[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 136 (Friday, September 27, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1743-E1748]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[[Page E1743]]
A CLOSER LOOK AT PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS
______
HON. ROBERT K. DORNAN
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, September 26, 1996
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, even liberal newspapers such as the
Washington Post agree that abortion advocates have been fast and loose
with the facts concerning H.R. 1833, the Partial-Birth Abortion Act.
It's time to set the record straight. Here is an in-depth, factual
analysis of this important, life-saving bill.
[From the National Right to Life Committee, Inc., Sept. 11, 1996]
Partial-Birth Abortions: A Closer Look
(By Douglas Johnson, NRLC Federal Legislative Director)
The final version of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (HR
1833) was approved by the U.S. Senate by a vote of 54-44 on
December 7, 1995, and by the U.S. House of Representatives on
March 27, 1996, by a vote of 286-129. On April 10, 1996,
President Clinton vetoed the bill. The House is expected to
vote on whether to override the veto on or about September
19, 1996. If two-thirds of the House votes to override, the
Senate also will vote on whether to override.
Opponents of the bill, including President Clinton and his
subordinates, have propagated a number of myths regarding the
partial-birth abortion procedure and the bill. These myths
include the assertions that partial-birth abortions are very
rare and are performed only in extreme circumstances
involving serious fetal deformities or threat to the life of
the mother; that the bill would jeopardize the lives or
health of some women; and that anesthesia given to the mother
kills the fetus/baby or renders her pain-free before the
procedure is performed. Some of this misinformation--
especially the claim that the procedure is used mostly in
cases of severe ``fetal deformity''--has been uncritically
adopted as factual by some journalists, columnists, and
editorialists.
Yet, these claims are contradicted by the past writings and
recorded statements of doctors who have performed thousands
of partial-birth abortions, and by other available
documentation, including authoritative medical information
gathered by the House Judiciary Committee and the Senate
Judiciary Committee. This factsheet relies heavily upon such
primary sources. For copies of documents cited here, contact
the NRLC Federal Legislative Office at (202) 626-8820, fax
(202) 347-3668.
What is a partial-birth abortion, and what is the Partial-Birth
Abortion Ban Act (HR 1833)?
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (HR 1833) would prohibit
performance of a partial-birth abortion, except in cases (if
there are many) in which the procedure is necessary to save
the life of a mother. The complete text of the bill is
attached to this factsheet.
The bill defines a ``partial-birth abortion'' as ``an
abortion in which the person performing the abortion
partially vaginally delivers a long fetus before killing the
fetus and completing the delivery.'' Abortionists who
violates the law would be subject to both criminal and civil
penalties, but no penalty would be applied to the woman who
obtained such an abortion.
This procedure is generally beginning at 20 weeks (4\1/2\
months) in pregnacy, and ``routinely'' at least 24 weeks
(5\1/2\ months). It has often used much later--even into the
ninth month. The Los Angeles Times accurately and succinctly
described this abortion method in a June 16, 1995 news story:
The procedure requires a physician to extract a fetus, feet
first, from the womb and through the birth canal until all
but its head is exposed. Then the tips of surgical scissors
are thrust into the base of the fetus' skull, and a suction
catheter is inserted through the opening and the brain is
removed.
In 1992, Dr. Martin Haskell of Dayton, Ohio, wrote a paper
that described in detail, step-by-step, how to preform the
procedure. [``Dilation and Extraction for Late Second
Trimester Abortion.''] Dr. Haskell is a family practitioner
who has performed over 1,000 such procedures in his walk-in
abortion clinics. Anyone who is seriously seeking the truth
behind the conflicting claims regarding partial-birth
abortions would do well to start by reading Dr. Haskell's
paper, and the transcripts of the explanatory interviews that
Dr. Haskell gave in 1993 to two medical publications,
American Medical News (the official AMA newspaper) and
Cincinnati Medicine. [All are available from NRLC.]
Here is how Dr. Haskell explained a key part of the
abortion method: With a lower [fetal] extremity in the
vagina, the surgeon uses his fingers to deliver the opposite
lower extremity, then the torso, the shoulders and upper
extremities. The skull lodges at the internal cervical os[the
opening to the uterus]. Usually there is not enough dilation
for it to pass through. The fetus is oriented dorsum or
spineup. At this point, the right-handed surgeon slides the
fingers of the left hand along the back of the fetus and
``hooks the shoulders of the fetus with the index and ring
fingers (palm down) * * * [T]he surgeon takes a pair of blunt
curved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. He carefully
advances the tip, curved down, along the spine and under
his middle finger until he feels it contact the base of
the skull under the tip of his middle finger * * * [T]he
surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the
skull or into the foramen magnum. 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.'' [``Dilation and Extraction for Late Second
Trimester abortion,'' pages 30-31.]
Dr. Haskell also wrote that he ``routinely performs this
procedure on all patients 20 through 24 weeks LMP [i.e., from
4\1/2\ to 5\1/2\ months after the last menstrual period] with
certain exceptions,'' these ``exceptions'' involving
complicating factors such as being more than 20 pounds
overweight. Dr. Haskell also wrote that he used the procedure
through 26 weeks [six months] ``on selected patients.''
[p.28] He added, ``Among its advantages are that it is a
quick, surgical outpatient method that can be performed on a
scheduled basis under local anesthesia.'' (p. 33).
In sworn testimony in an Ohio lawsuit on Nov. 8, 1995, Dr.
Haskell explained that he first learned of the method when a
colleague described very briefly over the phone to me a
technique that I later learned came from Dr. [James] McMahon
where they internally grab the fetus and rotate it and
accomplish--be somewhat equivalent to a breech type of
delivery.
Dr. James McMahon, who died in 1995, used essentially the
same procedure thousands of times, and to a much later point
in pregnancy--even into the ninth month. Other abortionists
also employ the procedure, as discussed below.
Aren't ``third trimester'' abortions rare? At what stage in pregnancy
do partial-birth abortions occur? Are these babies ``viable''?
It appears that the substantial majority of partial-birth
abortions are performed late in the second trimester--that
is, before the 27-week mark--but usually after 20 weeks (4\1/
2\ months). There is compelling evidence that the
overwhelming majority of these pre-week-27 partial-birth
abortions are performed for purely ``social'' reasons.
In an attempt to ``filter out'' this documentation, many
opponents of the bill attempt to narrow the debate to only
third-trimester partial-birth abortions procedures--that is,
to abortions performed beginning in the 27th week [seventh
month] of pregnancy. Some journalists and commentators have
readily adopted this ``filter.'' However, there is really no
non-ideological justification for adopting this ``third
trimester'' demarcation. It has no basis in the text of
the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (HR 1833), which bans
partial-birth abortion at any point in pregnancy. Nor,
contrary to some popular misconceptions, is there any
basis in current Supreme Court constitutional doctrine or
in neo-natal medical practice for adopting a ``third
trimester'' demarcation.
