Out of all the partial birth abortions they've done, I'll bet the # where the "mother" was actually in any danger is ZERO.
Its less than 1%.
But I agree that something needs to be there, just in case. Don't know how you include such an exception without it being abused though.
Unbeknownst to even the doctor (this was before ultrasound), the woman was carrying co-joined twins. A head was delivered, and the woman labored long and hard, and nothing else presented.
They finally called in x-ray--and saw what the problem was. It was really gruesome, but they decapitated the presented head, so that they could do a C-section. and save the mother. Needless to say, the other twin was dead, too.
Of course, this was an extremely rare situation, and in this day and age, would be dicovered long before delivery, so the doctors would be prepared to do an immediate section when the woman went into labor.
If a baby has to be about 2/3 born already before you kill it, that is almost the same as giving birth to a live baby. Either way the baby is going to be born alive or dead. I don't see how the proceedure could any way be used to justify protecting the life of the mother. If anyone knows otherwise let me know, but I don't see how a partial birth abortion can save the life of the mother.
The mother may well be in danger, and inducing labor may be a substantial medical benefit...but after the dangerous part of the birthing process has been completed, holding the baby in and turning it around so you can get to the base of the skull to get in and mangle its brains, thereby killing it does not in any way decrease the danger. At the point they begin the part of the procedure that is different from just giving birth, all they have to do is step out of the way and the birthing is done.
The WHOLE purpose of this procedure is to dodge infanticide laws.