JonGwynne reverted a change of mine to the external links at the bottom of the page. He claimed there was discussion over the issue...I see non. I disagree with legislation being in the biased section, and there are three (to my mind) highly biased articles in the unbiased section (the bottom three links.) Personally, I don't like the arrangement of the links as is. I propose dividing them into four sections: "Legislation and Court Decisions", "Commentary", and "Advocacy Groups", and "Other". Any objections or alternative ideas? --MikeJ9919 01:33, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Look at the section marked "External Links". BTW, it is customary to put new commentary at the bottom of the page in order to maintain a chronological flow.--JonGwynne 03:15, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey guys...been watching this article for a while. It seems discussion has settled down quite a bit, as have edits. Most of the major POV issues seem to be resolved. Could we have a discussion on removing the NPOV tag? Does anyone object, and if so, why? --MikeJ9919 16:28, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the tag should be removed. --Quasipalm 17:49, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem

Can we merge some sections of Intact dilation and extraction and Partial-birth abortion. I request that we use PBA for the political / legal situation and use IDX for the medical situation. Currently, there's a mix of duplication and information that would be better presented at the other page. --Quasipalm 03:42, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the merger request, disagree with the separation idea. I feel the topic is sufficiently constrained for one article, and IDX should be merged into partial-birth abortion. I understand if others disagree...it's obviously a judgement call. --MikeJ9919 01:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

non-medical term describing a

I think the phrase above expresses a POV and should be mentioned in the article. --Uncle Ed 18:36, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Can't this article simply be called Late term abortion? The current title is very POV. -- Viajero 14:40, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Actually, whether or not the term is accurate, it is in common use. Therefore, I would argue that the title of the article is not only accurate but appropriate. BTW, in case you're worried about any bias on my part, I would be considered "pro-choice" since I don't believe it is right for the government to ban medical procedures because of the ethical concerns of a portion of the population.--JonGwynne 12:15, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have no objection to the creation of an article called late term abortion. I daresay it would include more than one type of procedure: not only the so-called "partial-birth abortion".

Perhaps we need to distinguish also between (a) a procedure in which an otherwise viable baby (okay, fetus) is twisted around so it's born feet first, and then just before the head emerges and it's (technically/legally) "born" the doctor kills it; and (b) other late-term abortions in which the fetus is killed further up the, um, birth canal.

Please, please note that I have NO POSITION WHATSOEVER on this issue and that I sympathize with the POVs of both "choice" and "life" -- I literally am undecided about which if either is right (God, I'd make a great politician :-). --Uncle Ed 14:53, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

How about renaming it Late term abortion and indicating that the so-called partial-birth abortion is one form it. If there are other kinds, they can be added in due time.

I just feel that the pro-life people are skewing the terms of the debate by the use of their terminology. If there was a less laden way of referring to this procedure, that would be even better... -- Viajero 15:10, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)~

It's not just a feeling: it's fully half the debate! We're all at our wit's end here, trying to find neutral terminology to describe everything. In last week's discussion on the mailing list, I believe a consensus emerged to bring out 2 non-polemical aspects:

1. Use whatever terms doctors most frequently employ in the West, for writing about the procedures themselves: what pieces of flesh are moved around, medicated, etc.
2. Use whatever terms law-makers, judges and lawyers use, for writing about laws governing the procedures.
3. Use and attribute (as necessary with "scare quotes") whatever terms the various advocates use when making their cases.

For starters, I always call each side by what they call themselves (it's just handier that way):

• pro-choice
• pro-life

If one "side" objects to the other's "name", we could say something like pro-lifers think "pro-choice" is a crock of !@#$$ and generally equate abortion rights with murder or the equally mild ;-) pro-choicers think "pro-life" is a sneaky, crypto-fascist twisting of language typical of conservative male chauvinist pigs who want to keep women in their "place": barefoot and pregnant but I'd rather not have to write that article. I'm hoping we can duck that can of worms altogether, but if someone insists on opening it I'm ready to shovel up the mess and pin each worm to a card and place it in a dainty glass display case... --Uncle Ed 15:29, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

hi again Ed, look, I can see that this article has a long history and has already had a different title as well. If this is the "accepted" terminology, that so be it. Perhaps there are other voices/opinions here... -- Viajero 15:24, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I don't understand this sentence:

Opponents of laws banning partial-birth abortions voice concern that the definition of partial-birth abortion is too vague and that it could have a chilling effect on medicine

The part I don't understand is voice concern that the definition of partial-birth abortion is too vague considering that this month's ban in the US presumably defines the procedure in sufficient detail to determine whether a doctor has (a) performed a p-b a (and thus violated the new law) or (b) performed some other sort of late-term abortion which does not violate the law. I'm not anal, but I'm just trusting that Congress would not pass, and Bush wouldn't sign, a truly "vague" law.

Does anyone know what this objection or "concern" is about, and who's making it? I'd love to be able to write something like NARAL criticized the law for its failure to distinguish between "scumming the frobnitz" (which is done in 37% of cases) and "snazzing up the grummix" (which is done in 22% of cases). They predict that hundreds of doctors may face criminal charges due to this "vagueness" (note that frobnitz and grummix are not really medical terms, I think I got them from MAD Magazine). --Uncle Ed 15:39, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

We already have Intact dilation and extraction, and this article should clearly be merged with it. Also obviously, since there is a US bill Partial Birth Abortion Bill that is enough in itself to give the term validity. One of the terms should be a redirect to the other (doesn't really matter which). Late term abortion is a separate issue, with a reference to the merged article. DJ Clayworth 15:59, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Would you please do this, DJ? I'm confident in your ability to move, merge and paraphrase text. We could leave a disambig page behind, like:

See:

• Intact dilation and extraction - medical aspects of the procedure
• Partial Birth Abortion Bill (or whatever it's called) - legal aspects in the US

--Uncle Ed 16:09, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Ed Poor summarizes: Beginning to turn this article into an article about the TERM itself, following (somewhat) DJ's suggestion

Isn't that POV? Clearly, it has a legal meaning, especially now, that is fairly consistent. Daniel Quinlan 16:37, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)

Doggone it, EVERYTHING about the procedure is someone's POV! The PBA term was specifically chosen, I believe, to help garner Congressional support for the bill banning the procedure; who's going to vote for a bill called "Intact dilation and extraction ban"? Half of Americans probably don't even know what dilation means... --Uncle Ed 16:42, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I would be very unhappy if this page was merged with another, of any title. These terms, "Intact dilation and extraction" and "Partial Birth Abortion" are both valid terms, with different definitions. "Partial Birth Abortion" is obviously a broader term, "Intact dilation and extraction" clearly a more precise one. I for one am not entirely clear what the specifics are, (in fact that was why I came to this entry, to learn more) but I have heard more than enough disputing about it to think that they are identical. JackLynch

Don't be thrown by the "invisible" changes, I removed some extra spaces :)

Just a technical point about a reference to 'HR 1833 below' in the Paragraph called 'Distinction from "intact dilation and extraction"' which doesn't seem to be there.

There is however reference made in the paragraph 'Law in the United States' to 'the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (HR 760, S 3)'. Could this be the relevant act? I have no means of checking, but someone else may be able to tidy this one up. (Not registered user - yet - but my name is J.Thrift) 10:37, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Once again, article coherence is being broken. I am close to reverting Hector's changes entirely. "Partial-birth abortion" is not the same as "Late-term abortion"; the latter is more general and covers other procedures. Some of the text makes little sense under this change (look at the first sentence of the intro as of this writing!). Comments? -- VV 07:22, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This is a bad change. "Partial-birth abortion" is a much more popular term than "Late-term abortion." If you want to add a separate article on "Late-term abortion," fine. But just changing the title of this article is not the solution. If you think the term is POV, explain that in the article. Or should we be changing the title of The Boston Strangler and Manifest Destiny as well? (note: if you're going to reply to this note, know that I plan on updating it and changing it) Anthony DiPierro 15:36, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"Late-term abortion" and "partial-birth abortion" are not the same thing. It is a subset relation. PBA is a type of late-term abortion. "Late-term abortion" is a broader term, "partial-birth abortion" is the more precise term.

