 | Intact dilation and extraction: Encyclopedia II - Intact dilation and extraction - Legal and political situation in the United States
Intact dilation and extraction - Legal and political situation in the United States
Intact dilation and extraction - About the terminology
When used to abort a live fetus, this procedure is referred to as "partial-birth abortion" in the media and among pro-life groups. In the medical field intact dilation and extraction is sometimes referred to as a D&X procedure (not to be confused with the D&E procedure dilation and evacuation, in which the fetus is dismembered before being removed from the womb).
Intact dilation and extraction - Efforts to ban the procedure
Since 1995, led by Congressional Republicans, the United States House of Representatives and U.S. Senate have moved several times to pass measures banning the procedure. Congress passed two such measures by wide margins during Bill Clinton's presidency, but Clinton vetoed those bills in April 1996 and October 1997 on the grounds that they did not include health exceptions. Subsequent Congressional attempts at overriding the veto were unsuccessful.
In 2003, however, opponents of the procedure succeeded in getting the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (HR 760, S 3) signed into law; the House passed it on October 2 with a vote of 281-142, the Senate passed it on October 21 with a vote of 64-34, and President George W. Bush signed it into law on November 5.
Through this legislation, a doctor could face up to two years in prison and face civil lawsuits for performing such an abortion. A woman who undergoes the procedure, however, cannot be prosecuted under the measure.
The Act's particular definition of a partial-birth abortion is:
... an abortion in which -- (A) the person performing the abortion deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and (B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus.
Note that this definition of "partial-birth abortion" is not equivalent to "intact dilation & extraction," and covers a different range of procedures. The bill does not ban intact D&X when the fetus is already dead, making it clear that it is not a medical technique that is the issue, but the purposeful abortion of a fetus that is unacceptable, as it is perceived by many to be only inches away from classic infanticide. This infanticide protection enhancement was also addressed in the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act which protects babies who are born as the results of faulty abortions.
The law contains an exception when the woman's life is at stake, the relevant text reading:
Sec. 1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited
(a) ... This subsection does 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, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.
Opponents of the law believe that this exception is far too narrow, arguing, among other things, that an abortion may be justified if a woman's health, and not just her life, is in danger.
Beginning in early 2004, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the National Abortion Federation, and abortion doctors in Nebraska challenged the ban in United States District Courts in San Francisco, New York City, and Lincoln, Nebraska, respectively. In June of that year Judge Phyllis Hamilton, of the San Francisco court, ruled the ban unconstitutional, by September federal judges in the New York and Nebraska courts had issued similar rulings. While the San Francisco and New York decisions currently await decisions regarding their appeals, the Nebraska decision has been upheld by the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In upholding the Nebraska ruling, the Eighth Circuit states that the law is facially unconstitutional, meaning the ban is unconstitutional in all circumstances. This decision awaits further appeal, as the U.S. Department of Justice has requested the Supreme Court to review the lower court's decision, that request is pending through 2006.
Other related archives1992, 1995, 2004, 2006, Articles to be merged, Bill Clinton, Dr. Martin Haskell, George W. Bush, House, June, Lincoln, Nebraska, National Abortion Federation, New York City, November 5, October 2, October 21, Parliament, Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Republicans, San Francisco, Senate, September, Supreme Court, U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Senate, United States, United States District Courts, United States House of Representatives, Wikipedia articles needing context, abortion debate, caesarean section, caesarian section, catheter, cervix, dead, dilation and evacuation, fetus, head, hydrocephalus, infanticide, miscarriage, partial-birth abortion, physician, pregnancy, skull, surgeon, trimester, uterus, vetoed
 Adapted from the Wikipedia article "Legal and political situation in the United States", under the G.N U Free Docmentation License. Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki |
