FREE ESSAY ON PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTIONS

PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTIONS

Recently, congress has been going over the issue of partial birth abortions. A partial
birth abortion is performed in the second and third trimesters. A partial birth abortion
entails (1) inducing a breech delivery with forceps, (2) delivering the legs, arms, and
torso only, (3) puncturing the back of the skull with scissors or a trochar, (4)
inserting a suction curette into the skull, (5) suctioning the contents of the skull so
as to collapse it, (6) completing the delivery. A partial breech delivery is not
considered a birth at common law, where it is the passage of the head that is essential
(Abortion Laws). Congress is currently in the process of passing the Partial-Birth
Abortion Ban Act of 2000. Both bills, H.R. 3660 and S. 1692, prohibit any physician from
knowingly performing a partial-birth abortion, unless it is necessary to save the
mother's life that is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury.
There are many people that oppose bans on safe abortion procedures. Although these bans
are characterized as a single, late procedure, the bans are in fact not limited to any
stage of pregnancy. They define the conduct to be banned so broadly as to reach an array
of safe and common methods of abortion. Doctors have testified repeatedly and courts
across the country have found that the bans can apply to all procedures used in the
second trimester of pregnancy and even to some first trimester abortions. A court stated
that the law "has the effect of inhibiting the vast majority of abortion procedures and
would significantly increase the health risks for a woman seeking an abortion of a
nonviable fetus" (ACLU).
Some say that the government should stay out of the operating room. Legislators are not
trained to make medical decisions. Therefore, politicians should not regulate medicine in
a way that undermines the safety of patients. They should leave decisions about the best
surgical techniques for abortion in the hands of doctors, patients, and their families.
The bans use of non-medical terminology simply shows that politicians should not try to
manage the practice of medicine (ACLU).
The ACLU opposes bans on safe abortion procedures because they infringe on constitutional
protections for reproductive freedom. Federal and state courts have found the bans are
unconstitutional for their wide-reaching prohibition on the safest, most common methods
of abortion; for the harm they impose on women's health by restricting physician
discretion; and for their vagueness. The partial birth abortion bans threaten the right
to choose abortion. The Supreme Court has held that the government may not prohibit a
woman from making the ultimate decision, in accordance with her won conscience and moral
imperatives, to have an abortion. Abortion restrictions are unconstitutional if they
place an "undue burden" on a woman's right to choose abortion. That is, if they would
place a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking abortions (ACLU). The partial
birth abortion bans pose not only a substantial obstacle, but an absolute barrier to many
abortions that are now safe and legal. After reviewing evidence that the language of the
bans reach most methods of abortion, a court in Iowa held that the ban in that state was
"unconstitutional as a matter of law" (ACLU). 
Partial birth abortion bans compromise women's health and drastically limit physicians'
discretion to choose the most medically appropriate abortion method for their patients. A
federal court in Florida found that the bans would have an effect of denying women
"appropriate medical care." Similarly, a court in Montana found it would "increase the
amount of risk and pain to the woman" (ACLU). Most of the proposed bans
unconstitutionally fail to provide adequate life and health exceptions. Most partial
birth abortion bans apply throughout pregnancy and yet contain no health exception
whatsoever and a dangerously inadequate life exception. The government may never prohibit
abortions that are necessary to preserve women's lives or health. A court in Illinois
said the law would impermissibly require a women "to remain pregnant eve in the face of
serious health concerns" (ACLU).
Anti-choice legislators are also introducing bans on abortion procedures. Like the
federal bill, most of the state measures are so vague and so broad that they cover a wide
range of abortion methods. In all, twenty-seven states have banned partial birth
abortions. These states are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho,
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana,
Nebraska, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin (Abortion Law Homepage). In nineteen states,
medical providers have challenged the partial birth abortion ban on the grounds that they
endanger women's health, jeopardize safe medical practice, and violate the constitutional
rights of patients and doctors. In seventeen of these states, the bans are now enjoined,
and in an eighteenth, the ban's effect is severely limited. 
While there are many people apposed to the ban, there are many people for the ban. Some
of the complications in their arguments are breast cancer, acute grief reaction,
emotional disturbances, pelvic inflammatory disease, and uterine perforation. Recent
studies have pointed out that there is a relationship between the rate of abortion and
the rising incidence of breast cancer (American Life League). Post-abortion grief has
been identified in numerous studies as a serious complication of induced abortion. Three
in four women experience acute grief reactions if the abortion is for genetic reasons.
One in two women experience emotional and physical disturbances. These disturbances may
last for months, and may include depression, insomnia, nervousness, guilt, and regret.
One in four women experience complications in future pregnancies. These may include
excessive bleeding, premature delivery, cervical damage, and sterility (American Life
League).
Legal abortion appears to contribute to an increase in ectopic pregnancy in younger women
when associated with pelvic inflammatory disease. There is a 30% increased risk after one
abortion and a 160% increased risk after two or more abortions (American Life League).
They could also lead to placenta previa, which is a condition producing extremely severe,
life threatening bleeding in future pregnancies. Also the loss of a baby through abortion
may cause a mother to be less affectionate toward future children and may contribute to
child abuse (American Life League).
There are a majority of sites on the internet that are pro-choice, and there are also
many pro-life choice web sites. The major influences are coming from the public opinions
and special interest groups. Also, Congressional leaders have a large influence on how
this issue is being voted on. On October 5, 1999, S. 1992 was introduced to the Senate.
On October 21, 1999 it was passed with a vote of 63-34. It was then sent to the House on
October 25, 1999. On April 5, 2000, H.R. 3660 was passed with a vote of 287-141, then
there was a motion to reconsider. It was then receive by the Senate on April 6, 2000.
I believe that if a woman wants to get an abortion, then the women should have the
choice. I think that if the woman wants to get an abortion, she must have a good reason
to get one. It could be for medical reasons, or for the fact that she is a teenage mother
and cannot take care of the baby. I think that there is already to many homeless children
out there, and by banning abortions, we are just adding to the number of homeless
children. It should be the mothers choice, and the mothers choice only. Not the choice of
politicians who think that they know what is right for women when they have never had to
make that sort of decision.