Talk:Intact dilation and extraction/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Links

JonGwynne reverted a change of mine to the external links at the bottom of the page. He claimed there was discussion over the issue...I see non. I disagree with legislation being in the biased section, and there are three (to my mind) highly biased articles in the unbiased section (the bottom three links.) Personally, I don't like the arrangement of the links as is. I propose dividing them into four sections: "Legislation and Court Decisions", "Commentary", and "Advocacy Groups", and "Other". Any objections or alternative ideas? --MikeJ9919 01:33, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Look at the section marked "External Links". BTW, it is customary to put new commentary at the bottom of the page in order to maintain a chronological flow.--JonGwynne 03:15, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NPOV removal

Hey guys...been watching this article for a while. It seems discussion has settled down quite a bit, as have edits. Most of the major POV issues seem to be resolved. Could we have a discussion on removing the NPOV tag? Does anyone object, and if so, why? --MikeJ9919 16:28, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the tag should be removed. --Quasipalm 17:49, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem

Duplication

Can we merge some sections of Intact dilation and extraction and Partial-birth abortion. I request that we use PBA for the political / legal situation and use IDX for the medical situation. Currently, there's a mix of duplication and information that would be better presented at the other page. --Quasipalm 03:42, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the merger request, disagree with the separation idea. I feel the topic is sufficiently constrained for one article, and IDX should be merged into partial-birth abortion. I understand if others disagree...it's obviously a judgement call. --MikeJ9919 01:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Non-medical

non-medical term describing a

I think the phrase above expresses a POV and should be mentioned in the article. --Uncle Ed 18:36, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The term "partial birth abortion" is not a medical term, it is a politically invented term that has no meaning within the medical establishment. That is a major reason for the political objections by some medical professionals. So describing this phrase as being "non-medical" is simply accurate and not POV. (I realize I'm quite late in responding to this comment but wanted to provide an explanation for anyone who comes to this discussion.) Ande B 10:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The terms heart attack and stroke are also not medical terms. But they are the common terms that most people would recgonize, regardless of the terms' origins. That is why they should be used. As should PBA. Use the terms that people would recognize. If anything else, "intact dilation and extraction" is not readily understood by anyone but a a medical professional, but "partial-birth abortion" is a terms whose meaning is self-evident without any prior familiarity. Good 12:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you misread what I wrote. Stating that PBA is a non-medical term is not POV, it's simply true. In other words, using the phrase "non-medical," is NPOV. I didn't say that the article should not use that term. In the context of the language of the legislation, its use is unavoidable whether you support or oppose it. Ande B 11:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Can't this article simply be called Late term abortion? The current title is very POV. -- Viajero 14:40, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Actually, whether or not the term is accurate, it is in common use. Therefore, I would argue that the title of the article is not only accurate but appropriate. BTW, in case you're worried about any bias on my part, I would be considered "pro-choice" since I don't believe it is right for the government to ban medical procedures because of the ethical concerns of a portion of the population.--JonGwynne 12:15, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have no objection to the creation of an article called late term abortion. I daresay it would include more than one type of procedure: not only the so-called "partial-birth abortion".

Perhaps we need to distinguish also between (a) a procedure in which an otherwise viable baby (okay, fetus) is twisted around so it's born feet first, and then just before the head emerges and it's (technically/legally) "born" the doctor kills it; and (b) other late-term abortions in which the fetus is killed further up the, um, birth canal.

Please, please note that I have NO POSITION WHATSOEVER on this issue and that I sympathize with the POVs of both "choice" and "life" -- I literally am undecided about which if either is right (God, I'd make a great politician :-). --Uncle Ed 14:53, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

How about renaming it Late term abortion and indicating that the so-called partial-birth abortion is one form it. If there are other kinds, they can be added in due time.

I just feel that the pro-life people are skewing the terms of the debate by the use of their terminology. If there was a less laden way of referring to this procedure, that would be even better... -- Viajero 15:10, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)~

It's not just a feeling: it's fully half the debate! We're all at our wit's end here, trying to find neutral terminology to describe everything. In last week's discussion on the mailing list, I believe a consensus emerged to bring out 2 non-polemical aspects:

1. Use whatever terms doctors most frequently employ in the West, for writing about the procedures themselves: what pieces of flesh are moved around, medicated, etc.
2. Use whatever terms law-makers, judges and lawyers use, for writing about laws governing the procedures.
3. Use and attribute (as necessary with "scare quotes") whatever terms the various advocates use when making their cases.

For starters, I always call each side by what they call themselves (it's just handier that way):

• pro-choice
• pro-life

If one "side" objects to the other's "name", we could say something like pro-lifers think "pro-choice" is a crock of !@#$$ and generally equate abortion rights with murder or the equally mild ;-) pro-choicers think "pro-life" is a sneaky, crypto-fascist twisting of language typical of conservative male chauvinist pigs who want to keep women in their "place": barefoot and pregnant but I'd rather not have to write that article. I'm hoping we can duck that can of worms altogether, but if someone insists on opening it I'm ready to shovel up the mess and pin each worm to a card and place it in a dainty glass display case... --Uncle Ed 15:29, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

hi again Ed, look, I can see that this article has a long history and has already had a different title as well. If this is the "accepted" terminology, that so be it. Perhaps there are other voices/opinions here... -- Viajero 15:24, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Opponents of term

I don't understand this sentence:

Opponents of laws banning partial-birth abortions voice concern that the definition of partial-birth abortion is too vague and that it could have a chilling effect on medicine

The part I don't understand is voice concern that the definition of partial-birth abortion is too vague considering that this month's ban in the US presumably defines the procedure in sufficient detail to determine whether a doctor has (a) performed a p-b a (and thus violated the new law) or (b) performed some other sort of late-term abortion which does not violate the law. I'm not anal, but I'm just trusting that Congress would not pass, and Bush wouldn't sign, a truly "vague" law.

Does anyone know what this objection or "concern" is about, and who's making it? I'd love to be able to write something like NARAL criticized the law for its failure to distinguish between "scumming the frobnitz" (which is done in 37% of cases) and "snazzing up the grummix" (which is done in 22% of cases). They predict that hundreds of doctors may face criminal charges due to this "vagueness" (note that frobnitz and grummix are not really medical terms, I think I got them from MAD Magazine). --Uncle Ed 15:39, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

We already have Intact dilation and extraction, and this article should clearly be merged with it. Also obviously, since there is a US bill Partial Birth Abortion Bill that is enough in itself to give the term validity. One of the terms should be a redirect to the other (doesn't really matter which). Late term abortion is a separate issue, with a reference to the merged article. DJ Clayworth 15:59, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Would you please do this, DJ? I'm confident in your ability to move, merge and paraphrase text. We could leave a disambig page behind, like:

See:

• Intact dilation and extraction - medical aspects of the procedure
• Partial Birth Abortion Bill (or whatever it's called) - legal aspects in the US

--Uncle Ed 16:09, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Ed Poor summarizes: Beginning to turn this article into an article about the TERM itself, following (somewhat) DJ's suggestion

Isn't that POV? Clearly, it has a legal meaning, especially now, that is fairly consistent. Daniel Quinlan 16:37, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)

Doggone it, EVERYTHING about the procedure is someone's POV! The PBA term was specifically chosen, I believe, to help garner Congressional support for the bill banning the procedure; who's going to vote for a bill called "Intact dilation and extraction ban"? Half of Americans probably don't even know what dilation means... --Uncle Ed 16:42, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

I would be very unhappy if this page was merged with another, of any title. These terms, "Intact dilation and extraction" and "Partial Birth Abortion" are both valid terms, with different definitions. "Partial Birth Abortion" is obviously a broader term, "Intact dilation and extraction" clearly a more precise one. I for one am not entirely clear what the specifics are, (in fact that was why I came to this entry, to learn more) but I have heard more than enough disputing about it to think that they are identical. JackLynch

---

Don't be thrown by the "invisible" changes, I removed some extra spaces :)

---

Just a technical point about a reference to 'HR 1833 below' in the Paragraph called 'Distinction from "intact dilation and extraction"' which doesn't seem to be there.

There is however reference made in the paragraph 'Law in the United States' to 'the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (HR 760, S 3)'. Could this be the relevant act? I have no means of checking, but someone else may be able to tidy this one up. (Not registered user - yet - but my name is J.Thrift) 10:37, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Once again, article coherence is being broken. I am close to reverting Hector's changes entirely. "Partial-birth abortion" is not the same as "Late-term abortion"; the latter is more general and covers other procedures. Some of the text makes little sense under this change (look at the first sentence of the intro as of this writing!). Comments? -- VV 07:22, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

This is a bad change. "Partial-birth abortion" is a much more popular term than "Late-term abortion." If you want to add a separate article on "Late-term abortion," fine. But just changing the title of this article is not the solution. If you think the term is POV, explain that in the article. Or should we be changing the title of The Boston Strangler and Manifest Destiny as well? (note: if you're going to reply to this note, know that I plan on updating it and changing it) Anthony DiPierro 15:36, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

"Late-term abortion" and "partial-birth abortion" are not the same thing. It is a subset relation. PBA is a type of late-term abortion. "Late-term abortion" is a broader term, "partial-birth abortion" is the more precise term.

"Intact Dilation and Extraction" ("Intact D&X" or "IDX") and "partial-birth abortion" also are not the same thing. PBA is IDX of a live fetus. IDX can also be used to remove a dead fetus after a miscarriage. "IDX" is a broader term, "PBA" is the more precise term.

Use of a more obscure and less precise term like IDX to refer to PBA is obfuscation, and evidence of POV bias. Nobody except practitioners and advocates of partial-birth abortion call it things like "intact dilation and extraction," "intact dilation and evacuation," etc.

"Partial Birth Abortion" is also the only one of the various terms used to actually be defined by law.

NCdave 21:01, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

naive comment

I just want to mention that I stumbled on this page trying to find out what Partial-Birth abortion is, but I still don't understand. I think that in their zeal to describe all the debate around it, the editors forgot that some people just want to understand what, exactly, is a "Partial Birth Abortion".

---

Agree with the above poster. CNN when discussing the overturning of the partial birth abortion ban today, describes:

• The law was aimed at stopping a procedure, usually performed during the second trimester of pregnancy, in which a fetus is partly delivered, its skull punctured and its brain removed, often by suction.

If you're unfamilar with the issue, this description makes PBEs sound like they were specifically devised to be the most horrific way to abort a pregnancy. You need to follow the article through to the intact dilation and extraction article before you understand what the purpose of collapsing the fetus's skull by sucking its brain out is.

However, I don't have the balls to even try to update the article to say this. Mbac 18:20, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

The Clinton Veto

I read an interesting thing in Clinton's book about his veto of the "partial birth" abortion bill which Congress passed during his term. He said that one of the reasons he opposed the law is that it is preformed in extremely rare circumstances, and he went on to talk about some sort of birth defect which prevented a normal abortion. As you can tell I'm not exactly sure what he was talking about, and I don't know enough about why that type of abortion is preformed. I think the article should be expanded a bit to explain why a woman might choose to have this procedure done.

Refactor the links

There are a lot of external links at the bottom of this article with (it seems) a bias towards pro-life. Are all of these links necessary?

The picture

I'd like to hear people's thoughts no the picture - Partial-birthabortion.jpg. I have several problems with it... First, it isn't a photograph but a drawing. Even if the drawing was done by someone with medical knowledge, there is no way of knowing how accurate a depiction it is. Second, the source of the drawing is a vehemently partisan organization called "Campaign Life Coalition" who are probably not the best source for accurate or objective information about the procedure. Third there is no attribution in the picture or any description of why the abortion was being performed - for all we know the picture is not of an actual procedure at all but rather a pro-life "artist's conception" of what they think might go on during an ID&X.

Thus, I don't believe the image serves any purpose here other than to promote a specific point-of-view.

I am going to remove the link to the picture for now, if anyone feels strongly enough about it being returned, let's talk about it. I would suggest that if it is deemed necessary to have illustrations of the procedure, they should be photographs of an actual procedure.

---

Diagrams illustrating how partial-birth abortions are done should be included under "(Pro-Life Position) National Right to Life Description," since such diagrams are a part of their description. The NRTL description is incomplete without the diagram.

However, IMO Partial-birthabortion.jpg is not the best diagram to use. The diagram used under "National Right to Life Description" should one of two such diagrams that NRTL actually has on their web site: B&W PBA diagram or color PBA diagram.

I also think there should be descriptions of the procedure from clinicians, rather just from advocacy organizations. On the "Pro-PBA" side a good choice (actually the only detailed description I know of) would be Dr. Haskell's description from his original 1992 monograph. On the "Anti-PBA" side a good choice would be the description by Dr. Haskell's former nurse, Brenda Pratt Shafer (who is now pro-life).

Comments? NCdave 20:51, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Interesting

Is planned parenthood really "in the business" of providing abortions???

---

Yes, they are the largest abortion provider in the USA. They also do other things, but abortion is their main business and their largest revenue source.

NCdave 21:01, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Let's see a source, hotshot. (unsigned comment)

According to their most recent annual report, clinic income was $306.2 million, or about 38% of their revenue. However, abortions is a small percentage of what their clinics do, and does not account for all of their clinic income by any standard. An abortion on average costs around $400. So, based on the data below, and assuming a $400 charge for an abortion (which it is probably lower or provided at no cost many times), PP receives about $98 million from abortions, or about 12% of their total revenue.

In 2003, PP affiliates provided 244,628 abortions; however, they also provided:

2,257,154 Reversible Contraception (birth control of many varieties)

774,482 Emergency Contraception

65,961 Reversible Contraception (men)

207,582 HIV Tests

904,201 Pregnancy Tests

921,451 Breast Exams

1,774 Adoptions (through outside referrals)

32,216 Primary Care

2,452,930 Sexual Transmitted Infections Procedures

Plus other things. So, out of the 2,811,885 people that saw PP, 8.6% had an abortion.

Annual Report (pdf format)

Peyna 22:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act

The section titled "Law in the United States" seems to have errors. It quotes the definition of a partial-birth abortion from the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (HR 760, S 3). One problem is that it is misquoted. They took out a middle section of the definition without any indication.

Actual quote of definition in H.R. 760 SEC. 2 (1): ...partial-birth abortion--an abortion in which a physician deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living, unborn child's body until either the entire baby's head is outside the body of the mother, or any part of the baby's trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother and only the head remains inside the womb, for the purpose of performing an overt act (usually the puncturing of the back of the child's skull and removing the baby's brains) that the person knows will kill the partially delivered infant, performs this act, and then completes delivery of the dead infant... For an even more detailed definition look in SEC. 3

Yet another problem is that it states the bill did not include a provision allowing for such abortions to take place when the health of the mother was endangered. This statement is somewhat false since it is legal to perform the abortion when the mothers life is endangered. But it is not legal in the case when just the mothers health is endangered. sec. 1531 (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.

It also states that the definition could include even the first-trimester vacuum aspiration of embryos through the vaginal canal and the late-term "dilation and evacuation". The definition is very specific as you can see and not vague at all. If you read the procedures for these other types of abortions you will realize there is no way they could be included as one of the procedures banned in this bill.--Datajunkie 04:23, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

This paragraph is very heavy on POV:

"The late-term abortion avoids the grieving woman from having to undergo child birth or abdominal and uterine incisions of a caesarian section (c-section) when the child would not survive. Late-term abortions are a target of pro-life advocates because they believe the procedure most clearly illustrates their view as to why abortions, and especially late-term abortions, are immoral. Pro-choice advocates point out that a late-term abortion clearly cannot be an optional procedure and in practice, involves a tragic situation in which the government should not intervene to cause more suffering to the woman by requiring painful labor and delivery or abdominal surgery."

There's a lot of things in here that could use a rewrite, but to be honest, the whole chunk looks like a candidate for deletion. The first sentence, while true in some cases, is not necessarily typical or definitive. The second, may or may nor correctly describe why it's a target. The third is opinion couched as fact, as studies do show late-term abortions used as optional procedures.

Any suggestions? Zooks527 03:04, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

I've done a heavy cleanup on this article.

I've corrected the quote from the PBA Ban Act, and rewritten/balanced the POV-heavy paragraph that Zooks mentioned, and a few others, added several additional references, and fixed a number of other problems, including:

Corrected false statement that PBA is a term "used primarily by abortion opponents." In fact, it is a term of law, the only legally defined term for this procedure. There is no other term, legal or otherwise, with precisely the same definition. To accurately replace the term "partial-birth abortion" would require a lengthy phrase such as, "intact dilation and extraction to abort a live fetus." Nobody uses that kind of language. Those who seek to substitute terminology that doesn't necessarily refer to the abortion of live fetus are just trying to obfuscate the issue.

That's simply not true. The term is originally political, not legal or medical. It has recently shifted into legal usage because of the now-defunct PBA Ban Act of 2003.--JonGwynne 18:52, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Only in the sense that law-making is an inherently political activity is the term "partial-birth abortion" political. It is a simple, descriptive, legal term. A POV-reflective political version would be "murdering a defenseless baby by sucking his brains out." But (unlike Gwynne) I tried to keep the POV stuff OUT of the article, and refrained from politically-charged rhetoric.

Replaced POV-heavy and misleading statement "While those who use the phrase say it refers to a specific type of late-term abortion, pro-choice critics of the term charge that it is ill-defined political rhetoric with no medical basis..." with the accurate & balanced statement that "The debate over PBA is about the term as well as the procedure. The phrase "partial-birth abortion" is a legal term." and included both sides of the argument, and discussion of several alternative terms used by abortionists (which do not describe the same range of procedures).

Retained POV false statement that "the definition could include even first-trimester abortions" but added comparative quote from the actual PBA Ban for NPOV balance/truth.

Replaced heavily POV discussion of recent origin of "the term" with balanced discussion of the recent origin of BOTH the term and the procedure. POV-heavy version was: "The term has been very recently coined.... It is neither a medical nor scientific term." NPOV replacement begins: "The procedure and the various terms for it are all of relatively recent invention. The procedure was first described by Cincinnati physician W. Martin Haskell...."

That's not true either, late-term abortions have been performed for decades. The procedure is not a new one. The term is. -JonGwynne

"Late-term abortion" and "partial-birth abortion" are not synonyms. I know perfectly well that late-term abortions have been performed for decades. Gianna Jessen knows it, too: she was the victim of an attempted late-term saline abortion 27 years ago, but defied the odds and refused to die; I've met her, and she is a wonderful Christian lady. [1] The fact is that partial-birth abortion was invented around 1992. NCdave

Corrected false statement about the origin of the term. False (and heavily POV) version: "...stemming from the efforts of the pro-life Christian Coalition to begin a campaign designed to outlaw abortion" Corrected version: "The term 'partial-birth abortion' was coined by legislative drafters of a bill to ban the procedure, in 1995"

The bill was introduced as the result of pressure from the Christian Coalition and the Bill's author kept the language suggested by the CC. -JonGwynne

The bill was to outlaw partial-birth abortion, not "designed to outlaw abortion," and the drafting of the bill was a collaborative effort by people who were appalled by this barbaric procedure. The term "partial-birth abortion" is simply descriptive, and was coined by the bill's drafters. NCdave

Changed statements of (POV-heavy) opinion which were expressed as fact into explicit statements of opinion: Example: replaced "many of these restrictions are constitutionally invalid" with "many of these restrictions are claimed by abortion supporters to be constitutionally invalid"

OK, that's fair enough, I'll put that one back.

And other, similar corrections. Result isn't perfect, but it is, at least, more nearly balanced and MUCH more accurate.

One remaining problem that I didn't take the time to track down & correct is this statement:

"Four States (Delaware, Minnesota, Ohio and Utah) have no current policy regarding post-viability abortions because the laws in those States are blocked by court order. The remaining 44 States, plus the District of Columbia impose some regulation on late-term abortion."

Of course, there are actually 50 States in the USA, not 48, so something is obviously wrong there. NCdave 16:59, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll fix that one too.--JonGwynne 18:52, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I'll give the whole thing a little touch-up. It could use one.--JonGwynne 18:52, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

JonGwynne's "little touch-up" was wholesale POV vandalism. I've restored it. NCdave 21:24, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The latest round of edits

Look, let's see if we can settle this without reverting back and forth. OK? The existing language has been in place for quite some time. A massive re-write is neither needed nor warranted. If you want to discuss the language, I'm certainly open to that. But you're not going to be allowed to turn this article into an "Operation Rescue" tract.--JonGwynne 22:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your problem is that you want the page to be NARAL propaganda, full of POV bias and outright misinformation. You deleted the corrections I made, and the changes I made to make it NPOV, and the references I added to the end to make a balanced list of pro- and anti- sources. I deleted NONE of your pro-PBA reference sources, but you deleted a slew of the references that I added. Your vandalism is the worst sort of Wikipedia abuse. NCdave 2:00, 21 Feb, 2005 (UTC)

"Partial-birth abortion (or PBA) is a procedure used to abort fetuses in women who are in the last half of a pregnancy. A PBA is an abortion in which the baby is partially delivered before being killed. Most partial-birth abortions are performed between the 20th and 24th weeks of pregnancy. It is estimated that a few thousand partial-birth abortions are performed per year in the United States"

You cite no sources for your claims here. There is no "official" definition of a PBA since the procedure doesn't actually exist. So, calling it a "procedure" is, in fact, POV. Sometimes when people say "PBA", they mean "IDX"/"IDE", sometimes they mean any late-term abortion regardless of method. By some pro-life advocates view, all abortions are PBAs.--JonGwynne 22:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That is utter nonsense. PBA is defined very precisely in the U.S. Code, and the NPOV version of this article (which you keep deleting) quotes that definition. That's about as official as you can get. If the procedure "doesn't really exist," then why do you suppose that the abortion industry is fighting so hard in court to block the banning of it?

IDX/IDE/etc., in contrast, are defined in no law, no medical textbook, no peer-reviewed journal, anywhere, but that's not the real problem with using IDX or IDE or "Intact D&E" or similar terminology to refer to PBAs. The real problem is that those terms do not mean that you are necessarily killing the baby, because they can also be used to remove an already-dead fetus after a natural miscarriage. (That ambiguity is presumably intentional; obfuscation is the name of the game in the abortion business.)

To suggest that PBA isn't a real procedure is delusional. Nobody anywhere ever means "any late-term abortion" when they say "partial-birth abortion." If you know anything at all about this topic, then you know that to be a fact.

By some pro-life advocates view, all abortions are PBAs.--JonGwynne

Come on, let's see your citation for THAT nonsense. NCdave 2:30, 21 Feb, 2005 (UTC)

The USC, eh? Then we should make it clear that this is a legal and not a medical/scientific definition. Oh yeah, and we should refer to the specific section so they can check it for themselves. Ooops, the PBA ban still hasn't gone into effect and is, for all intents and purposes, dead in the water. As you can see, 18 USC hasn't been amended and Chapter 74 hasn't been included [2]. Is there any other section to which you want to draw my attention? Or is there no legal definition of PBA?

By some pro-life advocates view, all abortions are PBAs.--JonGwynne

If you are going to state the views of "some pro-life advocates," you should be able to cite a couple of them. Of course you won't, because you can't.

In fact, I think you must surely know perfectly well that your statement is untrue. Pro-lifers (and, according to public opinion polls, most of the public) commonly say that "abortion is murder." But they never say that all abortions are PBAs.

A stay is currently in effect enjoining enforcement of the federal PBA Ban, but it doesn't enjoin use of the definition of Partial-Birth Abortion in that law, which, as you know, was passed with overwhelming public support and very large bipartisan majorities in Congress. Also, you can read the Ohio "partial birth feticide" ban (which was upheld last year by a federal appeals court, and is currently in effect) for a differently worded but nearly equivalent definition of the procedure: [3]

NCdave 4:50, 21 Feb, 2005 (UTC)

"According to Ron Fitzsimmons, then Executive Director for the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, "In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along. The abortion-rights folks know it, the anti-abortion folks know it, and so, probably, does everyone else." (New York Times, February 26, 1997)"

A Google search on Ron's name doesn't turn up much on him (certainly nothing about the alleged NYT quote) apart from lots of mentions by pro-life groups and an interesting article in Slate [4] in which Fitzsimmons' media deceptions are described as well as the fact that he has refused to give any interviews since they were uncovered. That pretty well puts him in the "discredited" column. Oh yeah, and they mention that he opposes a ban on IDEs.--JonGwynne 22:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Everything I added is well-supported. If you'd bothered to read the references at the bottom, you'd have seen the citations. But, just for you, I've added two cites to the quote, too.NCdave 2:30, 21 Feb, 2005 (UTC)

Is that enough, or do you want me to rip apart the whole thing?--JonGwynne

Rip away. If you can indentify ANY inaccuracy in what I wrote, you can fix it, or you can tell me and I'll fix it. Please feel free to also add more pro-PBA references, if you wish, though the list of references in the NPOV version of this article that I posted has a good, balanced mix.

But cease your vandalism. do NOT keep deleting the pro-life references, and do NOT keep deleting truthful and balanced descriptions and substituting NARAL lies. NCdave 2:30, 21 Feb, 2005 (UTC)

(Pro-Choice Position) Planned Parenthood Description

Has nobody else here noticed that the "Planned Parenthood Description" doesn't describe this procedure at all? It describes D&E, which is a procedure in which the baby is dismembered within the womb before being sucked out in pieces. It is so lacking in detail that it isn't obvious without very careful reading just what it is describing, but that's what this means: "The fetus and other products of conception are removed from the uterus with surgical instruments and suction curettage."

The only description of PBA or IDX that I know of which was written by an advocate of the procedure is the one in Haskall's original 1992 monograph. (That's not really surprising, IMO. Detailed descriptions of truly horrific human behavior are rarely written by those who are guilty of it. You won't find many NAZI-written detailed descriptions of the Auschwitz death camp's mass execution procedures, either.)

I'm opposed to abortion, so I certainly am not the right person to select what is supposed to be explicitly pro-PBA material (unless it turns out that there is only one such description extant to choose from). I'll leave it to someone else here to find a pro-PBA description of the procedure, if you can. I would ask that you try to find one that is not blatantly dishonest.

If you can't find one, then just use the one in Haskell's monograph.http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/partial-birth_abortion.htm

NCdave 06:44, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Guttmacher unreliable

The page at the Guttmacher Institute which summarizes State laws w/r/t post-viability abortion http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_RPA.pdf is obviously inaccurate. It only lists 40 States, and it still shows Ohio has having no law in effect, though Ohio's PBA ban survived the last of its legal challenges and has been in legal effect since mid-2004. (Note that Guttmacher is a Planned Parenthood affiliate -- not an unbiased source.)

However, I don't have a better summary. So I just corrected the information about Ohio, and "fuzzied" the language to better reflect the unreliability of the other information. The old version was:

Four states (Delaware, Minnestota, Ohio and Utah) have no current policy regarding post-viability abortions because the laws in this states are blocked by court order. The remaining 44 states, plus the District of Columbia impose some regulation on late-term abortion

My latest version is:

At least three States (Delaware, Minnesota, and Utah) have no current policy regarding post-viability abortions because the laws in those States are blocked by court order. Most or all of the remaining 47 States, plus the District of Columbia, impose some regulation on late-term abortion

I would welcome better information about this. NCdave 19:31, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

POV

Why is the fetus referred to as a baby in the main text of the article. Why is the Pro-Life description of the procedure given as a neutral description of the procedure in the main text of the article. That paragraph should be rewritten neutrally or removed.

Referring to: Then, guided by ultrasound, the abortionist reaches into the uterus, grasps the unborn baby's legs with forceps, and pulls the baby into the birth canal, except for the head, which is deliberately kept just inside the womb. The abortionist then forces 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 brain is sucked out. The head is then crushed, and the delivery of the dead baby is completed.

It's not a baby. It's a fetus. "Brain is sucked out"? Gee, that doesn't sound like propganda designed to ellicit an emotional response of horror.

---

w/r/t use of the word "baby," when describing the victim of this type of homicide:

A fetus is an unborn baby. A baby can be unborn or born. The term fetus ceases to be accurate at the moment of birth.

Both terms are technically accurate, prior to the point at which part of the baby emerges from the womb. From that point on, "baby" is inarguably accurate, and "fetus" is only arguably so.

Excluding the NRLC and PP explicitly "pro-life" and "pro-choice" descriptions, there are 9 uses of the word "baby" and 10 uses of the word "fetus" in the current version of the article. That's pretty balanced, IMO. So what's your problem? To exclusively use the pro-abortion terminology would be to inject POV bias. NCdave 16:50, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In spite of the fact that (excluding the NRLC and PP descriptions) there were already more uses of the term "fetus" than "baby" in the article an anonymous pro-abortion vandal nevertheless deleted the totally factual, NPOV description of the procedure. The abortion industry is all about hiding information.

I've undone the vandalism, and also edited the description to try to satisfy the vandals: I've changed the first two of the five references to "baby" in the description to use "fetus," instead. Those two references both refer to when the fetus is still entirely within his mother's womb, so either term is technically correct. The other three references refer to when the baby is already partially born, so the term fetus is not technically correct: the dictionary definition of the word fetus is an UNBORN baby, not a partially born baby.[5]

The article now has 7 uses of the word "baby" and 12 uses of the word "fetus" (excluding the NRLC and PP descriptions). IMO, that reflects a pro-abortion POV, but I'll let it go.

If you defenders of partial-birth abortion want to do something useful, why don't you find a "pro-choice" description to put under the "(Pro-Choice Position) Planned Parenthood Description" heading, to replace that D&E description, which is obviously wrong. NCdave 23:56, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

w/r/t "brain is sucked out":

That is EXACTLY what is done. So what's your problem? It is as precise and concise a description as you can find, anywhere.

w/r/t the description of the procedure:

It is an accurate, fairly detailed, unbiased description.

Supporters partial-birth abortion have repeatedly REMOVED descriptions and diagrams illustrating the procedure from this article. That's just plain rediculous! How can you have an article about a surgical procedure and never say what it is??

You complain that the description here is "the Pro-Life description." But accurate descriptions of this procedure are inherently pro-life, because the procedure is so revolting. The problem is that the procedure is so barbaric that only the pro-life side is willing to describe it in detail. The only "Pro-Choice" description with any detail that I've found is the one in Haskell's 1992 monograph.

Would you prefer that one? The main problems with it are that it is very lengthy, and that, by the time you get to the end, if you have any heart at all, you may be unable to keep your lunch down, and you might suspect that Haskell is a pseudonym for Mengele:

Description of Dilation and Extraction Method

Dilation and extraction takes over three days. In a nutshell, D&X can be described as follows: dilation; more dilation; real-time ultrasound visualization; version (as needed); intact extraction; fetal skull decompression; removal; clean-up; recovery.

Day 1--Dilation

The patient is evaluated with an ultrasound, hemoglobin and Rh. Hadlock scales are used to interpret all ultrasound measurements.

In the operating room, the cervix is prepped, anesthetized and dilated to 9-11 mm. Five, six or seven large Dilapan hydroscopic dilators are placed in the cervix. The patient goes home or to a motel overnight.

Day 2--Dilation

The patient returns to the operating room where the previous day's Dilapan are removed. The cervix is scrubbed and anesthetized. Between 15 and 25 Dilapan are placed in the cervical canal. The patient returns home or to a motel overnight.

Day 3--The Operation

The patient returns to the operating room where the previous day's Dilapan are removed. The surgical assistant administers 10 IU Pitocin intramuscularly. The cervix is scrubbed, anesthetized and grasped with a tenaculum. The membranes are ruptured, if they are not already.

The surgical assistant places an ultrasound probe on the patient's abdomen and scans the fetus, locating the lower extremities. This scan provides the surgeon information about the orientation of the fetus and approximate location of the lower extremities. The transducer is then held in position over the lower extremities.

The surgeon introduces a large grasping forcep, such as a Bierer or Hern, through the vaginal and cervical canals into the corpus of the uterus. Based upon his knowledge of fetal orientation, he moves the tip of the instrument carefully towards the fetal lower extremities. When the instrument appears on the sonogram screen, the surgeon is able to open and close its jaws to firmly and reliably grasp a lower extremity. The surgeon then applies firm traction to the instrument causing a version of the fetus (if necessary) and pulls the extremity into the vagina.

By observing the movement of the lower extremity and version of the fetus on the ultrasound screen, the surgeon is assured that his instrument has not inappropriately grasped a maternal structure.

With a lower extremity in the vagina, the surgeon uses his fingers to deliver the opposite lower extremity, then the torso, the shoulders and the upper extremities.

The skull lodges at the internal cervical os. Usually there is not enough dilation for it to pass through. The fetus is oriented dorsum or spine up.

At this point, the right-handed surgeon slides the fingers of the left had along the back of the fetus and `hooks' the shoulders of the fetus with the index and ring fingers (palm down). Next he slides the tip of the middle finger along the spine towards the skull while applying traction to the shoulders and lower extremities. The middle finger lifts and pushes the anterior cervical lip out of the way.

While maintaining this tension, lifting the cervix and applying traction to the shoulders with the fingers of the left hand, the 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.

Reassessing proper placement of the closed scissors tip and safe elevation of the cervix, the 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. With the catheter still in place, he applies traction to the fetus, removing it completely from the patient.

The surgeon finally removes the placenta with forceps and scrapes the uterine walls with a large Evans and a 14 mm suction curette. The procedure ends.

Here's an ACTUAL pro-life description, from the congressional testimony of a clinician, Brenda Pratt Shafer, RN:

...because of the strong pro-choice views that I held at that time, I thought this assignment would be no problem for me.

But I was wrong. I stood at a doctor's side as he performed the partial-birth abortion procedure-- and what I saw is branded forever on my mind.

I worked as an assistant nurse at Dr. Haskell's clinic for three days-- September 28, 29, and 30, 1993.

... on the first two days, we inserted laminaria to dilate the cervixes of women who were being prepared for the partial-birth abortions-- those who were past the 20 weeks point, or 4 1/2 months. (Dr. Haskell called this procedure "D & X", for dilation and extraction.) There were six or seven of these women.

On the third day, Dr. Haskell asked me to observe as he performed several of the procedures that are the subject of this hearing. Although I was in that clinic on assignment of the agency, Dr. Haskell was interested in hiring me full time, and I was being given orientation in the entire range of procedures provided at that facility.

I was present for three of these partial-birth procedures. It is the first one that I will describe to you in detail.

The mother was six months pregnant (26 1/2 weeks). A doctor told her that the baby had Down Syndrome and she decided to have an abortion. She came in the first two days to have the laminaria inserted and changed, and she cried the whole time. On the third day she came in to receive the partial-birth procedure.

Dr. Haskell brought the ultrasound in and hooked it up so that he could see the baby. On the ultrasound screen, I could see the heart beating. As Dr. Haskell watched the baby on the ultrasound screen, the baby's heartbeat was clearly visible on the ultrasound screen.

Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby's legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he 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. I was really completely unprepared for what I was seeing. I almost threw up as I watched the doctor do these things.

Mr. Chairman, I read in the paper that President Clinton says that he is going to veto this bill. If President Clinton had been standing where I was standing at that moment, he would not veto this bill.

Dr. Haskell delivered the baby's head. He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw that baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he'd used. I saw the baby move in the pan. I asked another nurse and she said it was just "reflexes."

I have been a nurse for a long time and I have seen a lot of death-- people maimed in auto accidents, gunshot wounds, you name it. I have seen surgical procedures of every sort. But in all my professional years, I had never witnessed anything like this.

The woman wanted to see her baby, so they cleaned up the baby and put it in a blanket and handed the baby to her. She cried the whole time, and she kept saying, "I'm so sorry, please forgive me!" I was crying too. I couldn't take it. That baby boy had the most perfect angelic face I have ever seen.

I was present in the room during two more such procedures that day, but I was really in shock. I tried to pretend that I was somewhere else, to not think about what was happening. I just couldn't wait to get out of there. After I left that day, I never went back. These last two procedures, by the way, involved healthy mothers with healthy babies.

I was very much affected by what I had seen. For a long time, sometimes still, I had nightmares about what I saw in that clinic that day.

NCdave 16:50, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Stop deleting the description!

Here's the description:

The abortionist begins the procedure by forcibly dilating the mother's cervix. The most common method of cervical dilation involves the insertion of dried seaweed sticks called "laminaria," which absorb fluids and swell, thereby expanding the cervical diameter. This process is repeated daily two or three times, until sufficient dilation is achieved. Then, guided by ultrasound, the abortionist reaches into the uterus, grasps the fetus's legs with forceps, and pulls the fetus into the birth canal, except for the head, which is deliberately kept just inside the womb. The abortionist then forces 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 brain is sucked out. The head is then crushed, and the delivery of the dead baby is completed.

The latest vandal, Ceylon, deleted the entire paragraph with only this comment:

(Once, again, removed the biased paragraph. Procedure described later under "Pro-Life Position".)

...and nothing at all on the discussion page to suggest how it is biased.

In any event, bias is detected, the proper recourse is to fix the bias, not delete the crux of the article!

In fact, the paragraph is NOT biased. There are no inaccuracies. There are no editorializing adjectives. It is (as Joe Friday would say), "Just the facts." How could it be any LESS biased?

Hmmmm... well, how about this: I'll change "sucked" to "suctioned." Means the same thing, of course, but sounds more like a machine is doing the sucking, instead of a vampire or something. Does that make anyone happier?

Nobody has identified any detail in that description which is anything other than prefectly accurate. But that's the problem, isn't it? The facts are what the abortion industry so desperately wants to hide. That's why there is no Planned Parenthood description of this procedure, because they refuse to describe it.

In fact, this article does NOT contain contrasting "pro-life position" and "pro-choice position" descriptions of the procedure, because what is listed under "pro-choice position" is a description of an entirely different procedure. The only reason the "pro-life position" info resembles the NPOV description is that they are describing the same procedure (duh!), and both are truthful.

To say that the article can't describe the procedure in the main text because that very clinical and precise description matches what National Right To Life says is to say that Wiki can't be factual because NRTL is honest. Now how backwards is THAT? NCdave 08:00, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh, please, that is INHERENTLY POV. "forcibly dilating the mother's cervix"? "The abortionist"? Why not "the physician"? The description is designed to appeal to the emotions and serves no other purpose. RickK 08:06, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense! The description is the crux of the article, how can you say it serves no other purpose? Do you think that just because the process is horrific that it shouldn't be described? The description is not "designed to appeal to the emotions," it simply an accurate, reasonably detailed account of what is done.

W/r/t "forcibly dilating the mother's cervix," what is your issue with that? Do you dislike the word "forcibly?" It is used descriptively, to distingish it from the unforced dilation that occurs when a woman goes into labor. Truly, that is the ONLY part of the description process that is NOT horrifying! Here's how Haskell described it:

In the operating room, the cervix is prepped, anesthetized and dilated to 9-11 mm. Five, six or seven large Dilapan hydroscopic dilators are placed in the cervix. The patient goes home or to a motel overnight.

Day 2--Dilation

The patient returns to the operating room where the previous day's Dilapan are removed. The cervix is scrubbed and anesthetized. Between 15 and 25 Dilapan are placed in the cervical canal. The patient returns home or to a motel overnight.

Day 3--The Operation

The patient returns to the operating room where the previous day's Dilapan are removed. The surgical assistant administers 10 IU Pitocin intramuscularly. The cervix is scrubbed, anesthetized and grasped with a tenaculum. [etc.]

How would you like it to read? "artifically dilating"? "gradually dilating?" I really don't care, so long as it is truthful and accurate. Like I said, that is NOT the horrible part.

W/r/t "abortionist" rather than "physician," see below, my comments to Nanh-hah. But the short answer is that "physician" is not accurate. For example, "Nanh-ha" has just edited the article to contain this statement (where "abortionist" has been replaced by "physician":

"The physician begins the procedure by dilating the woman's cervix"

The obvious objection is that "non-physicians can perform abortions too," the obvious reply to that being "that would be illegal," the obvious reply to that being, "as are all PBAs in most parts of the world, which doesn't make the procedure something different.

But, less obviously, even when partial-birth abortion is completely legal, the dilation steps are more likely to be performend by a non-physician than by a physician... which makes Nanh-ha's version just plain inaccurate, even in the usual case. The term "abortionist," however, encompasses whoever is performing the abortion, whether legal or illegal, wehther physician or assistant.

---

Again, I ask: Surely EVERYONE can agree that the just plain wrong "(Pro-Choice Position) Planned Parenthood Description" has got to go. It isn't describing PBA or IDX at all, it is describing an entirely different procedure. It is rediculous to leave it there.

So far I've seen no objections to my proposed solution: It is time to replace the mislabled "(Pro-Choice Position) Planned Parenthood Description" and "(Pro-Life Position) National Right to Life Description" with two CLINCIAN'S descriptions of the SAME procedure. The "pro-choice" advocacy organizations and abortion providers don't seem to have any descriptions of the procedure. So, instead, I'll post Brenda Pratt Shafer's for the pro-life clinician's view. Unless someone can suggest a different choice, I'll post Haskell's description for the pro-choice clinician's view.

Does everyone agree? NCdave 08:00, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

POV language

Nunh-huh thinks that using the term "abortionist" to mean "the person who is doing the abortion" is POV-biased. How can that be biased? that is precisely the definition of the term. He just replaced all the references to "abortionist" with "physician," throughout the article.

But the word "abortionist" is no more or less indicative of POV bias than the word "abortion," itself.

Physician is the wrong term, anyhow. In the first place, it is overly broad: podiatrists and ophthalmologists don't do abortions, only abortionists do. In the second place, it is overly narrow: it is, after all, possible for someone other than a physician to perform the procedure.

Moreover, consider this phrase from (Nunh-huh's version of) the article:

"The physician begins the procedure by dilating the woman's cervix"

The fact is, even when partial-birth abortion is done legally, the dilation steps are more likely to be performend by a non-physician than by a physician. That makes this version just plain wrong, even in the usual case.

The original version, however, is correct and accurate regardless of whether the person doing the dilation (or other steps) is a physician, an assistant, or someone else:

"The abortionist begins the procedure by dilating the woman's cervix"

The correct term is "abortionist."

Will you change it back, Nunh-huh, or shall I?

Nunh-huh also replaced all 3 instances of the word "baby" in the description with the word "fetus." It did use "fetus" for the first two references to the baby, and "baby" for the last three. So will someone tell me how switching from 3 uses of the pro-life preferred term and 2 uses of the pro-choice perferred term, to all five uses being of the pro-choice term and NONE of the pro-life term, makes this NPOV?

Cummon, you've GOT to know that's rediculous.

It is even more rediculous when you recognize that the three uses of "fetus" are TECHNICALLY INCORRECT. By definition, a fetus is a baby BEFORE birth. Not after birth, not during birth. All three of the references to "baby" that Nunh-huh changed to "fetus" are references to the child AFTER he has partially emerged from the womb, which means that he is NOT a fetus.

Will you change it back, Nunh-huh, or shall I?

Why don't you fix the WRONG information in the "Planned Parenthood Description," instead of contorting perfectly good and accurate NPOV text with misused words for the purpose of injecting pro-abortion bias?

However, to his credit and my surprise, I see that Nunh-huh actually also made two good edits:

scoff -> deny, and grieving -> pregnant

NCdave 09:09, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How condescending of you to be surprised. Words have connotations as well as denotations: "abortionist" is an emotive word, not a neutral one, and is therefore inappropriate. I note your contention that a "fetus" is a "baby", but - as you realize - not all agree with your contention, and the rest of your choices make me suspect the reason you want to change it is also for its emotional impact. A fetus is by definition unborn, and the "partially-born" would seem to be no-man's land. If you want to have any lasting effect on the article, I would suggest you tone your language down a notch, or it will get toned down for you. Say what you want to say in a reasonable tone that can be agreed upon. I note in passing that the article contains remarkably little information applicable to most of the world. - Nunh-huh 09:25, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The description

Just by including the same procedure as RTL description in the main text you are taking a POV, unless you can prove from a non-POV (preferably a legitimate medical source) that the PP description is not actually partial birth abortion. If they're both valid partial birth procedures, one or the other should not be favored by placing it in the body of the article without a disclaimer. – flamurai (t) 06:43, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

---

The PP description is of a D&E abortion, in which the baby is killed by dismemberment within the womb. It is an entirely different kind of abortion. That's not POV, that's just fact. Just read the description. PP doesn't call PBA "D&E," they call it "D&X" or "IDX" or "Intact D&X." They are different kinds of abortion.

The PP description of D&E abortion says, "The fetus and other products of conception are removed from the uterus with surgical instruments and suction curettage." That means that the fetus is chopped up and removed (by suction) in small pieces. That is horrible, but it is not PBA. NCdave 04:55, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

External Links

• The Slate link isn't expressing a view on the procedure itself, just discussing the the terminolgy used to describe it. Ergo, it isn't really POV.

• The "Dr. Sloane" link is another in the same categoty

• Ditto for the Reason link

With regard to the above three issues, I strongly disagree. Obviously there is some disagreement over the inherent bias of the term itself or they wouldn't go to the trouble of arguing it. You yourself object to legislation being included in the unbiased section because of the use of terminology like "partial birth feticide." There was a long discussion above over the appropriateness of the article title. I suggest all Commentary be moved into a separate links section, as per my reorg at the top of the page.--MikeJ9919 14:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The Ohio legislative link is inherently POV as it uses the political phrase "Partial birth feticide" rather than NPOV medical terms. While it isn't disputed that it is legislation, it *is* disputed it is unbiased, therefore it should be listed under "biased".--JonGwynne 20:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you on this. Therefore, I suggest all legislation, court decisions, and the like be moved into their own section. Thoughts on my proposed reorganization at the top of the page?--MikeJ9919 14:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

POV-Changes - Quasipalm

• Partial-Birth Abortion - A Chink In The Pro-Abortion Armor

How can you argue that this institution is not pro-life?--Fenice 06:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

That's under commentary so I don't have a problem with it. I don't agree with it, but I don't have a problem with it. If you want to delete it, feel free. --Quasipalm 15:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I removed the link and the NPOV-tag.--Fenice 16:10, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Fenice...c'mon, seriously...take an honest look at "Commentary". 5 of the 7, even with the article you removed, are clearly pro-partial-birth. The NPOV tag is not a tool for removing viewpoints with which you do not disagree. "Commentary" is an inherently POV section...the attempt should be to provide a balance. Add 4 more anti-PBA links or remove 5 of the pro-PBA links and I'll have no problems with you removing that one. --MikeJ9919 01:12, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

If you actually had a look at all these links and they were all pov, why didn't you remove them all then??--Fenice 05:41, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

This was the state of links before the anon IP's adding the link:

• reason.com:is not relevant, doesn't even contain any info on partial birth and is partisan (pro-choice)
• jillstanek.net: is a pro-life organization
• vanderbuild.edu: clearly pro-life
• fitzsimmons admits lies, pro-life
• slate.com: press-article, commentary, says it is not a birth, and probably pro-choice.
• politicalaffairs.net: journalistic article, pro-choice

There are only three pro-choice, so whoever was here before me obviously did try to keep a balance. As I said above: remove the entire section. (or at least label them as biased and spread up into pro-life-pro-choice so it is easier to count) You seem to have found 5 instead of 3 pro-choice-links, probably two of them may have been in other sections - kick those out, too.--Fenice 06:14, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

From the official policy page on NPOV: "First, and most importantly, consider what it means to say that unbiased writing presents conflicting views without asserting them." We have an obligation not to remove that section, because it presents the various arguments for and against PBA. If you'd like to balance it, go for it, but removing links "because they're POV" is not appropriate...as you admitted above, all of the links have a slant one way or the other. --MikeJ9919 07:04, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I doubt that the policy means we are supposed to spam our articles with lots of bad links. None of the links above does present the essentials of even one of the sides, and also not without asserting them. And then the quote explicitely refers to 'writing'. But I know that if we remove the section lots of pov-warriors from both sides will come and put others back in. I see that leaving these links in is already standard procedure. But as I said they need to be balanced, at least in number.
removing links "because they're POV" is not appropriate: If you look at the recent changes, removing link spam is a huge job on this site and it is done on a regular basis.
So my first conclusion was right, the article was as well kept as it looked on first sight, and the commentary section was balanced. This means one pro-life-link has got to go. I let you choose.--Fenice 07:33, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I do think that it's arbitrary to determine that 7 is too many links, but I don't think it's worth arguing over. I've removed the Fitzsimmons link, as it appears to be the oldest in terms of content. --MikeJ9919 15:29, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Removal of the "many medical texts" statement

You asked if it were possible to find a source on the statement that pro-lifers use medical texts for debates. What part of the statement are you looking to have sourced: the part that opponents use medical texts to argue the validity of a ban, or the actual medical texts? I'll help source it, but I want to make sure you're either looking for a medical text or a previous debate. Because almost every medical text states that abortion is killing something (not necessarily a baby, just something living), and that's what pro-lifers use to debate for a ban. But if you're looking for a debate where it has been used, you could probably check any debate in the political arena (since everyone is so keen to keep religion out of the political arena, many pro-lifers have taken a medical and scientific stance.)Stanselmdoc 20:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

"and that many non-religious medical texts could qualify as a basis for a ban."

My problem with this is actually more related to the placing. The paragraph is all about religion and society, so if you want to talk about medical texts, please do so, but it feels out of place in that paragraph.

As for sourcing it, you're right, since you're not saying "medical texts say this procedure is bad," technically there's not much to source there. What rubs me the wrong way about this statement is that it the way it's put, it sounds like you're saying that "there are many non-religious medical texts that could qualify as a basis for a IDX ban." When in fact you're trying to say, "Many Christians believe that there are many non-religious medical texts that could qualify as a basis for a ban." So if you can break it out and write it in a that makes it clear that you're representing the christian POV, I'd support you reentering it in the article.

Cheers, --Quasipalm 20:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Whenever I get the chance, I'll review the article and see if a reworded comment has any place in it. I only brought it up in the first place was because someone had just recently edited that section. My fault for not reading the area closely enough. Peath out.Stanselmdoc 20:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I think something needs to change at least

Some who want the procedure to remain legal in the United States say that the ban is based on religious views about when life begins. They argue that to rely on a single religious text to determine when the life of a child begins is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because different cultures and religions have differing views on the subject; to select the Bible as the authoritative voice on the subject would be the equivalent of the United States Government selecting Christianity as the nation's official religion. Those who want to outlaw this type of abortion counter that many laws in the United States have been based, at least in part, on Christian values.

I think the first sentence of this needs to change somehow to state that it's the Christian belief of when life begins that is debated. Because it does beg the question a little, assuming that it's the Bible and Christianity that all these "religious zealots" are relying on to make their case against abortion. This is clearly a paragraph stating opposition to the Christian belief on abortion, so something in the first sentence I think should state that. With the example used, it's not the like the paragraph is bashing Judaism, Hinduism, or anything else. Does anyone understand what I'm saying? Stanselmdoc 16:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Removal of paragraph (214 please read)

Hey 214, we keep reverting this paragraph back and forth. (I like the original, you like your reframed one.) I've reread the entire section now, and here's my proposal: we remove it completely. The paragraph was original entered, it seems, as a way of paraphrasing why some would like the procedure of IDX or PBA to remain legal. However, after a ton of edits, it now reads like it's talking about all abortion. And now, after you latest edit, it doesn't talk about IDX or PBA at all. Let's read:

Some who want the procedure to remain legal in the United States say that the ban is based on religious views about when life begins. They consider the Bible to be the basis for any efforts to restrict abortion in the US, and from there they argue that to rely on a single religious text to determine when the life of a child begins is misguided because different cultures and religions have differing views on the subject. Those who want to outlaw this type of abortion counter that many laws in the United States are based on religious values, and that most world religions condemn abortion on demand and consider abortion acceptable only in very limited circumstances (Judaism: [6][7]; Islam: [8]; Hinduism:[9]; Buddhism: [10]; Sikhism:[11]; Catholicism:[12]; Anglicanism: [13]). Likewise, some atheists are also opposed to abortion.[14][15]

Virtually none of those links talk about IDX/PBA. Shouldn't they go under relgion and abortion instead? Honestly, I can see no other way to get this section back to NPOV but to remove this whole paragraph, the part arguing both the Pro-Life and Pro-Choice sides. What do you think? --Quasipalm 18:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that an expanded discussion of religion perhaps seems ill-placed here - as long as it does show up elsewhere at wikipedia. The only concern I have is that the strong public opinion against legal partial-birth abortion should be highlighted - and it would make sense to link that with almost universal moral condemnation by the world's religions (if you parse the record, you will discover that even the doctors most expereienced with the procedure admitted that partial-birth abortion did not reduce any physical health risk to the mother versus delivery of the child - in fact the very invasive and risk-laden PBA breach delivery is actually more pysically traumatic for the mother - so the mother's physical health is NEVER the reason for PBA). I always thought the entire paragraph was misplaced, anyway - I already noted my view that the Establishment Clause argument is a red herring given that no legal challenge under that clause has ever been mounted - and with good reason (its a loser with no basis in fact or theory). [User:214.13.4.151|214.13.4.151]] 10:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Law in the United States

I tried to edit this section a little bit, but gave up when I realized it was going to take a little more than I had time for. The "health of the mother exception" is part of the holding in Roe v. Wade, not part of a non-binding concurrence by one Judge in a case which cites Roe v. Wade. If someone else is willing to take up rewriting this so as to provide the appropriate description of this point of law, it would be appreciated.

O'Connors concurrence in Stenberg is just dicta. The only thing that is binding, is the majority opinion, so it seems foolish that "opponents" would base their opinions on such. (Which is why I suspect error in the article). Also, the majority opinion in Stenberg also states the mother's health exception, so why is the reference to O'Connor's concurrence included at all? She signed onto the majority opinion as well. Peyna 05:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Merge ??

Perhaps this article could be effectively trimmed and merged into Intact_dilation_and_extraction#About_the_terminology, since that is really all it is about. Essentially it is a "synonym" for D&X created by abortion opponents, and I don't see a need for an entire article devoted to all of the buzz words people come up with to push their agenda. I'm holding off on adding a merge tag until there is some discussion, but really a lot of the info here is the same as that on the D&X page, with the exception of a little more detail on the terminology. Peyna 03:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

There is a "merge" notice on Intact_dilation_and_extraction#About_the_terminology already, should we add one here as well? Since really the only thing this article discusses that article doesn't is the Etymology. That's really the only important part of this article anyway. Peyna 20:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

"Dismemberment and extraction"

The reference for this term given by 214.13.4.151, http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/al13.asp, does not say that it is a synonym for partial-birth abortion. The use of this term, in context, is:

"Three major questions were addressed during the course of each trial: 1) whether the definition of partial-birth abortion also threatened the legality of other abortion procedures, particularly the procedure of Dismemberment and Extraction (D&E - and also known as dilatation and evacuation); 2) whether the use of intact Dilation and Extraction (intact D&X also known as partial-birth abortion) provides a benefit or detriment to the health of the woman;"

This quote is clearly using "dismemberment and extraction" to describe a different procedure to partial-birth abortion. Incidentally, apologies for my edit of 19:22, where I reverted more than I intended. -- AJR 18:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I see your point and have clarified the confusing terms. People who are at this page are interested in the various terms and ought to get accurate information that helps them understand the terms that practioners and activists throw around.214.13.4.151 19:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm editing the sentence as it was not edited accordingly, it still maintains that D&E is an alternate name for the term partial birth abortion, which it is not. D&E's are a separate, and distinct medical procedure from what partial birth abortion refers to, which is the aborting of an intact fetus, which by definition, D&E absolutely is not. To say not all D&Es are PBA doesn't clarify it only confuses. Not all D&Xs are PBA, while NO D&Es are PBAs.Gheorghe Zamfir 20:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Looking over the edits, I think I see where some of the confusion is occuring. Dilation and Extraction is D&X. Dilation & Evacuation, and Dismemberent & Extraction, are both terms interchangably used to describe D&E, but D&E is the SAME procedure regardless of whether you use the former or latter terms to come up with the abbreviation. They are synonymous with each other, but neither refer to or are a synonym with D&X. So regardless of what terms you use to abbreviate D&E, a D&E procedure is never synonymous with D&X.Gheorghe Zamfir 22:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up; I just took 214.13.4.151's edits and tried to reword them to make them more clear, but I didn't make any attempt to verify their accuracy. Peyna 23:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I think I see the point your latest edit 214. Even so I made some further edits to make things clearer. Even under the understanding of D&E falling under the PBA umbrella, it needs to remain clear that D&E is a different procedure from D&X, and not at all synonymous. Also, the wording of the latest edit seems to differentiate phrases that ARE synonyms, such as IDX and DX, which both refer to the same procedure. It is also seems to differentiate between dilation & evacuation and dismemberment & extraction, though both these terms also refer to the same procedure, in a Dilation & Evacuation procedure "the fetus is terminated and dismembered before it leaves the womb rather than delivering it intact," just like a dismemberment & extraction, because it is the same thing as a dismemberment & extraction, simply a different name, so I tried to word that to make it clearer.Gheorghe Zamfir 07:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I've removed "Dismemberment Extraction" as an alternative name for "Dilation Evacuation." Dismemberment is not a NPOV term and used primarily by abortion opponents. See Google:

[16]. Dilation Evacuation is the actual name of the procedure [17] and is used by the medical community (and has twice as many hist on Google) [18]. --Quasipalm 14:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we should take all the cluttered mess about what PBA refers to, clean it up and move it to the etymology section. Then take a succinct summary of that and stick it in the introduction. As it is now, no one is going to bother to read past the first 2 sentences. Peyna 02:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Brain-Suction Abortion

I believe the reference to this being used in Ohio law in the Etymology section is inaccurate. Ohio law enacted in 1995 referred to the procedure as "dilation and extraction." It was then amended in 2000 to say "partial-birth feticide." However, I can find no reference to "Brain-Suction Abortion" in any Ohio law past or present. Perhaps such a bill was introduced and killed or modified, but as it stands the article is inaccurate. Thus, I propose changing the Etymology section to read as follows: (and move the details on the ohio law to the law section)

The procedure was first described as "Dilation and Extraction" by Cincinnati physician W. Martin Haskell, MD in a monograph that was distributed by the National Abortion Federation in September of 1992. [19].

The term partial-birth abortion did not appear until several years later, when the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995 was introduced in the House of Representative on 14 June 1995. That same year; however, Ohio enacted a law which referred to the procedure as dilation and extraction. In 2000, Ohio amended the law [20] to use the term partial birth feticide, as well as to overcome the unconstitutionality of the prior statute. There are limited other examples of the use of the term partial birth feticide.

Another alternative term is brain suction abortion, the use of which has been limited mostly to opponents of the procedure — specifically, pro-life activist Janet Folger [21]. Like partial-birth abortion, this term was created for the sole-purpose of casting the procedure in a negative light for political reasons (and can even be considered a misnomer, since arguably no birth or partial-birth occurs).

Peyna 23:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

While not appropriate for this section, the full history of the law in ohio is that the D&X law was passed in 1995, it prohibitted the procedure in the 2nd trimester among other things, it was found unconstitutional by the 6th circuit in 1997, and then in 2000 ohio officially repealed it and enacted the new law referring to it as partial-birth feticide. Of course, that information is more appropriate for the legal section of the article, or even the D&X article. Peyna 23:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Another update, the only reference I can find in Ohio statute and case law is the opinion in the case which declared the 1995 enacted law unconstitutional where the judge states, "A few physicians, including plaintiff Haskell, employ the D & X procedure, which has also been called the 'intact D & E' procedure and the "brain suction" procedure." (similar phrase appears in the district and circuit court opinions). The judge is not referring to the text of the law, but terms in use at the time by others. Peyna 23:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the changes; I also moved the Ohio law info to the law section and divided into federal and state sections. Is there any information on international uses of the term or has it be strictly confined to the U.S. ? Peyna 00:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

H.B. No. 228

First, I'm not sure this has to be here at all, since its just a general abortion law, and not a partial-abortion law.

But, here's the link to the bill I'm working from: http://archives.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=126_HB_228

According to this link, HB 228 is amending and repealing existing legislation "to prohibit abortions in this state, to increase the penalties for the offenses of unlawful abortion, unlawful distribution of an abortion-inducing drug, and abortion trafficking, to enact the offense of facilitating an abortion, and to make conforming changes in related provisions." The only references I see anywhere in the bill to the life of the mother are in sections proposed to being amended or repealed (the crossed out sections), meaning sections that the bill wishes to remove from existing legislation. Additionally, any literature I have read, both pro and con, summing up the bill seems to feel that it aims to prohibit all abortions, regardless of the reason. But, I may be misreading, or have missed the section where it states an exemption for the life of the mother, so just for my own clarifications sake if that could be pointed out to me it would be much appreciated.

Nevermind, I see you changed it while I was typing this, I'm not sure what the procedure is on talk pages, if this should be deleted or not, so if it should someone else feel free to wipe it out for me.Gheorghe Zamfir 03:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I think general talk policy is to leave talk pages as they are, I've added a few more notes below. Peyna 03:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I already made the changes after re-reading the law myself. While the law is a general abortion law, it does remove the remaining mentions of D&X from the law and change it to say "partial birth procedure," which is currently defined by ohio law as:

(a) Intentional dilation of the cervix of a pregnant woman, usually over a sequence of days;

(b) In a breech presentation, intentional extraction of at least the lower torso to the navel, but not the entire body, of an intact fetus from the body of the mother, or in a cephalic presentation, intentional extraction of at least the complete head, but not the entire body, of an intact fetus from the body of the mother;

(c) Intentional partial evacuation of the intracranial contents of the fetus, which procedure the person performing the procedure knows will cause the death of the fetus, intentional compression of the head of the fetus, which procedure the person performing the procedure knows will cause the death of the fetus, or performance of another intentional act that the person performing the procedure knows will cause the death of the fetus;

Interestingly, Ohio law also states that, ""Dilation and evacuation procedure of abortion" does not include the dilation and extraction procedure of abortion." Peyna 03:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I guess I should add that the reason PBA is still mentioned in the law is because Ohio created a civil action that can be instituted against a person that performs a PBA as defined in Ohio law. Peyna 03:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Question

(PBA) refers to most intact dilation and extraction (IDX) procedures where the fetus is alive at the time of the procedure

Ok, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't life (clinically defined) begin when the egg is fertilized? Why isn't the victim of a regular abortion considered alive when it's aborted? Salva 04:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• The description is worded as such to delineate between the procedure's use as an abortion (where the fetus is alive) and when the procedure is done to remove a fetus that is in the womb but not alive (such as a miscarriage), which would not be considered an abortion, and thus would not be what the term PBA is referring to.Gheorghe Zamfir 04:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. MedCorpman 17:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Controversy Section

As evidenced by the last few edits, the controversy section has some problems with how it refers to people with respect to the procedure. First we have supporters and critics of the procedure, but then we have supporters and critics of the ban on the procedure. It tends to be pretty confusing and make it difficult to understood who is who. Peyna 12:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Fetal pain from PBA/D&X vs. D&E and other late-term abortion procedures

I think this isn't brought up by the pro-choice side because they try to sweep all mention of fetal pain under the rug. And I think it's not brought up by the pro-life side because they're trying to argue that PBA/D&X is the most inhumane abortion procedure. But it has been argued, by people other than me, that a fetus's death from other late-term abortion procedures is more painful than a death from having its skull crushed, or from bleeding to death (some PBA providers cut the umbilical cord and let the fetus bleed to death before performing the procedure).

• Speech by Congressman Joe Pitts The American Civil Liberties Union went so far as to argue that testimony on fetal pain in relation to partial birth abortion was irrelevant partly because D&E abortion, involving dismemberment, is more painful than a partial birth abortion.
• An interview with Dr. Tim McDonald So how do you get pain control to the fetus? If you ban the partial birth abortion, then you have to do something else to evacuate the fetus. And all the other things you can offer are pretty brutal—injecting chemicals into the amniotic fluid that causes the skin to slough off the fetus, essentially causing the fetus to be burned

.... It’s a very gruesome thing.

But as I was writing this article about abortion and fetal pain, I realized that of all the procedures, this was the one that gives us the best access to the fetus so that we can provide anesthetic. If the obstetrician has access to the umbilical cord, you could inject a potent narcotic into the cord to deaden any sense of feeling that the fetus would have. Or you could inject a high dose into the thigh or arm.

As it turns out, of all the termination procedures available, the one that has been singled out as the one to ban is probably the one that affords the obstetrician with the greatest chance to provide pain relief.

Since fetal pain is an important aspect in many people's decision on this issue, I think it important that some mention of this argument be present in the article. Lyrl 02:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Too US-centered

This article seems to only talk about legislation and controversies in the US. Someone who has knowledge should add information about other countries (for example, in how many countries this procedure is legal etc).

"Partial-birth abortion" is a political term, not a medical term. It's also a term largely not used outside of the US. As such, I would think that Intact dilation and extraction is probably the article that need more international information. --Quasipalm 21:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Tag It for POV, Inaccuracy, Else?

This article is most certainly not neutral. In addition to arguments above, I'll these: Some statements, esp. under "Controversy", are unverified. The sources listed, for what I'm typing about here, are from propaganda sites that aren't neutral at all and have never been known for a commitment to honest and accurate debate. One source listed a Wikiquote page that is constantly sabatoged and disputed for it's obvious anti-abortion, virulent pro-choicer-hating bias. In this article, the right to choose is panned. Note the use of quotation marks for the word "right" and the clear negative attitude for the notion and for those who believe in it.

Should this article or that particular section be tagged it for POV & inaccuracy? I say yes.

I say it also needs the attention of some experts. Not some activist, but *true* experts, like very, very experienced and doctorated and certified obstetricians who hasn't been sued or convicted for malpractice. Dr. K 06:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

This article is about the political controversy surrounding the procedure, not about the procedure itself (that is covered in the Intact dilation & extraction article). It presents the different views and does not (hopefully) say which views are correct. So I don't believe obstetricians would have anything useful to contribute.

The controversy section has to present both the pro-choice and pro-life views on this procedure. I'm not sure where one would source a pro-life view other than from a pro-life website. The cite is not indicative of those websites being sources of facts (which would be NPOV), but it cites them as being representative of pro-life views.

Religioustolerance.org

This article uses the religioustolerance.org website as either a reference or a link. Please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org as to whether Wikipedia should cite the religioustolerance.org website, jguk 14:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

A site search of the [Reform Judaism website] shows a clear pro-choice stance, but no policy statement that can easily be cited. The same can be said for the [Jewish Reconstructionist website]. Even the [Orthodox Jewish website] has no policy statement on abortion, though a site search shows a pro-life leaning - notice that this Wikipedia article had to cite the BBC for an explanation of the Orthodox Jewish belief.

For the same reason that the BBC article was used to explain the Orthodox Jewish belief, I believe it is acceptable to use the religioustolerance.org article to explain the Reform and Reconstructionist beliefs.

The Conservative Judaism website does have a [clear policy statement] which would make a good source, but that leaves out two major branches of the religion.Lyrl 21:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

POV issues

There are so many different POV problems in this article, I scarcely know where to begin.

A few points though:

1. The opening paragraph must contain reference to the fact that "partial birth abortion" is not a medical term.

2. The etymology section must contain reference to the fact that the term was invented by a pro life organization in support of their legislative agenda.

3. The section about Ron Fitzsimmons and George Tiller is particularly problematic and should be left out completely. First of all, RF's quote is not sourced and GT's is only sourced on wiki. But even if the sources were accurate, the quotes themselves are not relevant to IDX/PBA, they're talking about ordinary abortions.

4. Use of quotes from biased sources (pro-life or pro-choice organizations) should be eliminated from the body of the article. If a cite can't be reasonably neutral, it should either be left out or moved to the "External Links" section if someone feels very strongly that they should stay.

5. The statement that "it is undisputed that many laws in the United States are based on religious values" is simply untrue and must be removed. (unsigned)

I agree with 1, 2, and 4. I'm neutral on 3 until further research and mildly negative about 5. Why don't you go ahead and make some of these changes, and we'll see how it goes? Be bold, right? Alienus 01:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

This user has already made those changes.Gheorghe Zamfir 02:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. It was my error not to have noticed. Alienus 08:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Cartoon

It looks like the cartoon is historically significant for this topic. From here:

no one had ever written as detailed and clear a set of intact extraction medical instructions as Haskell was now providing, and his paper, reprinted into a volume of the session’s proceedings, was in right-to-life hands within a matter of weeks.... a homemaker and occasional clinic protester named Jenny Westberg... happened to have some experience at cartooning.... It was Westberg’s idea, upon reading Haskell’s paper, to write about it for Life Advocate, and to illustrate her article with drawings of her own.

....The issues of Life Advocate containing Westberg’s drawings were mailed to subscribers in early 1993, and when more mainstream organizations such as the National Right to Life Committee saw them, the pictures were modified slightly and then reprinted at once into newspaper advertisements and millions of widely distributed brochures. Their extraordinary impact, which continues to this day, bewilders even Westberg. “I had no idea the pictures were going to be made available internationally,” she says, “or that they were going to be shown in Congress.”

Basically, this technique was invented and started gaining popularity in 1983. It was not until more than a decade later that we got this whole issue over so-called Partial Birth Abortion - and this cartoon is apparently what set the whole thing off.

The whole copyright issue is problematic, though. Perhaps we should just include an external link to a site that displays the picture, and limit the actual article to descriptions of the cartoon.Lyrl 23:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Viability

I am not sure whether this is the right article to include it in, but I have just browsed thru several related articles and not seen any clear statement of whether a baby delivered normally at this timeframe could survive (and the percentage chance of survival). I have heard elsewhere that children born prematurely even at this stage have survived, even though mostly they have physical problems due to underdevelopment. I would like to see some statement to the following effect (presenting the appropriate evidence and conclusion):

"PBA is performed on fetuses age 20-26 weeks. A child delivered prematurely at this time would have a .03% chance of survival and a 98.7% chance of suffering severe physical and/or mental abnormalities such as..."

Or:

"PBA is performed on fetuses age 20-26 weeks. A child delivered prematurely at this time never survives; it is physically too young to survive outside the womb."

Or:

"PBA is performed on fetuses age 20-26 weeks. A child delivered prematurely at this time has an 85% chance of suffering physical and/or mental abnormalities, some of which may be severe, but has an 18% chance of surviving past his first year, and, in fact, out of the hundreds of thousands of "premies" born at this time, thousands have gone on to live basically normal lives."

I don't know which conveys the most appropriate impression, but I do think that a statement similar to one of these should be present in the article. I understand that some fetuses are killed in this way because it actually would be harmful to the mother to finish delivery (the head is abnormally swelled due to hydrocelphalemia (??) or something like that, and therefore cannot be normally delivered), but those who do not have abnormally large heads...why are they not delivered normally and kept alive at this point? For a "healthy fetus," I do not see any specific reason why normal delivery would harm the mother when a half-delivery does not. This is why the statistics would be useful.71.113.81.228 00:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

PBA, to my understanding, is often performed when 1)fetal abnormalities have been diagnosed, and the parents feel it is better to end the pregnancy - but 2)the fetus would survive for some time (generally short - days or hours - but this depends on the abnormality) and they need to make sure they get a dead baby, so delivery isn't an option, and 3)they want the closure of being able to hold the (dead) baby, so it has to be delivered intact.

If I understand correctly, viability of a healthy fetus isn't relevent to situations where the parents have chosen to abort because of a three-chambered heart (1% survival rate to the age of 1 year), or anencephelephy (no brain) - babies born with those conditions are going to die regardless of gestational age.

PBA was gaining popularity with elective abortions because doctors felt it was easier for them and safer for the woman (fewer sharp objects being poked into her uterus), but most have now reverted to D&E (women who electively abort late in pregnancy generally don't care if the fetus is torn into pieces).

I agree with you, I haven't found any situation where post-viability abortion is necessary for the woman's physical health. In cases such as HELP where pregnancy endangers the woman's life, the standard treatment is to give steriod injections to speed lung development and then deliver the baby prematurely via induction or C-section. Like I said, my understanding is that PBA is chosen for abortions due to fetal abnormality (which are technically legal because it would endanger the mother's mental health to deliver a baby with whatever birth defect was diagnosed).Lyrl 23:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

For some reason, nobody ever responded to your comments, so I'm responding now. From my research, you're correct. Abortions of truly viable fetuses are rare to the point of nonexistence. Alienus 23:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

State Law Update?

On this paragraph:

"Since the Stenberg v. Carhart decision, Virginia, Michigan, and Utah have introduced laws that remain virtually identical to the unconstitutional Nebraska law. The Virginia and Michigan laws were similarly struck down due broadness and the failure to provide a health exemption, Utah's law remains pending trial, though is uneforceable due to a court-issued preliminary injunction."

The Utah injunction and pending trial back is from 2004, I assume there must be something new on this front in one way or another, but haven't been able to find an update myself. Anyone more familiar with the matter have any info? Gheorghe Zamfir 08:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit war started by Goodandevil's changes

Goodandevil, however justified you think your changes are, there is no consensus for them, so you need to first come here and discuss the matter. Your continued refusal to do so, combined with your willingness to revert without explanation, are in bad faith.

If you're right, come here and prove it. If you can't, then there's no reason to think that you're right. Alienus 17:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I am reverting to consensus that was achieved long ago. I also removed blatant POV from several sections, including the first line. Good 20:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The consensus of editors does not support your changes. Alienus 08:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Intro POV problem

Neutral version:

• Partial-birth abortion (PBA) is a controversial term sometimes used to refer to the controversial "Intact dilation and extraction" ("IDX" or "Intact D&X") abortion procedure. The term is not a medical, but is a descriptive term used primarily in public, political, and legal discourse — chiefly regarding the legality of abortion in the United States.

POV version:

• Partial-birth abortion (PBA) is a controversial term sometimes used to refer to "Intact dilation and extraction" ("IDX" or "Intact D&X"). The term is not a medical one but one invented primarily for use in public, political, and legal discourse — chiefly regarding the legality of abortion in the United States.

If it must be noted that the term is controversial, then the sickening abortion method itself must also carry such an editorial label. Calling the term (widely adopted for common usage) "invented" is also an attempt at editorializing. The medical term was also "invented", but that is not mentioned by the article. The Neutral version eliminates the POV, while also being truthful and without hding anything. Good 20:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The version you call "neutral" repeats the word "controversial". It also fails to point out that the term was in fact invented solely for anti-choice polemics and has no medical basis. These problems make it less than neutral, so your edit is in violation of NPOV requirements. Alienus 23:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Wait, what is wrong with stating the origin of the term? Isn't that exactly what you want to do with the medical definition of pregnancy on the abortion page? I'll say what I said there, if there are sources that provide background on the use of the term, then by all means include them, if not, making the claim in the so-called POV version is WP:V and possibly OR.--Andrew c 04:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This was settled long ago here on the talk pages. I am simply restoring the neutral language that makes no judgments, and sticks to the facts. The procedure is more controversial than the term PBA, so the article should not reflect the opposite. And the term is a descriptive though nonmedical term that the public has adopted. When discussing the issue in common parlance, no one uses the term IDX. It is not POV to use terms in common usage. It is POV to label such a term as a political invention. Especially in the intro. And what is the source fo r the terms origin being definitavely purely political rather than simply descriptive?Good 08:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I looked through old edits, and I looked through the talk page and couldn't find this matter 'settled'. Could you point me to the section where this is already covered? If the procedure is more controversial than the term, why not go edit the procedure's page. PBA is not the medical term for the procedure. Because the term is political, that aspect should at least be discussed. --Andrew c 16:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• The term "Partial Birth Abortion" was recently created by pro-life groups when the procedure became actively discussed at a political and religious level.[22]
• The term, "partial birth" is not a medical one, but was created for politicians in the abortion debate. [23]
• Because partial-birth abortion is a purely political term created by abortion foes to give the impression that it's a late-term procedure where the woman is in labor and the fully-developed baby is halfway out of the birth canal when the abortion happens. [24]
• The use of the term "partial-birth abortion" to refer to the procedure at issue is itself a controversial aspect of the Act. The term was created by then-Representative (and now Judge) Charles Canady (R-Fla.) and his aides in 1995 while they prepared to introduce a ban on certain abortions. Debra Rosenberg, Chipping Away At Roe, Newsweek, Mar. 17, 2003, at 40.[25]
• Anti-abortion advocates use the term “partial-birth” abortion to create a new category for the fetus as “not unborn.” [26]
• Outrageously, the term "partial birth abortion" is not a medical term. In fact, the term was actually created by Congress for the purposes of legislation and, therefore, has no accepted definition within the medical community. [27]
• [28]
• they chose to use the political term "partial-birth" abortion and create their own definition, purposely leaving the door open to broad interpretation. [29]
• "Partial-birth abortion" is one term that has been widely adopted by the media, despite being a political construct that refers to no known medical procedure. [30]
• The term "partial-birth abortion" was invented by anti-choice activists in order to advance their myths and mesmerize Congress to pass this bill.[31]

The SCOTUS ruling covers the vague language associated with use of the term 'partial birth abortion' (one of the reasons why the court ruled PBAs unconsitutional was because the nature of the term itself. If that isn't a controversial term, I don't know what is). Here is a page that admits the term was invented, but then goes on to defend that practice. And this was just from searching google for 10 minutes. If this isn't good enough, I'll move on to a library, journal, lexus-nexus, infotrac search. However, I believe the Harvard Law student's quote from Newsweek provides the most information about the origins of the term.--Andrew c 16:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Why all the fuss about PBA?

I have added this intro to the controversy section:

• In the USA, thousands of abortions are performed each year on late-term fetuses, many of which are viable. Such abortions are legal as long as the pregnant woman requests the procedure. The doctors who perform these late term abortions and other abortion advocates have acknowledged that such late-term abortions are normally performed upon healthy woman carrying a healthy fetus. [See comments of Dr. Martin Haskell: [6], Dr. Ron Fitzsimmons [7], and Dr. George Tiller [8] ] The medical description of the procedure strikes many as inhumane. [9]. As a result, for over a decade there have been attempts to criminalize late-term abortions.

(Links to the quotes from the partial-birth abortionists are hot in the actual particle).

This explains how the issue became so controversial and why. Good 20:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Precisely how many of these late-term abortions are on viable fetuses? If you want to say "many", you need some numbers. My understanding, however, is that it's not "many" by any measure. Why don't you come up with a reliable source for it, then we'll talk. Alienus 23:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and for the record, the idea is to get a consensus before making changes. You jumped the gun, which only puts more pressure on you to justify those changes before they're reverted again. Alienus 00:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I think your intro is a little misleading. There are no doctors in my state that just perform late-term abortions, and there are also laws preventing late-term abortions. I believe this situation is the norm, not the exception. The subsection on state law goes into this, but your intro doesn't cover this. Also, it reads like an argumentative paper in favor of criminalization, as opposed to an encycopedic artical describing a current event. --Andrew c 04:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

These are good points. Alienus 07:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I reported Goodandevil for 3RR violation. If a competent admin responds to it, Evil will be gone for a bit and I'll restore the article. Alienus 10:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

A quick Google search shows that the term PBA is not universally accepted and is seen by many in the Pro choice lobby as an attempt to heighten the emotions of an already difficult debate. It is not a medical term and appears to be a commonly used term by Pro life groups. If it is represented as such then it is NPOV. To say it is the "common term" is POV and misleading. Whatever your personal views on this subject it must be reported factually. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 11:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

For every 100 times anyone has discussed in English the abortion method in which the abortionist yanks the feet of a 6-month to 9-month fetus' out the birth canal so only the head remains in the mother, then stabs the fetus in the base of the skull, sucks out its brains, and then delivers the head, 95 of those conversations will use the term partial-birth abortion. It is a topic that people don't talk about much, but when most people do talk about it, they use the term PBA - largely because most people have never heard of IDX. Bottom line: the main network news broadcasts use the "so-called partial-birth abortion" as the default term whenever they cover it. Good 23:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Ten Commandments

Perjury (bearing false witness against your neighbor), murder and theft are illegal.

However, it is not illegal to be an atheist (belief in God is commandment #1), idol worship is not illegal, swearing is not illegal (in most places), observing the Sabbath is not illegal, disrespect of parents is not illegal, adultery is not illegal, and coveting is not illegal.

Three out of ten commandments are codified into law. How is that "many laws that comport with the biblical Ten Commandments"? Lyrl 03:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Many laws in the US do comport with the bible, and many were actually inspired by biblical principles. It is also true that some religious beliefs are not codified into law. We can all be grateful for that. The point stands: if you decry ANY law that has religious advocates on the basis that the law would be a "religious" law, you will have to likewise decry ALL laws that comport with any religious tenet held by anyone. Your argument is a non-starter. A red herring. It is a bumper sticker soundbite that falls apart under the slightest examination.Good 10:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The laws are consistent with what any society needs to be stable and just. The fact that there's overlap with some of the less religious commandments out of the ten is interesting but not relevant. Essentially, the quote is desperately trying to claim that the Bible is the basis of our legal system. This is, of course, why we cannot suffer a witch to live. Alienus 04:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe how disingenuous you are being. Laws reflect morals of the society. It is silly to accept and embrace biblically inspired laws that you also agree with (murder, perjury, theft, robbery, manslaughter, embezzling, fraud, libel, slander, assault, simony) and paint as "religious" those that you don't agree with. Certainly you can see the point - it is not a big intellectual stretch. I am removing the "but its a religious law" argument unless the counterpoint is included. Good 21:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I did some tweaking on this paragraph. Good 21:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

So you're of the "unless you are religious you have no morals" school of thought huh? Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 22:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no. In fact, I am the one who placed the moral views of some atheists in the article. Good 22:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It is equally silly to accept and embrace biblical laws that you agree with, and completely ignore those that you don't agree with (not eating seafood, not wearing clothing of mixed fabrics, stoning to death in the public square any child who disrespects his parents, etc.). And if the paragraph is going to be specific about the Ten Commandments, it should be specific about only three of them being laws. Although I would also have a problem with "biblically inspired laws" since cultures that have not had any contact with the Hebrew or Christian bibles also have these laws. Lyrl 22:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I could list hundreds of other laws that comport with the bible or are biblically inspired. But I won't (think usury, libel, slander, adultery, sodomy, etc.) The only reason for the 10 Commandments reference is that it would be the most widely understood among English-speaking wikipedia readers. And I am not sure why you bring up any editor's personal beliefs and practices. Focus on the article, not what you imagine to be the religious practices of other editors. The article states a critique that "the PBA law is biblical, and thus wrong". The response to the critique is "lots of laws comport with biblical teaching, so why are you complaining only about this one?". Thats all. And I am not sure why you are so concerned that all of the 10 commandments are not written into law. No one has argued or even implied that they are. We should all be glad that they are not. As St. Thomas Aquinas said, not all immorality should be criminal. The article notes that some laws comport with the 10 commandments, but that no one bitches about those laws. Personally, I don't think the article should even address the critique or the response. But if the critique is in, then the response is also in. To sum up: yes, religious people can be hypocrites. So what? It has nothing to do with the article. Good 22:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The difference with athiest views is that although some may consider all abortions wrong they don't have the absolute convictions of the religious that this therefore makes it wrong for everyone else and must be enforced. The current athiest views does not reflect this view and I'll search hard for a citation to clarify the point.