"Intact Dilation and Extraction" ("Intact D&X" or "IDX") and "partial-birth abortion" also are not the same thing. PBA is IDX of a live fetus. IDX can also be used to remove a dead fetus after a miscarriage. "IDX" is a broader term, "PBA" is the more precise term.

Use of a more obscure and less precise term like IDX to refer to PBA is obfuscation, and evidence of POV bias. Nobody except practitioners and advocates of partial-birth abortion call it things like "intact dilation and extraction," "intact dilation and evacuation," etc.

"Partial Birth Abortion" is also the only one of the various terms used to actually be defined by law.

NCdave 21:01, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I just want to mention that I stumbled on this page trying to find out what Partial-Birth abortion is, but I still don't understand. I think that in their zeal to describe all the debate around it, the editors forgot that some people just want to understand what, exactly, is a "Partial Birth Abortion".

---

Agree with the above poster. CNN when discussing the overturning of the partial birth abortion ban today, describes:

• The law was aimed at stopping a procedure, usually performed during the second trimester of pregnancy, in which a fetus is partly delivered, its skull punctured and its brain removed, often by suction.

If you're unfamilar with the issue, this description makes PBEs sound like they were specifically devised to be the most horrific way to abort a pregnancy. You need to follow the article through to the intact dilation and extraction article before you understand what the purpose of collapsing the fetus's skull by sucking its brain out is.

However, I don't have the balls to even try to update the article to say this. Mbac 18:20, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

I read an interesting thing in Clinton's book about his veto of the "partial birth" abortion bill which Congress passed during his term. He said that one of the reasons he opposed the law is that it is preformed in extremely rare circumstances, and he went on to talk about some sort of birth defect which prevented a normal abortion. As you can tell I'm not exactly sure what he was talking about, and I don't know enough about why that type of abortion is preformed. I think the article should be expanded a bit to explain why a woman might choose to have this procedure done.

There are a lot of external links at the bottom of this article with (it seems) a bias towards pro-life. Are all of these links necessary?

I'd like to hear people's thoughts no the picture - Partial-birthabortion.jpg. I have several problems with it... First, it isn't a photograph but a drawing. Even if the drawing was done by someone with medical knowledge, there is no way of knowing how accurate a depiction it is. Second, the source of the drawing is a vehemently partisan organization called "Campaign Life Coalition" who are probably not the best source for accurate or objective information about the procedure. Third there is no attribution in the picture or any description of why the abortion was being performed - for all we know the picture is not of an actual procedure at all but rather a pro-life "artist's conception" of what they think might go on during an ID&X.

Thus, I don't believe the image serves any purpose here other than to promote a specific point-of-view.

I am going to remove the link to the picture for now, if anyone feels strongly enough about it being returned, let's talk about it. I would suggest that if it is deemed necessary to have illustrations of the procedure, they should be photographs of an actual procedure.

Diagrams illustrating how partial-birth abortions are done should be included under "(Pro-Life Position) National Right to Life Description," since such diagrams are a part of their description. The NRTL description is incomplete without the diagram.

However, IMO Partial-birthabortion.jpg is not the best diagram to use. The diagram used under "National Right to Life Description" should one of two such diagrams that NRTL actually has on their web site: B&W PBA diagram or color PBA diagram.

I also think there should be descriptions of the procedure from clinicians, rather just from advocacy organizations. On the "Pro-PBA" side a good choice (actually the only detailed description I know of) would be Dr. Haskell's description from his original 1992 monograph. On the "Anti-PBA" side a good choice would be the description by Dr. Haskell's former nurse, Brenda Pratt Shafer (who is now pro-life).

Comments? NCdave 20:51, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is planned parenthood really "in the business" of providing abortions???

Yes, they are the largest abortion provider in the USA. They also do other things, but abortion is their main business and their largest revenue source.

NCdave 21:01, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Let's see a source, hotshot. (unsigned comment)

According to their most recent annual report, clinic income was $306.2 million, or about 38% of their revenue. However, abortions is a small percentage of what their clinics do, and does not account for all of their clinic income by any standard. An abortion on average costs around $400. So, based on the data below, and assuming a $400 charge for an abortion (which it is probably lower or provided at no cost many times), PP receives about $98 million from abortions, or about 12% of their total revenue.

In 2003, PP affiliates provided 244,628 abortions; however, they also provided:

2,257,154 Reversible Contraception (birth control of many varieties)

774,482 Emergency Contraception

65,961 Reversible Contraception (men)

207,582 HIV Tests

904,201 Pregnancy Tests

921,451 Breast Exams

1,774 Adoptions (through outside referrals)

32,216 Primary Care

2,452,930 Sexual Transmitted Infections Procedures

Plus other things. So, out of the 2,811,885 people that saw PP, 8.6% had an abortion.

Annual Report (pdf format)

Peyna 22:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The section titled "Law in the United States" seems to have errors. It quotes the definition of a partial-birth abortion from the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (HR 760, S 3). One problem is that it is misquoted. They took out a middle section of the definition without any indication.

Actual quote of definition in H.R. 760 SEC. 2 (1): ...partial-birth abortion--an abortion in which a physician deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living, unborn child's body until either the entire baby's head is outside the body of the mother, or any part of the baby's trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother and only the head remains inside the womb, for the purpose of performing an overt act (usually the puncturing of the back of the child's skull and removing the baby's brains) that the person knows will kill the partially delivered infant, performs this act, and then completes delivery of the dead infant... For an even more detailed definition look in SEC. 3

Yet another problem is that it states the bill did not include a provision allowing for such abortions to take place when the health of the mother was endangered. This statement is somewhat false since it is legal to perform the abortion when the mothers life is endangered. But it is not legal in the case when just the mothers health is endangered. sec. 1531 (a): This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

It also states that the definition could include even the first-trimester vacuum aspiration of embryos through the vaginal canal and the late-term "dilation and evacuation". The definition is very specific as you can see and not vague at all. If you read the procedures for these other types of abortions you will realize there is no way they could be included as one of the procedures banned in this bill.--Datajunkie 04:23, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This paragraph is very heavy on POV:

"The late-term abortion avoids the grieving woman from having to undergo child birth or abdominal and uterine incisions of a caesarian section (c-section) when the child would not survive. Late-term abortions are a target of pro-life advocates because they believe the procedure most clearly illustrates their view as to why abortions, and especially late-term abortions, are immoral. Pro-choice advocates point out that a late-term abortion clearly cannot be an optional procedure and in practice, involves a tragic situation in which the government should not intervene to cause more suffering to the woman by requiring painful labor and delivery or abdominal surgery."

There's a lot of things in here that could use a rewrite, but to be honest, the whole chunk looks like a candidate for deletion. The first sentence, while true in some cases, is not necessarily typical or definitive. The second, may or may nor correctly describe why it's a target. The third is opinion couched as fact, as studies do show late-term abortions used as optional procedures.

Any suggestions? Zooks527 03:04, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've done a heavy cleanup on this article.

I've corrected the quote from the PBA Ban Act, and rewritten/balanced the POV-heavy paragraph that Zooks mentioned, and a few others, added several additional references, and fixed a number of other problems, including:

Corrected false statement that PBA is a term "used primarily by abortion opponents." In fact, it is a term of law, the only legally defined term for this procedure. There is no other term, legal or otherwise, with precisely the same definition. To accurately replace the term "partial-birth abortion" would require a lengthy phrase such as, "intact dilation and extraction to abort a live fetus." Nobody uses that kind of language. Those who seek to substitute terminology that doesn't necessarily refer to the abortion of live fetus are just trying to obfuscate the issue.