Under the Supreme Court's doctrine, ``viability'' is
regarded as the constitutionally significant demarcation. In
Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the Supreme Court
explicitly disavowed the ``trimester framework'' of Roe v.
Wade (1973), and reaffirmed that ``viability'' is (in the
Court's view) the constitutionally significant demarcation.
``Viability'' is the point at which a baby born prematurely
can be sustained by good medical assistance. Currently, many
babies are ``viable'' a full three weeks before the ``third
trimester.'' Therefore, most partial-birth abortions kill
babies who are already ``viable,'' or who are at most a few
days or weeks short of viability.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ According to the landmark survey of neonatal units in the
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
Neonatal Research Network, conducted in 1987 and 1988 by Dr.
Maureen Heck, et al, babies born at 23 weeks had on average a
23% chance of survival, rising to 34% at 24 weeks, and 54% at
25 weeks. See ``Very Low Birth Weight Outcomes of the
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
Neonatal Network,'' Pediatrics, May 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Even at 20 weeks, the baby is seven inches long on
average. And, as discussed below, at a March 21 congressional
hearing leading medical authorities testified that the baby
by this point is very sensitive to painful stimuli.)
At least one partial-birth abortion specialist, the late
Dr. James McMahon, regularly performed the procedure even
after 26 weeks--even into the ninth month. In 1995, Dr.
McMahon submitted to the House Judiciary Constitution
Subcommittee a graph and explanation that explicitly showed
that he aborted healthy (``not flawed'') babies even in the
third trimester (after 26 weeks of pregnancy). Dr. McMahon's
own graph showed, for example, that at 29 or 30 weeks, one-
fourth of the aborted babies had no ``flaw'' however slight.
Underneath the graph, Dr. McMahon offered this explanation:
After 26 weeks, those pregnancies that are not flawed are
still non-elective. They are interrupted because of maternal
risk, rape, incest, psychiatric or pediatric indications.
[chart and caption reproduced in June 15 hearing record, page
109]
In an interview with Constitution Subcommittee Counsel Keri
Harrison, Dr. McMahon explained that ``pediatric indication''
referred to underage mothers, not to any medical condition
of the mother or the baby.
[[Page E1744]]
is the baby alive when she is pulled feet-first from the womb?
American Medical News reported in 1993, after conducting
interviews with Drs. Haskell and McMahon, that the doctors
``told AM News that the majority of fetuses aborted this way
are alive until the end of the procedure.'' On July 11, 1995,
American Medical News submitted the transcript of the tape-
recorded interview with Dr. Haskell to the House Judiciary
Committee. The transcript contains the following exchange:
American Medical News: Let's talk first about whether or
not the fetus is dead beforehand.
Dr. Haskell: No it's not. No, it's really not. A percentage
are for various numbers of reasons. Some just because of the
stress--intrauterine stress during, you know, the two days
that the cervix is being dilated [to permit extraction of the
fetus]. Sometimes the membranes rupture and it takes a very
small superficial infection to kill a fetus in utero when the
membranes are broken. And so in my case, I would think
probably about a third of those are definitely are [sic] dead
before I actually start to remove the fetus. And probably the
other two-thirds are not.
In an interview quoted in the Dec. 10, 1989 Dayton News,
Dr. Haskell conveyed that the scissors thrust is usually the
lethal act: ``When I do the instrumentation on the skull * *
* it destroys the brain tissue sufficiently so that even if
it (the fetus) falls out at that point, it's definitely not
alive,'' Dr. Haskell said. [For further evidence on this
issue, see the next section.]
Brenda Pratt Shafer, a registered nurse from Dayton, Ohio,
stood at Dr. Haskell's side while he performed three partial-
birth abortions in 1993. In testimony before the Senate
Judiciary Committee (Nov. 17, 1995), Shafer described in
detail the first of the three procedures--which involved, she
said, a baby boy at 26\1/2\ weeks (over 6 months). According
to Mrs. Shafer, the baby was alive and moving as the
abortionist delivered the baby's body and the arms--
everything but the head. The doctor kept the baby's head just
inside the uterus. The baby's little fingers were clasping
and unclasping, and his feet were kicking. Then the doctor
stuck the scissors through the back of his head, and the
baby's arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like
a baby does when he thinks that he might fall. The doctor
opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube
into the opening and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the
baby was completely limp.
Under HR 1833, in any case in which a baby dies before
being partly removed from the uterus--whether of natural
causes or by an action of an abortionist--the subsequent
removal of that baby is not a partial-birth abortion as
defined by the bill.
does anesthesia given to the mother kill the baby?
Many prominent defenders of partial-birth abortion have
publicly insisted that the unborn babies are killed by
anesthesia given to the mother, prior to being ``extracted''
from the womb. For example, syndicated columnist Ellen
Goodman wrote in November, 1995, that if you listened to
supports of the ban, ``You wouldn't even know that anesthesia
ends the life of such a fetus before it comes down the birth
canal.'' NARAL President Kate Michelman said, ``The fetus,
is, before the procedure begins, the anesthesia that they
give the woman already causes the demise of the fetus. That
is, it is not true that they're born partially. That is a
gross distortion, and it's really a disservice to the public
to say this.'' [KMOX-AM, St. Louis, Nov. 2, 1995]
Likewise, Planned Parenthood distributed to Congress a
``fact sheet'' signed by Dr. Mary Campbell, Medical Director
of Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington, which
stated, ``The fetus dies of an overdose of anesthesia given
to the mother intravenously * * * This induces brain death in
a fetus in a matter of minutes. Fetal demise therefore occurs
at the beginning of the procedure while the fetus is still in
the womb.''
However, when this statement was read to Dr. Norig Ellison,
the president of the 34,000-member American Society of
Anesthesiologists (ASA), he testified, ``There is absolutely
no basis in scientific fact for that statement * * * think
the suggestion that the anesthesia given to the mother, be it
regional or general, is going to cause brain death of fetus
is without basis fact.'' [Senate Judiciary Committee hearing
record J-104-54, Nov. 17, 1995, p. 153]
Subsequently, in attempting to defend their ``fetal
demise'' claims, pro-abortion advocacy groups disseminated
new claims that the late Dr. James McMahon had utilized
exceptionally massive doses of narcotic anesthesia before
performing his abortions, and that these massive doses would
indeed kill a fetus. But in the testimony before the House
Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee on March 21, 1996, Dr.