As for the "most widely understood among English-speaking wikipedia readers." - this is just the sort of generalisation we should be avoiding see WP:CSB Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 22:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not systemic bias to use an example that is part of the culture of English speaking people. English speaking countries speak English! The culture in these countries is impacted by Shakespeare, the King James Bible, the English legal system, Dickens, parliamentary government, the BBC, magna carta, Darwin, Churchill, etc. etc.. It is not systemic bias to refer to this culture when using an example. It is simply speaking to the audience (English-speakers). Even non-native English speakers learn about these cultural influences. And in this case Judeo-Christian influence was the critique, so responding with a similar example is quite proper. Good 23:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

But it is bias to assume your view is the correct and only one. I am unaware of the UK or US governments checking their bibles when they change the libel/murder etc laws - if they did homosexuality and divorce would still be banned. That is the point - laws are independent of the bible and it's only the religiously motivated who have scriptual definitions of the beginings of life that are trying to enforce this view for all. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 23:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Why did you make the sweeping generalization that it is "only the religiously motivated" who want to ban PBA? I have already noted several atheists who oppose abortion. Please stick to the rational facts. And by the way, it is 100% American for people to seek public policy that comports with their religious beliefs. Dr. King was clear that his religion motivated his civil rights reform movement. As did the religious abolitionist movement. As do the religious anti-nuke and peace activists, as do the religious AIDS and death-penalty activists. As do religious environmentalists. Its all the rage in democracies. And don't forget Ghandi in India. Your arguments have sort of demonstrated my point: those who complain about the legitimacy of a law due to the religious beliefs of its proponents forget about the religious motivation of many/most other laws. Good 23:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Rational facts seem to be scarce in this debate. I think my point passed you completely by. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 23:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I have addressed your points head on. I await your acknowledgement that 1)its not only the religiously motivated who want to ban PBA, and 2) religious motivation is precisely what caused laws against racism and slavery to be enacted and enforced. Those two facts undercut whatever point you rwere tryin to make, so you are not interested in addressing them. Good 05:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Point 1 is irrelevant and point 2 is flatly wrong. As it happens, racism and slavery have a long history of religious support, including by Christianity. In fact, the issue that caused the SBA to split off was that it supported slavery. Today, the SBA is the single biggest Protestant denomination in America. In short, you're wrong as usual. Alienus 06:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Alienus. The religious bit only became relevent due to the silly bit about the 10 commandments which should be removed anyway. The delay in reply to Good was due to time differences and trying to follow up all the links some of which are broken so need to be removed anyway. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 14:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Earthling to Alien:

• On planet earth, knowledgeable people consider these two items to be factual:
• 1) Supporters of legal abortion restrictions (including the ban on PBA) include atheists and religious people (Sophia initiated this line of discussion, so her comments created the relevance).
• 2) Rev. Martin Luther King and his followers were instrumental in the civil rights movement and their work was religiously motivated. The abolitionsist activists in America were also religiously motivated Christians. Peace activists are also religiously motivated.[32] Anti-capital punishment activists are religiously motivated. All of these groups seek to change the laws so that they will comport with their religious beliefs. Oh, and lets not forget about Ghandi - he also was religiously motivated to have the laws in India changed. There are even people who support abortion for religious reasons. I am amazed that you won't acknowledge this. Do you deny that these movements have no religious ties? That these activists do not have any religious basis for their activism? Now, calm down, back up, and think before you type.

Good 09:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

There are people on both sides of the religious divide that support all the items you mention above - no one group can claim a monopoly (the environment issue is pushing your luck a bit as the churches have generally been conspicuous by their absence on that one). The glaring obvious point that you miss is that ALL the issues you mention are about greater personal freedom for individuals. Freedom from state restrictions on how they lead their lives, the decisions they make and the events that influence their lives. One of the hardest things as a mature individual in a free society is to support someones right to do or say something that you think is totally wrong. When their decision only affects them and their lives it is the ultimate in state meddling to deny them options.

Back to PBA - it's an American term for a certain type of LTA so should be linked from there if the data structure is to make any sense - I would also like to see figures for how many of these PBA's actually involve the collapse of the foetal skull as these are facts we should be very accurate with. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 15:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

One last try: the PBA ban has supporters who are atheists. One of the easiest things to recognize as a mature individual in a free society is that killing viable almost full-term babies as they are in the process of being born (by stabbing them in the neck and sucking out their brains and then crushing their skull) should be illegal - even when the mother wants the baby killed. It takes no religious conviction at all to understand that. The state should meddle into such gruesome barbarism. When a mother turns on her child and hires someone to kill them the state needs to get involved. In any event, the PBA ban is NOT a religious law, though many people of various religions (and of none) support it. Good 18:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating. Apparently the key way to prevent late-term abortions is to make early-term abortions easier to obtain. Oddly enough, you oppose this. Then again, you also oppose contraception, which is how responsible people avoid the need for abortions in the first place.

Responsibility and neutrality are two things you're not very good at. Witness you continued use of the word "mother" where it is demonstrably inaccurate and inappropriate. You are too partisan for your opinion to have any merit. Alienus 18:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Even more fascinating is that you overlook the possibility of assisting the mother so that she will not feel her only choice is abortion. As for contraception, it is clear that you are unfamiliar with the science: contraceptives fail regularly - millions of times a day. This causes countless pregnancies. Given such a reality: RESPONSIBLE people don't have sex unless thay are willing to be responsible for a baby that may rsult from the sex act (unless of course they think it is "responsible" to have an abortion even though they knew there was a 1% chance of creating a baby when they had sex). Your blood is boiling because I have noted the barbarism of partial-bith abortion. On planet earth, women who are 8 months pregnant are known as "mothers". Even doctors refer to the "mom" and "baby" at this stage of gestation. I simply follow my doctor's lead. Your obvious rage indicates that you are not level-headed and are over-sensitive regarding even the most grotesque and gruesome abortion methods. Perhaps there has been an abortion in your life. That may explain it, but it won't excuse it. We will all have to watch your edits very closely now that your bias has revealed itself to be so extreme.

Oh, by the way: atheists and religious people support the PBA ban! It is not a religious law. It is a law enacted and signed by the democratically elected officials representing the will of the people. Good 22:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

As I just pointed out, a woman who becomes pregnant is not a mother. Rather, a woman with a live birth is a mother. If you don't know what a mother is, you are unqualified to discuss this or any other issue involving human reproduction. Go study until you know what you're talking about. For amusement, try studying medical texts instead of Catholic doctrine. Alienus 23:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Rule 1: Contraceptives fail, so every time you have intercourse, there is a possibility of pragnancy. (Are they not teaching this to the toddlers any more?)
  • Correlary to rule 1: Responsbible people don't have sex unless they are prepared to have a child.

• Rule 2: Millions of nonreligious people consider abortion to be murder.
  • Correlary to rule 2: Its imprudent and impertinent to keep bringing up religion when the people you accuse of being religious dogmatists keep using science/medicine and secular arguments in the discussion.

• Rule 3: Everytime my wife goes to the doctor, the entire staff including the doctors refer to her as a "mother" or "mom" and to the baby in utero as a "baby". Its clinical medical langauge.
  • Correlary to rule 3: Don't let your personal experience with abortion and lack of experience with pregnancy confuse you about what the clinical medical terms are.

Good 00:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

At this point, it is unclear to me just what your comments have to do with the contents of this article, so I will err on the side of ignoring, as opposed to pointing out the numerous errors. This is also consistent with WP:CIVIL, so you may well be able to learn from it. Alienus 00:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

But it does explain his current way of thinking. When you really want your child you are obsessed with protecting it and can't understand how anyone could harm one. With my first I got really upset when a cat got to my hamster (fortunately the hamster was OK) as I realised once the baby was born I would have a much harder job protecting it than when it was right there in front of me all the time. Ah the wonders of pregnancy hormones! But having met friends with doomed babies (both cases due to lack of amniotic fluid the lungs didn't develop so there was no hope as they could never breathe) I can understand why a woman would not want to go through with the pregnancy. I asked my friend and she said it was so hard having this bump in front of you growing knowing it would never be and just waiting for it to be full term (the doctors thought it may be a little early) at which point it would die. A full term delivery is much harder and takes longer to recover from (I have 3 large kids so I know) so both people I know were able to recover quickly and be pregnant again within 6 months both of which were absolutely fine thankfully. I know that the PBA's you are talking about Good will not all be like this but since there may be a woman out there who really needs one is it right to flatly deny any choice? Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 09:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Once more for clarity

Alien, I was simply refuting point by point your attempts to obfuscate. For clarity:

• To most people abortion is not simply a religious matter (as you have tried to paint it) - rather its a common sense and human rights issue that also comports with religious views that human life is the greatest material good.
• Clinical terms for "gravida" and "fetus" are often "mother" and "baby".

You can keep posting dismissive comments and pretending to be polite while sneering and posting links to rules that you don't yourself heed - but I will try to keep rephrasing until you understand. I did not bring these issues up, YOU did. Good 01:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Today's NYTimes headline: The Abortion-Rights Side Invokes God

Today's NYT (April 3, 2006) notes that both sides of this debate invoke God (and always have). Funny how some editors here think pro-life policy is simply religious but pro-abortion policy is wholly secular. Such a view is clearly POV - and abortion-related wikipedia articles should not be written under the erroneous assumption that it is factual. Even the pro-abortion NYT understands that such a view is balderdash. Good 09:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

merge with Late-term abortion?

The article Late-term abortion exists and has virtually no content. It should either redirect here, or this should be moved there. What do people think? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It would be better to merge the content into Late-term abortion as this is a more commonly known term - predating PBA and much more NPOV. Then D&X and D&E could be linked from there with the term PBA being correctly identified as a political not medical term used by some to describe some forms of D&X. PBA is a very USA term which I had not heard of until coming across it here. Having two close friends who had to suffer this due to fatal abnormalities of much wanted babies I am very concerned that the way the article is currently written would be very distressing to them. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 18:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Concur with the confused personification of wisdom, who is undergoing a brief hiatus disguised as a hobbit (that means concur with Sophia.) There is virtually nothing at Late term; propose we simply delete, move this there, and be done. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. Alienus 18:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, in another day or two, if no other admin has done it yet, I will. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I do not think that we should move PBA to LTA. PBA is a common term used in the media, and it refers to specific political legislation. The bulk of this article does not apply to LTA. Personally, I would keep them both, but if we do anything, I'd have LTA redirect here.--Andrew c 22:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

PBA is largely an American term. LTA should be the main article and if anything PBA should link off from there as a subset of LTA's. The only 2 LTA's that I have personal knowledge of do not conform to the PBA method mentioned here as the foetal skull was not collapsed (or they didn't look like it from the photos my friends had of thier babies) and I think much is being made of this issue to heighten emotions. This is a difficult subject and being acurate with the facts is very important to avoid misinforming the reader. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 22:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The BBC is familiar with the term. THank God late term abortion is normally outlawed. But in th US it is legal through till the very end. The fact that PBA does not exist to any large extent elsewhere in the world is all the more reason to keep PBA as its own article. Also: wikipedia articles should not be written so as not to hurt someone's feelings. The article should not seek to make anyone feel bad, but the articles should not choose language so as to soft-pedal any facts. Good 22:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Disclosure: I am a Christian living in the UK. The law here is much less of a mess than that in the States, partly because we have pretty much one legal code rather than multiple state legislatures, but mostly because for the most part it is written by medical professionals in the Department of Health without excessive interference from people who are ideologically opposed to medical termination of pregnancy in principle. The time limit is, I believe, 24 weeks, and there has been some talk of reducing that to 20 weeks, but in extremis terminations can be performed much later. A fairly broad view is taken of what constitutes harm to the mother - few terminations are refused in the first trimester at least - but the definition of harm tends again to be in the hands of the doctors, and there is fair evidence that they take a more conservative view later in the term. Parents are not required to be notified, something which has recently been unsuccessfully challenged in the courts. The law allowing terminations was the result of many, many problems caused by back-street abortionists; the evidence is that attempting to ban termination just drives it underground. The word "abortion" is also considered loaded, and is much less likely to be used in formal debate than is the case in the US. The term "partial birth abortion" has never, to my knowledge, been used in the context of the UK debate. As to soft-pedalling facts, that rather dpeends on what you mean. If by not soft-pedalling facts you mean describing this as a "procedure for killing babies" (not that you have), then that would fail WP:NPOV. To describe it as a non-medical term coined by opponents of the procedure is accurate and harms nobody. As long as we remain neutral and avoid weasel words there should be no problems. Just zis Guy you know? 10:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The BBC uses the term in the context of a report from America - it is not used in the UK at all as far as I'm aware. In the UK LTA's are legal up to birth in the case of abnormality of the foetus - presumably to give women the option of not having to go full term with a baby that will die at birth (both the cases I know of fall into this category). In fact to have carried the baby to term would have limited the number of live children one friend could have had as she has to deliver full term babies by c section due to hip problems (she was told 3 c sections was her limit). I'm not contesting that people's feelings will be hurt by reading this article - what concerns me is that generalisations are being made about the technique that are false and seem motivated by a desire to distress the reader. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 23:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

At this point, we have three solid articles, here and at IDX and D&E, and one stub at Late-term abortion that's essentially a disambiguation page to the other three, with a little bit more content than an actual dab page. If that's the solution people agree upon, then super. I certainly see that PBA is article-worthy from an American legal perspective, if not from a medical one. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The main article should be at late-term. Partial birth should address that it is a term used by american pro-life, has gained wider currency, the history and useage of the term, in other words. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This article encyclopaedically describes the procedure known by opponents as "partial birth abortion" and to merge that with late term abortion would skew the latter article to no good purpose. Just zis Guy you know? 09:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Citations in intro

This page says "In 2002, 1.29 million abortions took place" in the second paragraph. There is a graph between the sections "medication abortion" and "safety of abortion" that shows 1.4% of abortions take place at 21 weeks or more. 1.29 million multiplied by 1.4% is 18,000 abortions after 21 weeks per year.

I apologize for linking to the wrong page for the second citation. The correct link has a section called "Provider Caseloads and Types of Procedures"; the dilation and extraction procedure is discussed in the last paragraph of that section. Lyrl 22:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for missing the graph on your first reference. I was doing a text serach of the page for certain key numbers. 18,000 seemed a little high compared to this, however the CDC information was based on voluntary reporting. I guess there were around 436,000 unreported abortions, at least estimated by AGI.--Andrew c 01:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The quote in the 3rd paragraph about most LTA's being done on healthy women and healthy foetus' is nearly 10 years old - are there any newer data/quotes? It's also a quite confusing read as it's talking about LTA's in general not PBA's. This confusion would be solved by making the main article LTA with this article as a subtopic of IDX which is where it really belongs and would save all the duplication of having to explain the LTA statistics. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 20:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a very good idea. This article should focus on the term, not the medical procedures that it might refer to, as those have their own articles. Alienus 20:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, I think you've got a very strong point. Particularly in view of the fact that the PBA is purely a political term rather than a medical one. Details of the procedures are described under the appropriate technical articles. The proper focus with this article is the political and social context. Ande B 01:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Religious view of PBA

A section on this subject was just removed. While the current version of the section wasn't very helpful and focused on abortion in general, I think we a) do need some mention of the general religious problems with abortion and b) how different religious groups have handled this specifically. There are some strange cases. For example, among certain groups of orthodox jews, they support many forms of abortion but strongly condemn partial birth abortion since under halachah a fetus is consider to have full rights of a person as soon as the head passes out of the birth canal. Thoughts? JoshuaZ 00:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• I agree, JoshuaZ. The primary movers of the PBA and other restrictions on abortion choice are religious organizations and religiously motivated individuals. To deny this reality ignores the nature and politics of the arguments and is a disingenuous representation amounting to a strongly misleading POV by deliberate omission. Ande B 01:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

There is an article on religion and abortion. It might have some good information relevent to PBA (and also to late-term abortion, if anyone is interested in contributing to that article).Lyrl 22:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Opening line is no place to explain what the article's subject is not

The lead sentence of an article should not begin by describing what the topic is not. The current opening is an example of this critical editorial blunder.

Therefore, I am changing this current opening:

• Line 1: Partial-birth abortion (PBA) is a non-medical term often used to refer to some late term abortion procedures.

• Line 2: Both the procedures and the term "partial-birth abortion" are controversial.

• Line 3: The term, coined in 1995 by congressman Charles Canady (R-Fla) is primarily used in political, public, and legal discourse — chiefly regarding the legality of abortion in the United States.

To this:

• Line 1: Partial-birth abortion (PBA) is a term commonly used to refer to a certain late term abortion procedure that doctors commonly refer to as Intact Dilation and Extraction.

