Partial-birth abortion - Definition and Overview

The phrase partial-birth abortion is a controversial one used primarily by abortion opponents in the United States. While those who use the phrase say it refers to late-term abortions, the definition could prohibit even first-trimester abortions, and pro-choice opponents of the term charge that it is ill-defined political rhetoric with no medical basis.

(Pro-Choice Position) Planned Parenthood Description

Dilation and Evacuation

Dilation and evacuation (D&E) is performed in two steps.

The first step of a D&E involves cervical preparation (softening and dilation).

The vagina is washed with an antiseptic.

Absorbent dilators may be put into the cervix, where they remain for several hours, sometimes overnight. Misoprostol may also be used to facilitate dilation of the cervix.

During the second step of a D&E

The woman may be given medication to ease pain and/or prevent infection.

A local anesthetic is injected into or near the cervix. General anesthesia can also be used.

The dilators are removed from the cervix.

The fetus and other products of conception are removed from the uterus with surgical instruments and suction curettage. This procedure takes about 10-20 minutes.

(Pro-Life Position) National Right to Life Description

Partial-Birth Abortion

Abortionists sometimes refer to these or similar types of abortions using obscure, clinical-sounding euphemisms such as "Dilation and Extraction" (D&X), or "intact D&E" (IDE) which mask the realities of how the abortions are actually performed.

This procedure is used to abort women who are 20 to 32 weeks pregnant -- or even later into pregnancy. Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist reaches into the uterus, grabs the unborn baby’s leg with forceps, and pulls the baby into the birth canal, except for the head, which is deliberately kept just inside the womb. (At this point in a partial-birth abortion, the baby is alive.) Then the abortionist jams scissors into the back of the baby’s skull and spreads the tips of the scissors apart to enlarge the wound. After removing the scissors, a suction catheter is inserted into the skull and the baby’s brains are sucked out. The collapsed head is then removed from the uterus.

Distinction from "intact dilation and extraction"

The term is sometimes used interchangeably with the more medical sounding intact dilation and extraction (ID&X), and some claim this usage is misleading or erroneous. "Intact dilation and extraction" specifically covers a range of procedures beyond those defined by legal definitions of "partial-birth abortion." (See HR 1833 below.)

Pro-choice and pro-life groups have debated the ethical and legal aspects of the procedure since the early 1990s. Pro-choice advocates object to the misleading and vague term "partial-birth abortion," while pro-life advocates prefer it to more clinical terms.

Controversy over Life and Health

Proponents of the ban on partial-birth abortions have consistently omitted "life and health" exceptions when proposing such bans. Opponents of these laws question their constitutionality without these exceptions. During his term, President Clinton twice vetoed partial-birth bans because he felt they did not adequately address this issue. The Supreme Court likewise struck down as unconstitutional a Nebraska state law in Stenberg v. Carhart that did not include a health exception. Anti-abortion advocates were staunchly against including a health exception because they believed that under the current legal definition of "health," mental or psychological health could be included, essentially nullifying the law. They believed that they adequately addressed this in the findings section of the most recent version of the legislation (cited below), because they have included with the legislation a large amount of supporting documentation -- including a statement by the American Medical Association -- which they argue demonstrates that there is no medical situation under which this procedure could be used to preserve the physical health of the mother. However, federal courts in 2004 in San Francisco, Nebraska and New York have already rejected the Congressional findings as not being accurate.