David J. Birnbach, president-elect of the Society for
Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology, testified: In order to
cause fetal demise, it would be necessary to give the mother
dangerous and life-threatening doses of anesthesia.'' [* * *]
Although there is no evidence that this massive dose will
cause fetal demise, there is clear evidence that this
excessive dose could cause maternal death. [House Judiciary
Committee hearing record no. 73, pages 140, 142]
Since the baby is still alive when ``extracted'' from the womb, does
she feel pain?
Dr. Norig Ellison, president of the American Society of
Anesthesiologists (ASA), wrote to the Senate Judiciary
Committee: Drugs administered to the mother, either local
anesthesia administered in the paracervical area or
sedatives/analgesics administered intramuscularly or
intravenously, will provide little-to-no analgesia [pain
relief] to the fetus. [Senate Judiciary Committee, Nov. 17,
1995 hearing record, page 226]
On March 21, 1996, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the
Constitution conducted a public hearing on ``The Effects of
Anesthesia During a Partial-Birth Abortion.'' Four leading
experts in the field testified that the fetuses/babies who
are old enough to be ``candidates'' for partial-birth
abortion possess the neurological equipment to respond to
painful stimuli, whether or not the mother has been
anesthetized. Opponents of the bill were unable to produce a
single medical witness willing to testify in support of the
claims that anesthesia kills the fetus or renders the fetus
insensible to pain. [See House Judiciary Committee Hearing
Record No. 73, March 21, 1996.)
Dr. Jean A. Wright, associate professor of pediatrics and
anesthesia at the Emory University School of Medicine in
Atlanta, testified that recent research shows that by the
stage of development that a fetus could be a ``candidate''
for a partial-birth abortion (20 weeks), the fetus ``is more
sensitive to pain than a full-term infant would be if
subjected to the same procedures,'' Prof. Wright testified.
These fetuses have ``the anatomical and functional processes
responsible for the perception of pain,'' and have ``a much
higher density of Opioid (pain) receptors'' than older
humans, she said.
Dr. David Birnbach, president-elect of the Society for
Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology, testified, ``Having
administered anesthesia for fetal surgery, I know that on
occasion we need to administer anesthesia directly to the
fetus because even at these early ages the fetus moves away
from the pain of the stimulation.'' [hearing record, page
288]
At a hearing before the same panel on June 15, 1995,
Professor Robert White, Director of the Division of
Neurosurgery and Brain Research Laboratory at Case Western
Reserve School of Medicine, testified, ``The fetus within
this time frame of gestation, 20 weeks and beyond, is fully
capable of experiencing pain.'' After analyzing the partial-
birth procedure step-by-step for the subcommittee, Prof.
White concluded: ``Without question, all of this is a
dreadfully painful experience for any infant subjected to
such a surgical procedure.'' [House Judiciary Committee
hearing No. 31, June 15, 1995, page 70.] Prof. Jean Wright
concluded, ``This procedure, if it were done on an animal
in my institution, would not make it through the
institutional review process. The animal would be more
protected than this child is.'' [hearing record, page 286]
does the bill contain an exception for life-of-the-mother cases?
HR 1833 explicitly provides that the ban ``shall not apply
to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the
life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical
disorder, illness, or injury,'' if ``no other medical
procedure would suffice for that purpose.''
[Some pro-abortion advocacy groups have insisted that
exception does not apply to disorders associated with
pregnancy, since ``pregnancy'' per se is not a disorder or
disease. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde (R-
11.) commented that this reading ``is absurdly convoluted,
and violates standard principles of statutory construction.''
In a June 7 letter, even President Clinton has acknowledged
that the bill ``provides an exception to the ban on this
procedure only when a doctor is convinced that a woman's life
is at risk.'']
Under HR 1833, an abortionist could not be convicted of a
violation of the law unless the government proved, beyond a
reasonable doubt, that the abortion was not covered by this
exception. (In addition, of course, the government would have
to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, all of the other
elements of the offense--that the abortionist ``knowingly''
partly removed a baby from the womb, that the baby was still
alive, and that the abortionist then killed the baby.)
It is noteworthy that none of the five women who appeared
with President Clinton at his April 10 veto ceremony required
a partial-birth abortion because of danger to her life. As
one of the women, Claudia Crown Ades, said in a tape-recorded
April 12 radio interview on WNTM (Mobile, AL): ``My procedure
was elective. That is considered an elective procedure, as
were the procedures of Coreen Costello and Tammy Watts and
Mary-Dorothy Line and all the other women who were at the
White House yesterday. All of our procedures were considered
elective.'' [Complete tape recording available on request.]
[Two of the women said that if their babies had died
natural deaths within their wombs, it could have placed them
at risk. But the removal of a baby who dies a natural death,
whether by foot-first extraction or in any other manner, is
not an abortion and has nothing to do with the bill.
Professor Watson Bowes, Jr., of the University of North
Carolina, co-editor of the Obstetrical and Gynecological
Survey, has stated that weeks would pass between the baby's
natural demise and the development of any resulting risk to
the mother.]
[[Page E1745]]
What reasons has President Clinton given for vetoing HR 1833?
On December 7, 1995, before the Senate had even voted on
final passage of the bill, chief opponent Sen. Barbara Boxer
(D-Cal.) took the floor to make an unqualified statement that
President Clinton would veto the bill. On December 8, White
House Press Secretary Michael McCurry said unequivocally that
the President would veto the bill because ``it would
represent an erosion of a woman's right to choose.''
However, when President Clinton next publicly addressed the
issue in a February 28 letter to key members of Congress
(after a national poll found 71% support for the ban), he
took different tone, although the legal bottom line was
unchanged. Mr. Clinton wrote of having ``studied and prayed
about this issue * * * for many months,'' of finding the
procedure ``very disturbing,'' and of seeking ``common ground
* * * that respects the views of those--including myself--who
object to this particular procedure,'' while defending Roe v.
Wade. But the ``common ground'' that Mr. Clinton proposed
tracked the language offered by Sen. Boxer on December 7, and
endorsed by the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights
Action League (NARAL) as a ``pro-choice vote.'' The Boxer/
NARAL amendment would have allowed partial-birth abortion to
be performed without any limitation whatever until
``viability,'' and also ``after viability where, in the
medical judgment of the attending physician, the abortion is
necessary to preserve the life of the woman or avert serious
adverse health consequences to the woman.'' (The Senate
rejected this gutting amendment.)
The Boxer/Clinton language must be read in the light of Doe
v. Bolton, the 1973 companion case to Roe v. Wade, in which
the Supreme Court said that ``health'' must encompass ``all
factors--physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the
woman's age--relevant to the well-being of the patient.''
