by Kimberly Blaker

The Partial-birth Abortion Ban Act of 2002 was passed by the U.S. House on July 23, by a wide margin of 274 to 151.

Medically termed ‘intact dilation and extraction,’ the procedure has been dubbed ‘partial-birth abortion’ by anti-abortionists, or the religious-right, in an attempt to misrepresent facts pertaining to late-term abortion and to create public fear and outrage.

This late-term procedure is not performed on women who have suddenly decided against having a baby. Most women faced with this decision desperately want their unborn child and must make a painstaking decision.

Intact dilation takes place when the woman’s life or health is seriously at risk. Other late-term procedures take place when the fetus has fluid in the brain, no brain at all, other serious diseases and deformities, and would be unable to sustain life outside the womb.

In fact, each year, 585,000 women die during childbirth and pregnancy according to the World Health Organization. For each one of these women, another 30 are crippled or suffer long-term health problems.

Still, 98.6 percent of all abortions are performed prior to twenty-one weeks into pregnancy, says a 1994 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The number performed beyond twenty-six weeks is less than five-hundredths of a percent. Considering the number of complications that arise during pregnancy and the number of babies born with severe birth defects, this number is exceptionally low.

While this time around congress is allowing the intact dilation procedure in a highly restricted manner, there are several disastrous flaws.

First, the only time the ‘partial-birth’ procedure is allowable under this legislation is when it “is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered.”

cars It does not allow for the procedure when necessary to her physical, reproductive, or mental health, regardless of how severe the outlook if it will not lead to death.

If the procedure is performed when a mother’s life is not in danger, a physician will be fined or imprisoned up to 2 years.

Should a physician be accused, he is allowed to go before the State Medical Board, which will determine the life saving necessity of the procedure for the given circumstance.

In a sue-happy culture, women’s physicians are in quite a predicament. If they deem the procedure necessary to a woman’s life and perform it, even with her consent, a physician runs the risk of later being accused and charged with performing the procedure unnecessarily. This is especially of concern for distraught women who’ve undergone the procedure and are guilt-induced and coerced by pro-life or misinformed family and friends.

While such a scenario could happen without this legislation, physicians now risk prison, not just a lawsuit. Physicians’ fears of such probable situations will most certainly affect medical decisions, as doctors may opt to avoid the procedure against their own best judgment. Contrary to their oath, physicians will need to act not solely on the best interest of the patient, but rather in the best interest of the physician. This is a serious compromise to women’s health.

With America’s shortage of obstetricians that has resulted from skyrocketing insurance costs, this is just one more needle as the legislation could lead to further rate increases causing more obstetricians to close their practice.

Moreover, it is traumatic for any mother-to-be to learn of severe fetal defects and that her unborn will be unable to sustain life; but more tragic is forcing a mother to carry an unviable fetus to full-term, which would be required under this act. How many women could handle the anguish for days or weeks-on-end knowing that their unborn baby will die at birth or shortly after?

This dangerous act, and the state of women’s health, is now in the hands of the Senate; and if anti-abortionists have their way, it will act before the Senate’s August break.