That's simply not true. The term is originally political, not legal or medical. It has recently shifted into legal usage because of the now-defunct PBA Ban Act of 2003.--JonGwynne 18:52, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Only in the sense that law-making is an inherently political activity is the term "partial-birth abortion" political. It is a simple, descriptive, legal term. A POV-reflective political version would be "murdering a defenseless baby by sucking his brains out." But (unlike Gwynne) I tried to keep the POV stuff OUT of the article, and refrained from politically-charged rhetoric.

Replaced POV-heavy and misleading statement "While those who use the phrase say it refers to a specific type of late-term abortion, pro-choice critics of the term charge that it is ill-defined political rhetoric with no medical basis..." with the accurate & balanced statement that "The debate over PBA is about the term as well as the procedure. The phrase "partial-birth abortion" is a legal term." and included both sides of the argument, and discussion of several alternative terms used by abortionists (which do not describe the same range of procedures).

Retained POV false statement that "the definition could include even first-trimester abortions" but added comparative quote from the actual PBA Ban for NPOV balance/truth.

Replaced heavily POV discussion of recent origin of "the term" with balanced discussion of the recent origin of BOTH the term and the procedure. POV-heavy version was: "The term has been very recently coined.... It is neither a medical nor scientific term." NPOV replacement begins: "The procedure and the various terms for it are all of relatively recent invention. The procedure was first described by Cincinnati physician W. Martin Haskell...."

That's not true either, late-term abortions have been performed for decades. The procedure is not a new one. The term is. -JonGwynne

"Late-term abortion" and "partial-birth abortion" are not synonyms. I know perfectly well that late-term abortions have been performed for decades. Gianna Jessen knows it, too: she was the victim of an attempted late-term saline abortion 27 years ago, but defied the odds and refused to die; I've met her, and she is a wonderful Christian lady. [1] The fact is that partial-birth abortion was invented around 1992. NCdave

Corrected false statement about the origin of the term. False (and heavily POV) version: "...stemming from the efforts of the pro-life Christian Coalition to begin a campaign designed to outlaw abortion" Corrected version: "The term 'partial-birth abortion' was coined by legislative drafters of a bill to ban the procedure, in 1995"

The bill was introduced as the result of pressure from the Christian Coalition and the Bill's author kept the language suggested by the CC. -JonGwynne

The bill was to outlaw partial-birth abortion, not "designed to outlaw abortion," and the drafting of the bill was a collaborative effort by people who were appalled by this barbaric procedure. The term "partial-birth abortion" is simply descriptive, and was coined by the bill's drafters. NCdave

Changed statements of (POV-heavy) opinion which were expressed as fact into explicit statements of opinion: Example: replaced "many of these restrictions are constitutionally invalid" with "many of these restrictions are claimed by abortion supporters to be constitutionally invalid"

OK, that's fair enough, I'll put that one back.

And other, similar corrections. Result isn't perfect, but it is, at least, more nearly balanced and MUCH more accurate.

One remaining problem that I didn't take the time to track down & correct is this statement:

"Four States (Delaware, Minnesota, Ohio and Utah) have no current policy regarding post-viability abortions because the laws in those States are blocked by court order. The remaining 44 States, plus the District of Columbia impose some regulation on late-term abortion."

Of course, there are actually 50 States in the USA, not 48, so something is obviously wrong there. NCdave 16:59, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll fix that one too.--JonGwynne 18:52, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I'll give the whole thing a little touch-up. It could use one.--JonGwynne 18:52, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

JonGwynne's "little touch-up" was wholesale POV vandalism. I've restored it. NCdave 21:24, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Look, let's see if we can settle this without reverting back and forth. OK? The existing language has been in place for quite some time. A massive re-write is neither needed nor warranted. If you want to discuss the language, I'm certainly open to that. But you're not going to be allowed to turn this article into an "Operation Rescue" tract.--JonGwynne 22:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your problem is that you want the page to be NARAL propaganda, full of POV bias and outright misinformation. You deleted the corrections I made, and the changes I made to make it NPOV, and the references I added to the end to make a balanced list of pro- and anti- sources. I deleted NONE of your pro-PBA reference sources, but you deleted a slew of the references that I added. Your vandalism is the worst sort of Wikipedia abuse. NCdave 2:00, 21 Feb, 2005 (UTC)

"Partial-birth abortion (or PBA) is a procedure used to abort fetuses in women who are in the last half of a pregnancy. A PBA is an abortion in which the baby is partially delivered before being killed. Most partial-birth abortions are performed between the 20th and 24th weeks of pregnancy. It is estimated that a few thousand partial-birth abortions are performed per year in the United States"

You cite no sources for your claims here. There is no "official" definition of a PBA since the procedure doesn't actually exist. So, calling it a "procedure" is, in fact, POV. Sometimes when people say "PBA", they mean "IDX"/"IDE", sometimes they mean any late-term abortion regardless of method. By some pro-life advocates view, all abortions are PBAs.--JonGwynne 22:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That is utter nonsense. PBA is defined very precisely in the U.S. Code, and the NPOV version of this article (which you keep deleting) quotes that definition. That's about as official as you can get. If the procedure "doesn't really exist," then why do you suppose that the abortion industry is fighting so hard in court to block the banning of it?

IDX/IDE/etc., in contrast, are defined in no law, no medical textbook, no peer-reviewed journal, anywhere, but that's not the real problem with using IDX or IDE or "Intact D&E" or similar terminology to refer to PBAs. The real problem is that those terms do not mean that you are necessarily killing the baby, because they can also be used to remove an already-dead fetus after a natural miscarriage. (That ambiguity is presumably intentional; obfuscation is the name of the game in the abortion business.)

To suggest that PBA isn't a real procedure is delusional. Nobody anywhere ever means "any late-term abortion" when they say "partial-birth abortion." If you know anything at all about this topic, then you know that to be a fact.

By some pro-life advocates view, all abortions are PBAs.--JonGwynne

Come on, let's see your citation for THAT nonsense. NCdave 2:30, 21 Feb, 2005 (UTC)

The USC, eh? Then we should make it clear that this is a legal and not a medical/scientific definition. Oh yeah, and we should refer to the specific section so they can check it for themselves. Ooops, the PBA ban still hasn't gone into effect and is, for all intents and purposes, dead in the water. As you can see, 18 USC hasn't been amended and Chapter 74 hasn't been included [2]. Is there any other section to which you want to draw my attention? Or is there no legal definition of PBA?

By some pro-life advocates view, all abortions are PBAs.--JonGwynne

If you are going to state the views of "some pro-life advocates," you should be able to cite a couple of them. Of course you won't, because you can't.

In fact, I think you must surely know perfectly well that your statement is untrue. Pro-lifers (and, according to public opinion polls, most of the public) commonly say that "abortion is murder." But they never say that all abortions are PBAs.

A stay is currently in effect enjoining enforcement of the federal PBA Ban, but it doesn't enjoin use of the definition of Partial-Birth Abortion in that law, which, as you know, was passed with overwhelming public support and very large bipartisan majorities in Congress. Also, you can read the Ohio "partial birth feticide" ban (which was upheld last year by a federal appeals court, and is currently in effect) for a differently worded but nearly equivalent definition of the procedure: [3]

NCdave 4:50, 21 Feb, 2005 (UTC)

"According to Ron Fitzsimmons, then Executive Director for the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, "In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along. The abortion-rights folks know it, the anti-abortion folks know it, and so, probably, does everyone else." (New York Times, February 26, 1997)"

A Google search on Ron's name doesn't turn up much on him (certainly nothing about the alleged NYT quote) apart from lots of mentions by pro-life groups and an interesting article in Slate [4] in which Fitzsimmons' media deceptions are described as well as the fact that he has refused to give any interviews since they were uncovered. That pretty well puts him in the "discredited" column. Oh yeah, and they mention that he opposes a ban on IDEs.--JonGwynne 22:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Everything I added is well-supported. If you'd bothered to read the references at the bottom, you'd have seen the citations. But, just for you, I've added two cites to the quote, too.NCdave 2:30, 21 Feb, 2005 (UTC)

Is that enough, or do you want me to rip apart the whole thing?--JonGwynne

Rip away. If you can indentify ANY inaccuracy in what I wrote, you can fix it, or you can tell me and I'll fix it. Please feel free to also add more pro-PBA references, if you wish, though the list of references in the NPOV version of this article that I posted has a good, balanced mix.