Given this expansive definition of ``health,'' adding the
word ``serious'' has no legal effect, since Mr. Clinton
proposes to leave entirely up to each abortionist to decide
whether ``depression'' or some other ``health'' concern is
``serious.''
In a June 7 letter to leaders of the Southern Baptist
Convention, Mr. Clinton said that he favored banning the
procedure with an exception for ``cases where a woman risks
death or serious damage to her health,'' but not for cases
involving ``youth'' or ``emotional stress.'' But in his
formal veto message on the bill, Mr. Clinton referred to a
``health'' exception as required by Roe v. Wade. Mr. Clinton,
a former teacher of constitutional law, knows full well that
these two positions are inconsistent, because if Roe/Doe
applies to partial-birth abortions, then even after
``viability,'' the exception must indeed cover ``emotional''
health.
In his June 7 letter, President Clinton asserted that ``the
medical community * * * broadly supports the continued
availability of this procedure where a woman's serious health
interests are at stake.'' However, the American Medical
Association (AMA) Legislative Council voted unanimously to
recommend endorsement of the bill, with one member explaining
that the procedure was ``not a recognized medical
technique.'' (The full AMA Board of Trustees was divided
on the bill and ultimately took ``no position.'') Of the
five medical doctors who serve in Congress, four voted for
the bill, including the only family practitioner/
gynecologist.
How often are partial-birth abortions performed?
There are at least 164,000 abortions a year after the first
three months of pregnancy, and 13,000 abortions annually
after 4\1/2\ months, according to the Alan Guttmacher
Institute (New York Times, July 5 and November 6, 1995),
which is an arm of Planned Parenthood. These numbers should
be regarded as minimums, since they are based on voluntary
reporting to the AGI. (The Centers for Disease Control
reported that in 1993, over 17,000 abortions were performed
at 21 weeks and later--and the CDC acknowledges that the
reports that it receives are incomplete.)
No one really knows how many late abortions are done by the
partial-birth procedure. The Center for Reproductive Law and
Policy told The New York Times, ``The number of procedures
that clearly meet the definition of partial birth abortion is
very small, probably only 500 to 1,000 a year.'' (March 28,
1996) Even if such figures were accurate, the legislation
would be urgently needed. If a new virus swept through neo-
natal units and killed 500 or 1,000 premature babies, it
would be a top news story--not dismissed as too ``rare'' to
be of consequence. For each human being at the pointed end of
the scissors, a partial-birth abortion is a 100% proposition.
Moreover, the numbers may be considerably higher--perhaps
thousands per year. Dr. Martin Haskell and the late Dr. James
McMahon spend years trying to convince other abortionists of
the merits of the procedure--that was the purpose of Dr.
Haskell's 1992 instructional paper (see page 3) which was
distributed by the National Abortion Federation, a lobbying
group for abortion clinics. For years, Dr. McMahon was
director of abortion instruction at the Cedar-Sinai Medical
Center in Los Angeles. In addition, he invited other doctors
to visit his abortion clinic for a period of days to learn
the procedure. Also, The New York Times reported on Nov. 6,
1995: ``Of course I use it, and I've taught it for the last
10 years,'' said a gynecologist at a New York teaching
hospital who spoke on condition of anonymity. ``So do doctors
in other cities.''
It is not known how many other abortionists have adopted
the method, but a few have made themselves known. On March
19, 1996, Dr. William Rashbaum of New York City wrote a
letter to Congressman Charles Canady (R-FL), stating that he
has performed 19,000 late-term ``procedures,'' and that he
has performed the procedure that HR 1833 would ban
``routinely since 1979. This procedure is only performed
in cases of later gestational age.''
In 1995, Dr. Martin Haskell filed a lawsuit challenging a
state abortion-regulation law. In that proceeding, two other
doctors filed affidavits affirming that they perform the same
procedure as Dr. Haskell--and that's just in Ohio.
For what reasons are late-term abortions usually performed?
There is no evidence that the reasons for which late-term
abortions are performed by the partial-birth abortion method
are any different, in general, than the reasons for which
late-term abortions are performed by other methods--and it is
well established that the great majority of late-term
abortions do not involve any illness of the mother or the
baby. They are purely ``elective'' procedures--that is, they
are performed for purely ``social'' reasons.
In 1987, the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), an affiliate
of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA),
collected questionnaires from 1,900 women who were at
abortion clinics procuring abortions. Of the 1,900, ``420 had
been pregnant for 16 or more weeks.'' These 420 women were
asked to choose among a menu of reasons why they had not
obtained the abortions earlier in their pregnancies. Only two
percent (2%) said ``a fetal problem was diagnosed late in
pregnancy,'' compared to 71% who responded ``did not
recognize that she was pregnant or misjudged gestation,'' 48%
who said ``found it hard to make arrangements,'' and 33% who
said ``was afraid to tell her partner or parents.'' The
report did not indicate that any of the 420 late abortions
were performed because of maternal health problems. [``Why Do
Women Have Abortions?,'' Family Planning Perspectives, July/
August 1988.]
Also illuminating is an 1993 internal memo by Barbara
Radford, then the executive director of the National Abortion
Federation, a ``trade association'' for abortion clinics:
There are many reasons why women have late abortions: life
endangerment, fetal indications, lack of money or health
insurance, social-psychological crises, lack of knowledge
about human reproduction, etc.''
Likewise, a June 12, 1995, National Abortion Federation
letter to members of the House of Representatives noted that
late abortions are sought by, among others, ``very young
teenagers * * * who have not recognized the signs of their
pregnancies until too late,'' and by ``women in poverty, who
have tried desperately to act responsibly and to end an
unplanned pregnancy in the early stages, only to face
insurmountable financial barriers.''
In her article about late-term abortions, based in part on
extensive interviews with Dr. McMahon and on direct
observation of his practice (Los Angeles Times Magazine,
January 7, 1990), reporter Karen Tumulty concluded: If there
is any other single factor that inflates the number of late
abortions, it is youth. Often, teen-agers do not recognize
the first signs of pregnancy. Just as frequently, they put
off telling anyone as long as they can.
According to Peggy Jarman, spokeswoman for Dr. George
Tiller, who specializes in late-term abortions in Wichita,
Kansas: About three-fourths of Tiller's late-term patients,
Jarman said, are teen-agers who have denied to themselves or
their families they were pregnant until it was too late to
hide it. [Kansas City Star]
for what reasons are partial-birth abortions usually performed?
