Partial Birth Abortion... OMG, I just found out what this is

[Aerich]

I'm in the same boat with the people here who've said, "voting against something that bans X is not the same as supporting X."

Leaving aside all the political nonsense and spin, think about it from the doctor's perspective, if such a law were to be passed as it was drafted (e.g. without the clause allowing the procedure if a medical professional deemed it necessary to save the mother's life). Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath and their professional responsibility includes the duty to act in the best interests of their patient. If such a situation occurs as described above, someone is likely to die. It lies in the doctor's hands to minimize the damage. If a doctor did such a thing in the best interests of the mother, is it right that he/she be prosecuted for it? Is it better just to let them both die and shrug one's shoulders and say "let Nature take its course"? The point, however, is that a doctor is obligated NOT to do that, but must try his or her best to salvage life and health.

In addition, I'd like to see some stats (which are likely to be accurate because of medical records) about how often this procedure is done. My bet is that it is almost never used. Medical advances in the field of childbirth have been spectacular in the last 50 years or so, especially with regard to caesarian sections and the diagnosis of pre-natal problems.

I suspect this would be a complete non-issue if there wasn't an American presidential election in two days.

Edit: I'd also like to see survey results from the ladies on the forum (those brave enough to enter CE on a regular basis). I suspect you might see some different opinions.

Also, ask yourself - if it was MY wife in that situation, would I authorize such a procedure knowing that if I didn't, there would be a large chance of both mother AND child dying?

[ 11-01-2004, 12:43 AM: Message edited by: Aerich ]

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by krunchyfrogg: You guys can spin my words any way you'd like, but if someone isn't against this, then they support it. It's the same thing as switching the term "Pro-Choice" into "Anti-Choice," which I've heard quite a few times. If you can support not making this vile act illegal, you're the ones who have to sleep with yourselves. It's utterly disgusting.

I believe this has been covered extensively by pretty much every poster so far in this topic, so I'll just side with them.

My point has partially been made with Grojlach's initial statement. quote: 1) It helps if you provide us with some background information on what a partial-birth abortion is - I had to do some googling before having a general idea of the act itself

Exactly. Most people who are voting for Kerry don't even know why. They don't know what he supports, what he's against, they just know he's not George Bush. [/QUOTE]Well, I mostly mentioned it because I sincerely had no idea what PBA is - I usually skip any abortion-debate by default (and in the Netherlands it's even more of a non-issue), and was not yet familiar with its definition; just like you did until recently, apparently, judging by the topic title.
However, this doesn't really change my perception of Kerry's ideologies, and I doubt this will change anyone's view of him, either - bar those who are easily susceptible to manipulative, religious propaganda ("Kerry will ban the Bible!", anyone? ), but they were a lost cause to the Kerry campaign to begin with, I suppose.

[ 11-01-2004, 03:37 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

[Timber Loftis]

On the one hand Kerry's position is the absolutely most logical one -- support the ban on this horrible type of abortion except where it is necessary to preserve the life of the mother.

However, thinking on it, I must wonder whether there would be a situation where you could perform this type of abortion and yet would still need to do it to save the mother's life. In my mind, there are very few cases where the baby can be partially born (for the abortion procedure) yet not fully born. It seems that the "health of the woman" argument may be BS in reality.

I admit I would like to know more about when and how the practice is used.

Kruncyfrogg, best avoid generalizations -- that's the trap our illustrious president falls into all the time.

[quote]Originally posted by Chewbacca:

Originally posted by krunchyfrogg: I doubt the "most people" part, but you are free to believe it if it makes you feel better.

A recent man on the street poll done by Howard Stern (of all people) in NYC showed that 8 out of 9 people asked why they were voting for Kerry ....could not answer why except to say they didn't like Bush and were afraid of his plans to start a draft.....which by the way was a democrat bill...........I don't think Howard is a Bush fan....President Bush that is.

[Sir Kenyth]

Please everyone, educate yourselves well when election time comes. Don't wait for propaganda to come your way. You'll notice that most candidates AVOID promising what they'll do or taking a firm stance on something unless they have to. They prefer slinging mud on unrelated personal attacks instead. There's a reason for that. Committments suck! It gives everyone something to measure your performance against. Also, more people than I'd like to admit make a vote solely based on how much they like the candidate as a person, not a president. VOTE ON THE ISSUES! Get as much information on issues important for you from many different sources. Find out the history of previous actions by candidates on actions related to the issues. GET EDUCATED, and don't let a passionate bit of propaganda sway your opinion, until you know the subject back and forth, inside and out. In doing this, you will have a hard choice. You will find precious few candidates who encompass all of your views, if any at all. You must then prioritize the issues and decide from there.

