[Mia T]

Let me preface my answer to your question with this: I find the procedure horrendous, not justified for any reason except to save the mother's life.

I can imagine the following hypothetical situation:
The baby is grossly hydrocephalic and breech. His head cannot pass through the cervix. It is too large. The mother is hemorrhaging uncontrollably. She is bleeding to death. The doctors determine that the procedure, horrendous though it is, is the only way to save the mother.

What we have here is an ethical dilemma: Do we save the mother, or do we save the child?

Unless we can say with certainty that there exists no such possible scenario--and I believe we cannot, then the life-of-the-mother exception is ethically required, in my view.

And what harm is there, in an abundance of caution, to include the exception? If such a scenario never happens, the exception will never be invoked.

[MHGinTN]

The LIFE of the Mother exception is essential to our heritage of self defense, but when invoked it must be strictly reviewed to show that the LIFE of the child could not have been saved while saving the Mother's LIFE. Should this perspective direct the ban on abortion, the dehumanization would be swept away and the alive unborn given the right not to be killed that they have previously been denied.

Interestingly, Senators in the democrap party are more vested in a woman's right to a dead baby when seeking a 'termination of pregnancy', so any compromise over LIFE of the Mother is not the real issue of opposition to the ban on this heinous killing method, your imagined emergency not withstanding, Mia. Additionally, the commerce in fetal bodies for research programs is sust ained with partial birth aborticide. Ever wonder how much campaign money flows to democrats from tissue sellers?