Partial Birth Research Articles

Constitutional Law - Clarity or Confusion - The Constitutionality of a Nebraska Statute Prohibiting Partial-Birth Abortion Procedures - Stenberg v. Carhart, 120 S. Ct. 2597

Constitutional Law - Clarity or Confusion - The Constitutionality of a Nebraska Statute Prohibiting Partial-Birth Abortion Procedures - Stenberg v. Carhart, 120 S. Ct. 2597

CRACKED BABIES AND THE PARTIAL BIRTH OF A NATION: MILLENNIALISM AND FETAL CITIZENSHIP

This essay explores whether fetal protection cases concerning ‘partial birth’ and ‘crack babies’ reflect an undercurrent of millennialism that characterizes anti-abortion violence. Because the dichotomized millennialist worldview of pure and impure domains easily corroborates racialist ideas that there are pure and impure races, discussions of fetal protection may also accommodate race-specific assumptions or implications. Fetuses involved in ‘partial birth’ abortions are routinely portrayed as purely innocent, whole, and intact babies worthy of the privileges of citizenship that will save them from death. But ‘crack babies’, who are explicitly presumed to be black, are routinely portrayed as impure, tainted, and polluted babies who are a liability to society and from whom the tax-paying citizenry should be saved. Viewed comparatively, these legal disputes may be seen as unwittingly reinscribing the racialist tenets of far-right groups that consider abortion to be the apocalyptic end times of white America.

The Law, the AMA, and Partial-Birth Abortion

The three articles by Dr. Gans Epner, Drs. Sprang and Neerhof, and Dr. Grimes centered around the issue that criminal laws against so-called partial-birth abortion go beyond banning any one abortion procedure or just "late-term" procedures. It is noted that even the authors gave different definitions of "late term". In addition, neither the phrase "late term" nor "intact dilation" and evacuation is present or defined in any of the partial-birth abortion laws passed in 27 states or in the federal bill. Evidence shows that 17 courts across the US have blocked partial-birth abortion laws as unconstitutional, finding such laws could, at any point in a pregnancy, outlaw an abortion performed using the most common and safest procedures. In these terms, the endorsement of the federal partial-birth abortion law by the American Medical Association gave credibility to the deception that partial-birth abortion legislation is a ban on the intact dilation and extraction procedure. Moreover, it has endorsed government intrusion in a private medical decision and sanctioned a law that subjects physicians to criminal prosecution for providing necessary health care.

Abortion Wars: A Half Century of Struggle, 1950-2000 (review)