Some opponents of HR 1833, such as NARAL and the Planned
Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), have persistently
disseminated claims that the partial-birth abortion procedure
is employed only in cases involving extraordinary threats to
the mother or grave fetal disorders. For example, NARAL
President Kate Michelman wrote in a Scripps Howard News
Service op ed published June 16, 1996, ``Late-term abortions
are only used under the most compelling of circumstances--to
protect a woman's health or life or because of grave fetal
abnormality * * * nearly all abortions are performed in the
first trimester.'' PPFA said in a press release that the
partial-birth abortion procedure is ``done only in cases when
the woman's life is in danger or in cases of extreme fetal
abnormality.'' (Nov. 1, 1995)
However, claims such as these are inconsistent with the
writings and recorded statements of the three doctors who are
most closely identified with the procedure: Dr. Martin
Haskell, Dr. James McMahon, and Dr. David Grundmann.
Reasons for Partial-Birth Abortions: Dr. Martin Haskell
In his 1992 paper, Dr. Martin Haskell, who has performed
over 1,000 partial-birth abortions, described the procedure
as ``a quick, surgical outpatient method that can be
performed on a scheduled basis under local anesthesia.'' Dr.
Haskell, a family practitioner who operates three abortion
clinics, wrote that he ``routinely performs this procedure on
all patients 20 through 24 weeks'' (4\1/2\ to
[[Page E1746]]
5\1/2\ months) pregnant, except on women who are more than 20
pounds overweight, have twins, or have certain other
complicating factors.
For information on why Dr. Haskell adopted the method, the
1993 interview in Cincinnati Medicine is very instructive.
Dr. Haskell explained that he had been performing
dismemberment abortions (D&Es) to 24 weeks: But they were
very tough. Sometimes it was a 45-minute operation. I noticed
that some of the later D&Es were very, very easy. So I asked
myself why can't they all happen this way. You see the easy
ones would have a foot length presentation, you'd reach up
and grab the foot of the fetus, pull the fetus down and the
head would hang up and then you would collapse the head and
take it out. It was easy. * * * Then I said, ``Well gee, if I
just put the ultrasound up there I could see it all and I
wouldn't have to feel around for it.'' I did that and sure
enough, I found it 99 percent of the time. Kind of
serendipity.
In 1993, the American Medical News--the official newspaper
of the AMA--conducted a tape-recorded interview with Dr.
Haskell concerning this specific abortion method, in which he
said: And I'll be quite frank: most of my abortions are
elective in that 20-24 week range. * * * In my particular
case, probably 20% [of this procedure] are for genetic
reasons. And the other 80% are purely elective.
In a lawsuit in 1995, Dr. Haskell testified that women come
to him for partial-birth abortions with ``a variety of
conditions. Some medical, some not so medical.'' Among the
``medical'' examples he cited was ``agoraphobia'' (fear of
open places). Moreover, in testimony presented to the Senate
Judiciary Committee on November 17, 1995, ob/gyn Dr. Nancy
Romer of Dayton (the city in which Dr. Haskell operates one
of his abortion clinics) testified that three of her own
patients had gone to Haskell's clinic for abortions ``well
beyond'' 4\1/2\ months into pregnancy, and that ``none of
these women had any medical illness, and all three had normal
fetuses.''
Brenda Pratt Shafer, a registered nurse who observed Dr.
Haskell use the procedure to abort three babies in 1993,
testified that one little boy had Down Syndrome, while the
other two babies were completely normal and their mothers
were healthy. [Nurse Shafer's testimony before the House
Judiciary subcommittee, with associated documentation, is
available on request to NRLC.]
Reasons for Partial-Birth Abortions: Dr. James McMahon
The late Dr. James McMahon performed thousands of partial-
birth abortions, including the third-trimester abortions
performed on the five women who appeared with President
Clinton at his April 10 veto ceremony. Dr. McMahon's general
approach is illustrated by this illuminating statement in
the July 5, 1993 edition of American Medical News:
``[A]fter 20 weeks where it frankly is a child to me, I
really agonize over it because the potential is so
imminently there. I think, `Gee, it's too bad that this
child couldn't be adopted.' On the other hand, I have
another position, which I think is superior in the
hierarchy of questions, and that is: `Who owns the child?'
It's got to be the mother.''
In June, 1995, Dr. McMahon submitted to Congress a detailed
breakdown of a ``series'' of over 2,000 of these abortions
that he had performed. He classified only 9% (175 cases) as
involving ``maternal [health] indications,'' of which the
most common was ``depression.''
Dr. Pamela E. Smith, director of Medical Education,
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mt. Sinai Hospital,
Chicago, gave the Senate Judiciary Committee her analysis of
Dr. McMahon's 175 ``maternal indication'' cases. Of this
sample, 39 cases (22%) were for maternal ``depression,''
while another 16% were ``for conditions consistent with the
birth of a normal child (e.g., sickle cell trait, prolapsed
uterus, small pelvis),'' Dr. Smith noted. She added that in
one-third of the cases, the conditions listed as ``maternal
indications'' by Dr. McMahon really indicated that the
procedure itself would be seriously risky to the mother.
Of Dr. McMahon's series, another 1,183 cases (about 56%)
were for ``fetal flaws,'' but these included a great many
non-lethal disorders, such as cleft palate and Down Syndrome.
In an op ed piece written for the Los Angeles Times, Dr.
Katherine Dowling, a family physician at the University of
Southern California School of Medicine, examined Dr.
McMahon's report on this ``fetal flaws'' group. She wrote:
Twenty-four were done for cystic hydroma (a benign lymphatic
mass, usually treatable in a child of normal intelligence).
Nine were done for cleft lip-palate syndrome (a friend of
mine, mother of five, and a colleague who is a pulmonary
specialist were born with this problem). Other reasons
included cystic fibrosis (my daughter went through high
school with a classmate with cystic fibrosis) and duodenal
atresia (surgically correctable, but many children with this
problem are moderately mentally retarded). Guess they can't
enjoy life, can they? In fact, most of the partial-birth
abortions in that [McMahon] survey were done for problems
that were either surgically correctable or would result in
some degree of neurologic or mental impairment, but would not
harm the mother. Or they were done for reasons that were
pretty skimpy: depression, chicken pox, diabetes, vomiting.
[``What Constitutes A Quality Life?,'' Los Angeles Times,
Aug. 28, 1996]
Over one-third of McMahon's 2,000-abortion ``series''
involved neither fetal nor maternal health problems, however
trivial.
In Dr. McMahon's interviews with American Medical News and
with Keri Harrison, counsel to the House Judiciary
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Dr. McMahon freely
acknowledged that he performed late second trimester
procedures that were ``elective'' even by his definition
(``elective'' meaning without fetal or maternal medical
justification).