[Lucern]

Absolutely Sir Kenyth. One can't be too well informed. In that spirit, I think I found an answer to your quandry TL. The short answer is hydrocephalus.

This is from http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba1.htm
(D&X means Dilate and eXtract, a less politically/emotionally charged word than 'partial birth abortion')

3rd Trimester: They are also very rarely performed in late pregnancy. The most common justifications at that time are:
The fetus is dead.

The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger.
The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her.
The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth. Many which fall into this category have developed a very severe form of hydrocephalus.

In addition, some physicians violate their state medical association's regulations and perform elective D&X procedures - primarily on women who are suicidally depressed.

There appears to be no reliable data available on how many D&X procedures are performed for each of the above reasons.

The physician is faced with two main alternatives at this late point in pregnancy:

a hysterotomy, which is similar to a Cesarean section, or
a D&X procedure

A midwifery web site quotes Dr. William F. Harrison, a diplomate of the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2 He wrote that "approximately 1 in 2000 fetuses develop hydrocephalus while in the womb." About 5000 fetuses develop hydrocephalus each year in the U.S. This is not usually discovered until late in the second trimester. Some cases are not severe. After birth, shunts can be installed to relieve the excess fluid on the newborn's brain. A pre-natal method of removing the excess fluid is being experimentally evaluated. However, some cases are much more serious. "It is not unusual for the fetal head to be as large as 50 centimeters (nearly 20 inches) in diameter and may contain...close to two gallons of cerebrospinal fluid." In comparison, the average adult skull is about 7 to 8 inches in diameter. A fetus with severe hydrocephalus is alive, but as a newborn cannot live for long; it cannot achieve consciousness. The physician may elect to perform a D&X by draining off the fluid from the brain area, collapsing the fetal skull and withdrawing the dead fetus. Or, he might elect to perform a type of caesarian section. The former kills a fetus before birth; the latter allows the newborn to die after birth, on its own. A caesarian section is a major operation. It does expose the woman to a greatly increased chance of infection. It "poses its own dangers to a woman and any future pregnancies." 2 Allowing a woman to continue in labor with a severely hydrocephalic fetus is not an option; an attempted vaginal delivery would kill her and the fetus.

There is evidence that the procedure is sometimes performed for other reasons: in the case of a very young pregnant woman, or a pregnancy which resulted from a rape or incest. Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop has stated that no competent physician with state-of-the-art skill in the management of high-risk pregnancies needs to perform a D&X. Of course, many physicians lack this level of skill, and so need to resort to the D&X procedure. And, even in the United States, not all women have access to good quality pre-natal care. The U.S. is the only developed country on Earth that does not have a federal universal health care program. Many pregnant women first seek medical attention when they are about to deliver.

A committee of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) thoroughly studied D&X procedures in 1996. They reported: "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." They also determined that "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." Their statement was approved by the ACOG executive board on 1997-JAN-12. 3


---------------------------------------------

There is apparently a rare time and a place for this kind of procedure. It's gruesome, but the issue is more complex than simply 'right or wrong'. The next link is a hydrocephalic brain, which will look strange to anyone whose looked at 'normal' brains. Note the wide spaces in asymmetrical places. CSF is Cerebro-Spinal Fluid. Since this is a cross section, you can imagine how much fluid was in there. Given the above, I think the 'health of the woman' argument is viable, and any ban that doesn't take a woman's health into account is either ignorant of cases like this or is advocating hysterotomies as the only way to remove a fetus in these cases. I'm not sure a fetus unable to gain consciousness that will die shortly afterwards is preferable to the other gruesome procedure when vaginal birth is not an option.

http://medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/CNSHTML/CNS072.html