• Line 2: Both the procedure and the term "partial-birth abortion" are controversial. (no changes)

• Line 3: This non-medical term, coined in 1995 by congressman Charles Canady (R-Fla) is primarily used in political, public, and legal discourse — chiefly regarding the legality of abortion in the United States. (added word "non-medical")

____G_o_o_d____ 07:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Support G&E's changes. --WikiCats 08:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

So do I - reads well and accurately represents PBA as a term - well done Good! Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 09:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for giving it your consideration.____G_o_o_d____ 09:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't like two occurrences of "commonly" in line 1. Otherwise fine. AnnH ♫ 09:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that too. I am sure that can be fixed - please give it a try.____G_o_o_d____ 09:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Why are we using the POV terminology and not the medical terminology for the article title? Just zis Guy you know? 09:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The article reflects mainstream language, not any POV. For the English-speaking, the term PBA is the most widely used term for the IDX procedure. "Medical professionals", a subcategory of English speakers, also talk about PBAs but generally prefer to use the term IDX. The man on the street is much more likely to have some idea what PBA, but would have no idea what IDX is. This is a generalist encyclopedia - not a medical one. ____G_o_o_d____ 10:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe it's the most common term among the American English-speaking - I don't rercall it ever being used this side of the pond :-) Just zis Guy you know? 10:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Kudos to your side of the pond for having no reason to discuss this sinister and abhorrent practice. The reason is likely due to the fact that the "Land of the Free and Home of the Brave" is one of the few places where an expectant mother can hire someone to commit a partial-birth abortion even if she and the baby are healthy and childbirth or continued pregnancy poses no unusual health risk. Such a barbaric practice does not need to be discussed in England, e.g., because public policy generally prohibits such abortions. But in the USA, people realized that thousands of unwanted children were being brutally killed - sqaushed like a bug - each year, and started a dialogue on the frontpages about this inconceiveable practice that was aptly described as "partial birth abortion". Among the pool of all English speakers who would ever encounter spoken or printed langauge about this particular method of abortion, virtually none (except for OB/GYNs) would have any familiarity with the term IDX, but many would have some familiarity with the term PBA. ____G_o_o_d____ 11:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Not that you have a POV here or anything. Just zis Guy you know? 11:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. The supreme court ruled that the language of PBA legislature was so vague that it simply is not a synonym for IDX. The word "certain" reenforces the false claim that PBA is anything but a vaguely defined term. Using the word commonly twice is awkward. Moving "non-medical" is better than removing it completely, but personally I see no reason to remove it from the first sentence. It let's the reader know that this article is not about a specific medical procedure. --Andrew c 15:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose for the reasons given by Andrew c. The proposed language is inaccurate about both the medical and legal issues. I don't agree with the statement that the intro, as currently phrased, is focused on what the phrase is "not;" it is a fairly concise and clear description. Ande B 22:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You are right but we need to find a stable version of the intro that all can agree on. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 15:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

If it isn't broke, don't fix it. If the biggest concern is over the word "non-medical", (as the edit warring suggests) I would compromise and agree to move it to the third sentence. However, the rest of the changes completely redefine the term in an inaccurate manner. --Andrew c 16:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, move to a later sentence if people like. Not a problem. But there was a lot of POV phrasing, and in particular the section on the Act was longer than the whole article on the act itself; if we're going to use a "main article" for this the summary here needs to be concise. Just zis Guy you know? 22:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Strongly Support - It appears that once again our legislators have "invented" a term isn't actually in use by experts in the field. Nonetheless, there is no principle that says that *medical* usage of words trumps *legal* usage of words on wikipedia. The term is what it is, and should be defined as such. The "non-medical" phrase is appropriate after the opening sentence. - O^O

Strongly Oppose, as any definition of the term that doesn't clarify the fact that it's political as opposed to medical is not only misleading but POV. Moreover, the suggested replacement is unclear in general and has some repetition and other language problems. It just won't do. Alienus 05:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree strongly. Just zis Guy you know? 10:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Added by Goodandevil

In addition to his usual issue with the fact that this is a political, not a medical term, G&E added the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Partial-birth_abortion&diff=48400815&oldid=48400615

I don't think we should be adding great chunks of text like that without discussion, especially since quite a bit of it looks to me to be pushing a particular POV, and it seems like an attempt to fork intact dilation and extraction. Just zis Guy you know? 10:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I did not add anything - I edited out wordiness and distracting POV tangential to the article. Your threats left on my talk page are absurd. "I will block you if you remove my POV" is a silly position - but it is the one you hold. ____G_o_o_d____ 11:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Replacing this:

• Partial-birth abortion (PBA) is a non-medical term used by the pro-life movement to refer to some late-term abortion procedures. Both the procedures and the term "partial-birth abortion" are controversial. The term, coined in 1995 by congressman Charles Canady (R-Fla) is primarily used in political discourse — chiefly regarding the legality of abortion in the United States.

With this:

• Partial-birth abortion (PBA) is a term used to refer to some late-term abortion procedures. The procedures and the term "partial-birth abortion" are controversial. The non-medical term, coined in 1995 by congressman Charles Canady (R-Fla) is primarily used in political discourse — chiefly regarding the legality of abortion in the United States.

AND

Replacing this:

• While the term "partial-birth abortion" mainly refers to the "Intact dilation and extraction" ("IDX" or "Intact D&X") abortion procedure, in broader contexts it is sometimes applied to dilation and evacuation (D&E) procedures. Though often performed during the same developmental stage wherein most IDX procedures are done, D&E is a separate procedure. The IDX procedure can also be used in late-term miscarriage cases; proponents of the PBA term have not applied the term to IDX in these cases. The procedure represents a minority of the estimated 18,000 terminations per year past 21 weeks in the USA)[33]; IDX is only one of several procedures used in the late stages of pregnancy when the fetus may be viable. IDX is used to terminate approximately 2,200 pregancies each year in the US[34].

With this:

• While the term "partial-birth abortion" mainly refers to the "Intact dilation and extraction" ("IDX" or "Intact D&X") abortion procedure, abortion advocates claim that it also applies to other abortion methods. IDX is only one of several procedures used in the late stages of pregnancy when the fetus may be viable; it is used to abort approximately 2,200 pregancies [35] of the estimated 18,000 late-term (after 21 weeks gestation) abortions each year in the USA[36].

...is actually quite sound, more concise, neutralizes POV, and makes the article more readable and comprehensible. To label these changes as POV insertion is just silly. You may not like the changes, but POV they are not. ____G_o_o_d____ 11:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

See above: consensus for those changes is lacking. As is consensus for making this a POV fork of intact dilation and extraction. Use of the term "abortion advocates", for example, is inherently POV. Many people who are pro-choice do not advocate abortion, they merely support the right to it.** Some pro-choice people believe that abortion is often morally wrong, but choose not to impose their own moral judgment on others (that would be me). Why de-emphasise the fact that the term is a non-medical one coined by opponents? *** That is the literal truth. Just zis Guy you know? 12:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

-** Good: then make that change - don't do a total revert\ -*** Good: the term is now the most common term for IDX - why would the opening pretend that only prolifers use it? the origin of the term is hardly de-emphasized - it is in fact quite prominent

Sorry - there is no POV fork here. If we want the article to be about IDX, great. But the pro-choice folks think the two terms are not equivalent - that is why PBA has its own article. Your claim of a POV fork is amusing. ____G_o_o_d____ 12:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - there is a POV fork here. The text you inserted was a POV representation of the text already at intact dilation and extraction. Why duplicate it? We already have an article describing the procedure and its history. If you want to merge this content into the article on IDX and redirect to there (as the title which is technically correct for the procedure) feel free to propose such a merge. This entire article is perilously close to a POV fork of that anyway, but can be justified as a description of the political term. Just zis Guy you know? 16:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, IDX is a term that was invented once partial-birth abortion became the most common term for the procedure. Who are you to determine that the most common term is the "political term"? 84.146.244.190 18:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'd love to you see support that claim with citations from a reliable source. Alienus 01:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

interest groups?

I propose that we remove the interest groups section of the external links. This article is about PBA, not pro-choice or pro-life or the abortion debate. --Andrew c 16:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

No objection. Link to an article on the politics of abortion. Just zis Guy you know? 18:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Citations needed

To improve the quality of this article, neutral citations are needed for these inclusions in the article:

• 1. For the assertion that the term partial birth abortion is used solely by pro-lifers.
• 2. Who uses the term PBA to apply to D&E?
• 3. Who is calling D&E a seperate procedure?
• 4. Neutral source for annual IDX numbers (other than the activist AGI).

____G_o_o_d____ 03:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Deja vu. Didn't I list a whole slew of references further up on the talk page a few weeks back? Anyway. #1. I do not believe the wording is implies "used solely by" but perhaps that specific part could be cleared up. #2 Who doesn't? See my citations (especially the supreme court ruling This Court agrees with the Eighth Circuit that the D&E procedure falls within the statutory prohibition of intentionally delivering into the vagina a living fetus...). #3 Everyone. Here [37] is a pro-life site that lists D&E and D&X seperately. and here [38] is a health organization that lists them seperately. #4 I don't know how to respond to that. Do you have any other source that has tried to calculate the number of annual procedures? --Andrew c 03:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• 1. What is the word "pro-life" doing in the opening sentence, if not to imply in context that pro-lifers use it but no one else really does? It is no stretch to read it that way. And the facts are that the public in general uses the term [39]. And as the article has noted fro some time, it was coined as a legal term in legislation.
• 2. Your excerpt from the court discusses the specific language of the statute, not the term PBA. The term PBA is not meant by those who use it to refer to anything but IDX. Crafting legislation is much more precise than applying a phrase in every day conversation. In this case, those who embrace IDX managed to convince the court that the language of the statute (but not specifically the term PBA) was not precise enough, but in no way does that mean that people actually use the term to mean anything but IDX. The very people making the argument to the court (IDX supporters) only ever use the term PBA in court filings - which is the only "broader context". And the supporters of the ban consistently went on record to deny that the bill as written was meant to or did cover D&E. In any event, it is fair to mention this, but I suggest that my proposed version actually covers the facts without twisting them to mean something that is not true: e.g. while the term "partial-birth abortion" mainly refers to the "Intact dilation and extraction" ("IDX" or "Intact D&X") abortion procedure, abortion advocates claim that it also applies to other abortion methods or even better While the term "partial-birth abortion" mainly refers to the "Intact dilation and extraction" ("IDX" or "Intact D&X") or "intrauterine cranial decompression" abortion procedure, its supporters have successfully argued in court that the language of some legislative PBA bans might apply to the more common dilation and evacuation (D&E) procedures. Of course the people making this legal argument would never even use the term PBA to begin with, which makes it even more odd to state that anyone is going about using the term PBA to mean D&E (which is exactly what the current article langauge implies). Actually, there is evidence only that the pro-aborts convinced the court that the langauge of the statute - not the term PBA - covered D&E (and the people supporting the ban were adamant that they never intended the bill to apply to D&E).
• 3. Great - sources that say they are different. Which simply underscores the idea that PBA is virtually never used to describe D&E, which rips the baby apart limb from limb, rather than "partially birthing" it.
• 4. A good response could be: "you're right, AGI is not a neutral source".
• I am also going to add another medical term for the procedure: "Intrauterine cranial decompression" [40]. ____G_o_o_d____ 07:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Wait, you claim something needs to be cited. So I cite it and then say "perhaps the wording needs to be changed a little" and what do you do? You remove my citations (that YOU asked for) and rewrite the opening, against the objections from when you tried to obtain consensus for you changes above? Please be a little bit more patient with the talk pages before going edit crazy. I reverted to my version with the citation, and changed the phrasing to be a little more accurate per your concerns.--Andrew c 17:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, you're completely right. Evil is jumping the gun by making changes BEFORE a consensus here supports them. Perhaps that's because he doesn't expect that support, so he's trying to make it fait accompli so as to undercut these discussions. Perhaps he's just hasty. Either way, I reverted his last string of non-consensual changes, which were not of good quality. Alienus 17:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I was still in the middle of my partial revert when you did the full revert. So take a look and see if you agree with my compromise version. (The first paragraph is starting to read poorly. The sentences are disjoined and choppy. I think all these little nit picks and fine points and compromises are destroying the reading of the first paragraph.)--Andrew c 17:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with the content of your compromise version, although we can always improve the language. Alienus 19:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to work in some of my concerns. But we need to go further. The opening three paragraphs of the PBA article contain more information about D&E than IDX. While the court ruling of language in the PBA laws (but not the term PBA itself) is significant, this article mis-represents reality. No one thinks D&E is PBA except some lawyers who did not like the PBA law, and found a legal technicality (in the law's language other than the term "PBA" itself) that seemed vague emough to void the law. Instead the articel reads as if people actually use the term PBA to refer to D&E abortions. In fact, if written correctly, the article ought to treat this matter much more tangentially. The discourse on the technical flaw found in the law (but NOT in the actual term "PBA") belongs in the article on abortion law or Abortion in the United States. Please post a source that demonstrates that it is usual for people to use the term PBA to mean D&E (not simply that a law that aimed to outlaw IDX PBAs unintentionally contained langauge vague enough that it could be interpreted to ban some D&E abortions). ____G_o_o_d____ 19:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

My impression was that many in the general public believe "partial-bith abortion" is synonomous with "late-term abortion". I have had several conversations with co-workers and on message boards where people were shocked to learn that PBA bans were bans on a procedure rather than on all late-term abortions. So neither pro-life advocates nor pro-choice advocates use PBA to refer to D&E, but many in the general public do. Lyrl 23:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

That may be true - but is there a source for that? ____G_o_o_d____ 11:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

There are certainly groups concerned about the confusion of the term PBA with late-term abortion generally "Partial Birth Abortion" Is Not Late-Term Abortion. And the vagueness has made it into at least one popular dictionary: par·tial-birth abortion (pär'shəl-bûrth') n.

A late-term abortion, especially one in which a viable fetus is partially delivered through the cervix before being extracted. Not in technical use.The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Lyrl 23:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Something to add here, and to the IDX article

I found this:

• The Alan Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of the abortion industry, reports that the rate of maternal death for women having an abortion at 21 weeks' gestation or later is more than twice the maternal death rate in childbirth. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine reports 15 to 16 weeks' gestation as the point at which abortion becomes more dangerous than childbirth.(Thorp, J.M. and Bowes, W.A. "Pro-Life Perinatologist--Paradox or Possibility?" The New England Journal of Medicine, April 30, 1992, p. 1217, 1218.)

That PBA carries twice as much risk for maternal death as does childbirth, I think, deserves a mention in the article. ____G_o_o_d____ 08:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

That say nothing about "partial birth abortion". It has no place in this article. On top of that, how do expect us to trust the non-neutral, activist AGI? There is no need for their propaganda in this article :P (that is unless it benefits our personal POV) ha!--Andrew c 17:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

First off, one source is not AGI, but a medical journal. And it covers all abortions done after 15 weeks - and virtually all IDXs are done after 15 weeks. So it certainly is relevant information. Espcially since the article already discusses health risks. You must have some handle on logic. Logic would tell us that AGI, an abortion advocacy research think tank, is not skewing the figures to make abortion look any worse than they are forced to by the data - though they might refuse to report data that makes abortion look bad (or skew it to make it look better). Because AGI is an abortion advocacy business, when AGI data exposes a chink in the abortion armor, the data is not as suspect as it is when it makes abortion look as safe as taking aspirin. Of course this data is certainly relevant if this article is to make any claims about the safety of having a late-term PBA abortion. If such claims are in this article, then this data about the higher death risk of late term abortion versus childbirth will need to be included to avoid presenting an incomplete picture. Besides, it is abortion advocates who make the claim that PBA is safer for some women, so using abortion advocacy data to actually note the higher death risk with PBA is not at all problematic to my earlier expressed preference to treat AGI data and all other data generated by abortion advocacy as POV. Until abortion articles at wikipedia do treat AGI as POV, I don't feel obliged to follow a standard that the article rejects. And again, in this case, the abortion advocates' claim that IDX is sometimes the safest thing for a woman is already in the article - so arguing that the article should keep out the abortion advocates' other claim that abortion after 20 weeks has a higher risk of fatality than childbirth is quite illogical. ____G_o_o_d____ 19:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Craniotomy

I found two interesting references to what amounts to the same thing as IDX: fetal craniotomy. It is over 100 years old. And is still a recommended procedure. What is most interesting is that the WHO website even gives line drawings - which are almost identical to the ones that are always falsely characterized as being pro-life misrepresentations of what occurs during IDX.

• Academic Ob/Gyn paper from 1888
• World Health Organization procedure guide for midwives and doctors

I ask someone to suggest language for including this information.

