PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION

I haven't read the Opinion in detail, but my preliminary take on it is that I agree with Justice Kennedy's ruling (as usual). I really think that Justice Kennedy has written some great, pioneering opinions in the past.

I do believe that a woman should have a (generally) unfettered "legal" right to end a pregnancy at any time before the baby is viable outside the woman. This does create complications in varying forms as technology advances, but for now this type of standard should give any woman contemplating an abortion just under two trimesters to weigh all of the issues.

[With all the technical mumbo jumbo aside, see below, I think that we as a society need to ask ourselves how our willingness to permit so many abortions (and later term abortions) impact our ability to properly care for our living children and provide for their wellbeing. Is there any subconscious (or group think phenomenon) that is occurring that actually diminishes our ability to nurture our kids?

Maybe our society’s willing to accept so many abortions causes, forces us to shut part of ourselves off to our living children? Maybe we shut part of ourselves off to our living children to allow for the possibility of a future abortion. Who knows? This is just theoretical wonderings about the unconscious impact of abortions (even if such abortions are performed by strangers).]

[Partial birth abortion appears to be a late second trimester procedure and is referred to as an "intact D&E." Please see the bottom for a description.]

However, when it comes to partial birth abortion, it does seem that one of its primary goals is to ensure that the baby is "born dead." If this is truly the case, then it does seem to fall within the time frame of when a fetus might be "viable" outside the woman. For this reason, I do not object to this procedure being outlawed, as there are other procedures (types of abortions) that are still available for situations in which the woman's life is at risk (the one, generally required "exception" missing from the federal statue that led to this case).

P.S. I think that an abortion should be as humane as possible. Specifically, it does "feel" wrong that the skull of a living, well developed fetus is punctured (to allow the brains to be sucked out) to the extent this might be painful to a viable fetus.

As a father, this thought is gruesome; especially if the baby is along enough to be viable on its own or in an incubator. Before this point of viability, I accept a woman's right to control her body and be the master of her domain (generally no matter how gruesome the abortion might appear or sound).

Once the fetus is viable, then both lives need consideration. However, if the fetus is killing the mother for some reason, then she should be given an avenue to save her life. I would prefer an option (such as a C section) that might allow both lives to be saved, but the woman's life should be given preference (assuming this is her choice) if only one life can be saved.

As I understand this ruling, there are such alternatives still available to women that face imminent risk if they continue carrying their babies. However, I need to fully read the opinion to see if this seems to be the case.


[There is something cold about the amount of abortions that are performed in this country. There is also something seemingly inconsistent about telling our children on one hand how special they are, but on the other not feeling that unborn children are as special. Who determines if a child is special; or when a child becomes special. These are all very difficult questions that need to be balanced with a woman’s right to control her body. Of course, at some point this right also needs to be balanced with one’s responsibly for one’s choices. I guess there are several factors that bear on this issue and help create the complications.]


Here is part of the Opinion that is particularly graphic:

. . . This is an abortion doctor’s clinical description. Here is another description from a nurse who witnessed the same method performed on a 26-week fetus and who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee:

“ ‘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 head right inside the uterus….

“ ‘The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to 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 went completely limp… .

“ ‘He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.’ ” Ibid.

Dr. Haskell’s approach is not the only method of killing the fetus once its head lodges in the cervix, and “the process has evolved” since his presentation. Planned Parenthood, 320 F. Supp. 2d, at 965. Another doctor, for example, squeezes the skull after it has been pierced “so that enough brain tissue exudes to allow the head to pass through.” App. in No. 05–380, at 41; see also Carhart, supra, at 866–867, 874. Still other physicians reach into the cervix with their forceps and crush the fetus’ skull. Carhart, supra, at 858, 881. Others continue to pull the fetus out of the woman until it disarticulates at the neck, in effect decapitating it. These doctors then grasp the head with forceps, crush it, and remove it. Id., at 864, 878; see also Planned Parenthood, supra, at 965.

Some doctors performing an intact D&E attempt to remove the fetus without collapsing the skull. See Carhart, supra, at 866, 869. Yet one doctor would not allow delivery of a live fetus younger than 24 weeks because “the objective of [his] procedure is to perform an abortion,” not a birth. App. in No. 05–1382, at 408–409. The doctor thus answered in the affirmative when asked whether he would “hold the fetus’ head on the internal side of the [cervix] in order to collapse the skull” and kill the fetus before it is born. Id., at 409; see also Carhart, supra, at 862, 878. Another doctor testified he crushes a fetus’ skull not only to reduce its size but also to ensure the fetus is dead before it is removed. For the staff to have to deal with a fetus that has “some viability to it, some movement of limbs,” according to this doctor, “[is] always a difficult situation.” App. in No. 05–380, at 94; see Carhart, supra, at 858. . . .