But cease your vandalism. do NOT keep deleting the pro-life references, and do NOT keep deleting truthful and balanced descriptions and substituting NARAL lies. NCdave 2:30, 21 Feb, 2005 (UTC)

Has nobody else here noticed that the "Planned Parenthood Description" doesn't describe this procedure at all? It describes D&E, which is a procedure in which the baby is dismembered within the womb before being sucked out in pieces. It is so lacking in detail that it isn't obvious without very careful reading just what it is describing, but that's what this means: "The fetus and other products of conception are removed from the uterus with surgical instruments and suction curettage."

The only description of PBA or IDX that I know of which was written by an advocate of the procedure is the one in Haskall's original 1992 monograph. (That's not really surprising, IMO. Detailed descriptions of truly horrific human behavior are rarely written by those who are guilty of it. You won't find many NAZI-written detailed descriptions of the Auschwitz death camp's mass execution procedures, either.)

I'm opposed to abortion, so I certainly am not the right person to select what is supposed to be explicitly pro-PBA material (unless it turns out that there is only one such description extant to choose from). I'll leave it to someone else here to find a pro-PBA description of the procedure, if you can. I would ask that you try to find one that is not blatantly dishonest.

If you can't find one, then just use the one in Haskell's monograph.http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/partial-birth_abortion.htm

NCdave 06:44, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The page at the Guttmacher Institute which summarizes State laws w/r/t post-viability abortion http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_RPA.pdf is obviously inaccurate. It only lists 40 States, and it still shows Ohio has having no law in effect, though Ohio's PBA ban survived the last of its legal challenges and has been in legal effect since mid-2004. (Note that Guttmacher is a Planned Parenthood affiliate -- not an unbiased source.)

However, I don't have a better summary. So I just corrected the information about Ohio, and "fuzzied" the language to better reflect the unreliability of the other information. The old version was:

Four states (Delaware, Minnestota, Ohio and Utah) have no current policy regarding post-viability abortions because the laws in this states are blocked by court order. The remaining 44 states, plus the District of Columbia impose some regulation on late-term abortion

My latest version is:

At least three States (Delaware, Minnesota, and Utah) have no current policy regarding post-viability abortions because the laws in those States are blocked by court order. Most or all of the remaining 47 States, plus the District of Columbia, impose some regulation on late-term abortion

I would welcome better information about this. NCdave 19:31, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why is the fetus referred to as a baby in the main text of the article. Why is the Pro-Life description of the procedure given as a neutral description of the procedure in the main text of the article. That paragraph should be rewritten neutrally or removed.

Referring to: Then, guided by ultrasound, the abortionist reaches into the uterus, grasps the unborn baby's legs with forceps, and pulls the baby into the birth canal, except for the head, which is deliberately kept just inside the womb. The abortionist then forces scissors into the back of the baby's skull and spreads the tips of the scissors apart to enlarge the wound. After removing the scissors, a suction catheter is inserted into the skull and the baby's brain is sucked out. The head is then crushed, and the delivery of the dead baby is completed.

It's not a baby. It's a fetus. "Brain is sucked out"? Gee, that doesn't sound like propganda designed to ellicit an emotional response of horror.

w/r/t use of the word "baby," when describing the victim of this type of homicide:

A fetus is an unborn baby. A baby can be unborn or born. The term fetus ceases to be accurate at the moment of birth.

Both terms are technically accurate, prior to the point at which part of the baby emerges from the womb. From that point on, "baby" is inarguably accurate, and "fetus" is only arguably so.

Excluding the NRLC and PP explicitly "pro-life" and "pro-choice" descriptions, there are 9 uses of the word "baby" and 10 uses of the word "fetus" in the current version of the article. That's pretty balanced, IMO. So what's your problem? To exclusively use the pro-abortion terminology would be to inject POV bias. NCdave 16:50, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In spite of the fact that (excluding the NRLC and PP descriptions) there were already more uses of the term "fetus" than "baby" in the article an anonymous pro-abortion vandal nevertheless deleted the totally factual, NPOV description of the procedure. The abortion industry is all about hiding information.

I've undone the vandalism, and also edited the description to try to satisfy the vandals: I've changed the first two of the five references to "baby" in the description to use "fetus," instead. Those two references both refer to when the fetus is still entirely within his mother's womb, so either term is technically correct. The other three references refer to when the baby is already partially born, so the term fetus is not technically correct: the dictionary definition of the word fetus is an UNBORN baby, not a partially born baby.[5]

The article now has 7 uses of the word "baby" and 12 uses of the word "fetus" (excluding the NRLC and PP descriptions). IMO, that reflects a pro-abortion POV, but I'll let it go.

If you defenders of partial-birth abortion want to do something useful, why don't you find a "pro-choice" description to put under the "(Pro-Choice Position) Planned Parenthood Description" heading, to replace that D&E description, which is obviously wrong. NCdave 23:56, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

w/r/t "brain is sucked out":

That is EXACTLY what is done. So what's your problem? It is as precise and concise a description as you can find, anywhere.

w/r/t the description of the procedure:

It is an accurate, fairly detailed, unbiased description.

Supporters partial-birth abortion have repeatedly REMOVED descriptions and diagrams illustrating the procedure from this article. That's just plain rediculous! How can you have an article about a surgical procedure and never say what it is??

You complain that the description here is "the Pro-Life description." But accurate descriptions of this procedure are inherently pro-life, because the procedure is so revolting. The problem is that the procedure is so barbaric that only the pro-life side is willing to describe it in detail. The only "Pro-Choice" description with any detail that I've found is the one in Haskell's 1992 monograph.

Would you prefer that one? The main problems with it are that it is very lengthy, and that, by the time you get to the end, if you have any heart at all, you may be unable to keep your lunch down, and you might suspect that Haskell is a pseudonym for Mengele:

Description of Dilation and Extraction Method

Dilation and extraction takes over three days. In a nutshell, D&X can be described as follows: dilation; more dilation; real-time ultrasound visualization; version (as needed); intact extraction; fetal skull decompression; removal; clean-up; recovery.

Day 1--Dilation

The patient is evaluated with an ultrasound, hemoglobin and Rh. Hadlock scales are used to interpret all ultrasound measurements.

In the operating room, the cervix is prepped, anesthetized and dilated to 9-11 mm. Five, six or seven large Dilapan hydroscopic dilators are placed in the cervix. The patient goes home or to a motel overnight.

Day 2--Dilation

The patient returns to the operating room where the previous day's Dilapan are removed. The cervix is scrubbed and anesthetized. Between 15 and 25 Dilapan are placed in the cervical canal. The patient returns home or to a motel overnight.

Day 3--The Operation

The patient returns to the operating room where the previous day's Dilapan are removed. The surgical assistant administers 10 IU Pitocin intramuscularly. The cervix is scrubbed, anesthetized and grasped with a tenaculum. The membranes are ruptured, if they are not already.

The surgical assistant places an ultrasound probe on the patient's abdomen and scans the fetus, locating the lower extremities. This scan provides the surgeon information about the orientation of the fetus and approximate location of the lower extremities. The transducer is then held in position over the lower extremities.

The surgeon introduces a large grasping forcep, such as a Bierer or Hern, through the vaginal and cervical canals into the corpus of the uterus. Based upon his knowledge of fetal orientation, he moves the tip of the instrument carefully towards the fetal lower extremities. When the instrument appears on the sonogram screen, the surgeon is able to open and close its jaws to firmly and reliably grasp a lower extremity. The surgeon then applies firm traction to the instrument causing a version of the fetus (if necessary) and pulls the extremity into the vagina.

