Congressional Subcommittee Holds Hearing on New Partial Birth Abortion Ban

Pro-Life Infonet ^ | 7/9/02

[rhema]

Diana Grossheim's partial-birth abortion and the trauma she experienced afterwards has become a focus of the debate in the fight to ban partial-birth abortions.

Twenty-one week's pregnant, the Santa Barbara math teacher's doctor recommended a partial-birth abortion to remove the body of her unborn child, who had died in utero. Grossheim's decision to have the procedure would lead her down an agonizing road of physical and emotional complications that would ultimately harm her future pregnancy.

Tuesday afternoon, pro-life Congressman Steve Chabot (R-OH) gaveled the meeting of the House Judiciary's subcommittee on constitutional issues to hold a preliminary hearing on a new partial-birth abortion ban.

At issue in the Congressional debate: Does a partial-birth abortion procedure pose a health risk to women like Diana?

Chabot's bill, HR 4965, comes as a response to the Supreme Court's 2000 Carhart v. Stenberg decision overturning a Nebraska ban on partial-birth abortion.

The Nebraska law, similar to legislation twice passed by Congress and vetoed by President Clinton, fell short of the court's scrutiny. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for a slim majority of five justices, called the statue too vague and imposed an "undue burden" on women by banning other abortion procedures.

O'Connor wrote that Nebraska's ban lacked a "health" of the mother exception and this proved, more so than a partial-birth abortion's destruction of an unborn child's life, to be the central point of contention during the hearing.

In response, HR 4965 would include significant Congressional findings detailing expert testimony refuting the need for a partial-birth abortion to protect a woman's health and would more precisely define the partial-birth abortion procedure to meet the Supreme Court's scrutiny.

Two medical doctors disagreed with the court's decision and told the Constitution Subcommittee that partial-birth abortion is dangerous for a woman's health.

Dr. Curtis Cook, an OBGYN specialist for women with problem pregnancies, said he and his medical colleagues have never seen any reason for a partial-birth abortion to protect a woman's health.

"Never in the twenty years I have been providing perinatal care to women with complicated pregnancies have I ever experienced a clinical situation where [partial-birth abortion] has ever been required or even considered," Cook explained.

Kathi Aultman, a doctor and former abortion practitioner, agreed with Cook's analysis saying partial-birth abortion isn't needed for women but, in reality, is physically dangerous.

"At times I am called to see women in the ER with complications of abortions," Aultman explained. "The complications of a D&X (partial-birth abortion) include hemorrhage, infection, DIC, embolus, retained tissue, injury to the pelvic organs, including the bowel and bladder, as well as an increased risk of cervical incompetence."

Simon Heller, an attorney with the pro-abortion Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, disputed the doctors' evidence. They state "no health exception is necessary because the technique described in the bill is never medically necessary and harmful to women's health," Heller said. "Both assertions are false."

However, Dr. Cook countered, "This procedure does not enhance the ability of women to have successful pregnancies in the future and may even hinder such efforts."

Cook said a partial-birth abortion, a three-day long procedure, causes a higher risk of maternal death for women than childbirth. The risk of maternal death is 1 in 6,000 for abortions at 21 weeks and after (when a partial-birth abortion is normally performed) and 1 in 13,000 for childbirth. This makes a partial-birth abortion twice as risky for women.

For Diana Grossheim, a partial-birth abortion ended in disaster.

"It was probably the worst three days of my life," writes Diana in an account of her experience. "I was in horrible pain, vomiting, and terribly frightened that something was going terribly wrong.

Ten months after the procedure, Diana and her husband learned she was pregnant again. At 23 weeks into the pregnancy, Diana found out the partial-birth abortion procedure left her with an incompetent cervix. She was lucky the baby had survived this long. Two weeks later, Diana went into the hospital with premature labor. After two agonizing months worrying about the fate of her child, Diana delivered a health baby boy.

The experience gave Diana a reason to speak out against partial-birth abortions.

"It is horrible that women are being advised to have this procedure done in order to protect their ability to have children in the future," Diana says. "I am living proof that the procedure is harmful."

[concerned about politics]

BTTT. The culture of death is showing it's true color - black.

[Frank Grimes]

Cook said a partial-birth abortion, a three-day long procedure, causes a higher risk of maternal death for women than childbirth. The risk of maternal death is 1 in 6,000 for abortions at 21 weeks and after (when a partial-birth abortion is normally performed) and 1 in 13,000 for childbirth. This makes a partial-birth abortion twice as risky for women.

More dangerous to have an abortion than to go ahead and have the baby, as nature intended. Gee, I never would have thought that! /sarcasm I thought abortions were performed all the time because the health of the mother was in danger. I mean, no one would ever just do it solely as a means of birth control, would they?

[goldstategop]

The point is the liberals have demanded a "health" or "to save the life of the mother" exception all along. Now if it get it, it will be very difficult for them to oppose a partial birth abortion ban. The real test will be if it can survive ligitation to the U.S Supreme Court. No its not perfect but its worth a shot.