____G_o_o_d____ 08:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you put aside the WP:OR and instead look for a WP:RS that cites this. Your judgement on this matter is questionable Alienus 19:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

This is not original research. The World Health Organization and Human Life Review have already researched it for us. BTW, since you are pro-abortion (check the dictionary before carping about that word), I invite you to knock it off with the "I am neutral, you are biased" crap. It is not helpful - and it has no effect on me. ____G_o_o_d____ 19:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

On topic: What does this have to do with PBA? Maybe try expanding the existing Craniotomy article first? When I get more time I'll look through the 308 google hits for 'Craniotomy "partial birth"' and see if there is anything more helpful in regards to this article. Off topic: look up 'anti-choice' in the dictionary. --Andrew c 19:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It does appear that craniotomy used to be the solution when a full-term or near full-term child just would not exit the uterus. The craniotomy was done with the child totally inside, not after breach deliver of the feet and torso. Today ceasarian is used - but it used to be much more risky, so craniotomy was sometimes employed. Currently, the procedure seems to also be recommended in developing countries for the removal of a late term dead fetus from a woman when cesarian is not possible. That is what the diagram shows - an IDX of a dead fetus. I did find testimony that abortionists do use the term "craniotomy" to refer to perforating the skull so as to crush it to make it easier to exit the uterus. Which is in fact exactly what PBA entails. As I said, it is interesting - perhaps the term craniotomy could be incorporated into the IDX article to describe that portion of the procedure. ____G_o_o_d____ 21:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You are for the choice of abortion being legal, I am against the choice of abortion being legal. I am happy that the choice of slavery is no longer legal, and that the choice to worship in Jewish or Catholic houses of worship is no longer illegal in the USA. So, in some regards, I am pro-choice. But not in others. I am not, for instance, pro-abortion, as you seem to be. And if the choice is abortion, I am whole-heartedly against it. ____G_o_o_d____ 21:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Abortion lobbyist notes that PBA/IDX is on healthy women with healthy fetuses

"When you're a doctor who does these abortions and the leaders of your movement appear before Congress and go on network news and say these procedures are done in only the most tragic of circumstances, how do you think that makes you feel? You know they're primarily done on healthy women and healthy fetuses, and it makes you feel like a dirty little abortionist with a dirty little secret. I think we should tell them the truth, let them vote and move on. In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along. The abortion-rights folks know it, the anti-abortion folks know it, and so, probably, does everyone else." - Ron Fitzsimmons, Executive Director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, New York Times, 2/26/1997

____G_o_o_d____ 09:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a nearly 10 year old quote - it shouldn't be used at all. If there is a more up to date version talking about current abortion figures then that could go in. However the quote above could be used in a "history of abortion" article or the history of IDX (if there is one). Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 15:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

If you have a souce that anything has changed in regard to what the abortion lobby spokesman stated 9 years ago, by all means cite it. Otherwise this is a voice with authority making a statement that there is no reason to doubt. ____G_o_o_d____ 18:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The quote appears to be related to the issue of late-term terminations, not the term "partial birth abortion". It would apply equally to any late-term termination of a viable pregnancy. Just zis Guy you know? 19:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

In context, I believe this statement was made precisely about PBA. That is what the NYT story was about. And he was answering a question about IDX PBA. He even refers to the vote in Congress - which was the PBA ban vote. I have found the congressional record that contains the information on pages 13 and 14 of this PDF file. ____G_o_o_d____ 20:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

This link is a pro-life discussion that includes the context of Fitzimmons' statement (above). ____G_o_o_d____ 20:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Terminlogy: IDX or DX were not medical terms at the time PBA was coined

This is excerpted from a pro-life website. It explains the development of the term PBA. It also explains that the terms IDX and D&E were not medical terms at the time (1995) the term PBA was coined. It also explains that the term that the abortionists settled on, IDX, is itself vague. It might shed some light on what this wikipedia article aought to include.____G_o_o_d____ 20:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Why Not Use "Medical" Terminology?

Pro-abortion groups also dispute the terminology used in the bill. Dr. Haskell referred to this procedure as "dilation and extraction," a name he said he had "coined." In 1995, Haskell said the method is "somewhat equivalent to a breech type of delivery," and said he had learned that this breech delivery process had been developed as an abortion method by Dr. James McMahon of Los Angeles.

Dr. McMahon performed thousands of these abortions before he died in October, 1995. He referred to the method by his own coined term, "intact dilation and evacuation." When the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was written in 1995, neither "dilation and extraction" nor "intact dilation and evacuation" appeared in any medical dictionary or in the Medline medical database. Nor did either term appear in the textbook on abortion methods, Abortion Practice, by late-term abortion specialist Dr. Warren Hern.

Thus, these terms were merely a kind of pseudo-medical jargon. Idiosyncratic jargon cannot be employed in a criminal law, or the courts will declare that law to be "void for vagueness." Moreover, both Haskell and McMahon used their coined terms to apply to a variety of quite different operations. For example, McMahon's written submission to the House Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee showed that he often performed what he called an "intact dilation and evacuation" procedure to remove a baby who had died in utero of a natural cause -- which is not an abortion and which no one wants to ban.

Therefore, Congressman Canady had to develop a precise term for the procedure he sought to prohibit, and then define that term with the clarity required for a criminal law. The definition incorporated into the bill is crystal clear, so clear that any doctor or layperson can immediately grasp what the bill prohibits: an abortion in which "the person performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus and completing the delivery."

Opponents of the bill say that the term "partial-birth" is misleading and that the definition of "partial-birth abortion" is vague, but their real problem is that they find the name and the definition convey to the public all too explicitly exactly how these abortions are performed. Therefore, they demand that the press avoid the term adopted by Congress and instead employ pseudo-medical terms, even though they have no genuine medical pedigrees and are inaccurate, since they refer to broader classes of procedures than those banned by the bill.

I plan to add a line to the article that notes that at the time Canady coined the term PBA, there were no recognized medical terms for the late term abortion procdedure now known as IDX or DX. It sort of factually softens the impact of all the carping about the genesis of the term. Please note and cite any fact-based reason to not include this information when discussing the coining of the term PBA. ____G_o_o_d____ 12:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

This is partially false. D&X was coined in 1992. and "intact D&E" was in use before that. "Intrauterine cranial decompression" was also used earlier than PBA. All of them medical terms. PBA was never a medical term, and still isn't. The issue here is that the term IDX was coined after PBA by the ACOG to umbrella all of these pre-existing terms. --Andrew c 16:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Appreciate your feedback. Do Iunderstand that you do not think this statement is totally truthful?

• When the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was written in 1995, neither "dilation and extraction" nor "intact dilation and evacuation" appeared in any medical dictionary or in the Medline medical database. Nor did either term appear in the textbook on abortion methods, Abortion Practice, by late-term abortion specialist Dr. Warren Hern.

Which part is false? Do you have a source stating so? ____G_o_o_d____ 18:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

New factual edits

I have made factual edits to the Partial-birth abortion article. If you have sources that contradict those facts, please let me know. For example, the statement of Fitzsimmons was changed to note the date of 1997 - so i made a corresponding change to note that the 2200 number is also from the late 1990s. The same standard needs to be applied to all information included. If the date is so important for the Fitzsimmons comment, then the date is likewise important for the AGI data. And I also had to correct the flase information that Fitzsimmons made the statement as the former Exec director - he was the director when he made the statement and he was expressly retractin and apologizing for the previous misinformation (lie) he had put out during a TV appearance. This is well documented by the mainstream press. And the AGI data is no problem, but even the wikipedia article notes that the Alan Guttmacher Institute is in the business of abortion advocacy - so the reader should be made aware that AGI has a pro-choice bias. Otherwise to avoid bias the article would need to include the annual number estimated by pro-life advocacy groups without noting the source and simply stating langauge such as "there are estimates that range from 2200 to 5000 per year" - and i don't think some of you would want that to happen. ____G_o_o_d____ 11:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe either of the quotes need to be dated in the text. The AGI number was collected by the most reliable method (their survey methodology is very thorough). It is the most recently available number. If others dispute that, we can work it out on this talk page, we don't need to take the discussion into the actual article. I believe the date of the Fitzsimmons quote is irrelevant to its merit. It's probably as accurate today as it was ten years ago. But I question whether the reasons women have late term abortions are relevant to an article about a specific procedure. If the objection to LTA is that the women and fetuses are healthy, the objection should be to ALL methods, not just one. If the objection is to one method, then the health of the women and fetuses is irrelevent.Lyrl 23:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

This article notes that:

• The Alan Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of the abortion industry, reports that the rate of maternal death for women having an abortion at 21 weeks' gestation or later is more than twice the maternal death rate in childbirth. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine reports 15 to 16 weeks' gestation as the point at which abortion becomes more dangerous than childbirth.

citing this research as well as AGI research.

The wikpedia article states that PBA proponents claim that late-term IDX abortion can be the safest option. I plan to add a statement noting that at 16 weeks the mortality rate for abortion is higher than childbirth, and that by 21 weeks abortion has a mortality rate double that of childbirth. I am certain the addition of these relevant facts will displease some here, so I ask that you suggest neutral wording to add this information (or perhaps produce data that proves this to not be accurate information). ____G_o_o_d____ 11:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The safety of late-term abortions is relevant to the late-term abortion article. Once the decision has been made to have a late-term abortion, the safety of late-term abortion overall is not relevant to the decision of which procedure to use. The safety claims for PBA come from not having toxic chemicals injected into the uterus, and not having sharp objects repeatedly inserted into the uterus as happens with other methods of late-term abortion. I.e. the comparison is to other LTA methods, not to childbirth. No studies have been done to compare the safety of different LTA methods, however, so all claims that PBA is more or less dangerous than other methods are currently hypothesis only. Lyrl 23:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting possibilites to include these in the article as pro-life arguments

This is from [41]:

• If a mother's life or health actually depended on being separated from her child after 20 weeks' gestation, the baby can be delivered alive, and be given the best medical care available to save her life. At 23 weeks' gestation, one in four babies survive; a week later, one in three survive, and at 25 weeks—still a remarkable 15 weeks before full term—the survival rate is 54%. When asked by a reporter why he did not dilate the cervix a bit further and remove the baby alive, Dr. Haskell explained: With any further dilation, the "fetus could just fall out. But that's not really the point. 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."

It might be good to include these as pro-life arguments about PBA. ____G_o_o_d____ 12:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. --WikiCats 14:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

This seems like it has more to do with viability than PBA. But then again, there really isn't an article about viability controversy. --Andrew c 15:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Andrew is right - it has nothing to do with PBA as a term. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 16:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The reasons a woman in late pregnancy with a healthy fetus would choose to have it killed are relevent to late-term abortion, not to PBA. Only the reasons a woman who has decided to have a late-term abortion would choose IDX or reject IDX are relevant to this article.

3rd paragraph

I'd move to remove the third paragraph. It is clearly about the IDX procedure, not PBA. Maybe it could be replaced with something along the lines of: "Depending on what definition of PBA is used, the procedure only makes up between 0.15% to 2% of all abortion procedures". --Andrew c 14:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Clarification might be in order, but I suggest that the term PBA is not only meant to apply specifically to IDX (all one neeed do is look at the line drawings promotd by pro-life opponents of PBA to see that the medical procedure depicted is specifically an IDX procedure and could not be any other procedure. In fact, independent medical experts did verify that when the drawings were first circulated. Since PBA is in most people's minds tantamount to IDX - of course excluding abortion advocacy lawyers and abortion-friendly judges - it is not wrong to dicuss IDX in some amount of detail. ____G_o_o_d____ 15:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that pro-lifers use PBA to refer only to IDX, and the politicans are the ones who made the mistake of not clearly defining the term when they went to ban the procedure? If PBA and IDX are synonymous, then there is NO reason to have two different articles about the exact same thing, because they would just be POV forks. Also, if PBA and IDX were synonymous, you would think that the first instance a court decided that the proposed ban's language was vague, the politicians would have fixed that. The fact of the matter is, for whatever reason, none of the legislature aimed towards banning PBA has made it clear that they want one specific abortion procedure banned in certain circumstances. If it has all been a big mix up, it should have been fixed by now (look at the AMA's history. how they initially proposed a new wording and supported a ban, but later retracted their support of any of the legislation.) I think this issue goes into "what should the purpose of this article be?"--Andrew c 15:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I started that paragraph because while both the pro-life and pro-choice advocates seem to consistently use the term PBA to refer to the IDX procedure specifically, many in the general public believe that PBA is synonomous with late-term abortion. I believe it is important to this article to have a note that there are other late-term abortio procedures, and that IDX is one of the less popular ones. Perhaps the article introduction isn't the best place for that note, though. Lyrl 23:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

PBA is a medical term

This pro-life source discusses some of the fallacies about PBA. One is that it is not a medical term. Another is that IDX is somehow a more reliable term. Interestingly, Medline actually does consider it a medical term (Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, utilized by major medical websites such as those sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, the National Library of Medicine, and Harvard Medical School, lists a definition for "partial-birth abortion), as do hundreds of phsyscians, including former surgeon general C. E. Koop. ____G_o_o_d____ 19:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You have been pushing this for a long time. Please refer to all the sources I quoted weeks ago here. There is a large number of sources that say PBA is not a medical term. I do not see why this is controversial. Besides, the dictionary you point to contains non-medical terms like heart attack and stroke. And if PBA is simply a synonymn for IDX, then there is no reason for this article to exist. --Andrew c 19:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You cannot just dismiss sources you do not like. Heart attack IS a medical term. So is stroke. So is PBA. People (including abortion doctors) who advocate abortion for those who choose it do not like the term and try very hard in their talking points to always repeat the mantra that it is not a medical term, for sure. But repeating the talking points does not make it so, as Merriam Webster's Medical Dictionary, Medline, Harvard (and other presitgious medical websites that rely on that dictionary) demonstrates. I will agree there is disagreement on the issue. Which means that the article can not simply dismiss such a highly regarded resource as the most widely used online medical dictionary (which is sponsored by the most prestigious medical websites). I highly recommend the article avoid mentioning whether it is a medical term at all. The article makes it clear that a pro-life politician coined the term. But if we do mention anything about it being a medical term or not, both views will have to come in. ____G_o_o_d____ 19:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

More good information:

• The Physicians’ Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth (PHACT) -- a group of over 600 physician-specialists (mostly in obstetrics, perinatology, and related disciplines) -- has spoken out to dispute claims that some women need partial-birth abortions to avoid serious physical injury. PHACT said: “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.” In September, 1996, former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop and other PHACT members said that “partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect a mother's health or her future fertility. On the contrary, this procedure can pose a significant threat to both.”
• In May, 1997, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (then H.R. 1122) was endorsed by the American Medical Association. In a letter to Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), AMA Executive Vice President P. John Seward, M.D., wrote, “Thank you for the opportunity to work with you towards restricting a procedure we all agree is not good medicine.”

____G_o_o_d____ 19:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again you have edited the lead, once again witho9ut achieving consensus. It is a non-medical term coined by opponents. Why are you so very determined to hide that fact? Just zis Guy you know? 21:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I have posted a medical source to the contrary of your POV. And here is another one (Main Entry: par·tial-birth abortion, an abortion in the second or third trimester of pregnancy in which the death of the fetus is induced after it has passed partway through the birth canal, from the Harvard Medical School website, Merriam-Webster Medical Dictonary, 2002). Sources conflict on this issue. As an administrator, you should realiz that the solution is not to impose the POV of the source you prefer. ____G_o_o_d____ 21:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thise sources make it perfectly plain that it is not a medical term. The Merriam-Webster link, for example, merely points the user to the main article at IDX. You have already been blocked once for multiple reverts to your contentious text without first achieving consensus here. Now would be a great time to stop doing that. Just zis Guy you know? 22:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Please explain how Harvard Med School's online medical dictionary "makes it perfectly plain that it is not a medical term". Or Medline's medical dictionary does the same. That is clearly what you would like the case to be. But we don't all think like you do or have your POV. ____G_o_o_d____ 22:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I provided you with a second source [(Harvard Medical School for crying out loud) and you don't even read it!

• par·tial-birth abortion, an abortion in the second or third trimester of pregnancy in which the death of the fetus is induced after it has passed partway through the birth canal

from the Harvard Medical School website, Merriam-Webster Medical Dictonary, 2002

You clearly abuse your admin powers. I have noticed that ethical admins don't take admin measures to keep out edits the don't agree with on a page they are editing. You are exhibiting behavior unlike that of ethical admins. ____G_o_o_d____ 22:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Ethical? Me? I am a rouge admin and proud of it. Just zis Guy you know? 09:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I think of a medical term as something a doctor would write in a patient's chart, or a term that would appear in a medical journal. A doctor may talk to a patient about her "first pregnancy", but would write in the chart "primera gravida". A doctor may tell a patient's spouse the patient has a "heart attack", but would write in the chart "myocardial infarction". A doctor may explain to a patient that the procedure he is doing is the one referred to in the media as "partial-birth abortion", but what appears in the woman's medical records will be "intact dilation and extraction". Doctors often use popular terminology when talking to their patients. Medical websites often use popular teminology when writing websites intended for consumption by the general public. That doesn't make it medical terminology.Lyrl 23:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

PBA is not a medical term. A PubMed search for "partial birth" yields five pages of politicolegal articles and a handful of medical ones. The latter quickly inform the reader that PBA is a non-medical term for "intact dilatation and extraction". See this example. AvB ÷ talk 00:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, a term existing in a medical dictionary does not make it a medical term (see heart attack, stroke). We have come up with a large number of sources that specifically say PBA is not a medical term. G&E has only had contextual evidence (i.e. the term is in a medical dictionary so it must be a medical term. The term is used by pro-life doctors in a press release/media report, it must be a medical term). There are no sources that outright say that it is a medical term. G&E would have a stronger case for his position if the two sources provided weren't circumstantial/contextual.--Andrew c 01:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. There is incontrovertible evidence that the term was coined by political opponents of the procedure; the fact that a few medical sources subsequently chose to document it (either as a redirect to IDX or with a separate description) does not change that. I have no idea why G&E is so hell-bent on obscuring this fact. It's not as if Wikipedia is here to promote an agenda or anything; presenting the facts is fine. I'm not a doctor, mind, but I believe Arie (AvB) is. Just zis Guy you know? 09:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)