Recycled Partial Birth Abortion Myths
IMMEDIATE RELEASE April 18, 2004
following is a media
advisory from Nevada LIFE on partial birth abortion myths
recycled during trials concerning the partial birth abortion
ban in federal courts. It
is an update of a previous advisory in November.
are three trials in process regarding the partial birth
abortion ban. Abortion advocates are recycling old myths about
partial birth abortion and Nevada LIFE urges the media to
check for accuracy before reporting these myths as facts or to
check with right to life leaders before printing or
broadcasting them. Current
testimony from these trials indicates the fallacy of these
1. There is no such thing as a
partial birth abortion.
The Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary lists a
definition of partial birth abortion but not the
pseudo-medical jargon terms created by abortion advocates and
abortionists. It is as much a medical term as “heart attack” which is
used in preference to "myocardial infarction."
Abortion supporters need to show how this term does not
describe the procedure as well as tell how it is not “a
gruesome and inhumane procedure.”
2. This is a ban on late term or
third trimester abortions.
This is not a ban on when an abortion is done, but
how it is done and the location of the baby when he or she is
partial birth abortions have been done as late as 32 weeks
according to partial birth abortionist Martin Haskell.
However most partial birth abortions are done in the 5th-6th
3. The ban does not include a
health exception. The
statute has always contained a health exception, though
Congressional findings indicate that it is never necessary for
a woman’s health. The
law specifically says “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.”
4. Partial birth abortions are
necessary to protect the health of the mother. Last
week expert maternal
fetal medicine witness Dr. Stephen Clark testified in
the New York suit that "1. Under no circumstances is partial birth abortion necessary to
preserve the life or health of the mother. And an abolition of
the procedure would not put any women at medical risk. 2.
There are grave concerns over the long term health
consequences of the procedure. There is no published data
concerning the long term health consequences but the data
coming out regarding this procedure is so disturbing. It
confirms the problems of pre-term birth after this procedure
has been used."
5. Partial birth abortions occur
only in acute medical circumstances. This argument argues with Partial
Birth Abortionists themselves.
Partial birth abortion pioneer James McMahon told
Congress that in one series of 2000 partial birth abortions
only 9 percent were for medical reasons. The leading medical reason was depression.
6. Partial birth abortions are
rare. In 1997
Ron Fitzsimmons, National Coalition of Abortion Providers
director said that there were 3500-5000 partial birth
abortions per year. That
number must be low since one New Jersey abortion clinic
admitted to 1500 in one year.
Fitzsimmons told the media that abortion advocates had
been untruthful about their numbers. The rate of incidence of
partial birth abortion is not what makes it wrong. This gruesome procedure is wrong no matter how many times it
7. The description of partial birth
abortion is vague and will lead to prosecution of other forms
of abortion. Abortion
witnesses in the trial may claim that the law is ambiguous,
but they are quite articulate when discussing the merits of
partial birth abortion. They
can likewise precisely describe other procedures. The law is carefully written.
It is very specific and meant to erase any confusion
between a partial birth abortion and other abortions,
especially a D & E abortion, dilation and evacuation.
D & E abortions are used in the second and third
& E dismembers the fetus in utero and evacuates the torn
fetus in pieces. Physicians
who cannot understand the language in the law should not be
The unborn is killed painlessly by the anesthesia given to the
mother, or the fetus does not feel pain. The first claim has been
repudiated emphatically by the two leading societies of
birth abortionists testify that the child is alive at the
start of the procedure. In
an article published in The Journal of the American Medical
witness Dr. M. LeRoy Sprang who testified last week, writes, "Forcibly incising the cranium with the
scissors and then suctioning out the intra-cranial contents is
certainly excruciatingly painful." Dr. Kanwaljeet Anand, a pediatrician at the University of
Arkansas for Medical Sciences, testified that unborn children
suffer "severe and excruciating" pain because
"the fetus is conscious" during the abortion
described the fetal pain as "prolonged and intense."
This makes the statute’s point that partial birth
a gruesome and inhumane procedure.” Abortionists
who commit them deserve jail time and fines.
Government requests for partial birth abortion information
undermines confidentiality. The justice department has
requested that plaintiffs present actual partial abortion
records or cases which show the procedure was necessary.
They have agreed to make sure names will be protected.
Abortion advocates need to show the evidence and quit
hiding behind confidentiality or their claims that partial
birth abortion is necessary will continue to be hollow.