[LisaFab]

A small step in the right direction but the "health" clause will prevent any practical application of the ban because the mother's mental "health" will be used as justification.

[rhema]

I mean, no one would ever just do it solely as a means of birth control, would they?

Because abortion apostles regularly and shamelessly prevaricate, it's helpful to be armed with facts:

Of the reasons given for the 14,450 reported abortions performed in Minnesota in 2000,
**2,378 of the women reported "economic reasons"
**5,608 of the women reported "does not want children at this time"
**754 of the women reported "desire to finish high school and/or college"
**Less than 1 percent of the women reported that the pregnancy was a result of rape or incest.
Additionally,
**6,000 women reported they'd had at least one previous abortion
**928 had had 3 or more previous abortions
**21 had had 9 or more previous abortions
[SOURCE: Minnesota Health Statistics, Minnesota Center for Health Statistics, Minnesota Department of Health]

[rhema]

BUMP

[ArrogantBustard]

2378 + 5604 + 754 = 8740
14450 - 8740 = 5710

Is there any indication of the "reason" for that remaining 5710 abortions? Inquiring minds...

[rhema]

Is there any indication of the "reason" for that remaining 5710 abortions? Inquiring minds.

4,763 were "unknown or woman refused to answer"
The statistics for 2000 (I also found 2001 statistics, of which I hadn't previously been aware) may be found HERE.

[BibChr]

...doctor recommended a partial-birth abortion to remove the body of her unborn child, who had died in utero

Huh? What am I missing? If the child is already dead, how is this a partial-birth abortion?

Dan

[knuthom]

Dr. Curtis Cook, an OBGYN specialist for women with problem pregnancies, said he and his medical colleagues have never seen any reason for a partial-birth abortion to protect a woman's health.

"Never in the twenty years I have been providing perinatal care to women with complicated pregnancies have I ever experienced a clinical situation where [partial-birth abortion] has ever been required or even considered," Cook explained.

This needs to be repeated every single time someone brings up the mother's "health" as a reason for PBA. There is NO medical reason for the procedure. Problem pregnancies can be ended just as surely by delivering the baby alive.

The only reason for partial birth abortion is to make sure the baby is dead. I do not understand why the woman in this story had a partial birth abortion, since her baby had died in utero. I suspect she had a D & E instead (dilation and evacuation).

[rhema]

If the child is already dead, how is this a partial-birth abortion?

Maybe she's describing a procedure that mimicked the grisly PBA procedure (turning the child feet-first, puncturing the skull, evacuating the contents, collapsing the skull, etc.).

[ArrogantBustard]

Thanks for the link. I'll have to read it in detail later. I just hate incomplete statistics. They give me the feeling that someone is trying to conceal something important from me. That, plus 1300 or so (I just checked) miscellaneous responses (most of which fall into the category of convenience) pretty much rounds it out. Most of these children were killed because they were inconvenient or burdensome. That's depressing.

[rhema]

Even abortionists, at least in their more candid moments, recognize this.

To do this [PBA] was called a "version & breech delivery." This was abandoned decades ago as it was too dangerous. Instead today the much safer Cesarean Section is used. Dr. Warren Hern, author of the late term abortion medical text said, "I would dispute any statement that this is the safest procedure to use. The procedure can cause amniotic fluid embolism or placental abruption." AMA News, Nov. 20, 1995, p. 3

Other testimony:

Dr. Pamela Smith, Director of Medical Education, Dept. of Ob-Gyn at Mt. Sinai Hospital in Chicago, has stated: "There are absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered in this country which would require partial- birth abortion to preserve the life or health of the mother." And she adds two more risks: cervical incompetence in subsequent pregnancies caused by three days of forceful dilation of the cervix, and uterine rupture caused by rotating the fetus in the womb.

Joseph DeCook, Fellow, Am. Col., Ob/Gyn, founder of PHACT (Physicians Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth), stated: "There is no literature that testifies to the safety of partial birth abortions. It’s a maverick procedure devised by maverick doctors who wish to deliver a dead fetus. Such abortions could lead to infection causing sterility."

Also, "Drawing out the baby in breech position is a very dangerous procedure and could tear the uterus. Such a ruptured uterus could cause the mother to bleed to death in ten minutes.".."The puncturing of the child’s skull produces bone shards that could puncture the uterus." (Congressman Charles Canady (R-FL)

"There are no medical circumstances in which a partial-birth abortion is the only safe alternative. We take care of pregnant women who are very sick, and babies who are very sick, and we never perform partial-birth abortions. . . . There are plenty of alternatives. . . . This is clearly a procedure no obstetrician needs to do." F. Boehm, Dr. OB, Vanderbilt U. Med. The Washington Times, May 6, 1966, p. A1

For more information about PHACT and partial-birth abortion, click here