By observing the movement of the lower extremity and version of the fetus on the ultrasound screen, the surgeon is assured that his instrument has not inappropriately grasped a maternal structure.

With a lower extremity in the vagina, the surgeon uses his fingers to deliver the opposite lower extremity, then the torso, the shoulders and the upper extremities.

The skull lodges at the internal cervical os. Usually there is not enough dilation for it to pass through. The fetus is oriented dorsum or spine up.

At this point, the right-handed surgeon slides the fingers of the left had along the back of the fetus and `hooks' the shoulders of the fetus with the index and ring fingers (palm down). Next he slides the tip of the middle finger along the spine towards the skull while applying traction to the shoulders and lower extremities. The middle finger lifts and pushes the anterior cervical lip out of the way.

While maintaining this tension, lifting the cervix and applying traction to the shoulders with the fingers of the left hand, the surgeon takes a pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. He carefully advances the tip, curved down, along the spine and under his middle finger until he feels it contact the base of the skull under the tip of his middle finger.

Reassessing proper placement of the closed scissors tip and safe elevation of the cervix, the surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull or into the foramen magnum. Having safely entered the skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening.

The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents. With the catheter still in place, he applies traction to the fetus, removing it completely from the patient.

The surgeon finally removes the placenta with forceps and scrapes the uterine walls with a large Evans and a 14 mm suction curette. The procedure ends.

Here's an ACTUAL pro-life description, from the congressional testimony of a clinician, Brenda Pratt Shafer, RN:

...because of the strong pro-choice views that I held at that time, I thought this assignment would be no problem for me.

But I was wrong. I stood at a doctor's side as he performed the partial-birth abortion procedure-- and what I saw is branded forever on my mind.

I worked as an assistant nurse at Dr. Haskell's clinic for three days-- September 28, 29, and 30, 1993.

... on the first two days, we inserted laminaria to dilate the cervixes of women who were being prepared for the partial-birth abortions-- those who were past the 20 weeks point, or 4 1/2 months. (Dr. Haskell called this procedure "D & X", for dilation and extraction.) There were six or seven of these women.

On the third day, Dr. Haskell asked me to observe as he performed several of the procedures that are the subject of this hearing. Although I was in that clinic on assignment of the agency, Dr. Haskell was interested in hiring me full time, and I was being given orientation in the entire range of procedures provided at that facility.

I was present for three of these partial-birth procedures. It is the first one that I will describe to you in detail.

The mother was six months pregnant (26 1/2 weeks). A doctor told her that the baby had Down Syndrome and she decided to have an abortion. She came in the first two days to have the laminaria inserted and changed, and she cried the whole time. On the third day she came in to receive the partial-birth procedure.

Dr. Haskell brought the ultrasound in and hooked it up so that he could see the baby. On the ultrasound screen, I could see the heart beating. As Dr. Haskell watched the baby on the ultrasound screen, the baby's heartbeat was clearly visible on the ultrasound screen.

Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby's legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby's body and the arms-- everything but the head. The doctor kept the baby's head just inside the uterus.

The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors through the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks that he might fall.

The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby was completely limp. I was really completely unprepared for what I was seeing. I almost threw up as I watched the doctor do these things.

Mr. Chairman, I read in the paper that President Clinton says that he is going to veto this bill. If President Clinton had been standing where I was standing at that moment, he would not veto this bill.

Dr. Haskell delivered the baby's head. He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw that baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he'd used. I saw the baby move in the pan. I asked another nurse and she said it was just "reflexes."

I have been a nurse for a long time and I have seen a lot of death-- people maimed in auto accidents, gunshot wounds, you name it. I have seen surgical procedures of every sort. But in all my professional years, I had never witnessed anything like this.

The woman wanted to see her baby, so they cleaned up the baby and put it in a blanket and handed the baby to her. She cried the whole time, and she kept saying, "I'm so sorry, please forgive me!" I was crying too. I couldn't take it. That baby boy had the most perfect angelic face I have ever seen.

I was present in the room during two more such procedures that day, but I was really in shock. I tried to pretend that I was somewhere else, to not think about what was happening. I just couldn't wait to get out of there. After I left that day, I never went back. These last two procedures, by the way, involved healthy mothers with healthy babies.

I was very much affected by what I had seen. For a long time, sometimes still, I had nightmares about what I saw in that clinic that day.

NCdave 16:50, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Here's the description:

The abortionist begins the procedure by forcibly dilating the mother's cervix. The most common method of cervical dilation involves the insertion of dried seaweed sticks called "laminaria," which absorb fluids and swell, thereby expanding the cervical diameter. This process is repeated daily two or three times, until sufficient dilation is achieved. Then, guided by ultrasound, the abortionist reaches into the uterus, grasps the fetus's legs with forceps, and pulls the fetus into the birth canal, except for the head, which is deliberately kept just inside the womb. The abortionist then forces scissors into the back of the baby's skull and spreads the tips of the scissors apart to enlarge the wound. After removing the scissors, a suction catheter is inserted into the skull and the baby's brain is sucked out. The head is then crushed, and the delivery of the dead baby is completed.

The latest vandal, Ceylon, deleted the entire paragraph with only this comment:

(Once, again, removed the biased paragraph. Procedure described later under "Pro-Life Position".)

...and nothing at all on the discussion page to suggest how it is biased.

In any event, bias is detected, the proper recourse is to fix the bias, not delete the crux of the article!

In fact, the paragraph is NOT biased. There are no inaccuracies. There are no editorializing adjectives. It is (as Joe Friday would say), "Just the facts." How could it be any LESS biased?

Hmmmm... well, how about this: I'll change "sucked" to "suctioned." Means the same thing, of course, but sounds more like a machine is doing the sucking, instead of a vampire or something. Does that make anyone happier?

Nobody has identified any detail in that description which is anything other than prefectly accurate. But that's the problem, isn't it? The facts are what the abortion industry so desperately wants to hide. That's why there is no Planned Parenthood description of this procedure, because they refuse to describe it.

In fact, this article does NOT contain contrasting "pro-life position" and "pro-choice position" descriptions of the procedure, because what is listed under "pro-choice position" is a description of an entirely different procedure. The only reason the "pro-life position" info resembles the NPOV description is that they are describing the same procedure (duh!), and both are truthful.

To say that the article can't describe the procedure in the main text because that very clinical and precise description matches what National Right To Life says is to say that Wiki can't be factual because NRTL is honest. Now how backwards is THAT? NCdave 08:00, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh, please, that is INHERENTLY POV. "forcibly dilating the mother's cervix"? "The abortionist"? Why not "the physician"? The description is designed to appeal to the emotions and serves no other purpose. RickK 08:06, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense! The description is the crux of the article, how can you say it serves no other purpose? Do you think that just because the process is horrific that it shouldn't be described? The description is not "designed to appeal to the emotions," it simply an accurate, reasonably detailed account of what is done.

W/r/t "forcibly dilating the mother's cervix," what is your issue with that? Do you dislike the word "forcibly?" It is used descriptively, to distingish it from the unforced dilation that occurs when a woman goes into labor. Truly, that is the ONLY part of the description process that is NOT horrifying! Here's how Haskell described it:

In the operating room, the cervix is prepped, anesthetized and dilated to 9-11 mm. Five, six or seven large Dilapan hydroscopic dilators are placed in the cervix. The patient goes home or to a motel overnight.

Day 2--Dilation

The patient returns to the operating room where the previous day's Dilapan are removed. The cervix is scrubbed and anesthetized. Between 15 and 25 Dilapan are placed in the cervical canal. The patient returns home or to a motel overnight.

Day 3--The Operation

The patient returns to the operating room where the previous day's Dilapan are removed. The surgical assistant administers 10 IU Pitocin intramuscularly. The cervix is scrubbed, anesthetized and grasped with a tenaculum. [etc.]

