[Fenris6]

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.

[Mygirlsmom]

It is not less than 1%, it has to be ZERO! Under what circumstance would partially delivering a baby butt first and stabbing him in the skull possibly protect a woman's health versus a normal live delivery? Or are they saying the partial birth option has to be allowed because other methods of aborting the baby could endanger the woman's health? Either way, it's a ridiculuous argument.

[midwyf]

Any problem that would endnager the life of the mother if she delivered her baby would be solved by doing a C-Section. Prolonging a vaginal delivery while killing the baby would only worsen such a condition. I'm sure they cannot even think of a specific situation that would require this. Even delivering a hydrocephalic baby in a breech position vaginally (which would be very stupid)would cause the baby to die before they could do anything, or would need to.

[LibFreeOrDie]

Partial birth abortions are not emergency procedures. The woman's cervix must be mechanically dilated over 3 days to allow the legs, arms, and body of the child to be "birthed".

This type of abortion is typically done at 4.5 months and later, which means that some of the older babies have a chance to survive if delivered intact.

There is absolutely no reason to kill the child in order to end the pregnancy.

One reason this technique is used is because the woman does not have to go through labor as in a normal vaginal delivery, nor does is she scarred as in a Caesarian section.

[bpjam]

There is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON for this procedure which would be related to the actual health of the mother. Its a joke. But the feminazis bring in an affidavit of some abortion doctor who concocts some byzantine scenario where it might be 'possible' that this procedure could be needed. Doesn't matter that the AMA and OB/GYN Assn says it isn't true.

With the number of c-sections going on now due to the trial lawyers, doctors will by cut you open at the drop of a hat because it is far safer than actually delivering a child vaginally.

So the doctor would have to claim that the scar from the incision was the 'health' of the mother reason for avoiding giving birth and instead killing the baby and extracting it vaginally (which again, is far more dangerous).

All we need is for this to get back to the Supremes and Sandy O'Connor won't be around to bail out the justices of death up there and we can have a 5 judge majority to establish that killing babies during birth is NOT a constitutional right even using Roe as a standard.