After 26 weeks, Dr. McMahon claimed that all of his
abortions were ``non-elective''--but his definition of ``non-
elective'' was very expansive. His written submission stated:
``After 26 weeks [six months], those pregnancies that are not
flawed are still non-elective. They are interrupted because
of maternal risk, rape, incest, psychiatric or pediatric
indications.'' [``Pediatric indications'' was Dr. McMahon's
terminology for young teenagers.]
Reasons for Partial-Birth Abortions: Dr. David Grundmann
Dr. David Grundmann, the medical director for Planned
Parenthood of Australia, has written a paper in which he
explicitly states that he uses the partial-birth abortion
procedure (he calls it ``dilatation and extraction'') as his
``method of choice'' for abortions done after 20 weeks (4\1/
2\ months), and that he performs such abortions for a broad
variety of social reasons. [This paper, ``Abortion After
Twenty Weeks in Clinical Practice: Practical, Ethical and
Legal Issues,'' and associated documentation, is available
from NRLC.]
Dr. Grundmann himself described the procedure in a
television interview as ``essentially a breech delivery where
the fetus is delivered feet first and then when the head of
the fetus is brought down into the top of the cervical canal,
it is decompressed with a puncturing instrument so that it
fits through the cervical opening.''
In the 1994 paper, Dr. Grundmann listed several
``advantages'' of this method, such as that it ``can be
performed under local and/or twi-light anesthetic'' with ``no
need for narcotic analgesics,'' ``can be performed as an
ambulatory out-patient procedure,'' and there is ``no chance
of delivering a live fetus.'' Among the ``disadvantages,''
Dr. Grundmann wrote, is `'the aesthetics of the procedure are
difficult for some people; and therefore it may be difficult
to get staff.'' (Dr. Grundmann also wrote that ``abortion is
an integral part of family planning. Theoretically this means
abortions at any stage of gestation. Therefore I favor the
availability of abortion beyond 20 weeks.'')
Dr. Grundmann wrote that in Australia, late-second-
trimester abortion is available ``in many major hospitals, in
most capital cities and large provincial centres'' in case
of ``lethal fetal abnormalities'' or ``gross fetal
abnormalities,'' or ``risk to maternal life,'' including
``psychotic/suicidal behavior.'' However, Dr. Grundmann
said, his Planned Parenthood clinic also offers the
procedure after 20 weeks for women who fall into five
additional ``categories'': (1) ``minor or doubtful fetal
abnormalities,'' (2) ``extreme maternal immaturity i.e.
girls in the 11 to 14 year age group,'' (3) women ``who do
not know they are pregnant,'' for example because of
amenorrhea [irregular menstruation] ``in women who are
very active such as athletes of those under extreme forms
of stress i.e. exam stress, relationship breakup * * *,''
(4) ``intellectually impaired women, who are unaware of
basic biology * * *,'' (5) ``major life crises or major
changes in socio-economic circumstances. The most common
example of this is a planned or wanted pregnancy followed
by the sudden death or desertion of the partner who is in
all probability the bread winner.''
is a partial-birth abortion ever the only way to preserve a mother's
physical health?
President Clinton and pro-abortion advocacy groups have
made strenuous efforts to persuade the public that partial-
birth abortions are necessary to protect the lives or health
of pregnant women, and many journalists have uncritically
accepted this claim at face value. However, these claims are
coming under increasingly sharp challenge from prestigious
medical experts, and from women who have given birth to
babies in circumstances such as those cited by President
Clinton.
The sort of cases highlighted by President Clinton third-
trimester abortions of babies with disorders incompatible
with sustained life outside the womb--account for a small
fraction of all the partial-birth abortions. Confronted with
identical cases, most specialists would never consider
executing a breech extraction and puncturing the skull.
Instead, most would deliver the baby alive, sometimes early,
without jeopardy to the mother--usually viginally--and make
the baby as comfortable as possible for whatever time the
child has allotted to her.
In an interview published in the August 19 edition of
American Medical News, former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop
said, ``I believe that Mr. Clinton was misled by his medical
advisors on what is fact and what is fiction in reference to
late-term abortions. Because in no way can I twist my mind to
see that the later-term abortions as described--you know,
partial birth, and then destruction of the unborn child
before the head is born--is a medical necessity for the
mother. It certainly can't be a necessity for the baby.''
Dr. Koop, a world-renown pediatric surgeon, was asked by
the American Medical
[[Page E1747]]
News reporters whether he had ever ``treated children with
any of the disabilities cited in this debate? For example,
have you operated on children born with organs outside of
their bodies?'' Dr. Koop replied, ``Oh, yes indeed. I've done
that many times. The prognosis usually is good. There are two
common ways that children are born with organs outside of
their body. One is an omphalocele, where the organs are out
but sill contained in the sac * * * the first child I ever
did, with a hug omphalocele much bigger than her head, went
on to develop well and become the head nurse in my intensive
care until many years later.''
In addition, in the summer of 1996, an organization called
Physicians' Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth (PHACT) began
circulating material directly challenging President Clinton's
claims. As of early September, PHACT reportedly consisted of
over 230 physicians, mostly professors and other specialists
in obstetrics, gynecology, and fetal medicine. In an
advertisement published in August, the PHACT physicians said:
Congress, the public--but most importantly women--need to
know that partial-birth abortion is never medically indicated
to protect a mother's health or her future fertility.
The PHACT doctors also referred directly to the specific
medical conditions that affected some of the women who
appeared with President Clinton at his April 10 veto
ceremony, such as hydrocephalus (excessive fluid in the
head), and commented: We, and many other doctors across the
United States, regularly treat women whose unborn children
suffer these and other serious conditions. Never is the
partial-birth procedure medically indicated. Rather, such
infants are regularly and safely delivered live, vaginally,
with no threat to the mother's health or fertility.
At a July 24 briefing on Capitol Hill, PHACT member Dr.
Curtis Cook, and ob/gyn perinatologist with the West Michigan
Perinatal and Genetic Diagnostic Center (616-391-3681), said
that partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve
the life or the fertility of the mother, and may in fact
threaten her health or well-being or future fertility. In my
practice, I see these rare, unusual cases that come to most
generalists' offices once in a lifetime--they all come into
our office. We see these every day * * * The presence of
fetal disabilities or fetal anomalies are not a reason to
have a termination of pregnancy to preserve the life of the
mother--they do not threaten the life of the mother in any
way * * * [and] where these rare instances do occur, they do
not require the death of the baby or the fetus prior to the
completion of the delivery.
