Did I Violate the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban?

Slate ^ | 10/22/03 | Warren M. Hern

[madprof98]

A doctor ponders a new era of prosecution

As the misleadingly titled "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban" makes its way to the president's desk, anti-abortion groups are celebrating their public relations victory. But beneath the hoopla, the bill's medical consequences remain murky. Exactly which procedures will be banned, and which doctors prosecuted? Will the anti-abortion lobby be happier with the alternative methods to which doctors will resort? If not, which methods and doctors will be targeted next? Will this ban have a chilling effect on related procedures? If so, will it prevent abortions—or births?

I ask these questions because I am a potential target of this legislation. Almost exactly 30 years ago, shortly after Roe v. Wade, I started performing abortions on a full-time basis in Boulder, Colo., at the state's first free-standing nonprofit abortion clinic, where I was the founding medical director. In my private practice, I perform many abortions as late as the 26th week of pregnancy, and some as late as the 34th week.

[snip]

Earlier this year, I began an abortion on a young woman who was 17 weeks pregnant. Because of the two days of prior treatment, the amniotic membranes were visible and bulging. I ruptured the membranes and released the fluid to reduce the risk of amniotic fluid embolism. Then I inserted my forceps into the uterus and applied them to the head of the fetus, which was still alive, since fetal injection is not done at that stage of pregnancy. I closed the forceps, crushing the skull of the fetus, and withdrew the forceps. The fetus, now dead, slid out more or less intact. With the next pass of the forceps, I grasped the placenta, and it came out in one piece. Within a few seconds, I had completed my routine exploration of the uterus and sharp curettage. The blood loss would just fill a tablespoon. The patient, who was awake, hardly felt the operation. She was relieved, grateful, and safe. She wants to have children in the future.

Did I do a "partial-birth" abortion? Will John Ashcroft prosecute me? Stay tuned.

[madprof98]

That line about Ashcroft is evidently the latest "talking point" among the Culture of Death crowd. We'll hear it a lot as they take up PBA. In fact, we've been hearing it about Terri Shaivo too!

[wardaddy]

Got rope?

[ElkGroveDan]

Will John Ashcroft prosecute me?

If he does, I'll crowd my way to the front of the jury pool.

[Gumption]

Ban shman. If there was any chance the baby could have been kept alive outside the womb, then he and the mother killed it.

[WinOne4TheGipper]

We get that he's a murdering SOB, but did he really have to describe it? Hasn't this idiot heard of the ban on ex post facto laws?

[Gumption]

killed = murdered

[LadyDoc]

If he did an "abortion" at 34 weeks, he should be prosecuted. At 34 weeks, 90 percent of the children live after birth...

this "doctor" is one of the most notorious abortionists in the USA...

[DLfromthedesert]

I have taken care of MANY babies born at 24 weeks, and if this murderer is prosecuted, I won't shed a tear.

MY GOD!! 34 weeks!! Most of our 34 weekers don't even need oxygen, just some tube feedings and an incubator. They're usually home within a couple of weeks.

And he thinks he's going to get sympathy?!? What an A-HOLE. He has the nerve to call that medical care!!

[Freemeorkillme]

*ping*

[DLfromthedesert]

Can you believe the unmitigated gall of this so called "doctor"???

[worrywart]

He says the fetus "was still alive" then after the procedure he performed he says the fetus was "now dead." He admits that the fetus had a skull -- it was not just a lump of tissue...

Well, I don't know whether or not this legally qualifies as having violated the new Partial Birth Abortion Ban, but I sure hope it does.

How can he sleep at night?!

ww

[DLfromthedesert]

bump for life

[BlueNgold]

Amazing that someone can be so cavalier about crushing the skull of a human he ADMITS is 'still alive'. Makes me wanna cry.

[Maria S]

I figure the only reason the 'partial birth abortion' technique is used is to just kill the baby. The spin about 'saving the life of the mother' is nonsense. If the mother WERE in actual jeopardy, an immediate caesarean would be performed...but that would result in delivering a live baby, wouldn't it? It's my understanding that the partial-birth procedure involves at least a 24 hour time period, not to mention turning the baby so it is almost delivered except for the head.

Sorry business some of these doctors are doing these days.

[Dog Gone]

I have taken care of MANY babies born at 24 weeks, and if this murderer is prosecuted, I won't shed a tear.

My son was born at 25 weeks, and he's in college today. He joined two campus conservative groups last week.

[IncPen]

It's been said elsewhere on this forum that in 100 years abortion will be viewed the way slavery is today.

God have mercy on us for not doing our own justice to this evil man.

[BlueNgold]

"Exactly which procedures will be banned, and which doctors prosecuted?
"Did I perform a partial birth abortion?"

Obviously the good Dr. is reacting based on emotion and not on research or he would have read the bill, readily available online, and learned that the law covers only procedures involving a partial delivery.
From the House version of the Bill-
A partial birth abortion is one in which:
The person performing the abortion deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother for the purpose of an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus, and; performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus...

The act of committing a partial birth abortion is very clearly defined. Anyone claiming it is murky or grey has either (a) not read the bill, or (b) intentionally ignored the specifics found therein in order to make a political point.

The Dr. has a right, on medical grounds and expertise, to argue his side of the issue, but to make such inflammatory, uninformed, and misleading statements brings into question his ability to reason soundly on this matter.

[DLfromthedesert]

Well, you've done a super job and should be VERY proud.

[Dog Gone]

I'd be prouder if his cell phone bill was a LOT lower. I need to find a different plan... ;-)

[Shanda]

Reading this gave me a physical sense of revulsion.

What a truly evil man. I think the word monster really is appropriate.