Why Would Any Woman Submit to Partial Birth Abortion? Why Would Any Doctor Do It?

Why Would Any Woman Submit to Partial Birth Abortion? Why Would Any Doctor Do It? July 15, 2015

Photo Source: Flickr Creative Commons by Bridget Coila https://www.flickr.com/photos/bibbit/
Photo Source: Flickr Creative Commons by Bridget Coila https://www.flickr.com/photos/bibbit/

At first, I thought partial birth abortion was a hoax.

I mean, why would any woman submit to this procedure? Why would any doctor do it?

It made no sense.

Now it does.

Read how I came to understand the whys of partial birth abortion at The National Catholic Register:

Partial birth abortion.

The phrase is an oxymoron of itself. How does one do both birth and abortion in one procedure? It appears that doctors perform this feat by inducing a “partial” birth … which then turns into an abortion.

I never heard the phrase “partial birth abortion” until the late 1990s. The procedure, as I understood it then and understand it now, is as oxymoronic in medical terms as it is in linguistics.

How and why would it ever be in the best interests of the mother to induce labor of a near-term baby, which is then delivered feet first with all the tearing and agony to the mother that this entails, then stop the delivery long enough to suction out the baby’s brain before pulling out the head backwards?

How graphic do I have to get to demonstrate that this would be agony for the mother, that it would damage her physically, and that it is far more dangerous to her medically than just delivering the baby normally and trying to save it?

Partial birth abortion is so obviously bad for the mother that I did not, when I first heard of it, believe that it existed. I honestly thought that the term and the procedure were both fictions that someone dreamed up.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/rhamilton/partial-birth-abortion-is-all-about-the-money/#ixzz3fyN8lGU2


Browse Our Archives



TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment

17 responses to “Why Would Any Woman Submit to Partial Birth Abortion? Why Would Any Doctor Do It?”

  1. As a woman who is pro-choice, up to the 3rd month, I find this deplorable. Yes, the question is just what you asked—WHY would any woman submit to this and WHY would any doctor agree to do so?! If a woman has gone this far in her pregnancy, then deliver the baby and put it up for adoption.

  2. I went to Google and typed in “When are partial birth abortions performed” and the very first link was:

    http://www.npr.org/2006/02/21/5168163/partial-birth-abortion-separating-fact-from-spin

    Where I found these paragraphs explaining one of the situations when it might be indicated:

    In a widely-publicized interview with The New York Times in 1997, Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, estimated that in the majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother and healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along in development.

    Yet the procedure is also performed in cases where the woman’s health is at risk, or when the fetus shows signs of serious abnormalities, some of which don’t become apparent until late in pregnancy.

    Take, for example, cases in which the fetus develops hydrocephalus (commonly known as water on the brain). Often undetectable until well into the second three months of pregnancy, the condition causes enlargement of the skull up to
    two-and-a-half times its normal size. It not only results in severe brain damage to the fetus, it can also create severe health risks to the mother if she tries to deliver it vaginally.

    Some doctors say D&X abortion is a preferable method for ending such pregnancies without damaging the woman’s cervix. Those in the anti-abortion camp, however, argue that the procedure is never medically necessary, noting
    that enough fluid can be drained from hydrocephalus babies in the womb
    to ensure a safe delivery.

  3. If you are so inclined, I’d appreciate an article explaining the loopholes in the Partial-birth Abortion Ban that you mentioned.

  4. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists [ACOG] released a Statement of Policy on Jan. 12, 1997, stating: “A select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure … would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.”

    “According to Dr. Martin Haskell, an abortionist who has performed more than 1,000 partial-birth abortions, about 80 percent are done for “purely elective” reasons. The other 20 percent are done for “genetic reasons,” which includes such non-life-threatening conditions as having a cleft palate or Down syndrome. (“Shock-tactic ads target late-term abortion procedure,” American Medical News, July 5, 1993.)”

    “ormer Surgeon General Koop explained that, “Partial birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect a mother’s health or her future fertility.” Women who undergo partial birth abortion risk uterine rupture, abruption, amniotic fluid embolus, trauma to the uterus, iatrogenic laceration, secondary hemorrhage and infertility.”

    http://www.bpnews.net/17013

  5. Why don’t you quote the very next sentence? “An intact D&X, however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman”

  6. I don’t know what you’re talking about. Here is a larger block of the article, with “the very next sentence.”

    WASHINGTON (BP)–Among the facts about partial-birth abortion: It is never necessary to save the life of the mother; rather, it exposes women to additional and substantial health risks.

    Former Surgeon General Koop explained that, “Partial birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect a mother’s health or her future fertility.” Women who undergo partial birth abortion risk uterine rupture, abruption, amniotic fluid embolus, trauma to the uterus, iatrogenic laceration, secondary hemorrhage and infertility.

    Warren Hern, MD, abortion practitioner and author of “Abortion Procedure,” commented, “I have very serious reservations about this procedure…. You really can’t defend it…. I would dispute any statement that this is the safest procedure to use.” The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists [ACOG] released a Statement of Policy on Jan. 12, 1997, stating: “A select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure … would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.”

    To dispel other myths about partial-birth abortion, here’s a true-or-false test:

    1. True or false: Partial-birth abortions are performed only in extremely dire circumstances, i.e., to save the life of the mother.

    FALSE — According to Dr. Martin Haskell, an abortionist who has performed more than 1,000 partial-birth abortions, about 80 percent are done for “purely elective” reasons. The other 20 percent are done for “genetic reasons,” which includes such non-life-threatening conditions as having a cleft palate or Down syndrome. (“Shock-tactic ads target late-term abortion procedure,” American Medical News, July 5, 1993.)