How would you like it to read? "artifically dilating"? "gradually dilating?" I really don't care, so long as it is truthful and accurate. Like I said, that is NOT the horrible part.

W/r/t "abortionist" rather than "physician," see below, my comments to Nanh-hah. But the short answer is that "physician" is not accurate. For example, "Nanh-ha" has just edited the article to contain this statement (where "abortionist" has been replaced by "physician":

"The physician begins the procedure by dilating the woman's cervix"

The obvious objection is that "non-physicians can perform abortions too," the obvious reply to that being "that would be illegal," the obvious reply to that being, "as are all PBAs in most parts of the world, which doesn't make the procedure something different.

But, less obviously, even when partial-birth abortion is completely legal, the dilation steps are more likely to be performend by a non-physician than by a physician... which makes Nanh-ha's version just plain inaccurate, even in the usual case. The term "abortionist," however, encompasses whoever is performing the abortion, whether legal or illegal, wehther physician or assistant.

Again, I ask: Surely EVERYONE can agree that the just plain wrong "(Pro-Choice Position) Planned Parenthood Description" has got to go. It isn't describing PBA or IDX at all, it is describing an entirely different procedure. It is rediculous to leave it there.

So far I've seen no objections to my proposed solution: It is time to replace the mislabled "(Pro-Choice Position) Planned Parenthood Description" and "(Pro-Life Position) National Right to Life Description" with two CLINCIAN'S descriptions of the SAME procedure. The "pro-choice" advocacy organizations and abortion providers don't seem to have any descriptions of the procedure. So, instead, I'll post Brenda Pratt Shafer's for the pro-life clinician's view. Unless someone can suggest a different choice, I'll post Haskell's description for the pro-choice clinician's view.

Does everyone agree? NCdave 08:00, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nunh-huh thinks that using the term "abortionist" to mean "the person who is doing the abortion" is POV-biased. How can that be biased? that is precisely the definition of the term. He just replaced all the references to "abortionist" with "physician," throughout the article.

But the word "abortionist" is no more or less indicative of POV bias than the word "abortion," itself.

Physician is the wrong term, anyhow. In the first place, it is overly broad: podiatrists and ophthalmologists don't do abortions, only abortionists do. In the second place, it is overly narrow: it is, after all, possible for someone other than a physician to perform the procedure.

Moreover, consider this phrase from (Nunh-huh's version of) the article:

"The physician begins the procedure by dilating the woman's cervix"

The fact is, even when partial-birth abortion is done legally, the dilation steps are more likely to be performend by a non-physician than by a physician. That makes this version just plain wrong, even in the usual case.

The original version, however, is correct and accurate regardless of whether the person doing the dilation (or other steps) is a physician, an assistant, or someone else:

"The abortionist begins the procedure by dilating the woman's cervix"

The correct term is "abortionist."

Will you change it back, Nunh-huh, or shall I?

Nunh-huh also replaced all 3 instances of the word "baby" in the description with the word "fetus." It did use "fetus" for the first two references to the baby, and "baby" for the last three. So will someone tell me how switching from 3 uses of the pro-life preferred term and 2 uses of the pro-choice perferred term, to all five uses being of the pro-choice term and NONE of the pro-life term, makes this NPOV?

Cummon, you've GOT to know that's rediculous.

It is even more rediculous when you recognize that the three uses of "fetus" are TECHNICALLY INCORRECT. By definition, a fetus is a baby BEFORE birth. Not after birth, not during birth. All three of the references to "baby" that Nunh-huh changed to "fetus" are references to the child AFTER he has partially emerged from the womb, which means that he is NOT a fetus.

Will you change it back, Nunh-huh, or shall I?

Why don't you fix the WRONG information in the "Planned Parenthood Description," instead of contorting perfectly good and accurate NPOV text with misused words for the purpose of injecting pro-abortion bias?

However, to his credit and my surprise, I see that Nunh-huh actually also made two good edits:

scoff -> deny, and grieving -> pregnant

NCdave 09:09, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How condescending of you to be surprised. Words have connotations as well as denotations: "abortionist" is an emotive word, not a neutral one, and is therefore inappropriate. I note your contention that a "fetus" is a "baby", but - as you realize - not all agree with your contention, and the rest of your choices make me suspect the reason you want to change it is also for its emotional impact. A fetus is by definition unborn, and the "partially-born" would seem to be no-man's land. If you want to have any lasting effect on the article, I would suggest you tone your language down a notch, or it will get toned down for you. Say what you want to say in a reasonable tone that can be agreed upon. I note in passing that the article contains remarkably little information applicable to most of the world. - Nunh-huh 09:25, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just by including the same procedure as RTL description in the main text you are taking a POV, unless you can prove from a non-POV (preferably a legitimate medical source) that the PP description is not actually partial birth abortion. If they're both valid partial birth procedures, one or the other should not be favored by placing it in the body of the article without a disclaimer. – flamurai (t) 06:43, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

The PP description is of a D&E abortion, in which the baby is killed by dismemberment within the womb. It is an entirely different kind of abortion. That's not POV, that's just fact. Just read the description. PP doesn't call PBA "D&E," they call it "D&X" or "IDX" or "Intact D&X." They are different kinds of abortion.

The PP description of D&E abortion says, "The fetus and other products of conception are removed from the uterus with surgical instruments and suction curettage." That means that the fetus is chopped up and removed (by suction) in small pieces. That is horrible, but it is not PBA. NCdave 04:55, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• The Slate link isn't expressing a view on the procedure itself, just discussing the the terminolgy used to describe it. Ergo, it isn't really POV.

• The "Dr. Sloane" link is another in the same categoty

• Ditto for the Reason link

With regard to the above three issues, I strongly disagree. Obviously there is some disagreement over the inherent bias of the term itself or they wouldn't go to the trouble of arguing it. You yourself object to legislation being included in the unbiased section because of the use of terminology like "partial birth feticide." There was a long discussion above over the appropriateness of the article title. I suggest all Commentary be moved into a separate links section, as per my reorg at the top of the page.--MikeJ9919 14:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The Ohio legislative link is inherently POV as it uses the political phrase "Partial birth feticide" rather than NPOV medical terms. While it isn't disputed that it is legislation, it *is* disputed it is unbiased, therefore it should be listed under "biased".--JonGwynne 20:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you on this. Therefore, I suggest all legislation, court decisions, and the like be moved into their own section. Thoughts on my proposed reorganization at the top of the page?--MikeJ9919 14:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Partial-Birth Abortion - A Chink In The Pro-Abortion Armor

How can you argue that this institution is not pro-life?--Fenice 06:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's under commentary so I don't have a problem with it. I don't agree with it, but I don't have a problem with it. If you want to delete it, feel free. --Quasipalm 15:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the link and the NPOV-tag.--Fenice 16:10, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fenice...c'mon, seriously...take an honest look at "Commentary". 5 of the 7, even with the article you removed, are clearly pro-partial-birth. The NPOV tag is not a tool for removing viewpoints with which you do not disagree. "Commentary" is an inherently POV section...the attempt should be to provide a balance. Add 4 more anti-PBA links or remove 5 of the pro-PBA links and I'll have no problems with you removing that one. --MikeJ9919 01:12, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually had a look at all these links and they were all pov, why didn't you remove them all then??--Fenice 05:41, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This was the state of links before the anon IP's adding the link:

• reason.com:is not relevant, doesn't even contain any info on partial birth and is partisan (pro-choice)
• jillstanek.net: is a pro-life organization
• vanderbuild.edu: clearly pro-life
• fitzsimmons admits lies, pro-life
• slate.com: press-article, commentary, says it is not a birth, and probably pro-choice.
• politicalaffairs.net: journalistic article, pro-choice