342 Rhetoric & Public Affairs and insidious, it remains a favored tactic of the defenders of the status quo to keep blacks outside the centers of power. Through means of surveillance, black women are oppressed under the watchful eyes of the powerful. She may be near the top in her field, but when she rebels against the norms of society, the very fact that she is so highly placed simply makes it that much easier to monitor, discipline, and if need be, make an example of her, as with Anita Hill. Collins calls for resistance to this status quo in the form of a common agenda of self-definition and self-determination for black women. She urges the development of a new social paradigm to arise from black feminist thought. This critical social theory would be a "visionary pragmatism" rooted in the clear understanding of the unique history and perspective of the African American woman. This thinking would demand that black women move from being mere objects of knowledge to become agents of knowledge— the ultimate empowerment. Kimberly S. Adams University of Mississippi Abortion Wars: A Half Century of Struggle, 1950-2000. Edited by Rickie Solinger. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998; pp xvi + 413. $16.95 paper. Abortion Wars is a collection of essays written principally by individuals who have either advocated for women's right to choose or have worked in the pro-choice movement. The purpose of this volume is to place abortion politics in an historical framework. It is the belief of the book's editor, Rickie Solinger, that the abortion controversy has undergone change, especially since it has been legalized. Fundamental terms used in the abortion realm and activism around the issue of abortion rights and choice have altered over time. The historical context allows the contributors to this volume to achieve one of its aims, which is to counteract myths about abortion such as the extent of its existence prior to the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade in 1973, the degree to which illegal abortions were performed by "back alley butchers," and the importance of abortion to women other than members of the white middle class. Rickie Solinger defines five themes as being central to the book. The first is that "abortion rights" refers to one of a broad array of entitlements, services, and resources constituting reproductive rights that all women must possess in order to be full members of society. The second is that the erosion of Roe was inevitable primarily because that decision centered on a "privacy" doctrine. That doctrine, these essayists believe, created loopholes that have threatened the rights of many groups of pregnant women. The third theme focuses on the violent struggle that has ensued over abortion in the United States. The struggle has been so protracted and become so violent because of the ways that abortion activates and engages with the most bedeviling cultural and political issues facing this country, i.e., issues of sexism, race, Book Reviews 343 and class. Fourth is the conviction that pro-rights advocates must draw on the movement 's experience since legalization—and before—to set agendas and strategies for the twenty-first century. The final theme that runs through all the essays is that rights advocates and their organizations and constituencies have not lost their taste for the struggle. They are still energized. The book is divided into five parts: Coercion, Resistance, and Liberation before Roe v. Wade; Strategic Arenas; Activism; Physicians and the Politics of Provision; and Abortion Rights over Time. The authors describe both movement activities and theoretical perspectives over the course of the second half of the twentieth century. They defend pro-choice positions and expand our knowledge of groups involved in the movement. Given its historical perspective, however, it is somewhat surprising that none of the contributors to this volume tackle the 1990s battle over "partial birth" abortions. One assumes that this would not be a difficult task. It would also necessitate an evaluation of recent trends in support and opposition to abortion. For a quarter of a century after Roe v. Wade public opinion on abortion was quite stable. (See Public Opinion About Abortion by Everett...

The Vagueness of Partial-Birth Abortion Bans: Deconstruction or Destruction?

' H.R. 1122, 105th Cong. ? 2 (1997). Congress has invoked the Commerce Clause power to justify its authority to regulate partial-birth abortions. See id. ? 2(a). For an interesting discussion of whether Congress has the power to regulate partial-birth abortions under the Commerce Clause in light of the Supreme Court's decision to curtail the scope of the Commerce Clause in United States v. Lopez, see David B. Kopel & Glenn H. Reynolds, Taking Federalism Seriously: Lopez and the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, 30 CONN. L. REV. 59 (1997) (discussing United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)). 2 See H.R. 1122, ? 2(a). All of the partial-birth abortion bans, except the Missouri ban, contain a provision that the pregnant woman upon whom the procedure is performed may not be prosecuted for conspiracy to violate the statute. See infra note 3. See also H.R. 1122, ? 2(a). 3 The following states have enacted bans: Alabama (ALA. CODE ? 26-23-2 to -4 (Supp. 1998)); Alaska (ALASKA STAT. ? 18.16.050 (Michie 1998)); Arizona (ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. ? 13-3603.01 (West Supp. 1998)); Arkansas (ARK. CODE ANN. ? 5-61-202 to -203 (Michie 1997)); Florida (FLA. STAT. ANN. ? 390.011, -.0111 (West Supp. 1999)); Georgia (GA. CODE ANN. ? 16-12-144 (1999)); Idaho (IDAHO CODE ? 18-613 (Supp. 1999)); Illinois (720 ILL. COMP. STAT. 513/5-5, -10, -20 (West 1998)); Indiana (IND. CODE ANN. ?? 16-18-2-267.5, 16-34-2-1(b) (West Supp. 1998)); Iowa (IOWA CODE ANN. ? 707.8A (West Supp. 1999)); Kansas (1998 Kan. Sess. Laws 142); Kentucky (KY. REV. STAT. ANN. ? 311.720, -.765, -.990 (Michie Supp. 1998)); Louisiana (LA. REV. STAT. ANN ? 14:32.9 (West Supp. 1999)); Michigan (MICH. COMP. LAws ? 333.17016 (West Supp. 1999)); Mississippi (MISS. CODE ANN. ? 41-41-71, -73 (1999)); Missouri (1999 Mo. Legis. Serv. 427 (West)); Montana (MONT. CODE ANN. ? 50-20-401 (1997)); Nebraska (NEB. REV. STAT. ? 28326, -328 (Supp. 1998)); NewJersey (N.J. STAT. ANN. ? 2A:65A-6 (West Supp. 1999)); North Dakota (N.D. CENT. CODE ? 14-02.6-01 to -03 (1999)); Ohio (OHIO REV. CODE ANN. ? 2919.15