  7. Partial-birth abortion supplanted the older method of late term abortion which was the saline method followed by induced labor and vaginal delivery – a hospital procedure. Getting caught up in methods, all of which are horrendous, risks taking the focus off of the real issue which is late-term abortion, esp. after viability when the mother and doctor elect to kill the baby rather than giving it a few more weeks to mature and be delivered with a good chance of survival.

  8. The Baptist Press piece you quote (apparently here) is not the primary source for that quote. The full 1997 Statement from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is apparently available on-line here. Immediately subsequent to the “no circumstances” portion which the Baptist Press article quotes, the portion that swbarnes2 references about “best or most appropriate procedure” may be found, both on page 3 of the linked PDF. (Dr. Hern would appear to dispute that latter assessment. He also would appear to be one of the few US specialists in late-term abortions; contrariwise, his opinion on this may or may not be an outlier among such experts.)

    One of the amazing things about the modern Internet is that digitized copies of so many primary source documents are readily available.

  9. I assume that what you are referring to is this: ACOG believes the intent of such legislative proposals is to prohibit a procedure referred to as “intact dilatation and extraction” (Intact D & X). This procedure has been described as containing all of the following four elements:
    1. deliberate dilatation of the cervix, usually over a sequence of days;
    2. instrumental conversion of the fetus
    to a footling breech;
    3. breech extraction of the body
    excepting the head; and
    4. partial evacuation of the intracranial
    contents of a living fetus to effect vaginal delivery of a dead but otherwise intact fetus.
    Because these elements are part of established obstetric techniques, it must be emphasized that unless all four elements are present in sequence, the procedure is not an intact D & X. Abortion intends to terminate a pregnancy while preserving the life and health of the mother. When abortion is performed after 16 weeks, intact D & X is one method of terminating a pregnancy.

    ABORTION POLICY
    Page 3
    The physician, in consultation with the patient, must choose the most appropriate method based upon the patient’s individual circumstances.
    According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), only 5.3% of abortions performed in the United States in 1993, the most recent data available, were performed after the 16th week of pregnancy. A preliminary figure published by the CDC for 1994 is 5.6%. The CDC does not collect data on the specific method of abortion, so it is unknown how many of these were performed using intact D & X. Other data show that second trimester transvaginal instrumental abortion is a safe procedure.
    Terminating a pregnancy is performed in some circumstances to save the life or preserve the health of the mother.
    Intact D & X is one of the methods available in some of these situations. A select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure, as defined above, would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman. An intact D & X, however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman’s particular circumstances can make this decision. The potential exists that legislation prohibiting specific medical practices, such as intact D & X, may outlaw techniques that are critical to the lives and health of American women. The intervention of legislative bodies into medical decision making is inappropriate, ill advised, and dangerous.

    That is standard medical association boilerplate. The medical associations have a long-standing (and usually justified) tradition of coming out against legislative intrusions into medical decisions. Also, I know from experience that this group (at least here in Oklahoma) is in the back pocket of the abortion industry. They’ve come out against pro life legislation over and over again.

    This statement does not speak to the efficacy of this procedure itself. It addresses the question of legislative oversight of medical procedures.

    I actually address how the medical associations’ advocacy for procedures that kill will inevitably result in increased legislative oversight of medicine here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/publiccatholic/2015/07/cancer-doc-who-gave-healthy-people-chemo-gets-45-years/

    Now, let’s bring this grisly discussion to an end.

  10. Trying not to be grisly, but you did ask– why would a women consent to this particular procedure? and the answer is that in the best judgment of many medical professionals, as expressed in the statements of their professional associations, it may be the safest way to terminate a second-trimester pregnancy in their particular circumstances.

    If the question is, why would a woman consent to a second-trimester abortion at all, that’s a different question entirely.

  11. Not necessarily. There are complications of pregnancy which make the survival of the fetus to become a baby, or to survive the birth, highly unlikely.

    And I, personally, hemorrhaged during my Caesarean operation; I know another woman who was, momentarily, clinically dead during hers. (She got better). I survived, but it was a risk I chose to take. You are asking that women be forced to take that risk regardless of either their own circumstances (other children to care for, for instance), or the likelihood of the baby surviving.

    There was a list of the potential risks to a woman of second-trimester abortion earlier in this thread. Here’s a partial list of pregnancy and delivery-related risks: hemorrhage, infection, vaginal tears and fistulas (look them up if you want to be repulsed), anemia, hypertension, pre- and post-partum depression, hyperemesis (throwing up all day every day until you risk your life (what’s left of it) with dehydration and malnutrition), gestational diabetes, heart failure, kidney failure, aneurysm. Death.

    But nobody is suggesting that women stop getting pregnant and bearing children. Still, it doesn’t seem terrible to me that every woman should have the choice of when and whether to accept these risks.

  12. I’ve been remiss. I said I was going to shut this line of conversation down, and then I let it slide by me. I don’t think I want to allow a discussion as to what is the best way to kill a baby to continue on this blog. Out of respect for Amaryllis, I will allow this comment. But no more.

  13. I am actually quite familiar with the risks. I hemorrhaged after a medically necessary induction of my first baby; it was a close thing. The risk is there either way. My objection is when the decision, by default, becomes, “There’s a risk, kill the baby.” Pregnancy is risky; so is delivery. The list of possible dangers to mom and/or baby is frightening. I’m 7 months in on my 5th pregnancy. I read up on it an incredible amount. I am all for realistic measures that get prenatal care to all women (that makes a significant difference in complication and survival rates), evidenced-based birth practices at all hospitals, labor and delivery classes to educate moms on ways to help labor move along properly and hopefully avoid a c-sec, etc. We can lower the rate of risk without killing the baby.

  14. Congratulations, and best wishes for a healthy and happy pregnancy and delivery.

    Other than that, I believe that this discussion is supposed to be over.