There are only three pro-choice, so whoever was here before me obviously did try to keep a balance. As I said above: remove the entire section. (or at least label them as biased and spread up into pro-life-pro-choice so it is easier to count) You seem to have found 5 instead of 3 pro-choice-links, probably two of them may have been in other sections - kick those out, too.--Fenice 06:14, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From the official policy page on NPOV: "First, and most importantly, consider what it means to say that unbiased writing presents conflicting views without asserting them." We have an obligation not to remove that section, because it presents the various arguments for and against PBA. If you'd like to balance it, go for it, but removing links "because they're POV" is not appropriate...as you admitted above, all of the links have a slant one way or the other. --MikeJ9919 07:04, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that the policy means we are supposed to spam our articles with lots of bad links. None of the links above does present the essentials of even one of the sides, and also not without asserting them. And then the quote explicitely refers to 'writing'. But I know that if we remove the section lots of pov-warriors from both sides will come and put others back in. I see that leaving these links in is already standard procedure. But as I said they need to be balanced, at least in number.
removing links "because they're POV" is not appropriate: If you look at the recent changes, removing link spam is a huge job on this site and it is done on a regular basis.
So my first conclusion was right, the article was as well kept as it looked on first sight, and the commentary section was balanced. This means one pro-life-link has got to go. I let you choose.--Fenice 07:33, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I do think that it's arbitrary to determine that 7 is too many links, but I don't think it's worth arguing over. I've removed the Fitzsimmons link, as it appears to be the oldest in terms of content. --MikeJ9919 15:29, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You asked if it were possible to find a source on the statement that pro-lifers use medical texts for debates. What part of the statement are you looking to have sourced: the part that opponents use medical texts to argue the validity of a ban, or the actual medical texts? I'll help source it, but I want to make sure you're either looking for a medical text or a previous debate. Because almost every medical text states that abortion is killing something (not necessarily a baby, just something living), and that's what pro-lifers use to debate for a ban. But if you're looking for a debate where it has been used, you could probably check any debate in the political arena (since everyone is so keen to keep religion out of the political arena, many pro-lifers have taken a medical and scientific stance.)Stanselmdoc 20:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"and that many non-religious medical texts could qualify as a basis for a ban."

My problem with this is actually more related to the placing. The paragraph is all about religion and society, so if you want to talk about medical texts, please do so, but it feels out of place in that paragraph.

As for sourcing it, you're right, since you're not saying "medical texts say this procedure is bad," technically there's not much to source there. What rubs me the wrong way about this statement is that it the way it's put, it sounds like you're saying that "there are many non-religious medical texts that could qualify as a basis for a IDX ban." When in fact you're trying to say, "Many Christians believe that there are many non-religious medical texts that could qualify as a basis for a ban." So if you can break it out and write it in a that makes it clear that you're representing the christian POV, I'd support you reentering it in the article.

:Cheers, --Quasipalm 20:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Whenever I get the chance, I'll review the article and see if a reworded comment has any place in it. I only brought it up in the first place was because someone had just recently edited that section. My fault for not reading the area closely enough. Peath out.Stanselmdoc 20:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some who want the procedure to remain legal in the United States say that the ban is based on religious views about when life begins. They argue that to rely on a single religious text to determine when the life of a child begins is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because different cultures and religions have differing views on the subject; to select the Bible as the authoritative voice on the subject would be the equivalent of the United States Government selecting Christianity as the nation's official religion. Those who want to outlaw this type of abortion counter that many laws in the United States have been based, at least in part, on Christian values.

I think the first sentence of this needs to change somehow to state that it's the Christian belief of when life begins that is debated. Because it does beg the question a little, assuming that it's the Bible and Christianity that all these "religious zealots" are relying on to make their case against abortion. This is clearly a paragraph stating opposition to the Christian belief on abortion, so something in the first sentence I think should state that. With the example used, it's not the like the paragraph is bashing Judaism, Hinduism, or anything else. Does anyone understand what I'm saying? Stanselmdoc 16:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey 214, we keep reverting this paragraph back and forth. (I like the original, you like your reframed one.) I've reread the entire section now, and here's my proposal: we remove it completely. The paragraph was original entered, it seems, as a way of paraphrasing why some would like the procedure of IDX or PBA to remain legal. However, after a ton of edits, it now reads like it's talking about all abortion. And now, after you latest edit, it doesn't talk about IDX or PBA at all. Let's read:

Some who want the procedure to remain legal in the United States say that the ban is based on religious views about when life begins. They consider the Bible to be the basis for any efforts to restrict abortion in the US, and from there they argue that to rely on a single religious text to determine when the life of a child begins is misguided because different cultures and religions have differing views on the subject. Those who want to outlaw this type of abortion counter that many laws in the United States are based on religious values, and that most world religions condemn abortion on demand and consider abortion acceptable only in very limited circumstances (Judaism: [6][7]; Islam: [8]; Hinduism:[9]; Buddhism: [10]; Sikhism:[11]; Catholicism:[12]; Anglicanism: [13]). Likewise, some atheists are also opposed to abortion.[14][15]

Virtually none of those links talk about IDX/PBA. Shouldn't they go under relgion and abortion instead? Honestly, I can see no other way to get this section back to NPOV but to remove this whole paragraph, the part arguing both the Pro-Life and Pro-Choice sides. What do you think? --Quasipalm 18:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that an expanded discussion of religion perhaps seems ill-placed here - as long as it does show up elsewhere at wikipedia. The only concern I have is that the strong public opinion against legal partial-birth abortion should be highlighted - and it would make sense to link that with almost universal moral condemnation by the world's religions (if you parse the record, you will discover that even the doctors most expereienced with the procedure admitted that partial-birth abortion did not reduce any physical health risk to the mother versus delivery of the child - in fact the very invasive and risk-laden PBA breach delivery is actually more pysically traumatic for the mother - so the mother's physical health is NEVER the reason for PBA). I always thought the entire paragraph was misplaced, anyway - I already noted my view that the Establishment Clause argument is a red herring given that no legal challenge under that clause has ever been mounted - and with good reason (its a loser with no basis in fact or theory). [User:214.13.4.151|214.13.4.151]] 10:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I tried to edit this section a little bit, but gave up when I realized it was going to take a little more than I had time for. The "health of the mother exception" is part of the holding in Roe v. Wade, not part of a non-binding concurrence by one Judge in a case which cites Roe v. Wade. If someone else is willing to take up rewriting this so as to provide the appropriate description of this point of law, it would be appreciated.

O'Connors concurrence in Stenberg is just dicta. The only thing that is binding, is the majority opinion, so it seems foolish that "opponents" would base their opinions on such. (Which is why I suspect error in the article). Also, the majority opinion in Stenberg also states the mother's health exception, so why is the reference to O'Connor's concurrence included at all? She signed onto the majority opinion as well. Peyna 05:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this article could be effectively trimmed and merged into Intact_dilation_and_extraction#About_the_terminology, since that is really all it is about. Essentially it is a "synonym" for D&X created by abortion opponents, and I don't see a need for an entire article devoted to all of the buzz words people come up with to push their agenda. I'm holding off on adding a merge tag until there is some discussion, but really a lot of the info here is the same as that on the D&X page, with the exception of a little more detail on the terminology. Peyna 03:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a "merge" notice on Intact_dilation_and_extraction#About_the_terminology already, should we add one here as well? Since really the only thing this article discusses that article doesn't is the Etymology. That's really the only important part of this article anyway. Peyna 20:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The reference for this term given by 214.13.4.151, http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/al13.asp, does not say that it is a synonym for partial-birth abortion. The use of this term, in context, is:

"Three major questions were addressed during the course of each trial: 1) whether the definition of partial-birth abortion also threatened the legality of other abortion procedures, particularly the procedure of Dismemberment and Extraction (D&E - and also known as dilatation and evacuation); 2) whether the use of intact Dilation and Extraction (intact D&X also known as partial-birth abortion) provides a benefit or detriment to the health of the woman;"