Also present at the July 24 briefing were several women
who, while pregnant, had learned that their unborn babies
were afflicted with conditions similar or identical to
those cited by President Clinton, but who gave birth to
their babies alive. One of the women, Jeannie French of
Oak Park, Illinois, distributed a July 17 letter that she
and several other women sent to President Clinton, asking
for a meeting so that he could learn about the medical
alternatives to partial-birth abortion. Ms. French wrote:
In recent months, I have had the opportunity to get to
know many women who've carried and given birth to children
with fatal conditions from anacephaly, encepaloceles,
Trisomy 18, hydrocephaly, and even a rare disease called
body stalk anomaly, in which internal organs develop
outside a baby's body. We gave birth to our children
knowing that their serious physical disabilities might not
allow them to live long. * * * You say that partial-birth
abortion has to be legal for cases like ours, because
women's bodies would be `ripped to shreds' by carrying
their very sick children to term. By your repeated
statements, you imply that partial-birth abortion is the
only or the most desirable response to children suffering
severe disabilities like our children. * * * This message
is so wrong! * * * Will you meet with us personally, and
hear our stories?
Ms. French got a brief letter of response from two White
House scheduling aides, who said that ``the tremendous
demands on the President will not give him the opportunity to
speak with you and your group. * * * Your continued interest
and support are deeply appreciated.''
What about President Clinton's statement that for some women, the only
alternative to partial-birth abortion is to ``rip your body to
shreds''?
President Clinton has repeatedly justified his veto by
referring to cases in which the baby suffers from advanced
hydrocephaly (head enlargement). Speaking in Milwaukee on May
23, President Clinton suggested that Bob Dole or others who
would deny a partial-birth abortion in such cases are saying
``it's okay with me if they ripped your body to shreds and
you could never have another baby.''
But this is medical nonsense. Medical specialists commonly
deal with cases of severe hydrocephaly by a procedure called
cephalocentesis, in which a needle is used to withdraw the
excess fluid (but not the brain), reducing the head size so
that normal delivery of a live baby can occur. An eminent
authority on such matters, Dr. Watson A. Bowes, Jr.,
professor of ob/gyn (maternal and fetal medicine) at the
University of North Carolina, who is co-editor of the
Obstetrical and Gynecological Survey, wrote to Congressman
Charles Canady: Critics of your bill who say that this
legislation will prevent doctors from performing certain
procedures which are standard of care, such as
cephalocentesis (removal of fluid from the enlarged head
of a fetus with the most severe form of hydrocephalus) are
mistaken. In such a procedure a needle is inserted with
ultrasound guidance through the mother's abdomen into the
uterus and then into the enlarged ventricle of the brain
(the space containing cerebrospinal fluid). Fluid is then
withdrawn which results in reduction of the size of the
head so that delivery can occur. This procedure is not
intended to kill the fetus, and, in fact, is usually
associated with the birth of a live infant.
(Note: Cases of hydrocephaly accounted for less than 4% of
Dr. McMahon's partial-birth abortions, according to his
submission to the House Judiciary Committee.)
What about the small minority of cases that do involve ``serious fetal
deformity''?
It is true that some partial-birth abortions--a small
minority--involve babies who have grave disorders that will
result in death soon after birth. But these unfortunate
members of the human family deserve compassion and the best
comfort-care that medical science can offer--not a scissors
in the back of the head. In some such situations there are
good medical reasons to deliver such a child early, after
which natural death will follow quickly.
Dr. Harlan Giles, a professor of ``high-risk'' obstetrics
and perinatology at the Medical College of Pennsylvania,
performs abortions by a variety of procedures up until
``viability.'' However, in sworn testimony in the U.S.
Federal District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
(Nov. 13, 1995), Prof. Giles said: [After 23 weeks] I do not
think there are any maternal conditions that I'm aware of
that mandate ending the pregnancy that also require that the
fetus be dead or that the fetal life be terminated. In my
experience for 20 years, one can deliver these fetuses either
vaginally, or by Cesarean section for that matter, depending
on the choice of the parents with informed consent. * * * But
there's no reason these fetuses cannot be delivered intact
vaginally after a miniature labor, if you will, and be at
least assessed at birth and given the benefit of the doubt.
[transcript, page 240]
In a partial-birth abortion, the abortionist dilates a
woman's cervix for three days, until it is open enough to
deliver the entire baby breech, except for the head. When
American Medical News asked Dr. Martin Haskell why he could
not simply dilate the woman a little more and remove the baby
without killing him, Dr. Haskell responded: The point here is
you're attempting to do an abortion * * * not to see how do I
manipulate the situation so that I get a live birth instead.
[American Medical News transcript]
Under closer examination, it becomes clear that in some
cases, the primary reason for performing the procedure is not
concern that the baby will die in utero, but rather, that he/
she will be born alive, either with disorders incompatible
with sustained life outside the womb, or with a non-lethal
disability. (Again, in Dr. McMahon's table of partial-birth
abortions performed for ``fetal indications,'' the largest
category was for Down Syndrome.)
Viki Wilson, whose daughter Abigail died at the hands of
Dr. McMahon at 38 weeks, said: I knew that I could go ahead
and carry the baby until full term, but knowing, you know,
that this was futile, you know, that she was going to die * *
* I felt like I needed to be a little more in control in
terms of her life and my life, instead of just sort of
leaving it up to nature, because look where nature had gotten
me up to this point. [NAF video transcript, page 4.]
Tammy Watts, whose baby was aborted by Dr. McMahon in the
7th month, said: I had a choice. I could have carried this
pregnancy to term, knowing everything that was wrong.
[Testimony before Senate Judiciary Committee, Nov. 17, 1995]
Claudia Crown Ades, who appeared with President Clinton at
the April 10 veto, said: My procedure was elective. That is
considered an elective procedure, as were the procedures of
Coreen Costello and Tammy Watts and Mary Dorothy-Line and all
the other women who were at the White House yesterday. All of
our procedures were considered elective. [Quotes from taped
appearance on WNTM, April 12, 1996]
In a letter opposing HR 1833, one of Dr. McMahon's
colleagues at Cedar-Sinai Medical Center, Dr. Jeffrey S.
Greenspoon, wrote: As a volunteer speaker to the National
Spina Bifida Association of America and the Canadian National
Spina Bifida Organization, I am familiar with the burden of
raising a significantly handicapped child * * * The burden of
raising one or two abnormal children is realistically
unbearable. [Letter to Rep. Hyde, July 19, 1995]
Is there a more ``objective'' term for the procedure than ``partial-
birth abortion?
Some opponents of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (HR
1833) insist that anyone writing about the bill should say
that it bans a procedure ``known medically as intact dilation
and evacuation.'' But when journalists comply with this
demand, they do so at the expense of accuracy. The bill
itself makes no reference whatever to ``intact dilation and
evacuation'' abortions. More importantly, the term ``intact
dilation and evacuation'' is not equivalent to the class of
procedures banned by the bill.
