There are only two instances that I know of where an abortion "may" be necessary to save the life of the mother:
1. Tubal pregnancy. Although advances are being made to try to save these babies, they usually are unable to survive past the second trimester because the tube ruptures.
2. Fetal rejection. When the mother's immune system overrides the baby's ability to fight off natural defenses, very similar to an organ transplant rejection. The mother's body sees the infant as an invading foreign body and attempts to destroy it, while other systems attempt to nourish it. Typically, the baby can defend against it. In extremely rare cases, it does not. I personally know only one woman this has happened to; it was terribly debilitating, and she agonized over her decision. Two days before she gave in to pressure to abort, God took the decision from her hands and swept the baby home to Him. She was in her fifth month and her health was failing.
She was urged never to attempt another pregnancy, and, given her emotional and physical suffering, she has chosen not to have children.
I know most of y'all know all this, but I feel the need to preach:
Tubal pregnancies usually cause rupture in the 1st trimester, often before 8 or 9 weeks. They are a life threatening condition for the mother. And, of course, the D & E is not even an option. (The ethical problem is whether it's appropriate to kill the child outright or to cause his or her death by means of removing the "diseased" fallopian tube. We could debate for days on that one. I know I have.)
As someone said, the remedy for the mother's health endangerment in other cases is to deliver the child. But, as we all know, it's not necessary to kill the child to deliver him or her. Yes, the child may die as a result of early birth, but that's not a reason to intentionally kill him or her. And early delivery is not an abortion.
Any interference after 15 weeks is statistically more dangerous to the health of the mother, both in terms of risk of death and of damage to organs, than waiting for term delivery.
There is no way that D & E is safer than a C section, for instance and I don't believe that a manipulation such as D & E is safer than induced labor. The "benefit" is in time (both for the "doctor" and the mother) and in facility costs (1 to 3 days of in patient or observed forced labor) and - here's the real reason for PBA - the assurance of ending up with a dead child.
As though a dead child is not a child, at all.
For abortionist - favorable statistics and info, look at the Alan Guttmacher institute's info page. (The AGI is the "research and policy" arm of Planned Parenthood.)
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html By the way, (blatantly, unapologetically, asking for money, here) if you appreciate the illustrations on PBA, they were provided to Senator Santorum and colleagues by Dr. Anthony Levantino, one of the founders of Physicians Life Alliance, which sponsors Medical Students for Life, as we attempt to give an alternative to the PP's $4 million per year support of Medical Students for Choice. (I'm on the board, too.) All of our money comes from donations. If you'd like to join or donate, here's the address:
http://www.physicianslifealliance.org/