MSOC's graphic photo in no way futhers our discussion of this topic.
What is at issue central to today's ruling is the elective procedure of Intact D&E is banned by the act, not all D&E. Above, the court expliticly allows and even encourages D&E where necessiary.
The difference is as follows:
D&E:
After sufficient dilation the surgical operation can commence.
The woman is placed under general anesthesia or
conscious sedation. The doctor, often guided by ultrasound,
inserts grasping forceps through the woman’s
cervix and into the uterus to grab the fetus. The doctor
grips a fetal part with the forceps and pulls it back
through the cervix and vagina, continuing to pull even
after meeting resistance from the cervix. The friction
causes the fetus to tear apart. For example, a leg might be
ripped off the fetus as it is pulled through the cervix and out of the woman. The process of evacuating the fetus piece by piece continues until it has been completely removed.
A doctor may make 10 to 15 passes with the forceps
to evacuate the fetus in its entirety, though sometimes
removal is completed with fewer passes. Once the
fetus has been evacuated, the placenta and any remaining
fetal material are suctioned or scraped out of the uterus.
The doctor examines the different parts to ensure the
entire fetal body has been removed. See, e.g., Nat. Abortion
Federation, supra, at 465; Planned Parenthood, supra,
at 962.
Some doctors, especially later in the second trimester,
may kill the fetus a day or two before performing the
surgical evacuation. They inject digoxin or potassium
chloride into the fetus, the umbilical cord, or the amniotic
fluid. Fetal demise may cause contractions and make
greater dilation possible. Once dead, moreover, the fetus’
body will soften, and its removal will be easier.
And a witness account of what Intact D&E Entails:
Here is
another description from a nurse who witnessed the same
method performed on a 26½-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 highpowered
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.
Now the court, as does the statute in question, specifically sets forther to ban this single proceedure, Intact D&E, which is on one hand very questionable in terms of necessity, and on the other simply a prefered method of conducting an abortion.
Because it does not AT ALL ban Normal D&E, thereby allowing abortion to continue in the 2nd trimester, but rather bans a particularly heinous method of abortion, I feel as if today's decision isn't bad. Rather, it's a compromise...
Anti-Abortion activists want to end all abortions.... which is wrong....
Pro-Choice people want to support the woman's right to choose, which is right...
In some instances, the state has the right to ban some proceedures it feels cross the line between abortion and infantcide... here being such a case.
As the court says, this is to protect the medical community and it's reputation. It's a fine line sure, but it's a line none the less. one that diaries like "you fuck, you die" do nothing but obscure and fear monger.
Comments are closed on this story.