The truth about partial-birth abortion bans

The Wildcat recently printed Al Mollo's column blasting "partial birth abortions." It was packed with exaggerations that must be corrected.

The "partial-birth abortion" is a myth fabricated by anti-choice reactionaries. The term cannot be found in any medical book or dictionary. It is a purely political phrase used by conservative extremists who hope to strip women of their constitutional rights.

Mollo derided President Clinton for vetoing a bill intended to ban "partial-birth abortions." Many such bills have cropped up in state legislatures across the country during the last few years. Supporters of the bans portray them as only referring to one abortion procedure that is used in the last trimester. However, the language of the statutes is so vague, the bans amount to outright prohibition of all abortion.

The most commonly used legal definition of "partial-birth abortion" is "partially vaginally delivering a living fetus before killing the fetus and completing the delivery." This can apply to several abortion procedures used in the first and second trimesters of pregnancy.

"Partial birth abortion" bans would make it virtually impossible for physicians to terminate any pregnancy without being legally attacked by anti-choice groups. Women's access to abortion would become extremely limited.

The ban Mollo deems necessary to maintain the moral fiber of America is unconstitutional. It would infringe upon women's rights to privacy and bodily integrity recognized by the Supreme Court under Roe v. Wade. This is no accident. The supporters of "partial-birth abortion" bans are anti-choice die-hards who hope to chip away at women's hard-won reproductive rights.

The Roe v. Wade decision of 1973 stanched the flow of women into back-alley abortion "clinics," where many contracted infections or bled to death. The Roe decision supports a woman's right to use the consultation of her physician in making decisions that involve her own well-being.

A state may only interfere in a woman's choice in cases of abortion performed after the fetus is capable of sustaining its life outside a woman's body, according to a 1992 Supreme Court decision. Even in these cases, exceptions can be made to protect the life and health of the woman.

"Partial-birth abortion" bans would prevent women from terminating pregnancies, without regard to fetal viability or women's health. This is a blatant violation of the protections erected for women in Roe v. Wade.

The safest of abortion methods used in the second trimester of pregnancy is covered by the legislative definition of "partial-birth abortion." The American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists has said one of the procedures included in the definition is sometimes "the most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman."

The American Medical Association agrees that the procedure, intact dilation and evacuation, or D&E "may minimize trauma to the woman's uterus, cervix and other vital organs." At the advice of medical experts, four courts have found the "partial birth abortion" definition to encompass D&E. Supporting a ban on D&E and other procedures is tantamount to supporting the mutilation of women's bodies.

Mollo's claim that most late-term abortions involve "children capable of living outside of their mother's womb" is a brazen falsehood. Furthermore, to suggest that any woman chooses abortion cavalierly, especially late-term abortion, is outrageous.

About 90 percent of the 1.5 million abortions performed in the United States annually take place in the first trimester of pregnancy, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute. Fewer than 600 abortions per year occur in the last trimester, and all of these are medically necessary. This is hardly the "holocaust" Mollo purports it to be.

Late-term abortions are performed due to horrific fetal abnormalities, or threats to a woman's well-being. Often, the fetus has developed a brain outside of the skull, or has no brain tissue at all and is dead or dying. These defects are virtually impossible to detect early in a pregnancy.

The vast majority of late-term abortions are had by women who very much want to bear children. In some cases, a woman is forced to terminate a pregnancy because she has been diagnosed with cancer, severe heart problems, AIDS or another life-threatening illness that will be exacerbated by continuing pregnancy.

Only a trained physician has the discretion to decide what surgery is best to terminate a catastrophic pregnancy. Outlawing some late-term abortion procedures will force physicians to use methods that are more likely to cause bleeding and infection in a woman's reproductive organs. It is terribly inappropriate to prohibit physicians from using their expert medical judgment to determine what type of procedure is best under particular circumstances.

Reactionary politicians and religious wingnuts should not determine what is good medical practice, or to what rights Americans are entitled.

Mollo asks God to damn the souls of those who practice abortion. May God and the Constitution protect us from those who would return this nation to the days of back-alley bloodbaths.

Sarah Spivack
Philosophy junior