporting on the history of how this particular procedure was named, publicized, and banned, called "Gambling with Abortion," published in Harper's, November 2004. I thought I would pass it along.
Herewith some excerpts from its opening paragraphs:
This story is about ... how one abortion doctor and one right-to-life cartoonist helped set off the most sustained and rhetorically high-pitched battle in the forty-year history of this country's abortion wars.
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban does not prohibit what most people think it prohibits...
It is not a late-abortion law. Apart from a single quoted remark in its “findings” section, which is a kind of declaratory preface, the ban contains no mention at all of third-trimester abortion, or of any gestational point in pregnancy....
[I]t makes clear ethical sense only to people who don't spend much time thinking about abortion. Defending the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban in court, as teams of Justice Department lawyers were dispatched this spring and summer to do, requires arguing to judges that pulling a fetus from a woman's body in dismembered pieces is legal, medically acceptable, and safe; but that pulling a fetus out intact, so that if the woman wishes the fetus can be wrapped in a blanket and handed to her, is appropriately punishable by a fine, or up to two years' imprisonment, or both.
The term “partial-birth abortion” was invented for purposes of writing legislation. There is no textbook reference to any operative procedure or medical state called “partial birth.” There are a few published medical references to “dilation and extraction,” or “intact dilation and evacuation,” both of which are terms certain physicians have given to the forceps-aided extraction of an aborted fetus all in one piece. One technique for intact removal was described in detail in 1992, when an Ohio physician got up at a National Abortion Federation meeting, presented a paper entitled “Dilation and Extraction for Late Second Trimester Abortion,” and inadvertently triggered the cross-country chain of events that escalated into what Kate Michelman, the recently retired president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, now says was the most difficult abortion issue she was ever called upon to confront. “Silver platter” is another way this sentiment is sometimes expressed, among abortion doctors and abortion-rights advocates, or “gift-wrapped.”The rest here.
Advertisement
Millions of American women no longer have the luxury of time to worry about the fringe issue of late term abortion. It is not the beginning, nor the end all that some attempt to paint it as. Given Graff's history of tweaking statistics and facts to suit her prefered conclusion.. I wouldn't trust her with much.
Just as the religious right fail in their purported claim of believing in the sanctity of human life.. once outside the womb it ceases to care. The neo-left lack any commitment to the issue of rights for human beings, women included. Human rights extend far beyond the issue of choice, and the small handfull of pet issues the neo-left insist all focus revolve around.
April 19, 2007 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll agree the right and left spend too much time on these divisive culture war issues that effect a small number of people compared with other, major issues, and often seem to go nowhere.
But, the left certainly does care about human rights and quality of life issues that are mainstream!
To name a few:
Global Climate Change and Energy Independence
Health Care Insurance
Corruption
April 19, 2007 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
So right.
What the hell difference do shattered lives matter when there are important policy issues to be attended to?
Thank you so much for your understanding.
Is the bombing of abortion clinics and murder of doctors and nurses of any interest, considering it is just culture stuff?
Let's do tribal politics with Gwen Ifil instead. That's a grabber.
Best, Terry
April 19, 2007 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I read the article in Harpers you linked to. I couldn't help but notice that the description of the "Intact Dilation and Extraction" procedure sounded a lot, right down to swaddling the dead fetus and bringing it home, (Sometimes that helps, say doctors) like the Santorum "miscarriage."
April 20, 2007 7:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry Kosmik, but while climate change, energy independence, and corruption are important issues, health care insurance is the only true human rights, quality of life issue.. now before you or someone else gets their panties in a bunch.. what I am referring to are life and death issues for the lower middle class and the poor. I think you'll find that if you ignore the serious problems of un and under employment, the gutting of worker's rights, then you will find that the majority of Americans will refuse to support any candidate who only speaks to the pet issues of environment, energy and so called health care reform.. the last because until we address the hypocritical joke that is today's standards of medical ethics.
It's an American human right to not be made homeless, to not starve.. perhaps the neo-left don't care any more than their neo-con peers about the subject, but they aren't the majority. The plain and honest truth is that if you think you can sacrifice the majority of Americans rights, and that they'll go along with it, you're pretty darned naive. They won't go for it. What will come from that is an election that will look like Reagans. Not for the same reason as back then, but one that speaks to the rejection of a democratic party that appears to be allowing the far leftist elite free rein.
What I see coming in 2008 is a rejection of democratic presidential candidates who are seen to be going too far to the left, and ignoring the workers prime issues. The reality is another republican president.
April 22, 2007 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You might want to take your crystal ball in for a refund. It doesn't seem to be working.
The future is known only to prophets and fools. I fear there are more fools than prophets.
The electorate has clearly moved to the left of pundits and candidates alike. The Republicans have a sad lot of "leading" candidates revising and extending their remarks in contradiction of their entire past life.
The danger for Democrats is that they might become pseudo "progressives;" i.e. ashamed of being liberals and pandering to the right. The only possible loser is Hillary Clinton, especially if the Republicans have the intelligence to nominate an antiwar candidate. One point in her favor is that she ain't no liberal.
Possible my crystal ball is as cloudy as yours. Been known to be wrong a time or two.
Best, Terry
April 23, 2007 6:00 AM | Reply | Permalink