Originally posted by Lucern: Absolutely Sir Kenyth. One can't be too well informed. In that spirit, I think I found an answer to your quandry TL. The short answer is hydrocephalus. This is from http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba1.htm (D&X means Dilate and eXtract, a less politically/emotionally charged word than 'partial birth abortion') Where I come from we call this being dishonest....or playing sematics games. If one can't call it what it is....then maybe the position one is backing is the wrong one. 3rd Trimester: They are also very rarely performed in late pregnancy. The most common justifications at that time are: The fetus is dead. The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger. The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her. The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth. Many which fall into this category have developed a very severe form of hydrocephalus. In addition, some physicians violate their state medical association's regulations and perform elective D&X procedures - primarily on women who are suicidally depressed. There appears to be no reliable data available on how many D&X procedures are performed for each of the above reasons. The physician is faced with two main alternatives at this late point in pregnancy: a hysterotomy, which is similar to a Cesarean section, or a D&X procedure I beg to differ with this statement...a C-section is NOT like a Hysterectomy at all...a C-section will deliver a baby safely and the mother will recover and still be able to bear children. A Hysterectomy removes the Uterus and or the Overies and leaves the woman sterile and suffering from homonal imbalances for the rest of her life. My mom had a hysterectomy and my sister has had a C-section...they are NOTHING alike. A midwifery web site quotes Dr. William F. Harrison, a diplomate of the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2 He wrote that "approximately 1 in 2000 fetuses develop hydrocephalus while in the womb." About 5000 fetuses develop hydrocephalus each year in the U.S. This is not usually discovered until late in the second trimester. Some cases are not severe. After birth, shunts can be installed to relieve the excess fluid on the newborn's brain. A pre-natal method of removing the excess fluid is being experimentally evaluated. However, some cases are much more serious. "It is not unusual for the fetal head to be as large as 50 centimeters (nearly 20 inches) in diameter and may contain...close to two gallons of cerebrospinal fluid." In comparison, the average adult skull is about 7 to 8 inches in diameter. A fetus with severe hydrocephalus is alive, but as a newborn cannot live for long; it cannot achieve consciousness. The physician may elect to perform a D&X by draining off the fluid from the brain area, collapsing the fetal skull and withdrawing the dead fetus. Or, he might elect to perform a type of caesarian section. The former kills a fetus before birth; the latter allows the newborn to die after birth, on its own. A caesarian section is a major operation. It does expose the woman to a greatly increased chance of infection. It "poses its own dangers to a woman and any future pregnancies." 2 Allowing a woman to continue in labor with a severely hydrocephalic fetus is not an option; an attempted vaginal delivery would kill her and the fetus. There is evidence that the procedure is sometimes performed for other reasons: in the case of a very young pregnant woman, or a pregnancy which resulted from a rape or incest. Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop has stated that no competent physician with state-of-the-art skill in the management of high-risk pregnancies needs to perform a D&X. Of course, many physicians lack this level of skill, and so need to resort to the D&X procedure. And, even in the United States, not all women have access to good quality pre-natal care. The U.S. is the only developed country on Earth that does not have a federal universal health care program. Many pregnant women first seek medical attention when they are about to deliver. A committee of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) thoroughly studied D&X procedures in 1996. They reported: "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." They also determined that "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." Their statement was approved by the ACOG executive board on 1997-JAN-12. 3 --------------------------------------------- There is apparently a rare time and a place for this kind of procedure. It's gruesome, but the issue is more complex than simply 'right or wrong'. The next link is a hydrocephalic brain, which will look strange to anyone whose looked at 'normal' brains. Note the wide spaces in asymmetrical places. CSF is Cerebro-Spinal Fluid. Since this is a cross section, you can imagine how much fluid was in there. Given the above, I think the 'health of the woman' argument is viable, and any ban that doesn't take a woman's health into account is either ignorant of cases like this or is advocating hysterotomies as the only way to remove a fetus in these cases. I'm not sure a fetus unable to gain consciousness that will die shortly afterwards is preferable to the other gruesome procedure when vaginal birth is not an option. http://medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/CNSHTML/CNS072.html

Good article over all except the two nits I picked, but Alas the problem lays in the fact that right now...too many women are using Abortions as birth control. There is a better way...many better ways.

[Timber Loftis]

Hysterotomy, Magik. It's any cutting into the Uterus, and the C-Section is one type of hysterotomy.

Now, since the PBA ban contains an exception for when the woman's life is at risk, really all it outlawed were the EXTREMELY FEW cases where rogue doctors used this late-trimester procedure on healthy women and babies. So, that law that Congress worked over good to satisfy/placate the right-to-life crowd actually is more of a paper tiger than it is anything.

[Lucern]

Just my nit-picks on Magik's nit-picks:

About the name D&X, AFAIK it's older than "Partial Birth Abortion", along with Intact Dilate and Extract (Intact D&E) and Intrauterine Cranial Decompression. It's used because it's medical, it's more exact (See the link for the technical meaning for 'abortion'), and has no politicized connotation like PBA. You've got to ask yourself the same questions about the invention of that term.

And TL's right. I missed the difference the first time I read that, but a hysterotomy is not a hysterectomy. I agree that there are much better (cheaper, emotionally and physically painless) birth control methods.

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Hysterotomy, Magik. It's any cutting into the Uterus, and the C-Section is one type of hysterotomy. Now, since the PBA ban contains an exception for when the woman's life is at risk, really all it outlawed were the EXTREMELY FEW cases where rogue doctors used this late-trimester procedure on healthy women and babies. So, that law that Congress worked over good to satisfy/placate the right-to-life crowd actually is more of a paper tiger than it is anything.

It is not as extremely rare as you make it sound.