The bill would make it a criminal offense (except to save
woman's life) to perform a ``partial-birth abortion,'' which
the bill
[[Page E1748]]
would define--as a matter of law--as ``an abortion in which
the person performing the abortion partially vaginally
delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus and
completing the delivery.''
In contrast, the term ``intact dilation and evacuation''
was invented by the late Dr. James McMahon, and until
recently, was idiosyncratic to him. It appeared in no
standard medical textbook or database, nor anywhere in the
standard textbook on abortion methods, Abortion Practice by
Dr. Warren Hern. Because ``intact dilation and evacuation''
\2\ is not a standard, clearly defined medical term, the
House Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee staff (which
drafted the bill under Congressman Canady's supervision)
rejected it as useless for purposes of defining a criminal
offense. Indeed, it is worse than useless--a criminal statute
that relied on such a term would be stricken by the federal
courts as `'void for vagueness.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The term ``intact dilation and evacuation'' should not be
confused with ``dilation and evacuation,'' which is a
procedure commonly sued in second-trimester abortions,
involving dismemberment of the fetus/baby while still in the
uterus. The bill does not apply to ``dilation and
evacuation'' abortions at all.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although there is no clear definition of the term, we know
enough to say that it is inaccurate to equate ``intact
dilation and evacuation'' abortions with the procedures
banned by HR 1833, since in his writings Dr. McMahon clearly
used the term ``intact dilation and evacuation'' so broadly
as to cover certain procedures which would not be affected at
all by HR 1833 (e.g., removal of babies who are killed
entirely in utero, and removal of babies who have died
entirely natural deaths in utero). Indeed, at least one of
the specific women highlighted by opponents of HR 1833 had
various types of ``intact D&E'' abortion procedures that were
not covered by HR 1833's definition of ``partial-birth
abortion.''
[In his 1992 instructional paper, Dr. Haskell referred to
the method as ``dilation and extraction'' or ``D&X''--noting
that he ``coined the term.'' When the bill was drafted, the
term ``dilation and extraction'' did not appear in medical
dictionaries or databases.]
The term chosen by Congress, partial-birth abortion, is in
no sense misleading. In sworn testimony in an Ohio lawsuit on
Nov. 8, 1995, Dr. Martin Haskell--who has done over 1,000
partial-birth abortions, and who authored the instructional
paper that touched off the controversy over the procedure--
explained that he first learned of the method when a
colleague described very briefly over the phone to me a
technique that I later learned came from Dr. McMahon where
they internally grab the fetus and rotate it and accomplish--
be somewhat equivalent to a breech type of delivery.
Are the five line drawings of the procedure circulated by NRLC
accurate, or misleading?
The AMA newspaper American Medical News (July 5, 1993)
interviewed Dr. Martin Haskell and reported: Dr. Haskell said
the drawings were accurate ``from a technical point of
view.'' But he took issue with the implication that the
fetuses were ``aware and resisting.''
Professor Watson Bowes of the University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill, co-editor of the Obstetrical and
Gynecological Survey, wrote in a letter to Congressman
Canady: Having read Dr. Haskell's paper, I can assure you
that these drawings accurately represent the procedure
described therein. * * * Firsthand renditions by a
professional medical illustrator, or photographs or a video
recording of the procedure would no doubt be more vivid, but
not necessarily more instructive for a non-medical person who
is trying to understand how the procedure is performed.
On Nov. 1, 1995, Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder and her
allies actually tried to prevent Congressman Canady from
displaying the line drawings during the debate on HR 1833 on
the floor of the House of Representatives. But the House
voted by nearly a 4-to-1 margin (332 to 86) to permit the
drawings to be used.
Does the bill contradict U.S. Supreme Court decisions?
The Supreme Court has never said that there is a
constitutional right to kill human beings who are mostly
born.
In its official report on HR 1833, the House Judiciary
Committee makes the very plausible argument that HR 1833
could be upheld by the Supreme Court without disturbing Roe.
In Roe, the Supreme Court said that ``the word `person,' as
used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the
unborn.'' Thus, under the Supreme Court's doctrine, a human
being becomes a legal ``person'' upon emerging from the
uterus. But a partial-birth abortion does not involve an
``unborn fetus.'' A partial-birth abortion, by the very
definition in the bill, kills a human being who is partly
born. Indeed, a partial-birth abortion kills a human being
who is four-fifths across the `line-of-personhood'
established by the Supreme Court.
Moreover, in Roe v. Wade itself, the Supreme Court took
note of a Texas law that made it a felony to kill a baby ``in
a state of being born and before actual birth,'' and the
Court did not disturb that law.
Thus, the Supreme Court could very well decide that the
killing of a mostly born baby, even if done by a physician,
is not protected by Roe v. Wade.
THE PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT (H.R. 1833) AS PASSED BY THE U.S.
SENATE ON DECEMBER 7, 1995 AND BY THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON
MARCH 27, 1996
Section 1. Short Title.
This Act may be cited as the ``Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
Act of 1995.''
Sec. 2. Prohibition on Partial-Birth Abortions
(a) In General.--Title 18, United States Code, is amended
by inserting after Chapter 73 the following: ``Chapter 74--
Partial-Birth Abortions.
Sec. 1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited.
(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or
foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion
and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. This
paragraph shall not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is
necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is
endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury:
Provided, That no other medical procedure would suffice for
that purpose. This paragraph shall become effective one day
after enactment.
(b)(1) As used in this section, 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.
(2) As used in this section, the term `physician' means a
doctor of medicine or osteopathy legally authorized to
practice medicine and surgery by the State in which the
doctor performs such activity, or any other individual
legally authorized by the State to perform abortions:
Provided, however, That any individual who is not a physician
or not otherwise legally authorized by the State to perform
abortions, but who nevertheless directly performs a partial-
birth abortion, shall be subject to the provisions of this
section.
(c)(1) The father, if married to the mother at the time she
receives a partial-birth abortion procedure, and if the
mother has not attained the age of 18 years at the time of
the abortion, the maternal grandparents of the fetus, may in
a civil action obtain appropriate relief, unless the
pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff's criminal conduct or
the plaintiff consented to the abortion.
(2) Such relief shall include--
(A) money damages for all injuries, psychological and
physical, occasioned by the violation of this section; and
(B) statutory damages equal to three times the cost of the
partial-birth abortion.
(d) A woman upon whom a partial-birth abortion is performed
may not be prosecuted under this section, for a conspiracy to
violate this section, or for an offense under section 2, 3,
or 4 of this title based on a violation of this section.
STEP 5
``[T]he surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of
the skull * * * [H]e 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.'' Text from Martin Haskell, M.D., Dilation and
Extraction for Late Second Trimester Abortion.
____________________