Abortion Reporting in the United States: An Examination of the Federal- State Partnership

Over the past three years, several events have led policymakers, public health officials and the general public to focus renewed attention on abortion data in the United States. The information that is available on how many abortions are performed, when they take place and what methods are used has contributed to the public policy debate, but it also has proven inadequate in some instances to answer all the questions being asked. For example, in 1995 Ohio outlawed dilation and extraction abortions, an event seen by opponents of abortion as the first victory in a national campaign to ban procedures they later dubbed "partial birth" abortions. The proposed federal "PartialBirth Abortion Ban Act" has intensified the debate over abortion procedures, lateterm abortions and, ultimately, the incidence and timing of abortions in general. Yet the debaters were often frustrated because specific data on the frequency of late-term abortions are limited, and data on the use of dilation and extraction do not exist either at the state or national level. Moreover, at around the same time, Congress enacted a federal welfare reform law, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Among several provisions intended to discourage out-of-wedlock births is the socalled illegitimacy bonus: Every year, for the next four years, the federal government will award $20 million each to the five states that can demonstrate the largest reduction in out-of-wedlock births and a simultaneous decrease in abortion rates. While the legislation establishes 1995 as the baseline against which reductions and increases will be measured, it does not address the limitations of abortion data collection efforts, which pose a significant challenge for accurately establishing a baseline level of abortion in many states, as well as for establishing accurate subsequent levels. In 1996, as well, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) took significant steps toward approving the use of medical (nonsurgical) abortion in the United States, essentially by "preapproving" the use of mifepristone, popularly known as RU 486, as an abortifacient; final approval is pending information on manufacturing and labeling. In addition, FDA cleared the way for clinical study by U.S. health care providers of a combination of two other drugsmethotrexate and misoprostol-used to induce early nonsurgical abortions. While it remains to be seen to what extent the advent of medical (nonsurgical) abortions will actually change the provision of abortion services in the United States, it is at least possible that such abortions will be administered by health care providers who, for whatever reasons, have been reluctant to provide surgical abortions. If new providers do indeed emerge, incorporating abortion reporting by these providers into current reporting procedures will be critical both to measuring the number of abortions provided in the United States, and to monitoring the drugs' use and safety. Furthermore, because medical abortion is used primarily in the first seven weeks of pregnancy, the provision of nonsurgical abortion may lead to a shift in the timing of abortions. Documenting this shift might prove important to the abortion debate, since many individuals support early abortion but grow increasingly uncomfortable with the procedure as the pregnancy continues. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the government agency currently responsible for compiling U.S. abortion data, has been criticized by some people for its inability to answer all abortion-related inquiries-particularly, detailed questions relating to late-term abortions. However, such criticism does not consider that-in keeping with vital statistics tradition-CDC obtains its data through a voluntary federal-state partnership in which states are responsible for collecting and managing data in accordance with their own policies and systems, and submitting the information to the federal government. As a result, states ultimately determine the quality and availability of national, government-generated abortion data.

Partial-birth abortion, Congress, and the Constitution.