This quote is clearly using "dismemberment and extraction" to describe a different procedure to partial-birth abortion. Incidentally, apologies for my edit of 19:22, where I reverted more than I intended. -- AJR 18:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point and have clarified the confusing terms. People who are at this page are interested in the various terms and ought to get accurate information that helps them understand the terms that practioners and activists throw around.214.13.4.151 19:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm editing the sentence as it was not edited accordingly, it still maintains that D&E is an alternate name for the term partial birth abortion, which it is not. D&E's are a separate, and distinct medical procedure from what partial birth abortion refers to, which is the aborting of an intact fetus, which by definition, D&E absolutely is not. To say not all D&Es are PBA doesn't clarify it only confuses. Not all D&Xs are PBA, while NO D&Es are PBAs.Gheorghe Zamfir 20:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the edits, I think I see where some of the confusion is occuring. Dilation and Extraction is D&X. Dilation & Evacuation, and Dismemberent & Extraction, are both terms interchangably used to describe D&E, but D&E is the SAME procedure regardless of whether you use the former or latter terms to come up with the abbreviation. They are synonymous with each other, but neither refer to or are a synonym with D&X. So regardless of what terms you use to abbreviate D&E, a D&E procedure is never synonymous with D&X.Gheorghe Zamfir 22:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up; I just took 214.13.4.151's edits and tried to reword them to make them more clear, but I didn't make any attempt to verify their accuracy. Peyna 23:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I see the point your latest edit 214. Even so I made some further edits to make things clearer. Even under the understanding of D&E falling under the PBA umbrella, it needs to remain clear that D&E is a different procedure from D&X, and not at all synonymous. Also, the wording of the latest edit seems to differentiate phrases that ARE synonyms, such as IDX and DX, which both refer to the same procedure. It is also seems to differentiate between dilation & evacuation and dismemberment & extraction, though both these terms also refer to the same procedure, in a Dilation & Evacuation procedure "the fetus is terminated and dismembered before it leaves the womb rather than delivering it intact," just like a dismemberment & extraction, because it is the same thing as a dismemberment & extraction, simply a different name, so I tried to word that to make it clearer.Gheorghe Zamfir 07:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed "Dismemberment Extraction" as an alternative name for "Dilation Evacuation." Dismemberment is not a NPOV term and used primarily by abortion opponents. See Google:

[16]. Dilation Evacuation is the actual name of the procedure [17] and is used by the medical community (and has twice as many hist on Google) [18]. --Quasipalm 14:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should take all the cluttered mess about what PBA refers to, clean it up and move it to the etymology section. Then take a succinct summary of that and stick it in the introduction. As it is now, no one is going to bother to read past the first 2 sentences. Peyna 02:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the reference to this being used in Ohio law in the Etymology section is inaccurate. Ohio law enacted in 1995 referred to the procedure as "dilation and extraction." It was then amended in 2000 to say "partial-birth feticide." However, I can find no reference to "Brain-Suction Abortion" in any Ohio law past or present. Perhaps such a bill was introduced and killed or modified, but as it stands the article is inaccurate. Thus, I propose changing the Etymology section to read as follows: (and move the details on the ohio law to the law section)

The procedure was first described as "Dilation and Extraction" by Cincinnati physician W. Martin Haskell, MD in a monograph that was distributed by the National Abortion Federation in September of 1992. [19].

The term partial-birth abortion did not appear until several years later, when the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995 was introduced in the House of Representative on 14 June 1995. That same year; however, Ohio enacted a law which referred to the procedure as dilation and extraction. In 2000, Ohio amended the law [20] to use the term partial birth feticide, as well as to overcome the unconstitutionality of the prior statute. There are limited other examples of the use of the term partial birth feticide.

Another alternative term is brain suction abortion, the use of which has been limited mostly to opponents of the procedure — specifically, pro-life activist Janet Folger [21]. Like partial-birth abortion, this term was created for the sole-purpose of casting the procedure in a negative light for political reasons (and can even be considered a misnomer, since arguably no birth or partial-birth occurs).

Peyna 23:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While not appropriate for this section, the full history of the law in ohio is that the D&X law was passed in 1995, it prohibitted the procedure in the 2nd trimester among other things, it was found unconstitutional by the 6th circuit in 1997, and then in 2000 ohio officially repealed it and enacted the new law referring to it as partial-birth feticide. Of course, that information is more appropriate for the legal section of the article, or even the D&X article. Peyna 23:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another update, the only reference I can find in Ohio statute and case law is the opinion in the case which declared the 1995 enacted law unconstitutional where the judge states, "A few physicians, including plaintiff Haskell, employ the D & X procedure, which has also been called the 'intact D & E' procedure and the "brain suction" procedure." (similar phrase appears in the district and circuit court opinions). The judge is not referring to the text of the law, but terms in use at the time by others. Peyna 23:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and made the changes; I also moved the Ohio law info to the law section and divided into federal and state sections. Is there any information on international uses of the term or has it be strictly confined to the U.S. ? Peyna 00:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'm not sure this has to be here at all, since its just a general abortion law, and not a partial-abortion law.

But, here's the link to the bill I'm working from: http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=126_HB_228

According to this link, HB 228 is amending and repealing existing legislation "to prohibit abortions in this state, to increase the penalties for the offenses of unlawful abortion, unlawful distribution of an abortion-inducing drug, and abortion trafficking, to enact the offense of facilitating an abortion, and to make conforming changes in related provisions." The only references I see anywhere in the bill to the life of the mother are in sections proposed to being amended or repealed (the crossed out sections), meaning sections that the bill wishes to remove from existing legislation. Additionally, any literature I have read, both pro and con, summing up the bill seems to feel that it aims to prohibit all abortions, regardless of the reason. But, I may be misreading, or have missed the section where it states an exemption for the life of the mother, so just for my own clarifications sake if that could be pointed out to me it would be much appreciated.

Nevermind, I see you changed it while I was typing this, I'm not sure what the procedure is on talk pages, if this should be deleted or not, so if it should someone else feel free to wipe it out for me.Gheorghe Zamfir 03:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think general talk policy is to leave talk pages as they are, I've added a few more notes below. Peyna 03:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I already made the changes after re-reading the law myself. While the law is a general abortion law, it does remove the remaining mentions of D&X from the law and change it to say "partial birth procedure," which is currently defined by ohio law as:

(a) Intentional dilation of the cervix of a pregnant woman, usually over a sequence of days;

(b) In a breech presentation, intentional extraction of at least the lower torso to the navel, but not the entire body, of an intact fetus from the body of the mother, or in a cephalic presentation, intentional extraction of at least the complete head, but not the entire body, of an intact fetus from the body of the mother;

(c) Intentional partial evacuation of the intracranial contents of the fetus, which procedure the person performing the procedure knows will cause the death of the fetus, intentional compression of the head of the fetus, which procedure the person performing the procedure knows will cause the death of the fetus, or performance of another intentional act that the person performing the procedure knows will cause the death of the fetus;

Interestingly, Ohio law also states that, ""Dilation and evacuation procedure of abortion" does not include the dilation and extraction procedure of abortion." Peyna 03:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should add that the reason PBA is still mentioned in the law is because Ohio created a civil action that can be instituted against a person that performs a PBA as defined in Ohio law. Peyna 03:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(PBA) refers to most intact dilation and extraction (IDX) procedures where the fetus is alive at the time of the procedure

Ok, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't life (clinically defined) begin when the egg is fertilized? Why isn't the victim of a regular abortion considered alive when it's aborted? Salva 04:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The description is worded as such to delineate between the procedure's use as an abortion (where the fetus is alive) and when the procedure is done to remove a fetus that is in the womb but not alive (such as a miscarriage), which would not be considered an abortion, and thus would not be what the term PBA is referring to.Gheorghe Zamfir 04:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. MedCorpman 17:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As evidenced by the last few edits, the controversy section has some problems with how it refers to people with respect to the procedure. First we have supporters and critics of the procedure, but then we have supporters and critics of the ban on the procedure. It tends to be pretty confusing and make it difficult to understood who is who. Peyna 12:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]