No, it isn’t all Doug Hagler all the time around here (though I should probably declare this “Doug Hagler Week,” and send him a thank-you card for giving me so much to post about), but he did say something in his post on George W. Bush that I think requires a response. To wit, here was the first point he adduced in President Bush’s favor:
Bush banned what is often erroneously called partial-birth abortion, or more accurately late-term abortion. I’m not sure what the moral argument in favor of late-term abortion would be.
Now, there are several things that need to be said here. First, I do agree completely with the second sentence. Second, Aric Clark tried to counter that sentence by misrepresenting late-term abortion (the abortion industry is actually woefully under-regulated, and notorious for fighting any regulation on proclaimed ideological grounds). And third, none of that is actually germain to the point, because Doug’s first sentence here is almost completely wrong. On a technical level, President Bush didn’t ban partial-birth abortion, Congress did, though under his leadership. On a semantic level, the term “partial-birth abortion” is not in fact erroneous. And on the level of content, “partial-birth abortion” does not mean “late-term abortion,” it means something very particular.
For those who are pro-life and squeamish, you might not want to read further, especially if you already know the score on partial-birth abortion. If you’re pro-choice and squeamish, I would suggest that you do read on, so that you understand what it is you’re defending. And if you’re pro-choice and not bothered by the details, then may God soften your heart.
Partial-birth abortion is a particular procedure, technically known as intact dilation and extraction (as well as by other, similar terms) and often referred to as D&X. The Free Dictionary describes the procedure this way:
According to the American Medical Association, this procedure has four main elements.[8] First, the cervix is dilated. Second, the fetus is positioned for a footling breech. Third, the fetus is extracted except for the head. Fourth, the brain of the fetus is evacuated so that a dead but otherwise intact fetus is delivered via the vagina.
Usually, preliminary procedures are performed over a period of two to three days, to gradually dilate the cervix using laminaria tents (sticks of seaweed which absorb fluid and swell). Sometimes drugs such as synthetic pitocin are used to induce labor. Once the cervix is sufficiently dilated, the doctor uses an ultrasound and forceps to grasp the fetus‘ leg. The fetus is turned to a breech position, if necessary, and the doctor pulls one or both legs out of the birth canal, causing what is referred to by some people as the ‘partial birth’ of the fetus. The doctor subsequently extracts the rest of the fetus, usually without the aid of forceps, leaving only the head still inside the birth canal. An incision is made at the base of the skull, scissors are inserted into the incision and opened to widen the opening[9], and then a suction catheter is inserted into the opening. The brain is suctioned out, which causes the skull to collapse and allows the fetus to pass more easily through the birth canal. The placenta is removed and the uterine wall is vacuum aspirated using a suction curette.
The AMA doesn’t acknowledge the term “partial-birth abortion,” but that’s not because it’s factually inaccurate; to the contrary, it’s descriptive and evocative, which is precisely why the AMA resists it. Nor is it true to say that the procedure is only used in “rare and terrifyingly ugly situations,” as Aric Clark claimed; rather,
Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers (a trade association of abortion providers), told the New York Times (Feb. 26, 1997): “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.”[35] Some prominent self-described pro-choice advocates quickly defended the accuracy of Fitzsimmons’ statements.[36]
This is nothing less than the torture-murder of innocent human beings for no more crime, in most cases, than being inconvenient to the mother—or to people whom the mother is unwilling to challenge. You may well argue that opposition to abortion requires pacifism, opposition to anything one might call torture, and the like, and you might well be right (though at this point, I’m not convinced; I intend to argue through some of these things in the near future)—but it seems to me far stronger in the other direction: the arguments for pacifism and for the condemnation of such things as waterboarding apply with even greater force to abortion. To call oneself a pro-choice pacifist is to be logically and morally incoherent.
Partial birth abortion is such a tragically selfish and brutal act — there is not one baby aborted in this manner that is not immediately adoptable. I know people who stand in line for years, even for special needs kids there is a waiting list! (of course we got ours in just 9 months)
These women pay a terrible price in later years. And often immediately after. I can't imagine what type of person would be so inhumane as to even consider performing this "procedure."
Agreed 100%.
Ah, Rob, I think we should share a blog or something.
There are a number of errors in your post that I just need to clarify for my own sake. I hid an agreement in there to keep you reading.
First of all, it is very common to talk about a President's administration having leadership over what congress is doing, and since the President has line-item veto power, it is "almost completely wrong" to make the hair-splitting distinction you did between what the President does and what Congress does. In common usage and political discussion, that distinction is almost never made, and is not really that meaningful for the reasons I put above. In short, it's needless semantic nitpicking.
Second, "partial-birth abortion" is erroneous because it implies that it is a viable fetus being aborted, and evokes the image of the fetus being aborted during the process of childbirth. This is polemically intentional and erroneous, despite the fact that you agree with the side that is using the polemic. I don't say this to argue in favor of it.
Third, it is a germane point to make that partial-birth abortion has a specific meaning, in that it is a specific procedure used in late-term abortion. I think you over-value the importance of this distinction, but I also get that this is for polemical reasons. Some late-term abortions are partial-birth abortions but not all. Got it.
Fourth, I agree that those involved in the abortion argument in this country should have a clearer idea of what it is they are talking about. So there's one that isn't an error on your part 🙂
Fifth, your claim that a pacifist argument for choice is morally incoherent is profoundly false, particularly without any kind of counter-argument. You have not done any of the work necessary to bolster this kind of broad claim about moral agrument. Frankly, it's a little lazy from someone who is so often rigorous. I am not going to make the argument here because it isn't the argument I make about abortion, but I promise that you've got a lot more hard work ahead of you before your counter-argument will have any weight whatsoever.
Yarg – why did I say "line-item"? Oh well. I stick with my point – with veto power, the President has a hand in every legislative act of Congress, and the distinction you tried to make doesn't hold water for me.
1. I did say "on a technical level," and I agree that the substance of your credit is there. The fact that sloppy phrasing is common–leading to presidents at times being credited or blamed for things with which they really didn't have all that much to do–doesn't make it right.
2. No implication at all–D&X is only performed on viable unborn children, since it is, as you say yourself, "a specific procedure used in late-term abortion." Polemically intentional? Yes. Erroneous? No. Let a couple things go "wrong" and you have a viable newborn baby.
3. You misunderstand my point. Is it for polemical reasons? In a sense, I suppose; more, it's a matter of clarifying what exactly we're talking about here, so that it can't be waved away in a haze of generalizations as many try to do.
4. It should be noted that the abortion industry very much disagrees with you (and me) on that.
5. It was, obviously, not an argument, merely an observation, as I'm well aware; the argument will follow. As you are well aware, that doesn't make my observation "profoundly false," merely profoundly undemonstrated in the moment. I will say, however, that anyone who opposes the torture of inarguably guilty people for the sake of an effort to save human lives but who supports the torture-murder of innocent people (as innocent as anyone ever is, anyway) for the sake of human convenience has some serious category errors going in their thinking, and I believe an even more serious skew in their moral judgment and human compassion.
And we did talk about doing a joint blog post at one point–life sidetracked that, but it's still a good idea.