In the US, a new antiabortion strategy of using legislative and judicial forums to change the rhetoric of abortion rather than using abortion rhetoric to change the law arose out of disappointment when the 1992 Casey decision failed to overturn Roe. This new approach is crystallized by the 1995 introduction of federal legislation (vetoed by the President) to ban so-called "partial-birth" abortions. Opponents to this late-term procedure undertaken to preserve a women's life or health distinguish intact dilatation and extraction from induced labor to terminate a nonviable pregnancy (failing to recognize the lack of ethical difference) and make inaccurate political statements linking the abortion procedure to infanticide. When the ban was reintroduced to Congress in 1997, the previously silent American Medical Association agreed to support the bill if two "physician-friendly" amendments were added, but the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists made it clear that it is "inappropriate, ill advised, and dangerous" for legislative bodies to intervene into medical decision-making. The new version of the bill shifted the focus to all abortions after viability unless they are necessary to protect the mother from grievous harm to her physical (not mental) health, thus limiting the reach of the Roe decision. Clinton vetoed this bill also. Such legislation would be unlikely to prevent even one abortion, and its importance rests in its view of the proper role of government in regulating health care. This follows previous efforts to reframe the abortion debate by creating a dichotomy that marginalizes either women or fetuses and shifts the focus to another issue.

AAP 'politically correct'

I applaud Dr. Fredric P. Nelson9s letter to AAP News concerning a resolution supporting legislative efforts to ban partial-birth abortions, which was endorsed by a majority of attendees at the 1997 Annual Chapter Forum, and to see it tabled in a behind-the-scene parliamentary procedure. All because the Academy prefers to be correct. It9s about time that the Academy take a stand for children bor and unborn and not let itself be driven by special-interest groups. If we are really physicians , then we must come to the rescue of those who have no voice of their own. Let9s be true to ourselves and our profession and keep the religious and political views out of this issue once and for all. As a physician, I challenge anyone who denies that life begins at the moment of conception. Doctors must not seek to bring about death, for life is not an optional quality of being, but the essence of being. The Academy must step forward on behalf of the unborn and respect the will of the majority of its members who support legislative efforts to ban partial-birth abortions. As Dr. Nelson said, ... it appears that the Academy would rather be politically correct than to have the child9s best interest at heart.

AMA members back leaders' endorsement of abortion bill

The American Medical Association's House of Delegates voted on June 24 to ratify the organisation's previous decision to endorse a controversial bill that would ban a specific form of abortion. It is only the second time the physicians' group has backed the criminalisation of a medical procedure. But it was unclear from the debate at the group's biannual meeting whether the ratification was because the delegates agreed that so-called partial-birth abortions should be banned, or whether they feared that any other action would damage AMA leaders' credibility on Capitol Hill. Contravening a decision made by delegates last December to remain neutral, the AMA's board of trustees formally endorsed the bill to make it a crime for physicians to perform intact dilatation and extraction, after sponsors of the bill made some minor changes.

WASHINGTON Clinton veto for partial-birth abortion bill

WASHINGTON Clinton veto for partial-birth abortion bill

Partial-Birth Abortion

Partial-Birth Abortion

Transcranial Doppler sonography in children.

The blood flow velocities in the basal cerebral arteries can be recorded at any age by transcranial Doppler sonography. By a standardized examination technique, the vessel identification is reliable even without visual control of the site of the sample volume. A stable state of vigilance is necessary to obtain constant recordings. Age has a tremendous influence on the flow velocities. The velocities increase rapidly during the first weeks and reach their maximum around the sixth year of life. The influence of carbon dioxide partial pressure, gestational age, birth weight, hematocrit, and vigilance on the velocities has to be considered. Heart rate and arterial blood pressure are relevant only in cases of extreme values. The clinical applications of transcranial Doppler sonography cover diseases like patent ductus arteriosus, perinatal brain damage, increased intracranial pressure, cerebral malformations, brain death, and stenoses and occlusions of main cerebral arteries. The technique is helpful for control of certain therapies. A continuous recording technique has also been developed for this purpose. Care should be taken in deriving a prognosis from Doppler recordings.