Monday, May 13, 1994
Is the late-term procedure what it’s made out to be?
On April 10, President Clinton vetoed the Partial-Birth Abortion
Ban Act, which would have prohibited a specific late-term abortion
procedure made known by Dr. Martin Haskell, the leading provider of
the procedure. Controversy surrounded the ban act and the veto, yet
many remain in the dark about what the procedure actually
entails.
Haskell submitted a paper outlining the Intact Dilation and
Extraction method (coined D&X) to his abortion colleagues at
the National Abortion Federation Risk Management Seminar in 1992.
The procedure, during which the baby is completely born except for
the head, is as follows:
After artificially dilating the cervix over three days, the
surgeon inserts forceps into the uterus and grasps a leg, pulling
it into the vagina. "With the lower extremity in the vagina,"
writes Haskell, "the surgeon uses his fingers to deliver the
opposite lower extremity, then the torso, the shoulders and the
upper extremities. The skull lodges … the surgeon takes a pair of
blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand … then forces
the scissors into the base of 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."
Even though the baby is capable of surviving on its own at 23
weeks, these abortions have been performed "up to 32 weeks or
more," Haskell reports in his methodology paper.
To mitigate public disgust at Haskell’s explicit details,
abortion rights advocates have claimed that the fetus is dead
before scissors are thrust into his or her skull. A Planned
Parenthood "fact sheet" says, "The fetus dies of an overdose of
anesthesia given to the mother intravenously."
This argument is medically ridiculous. Could the Planned
Parenthood claim possibly be true, we ought to be concerned that
"an overdose of anesthesia" is administered to the mother in this
outpatient setting.
But it can’t be true. There is no way an overdose could kill a
baby without killing the mother first, because anesthesia "must
cross from the mother’s blood stream into the placenta before
reaching the fetus," explained Dr. Jean A. Wright (an
anesthesiology expert), in a statement before the House Judiciary
Subcommittee on the Constitution.
Thus, no overdose is administered, and the normal dose doesn’t
kill the fetus. Think about it: Mothers are regularly given
anesthetics during pregnancy, delivery and for Cesarean sections
without harm to the baby.
The president of the American Society of Anesthesiology told the
Senate Judiciary Committee that he is "deeply concerned" this claim
"may cause pregnant women to delay necessary and perhaps
life-saving medical procedures … due to misinformation regarding
the effect of anesthetics on the fetus."
The punch line: American Medical News (a publication of the
American Medical Association) reported, "Haskell … told AMNews
that the majority of fetuses aborted this way are alive until the
end of the procedure." How can abortion advocates dispute their own
ally, the doctor who had admittedly performed over 700 of these
abortions by 1992?
They can’t. But they do claim that this type of abortion is
primarily used in cases of genetic abnormality or when the life of
the mother is in danger (presumably from late-term pregnancy
complications).
However, the late Dr. James McMahon, the other major D&X
provider who had performed this procedure up to term, admitted in
writing to the Subcommittee on the Constitution that half the
D&X abortions he performed at 26 weeks gestation were on babies
in perfect health; the anomalies included nine babies with a cleft
lip.
What if a doctor in an intensive care nursery took pity on a
baby with a genetic anomaly, stabbed the base of its skull with
scissors and "evacuated the skull contents"? The doctor’s act would
be labeled infanticide … but if the head is still in the uterus,
the same act becomes a legally protected medical procedure?
It shouldn’t: In California, a baby in the process of birth is
by law a legal person, and attacks on his or her life during birth
are considered homicide.
Since only one-fifth of the fetus is left in the uterus, but
four-fifths are delivered, perhaps we ought to rename the procedure
"partial-birth infanticide" to accurately reflect the proportions,
says one physician.
Abortion advocates insist that the partial-birth abortion must
remain legal for cases in which the life of the mother is in
danger. I ask, what specific type of medical case do they mean?
When is it better for a woman already facing complications in
pregnancy to receive artificial dilation of the cervix over three
days (which damages the reproductive system) and risk severe damage
to the uterus by having the baby turned around within its small
confines and pulled out feet first?
The answer is that no such cases exist. Once again, Haskell, the
author of the partial-birth abortion method, reveals the
indisputable truth. In an interview with AMNews he admitted that
"probably 20 percent (of partial-birth abortions) are for genetic
reasons. And the other 80 percent are purely elective." What
percent does that leave for the life of the mother?
Obstetricians have always done what’s best for the mother whose
life is in danger: Induced early labor or performed a Cesarean
section to remove the viable, live child from the womb. What makes
D&X a better procedure? When is it safer for the woman to have
her baby partially removed, killed and then completely removed
 as opposed to removed and spared its life? The only answer
can be that the primary aim of this late-term procedure is death of
the child.
Sure enough, Dr. Warren Hern, the well-known author of a widely
used textbook on abortion practice, had this to say to AMNews about
the method: "This makes much more graphic and visible a destructive
act that prevents a live birth. The purpose of abortion is to see
that the woman does not have a life birth."
The partial-birth abortion itself invites harm to the mother.
Hern, himself an abortionist, told AMNews he had "very serious
reservations about this procedure." Hern would "dispute" the claim
that D&X is the safest choice in late-term pregnancy. He said
turning the fetus to a breech (feet first) position is "potentially
dangerous. You have to be concerned about causing amniotic fluid
embolism or placental abruption if you do that."
Despite these additional risks to the mother, if the
partial-birth abortion were the only choice in a complicated
pregnancy, wouldn’t it be performed in hospitals or high-risk
obstetric centers? Yet no reputable hospitals or obstetricians
provide this procedure; only Haskell and McMahon (family doctors
who practice nothing but abortions) and two or three others have
admitted to performing it in abortion clinics. Further, the
American Medical Association Council on Legislation rejected the
procedure by unanimously endorsing its ban last September.
I think the words of the late partial-birth abortion
practitioner McMahon can reveal best the tragedy: "I do have moral
compunctions. And if I see a case that’s later, like after 20 weeks
where it frankly is a child to me, I really agonize over it because
the potential is so imminently there. I think, ‘Gee, it’s too bad
that this child couldn’t be adopted."’
Gee, Bill Clinton, and you say you had no other choice but to
veto?
Rich is a third-year English/American studies student and
assistant viewpoint editor at the Daily Bruin. This is her last
column.
An artist’s interpretation of Dr. Martin Haskell’s description
of the procedure. Haskell, the leading partial-birth abortion
provider, says these drawings are accurate "from a technical point
of view" (American Medical News, July 5,1993).Drawings were
commissioned by the National Right to Life Committee