With the aftermath of the Virginia Tech killings monopolizing media attention, a grave regression of women’s rights in this country passed largely unnoticed last week. On Wednesday, the United States Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, reversed the Court’s earlier rulings on Planned Parenthood Federation of America vs. Gonzales and Carhart vs. Gonzales, upholding what is known as the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.
Let’s be clear — last week’s decision is not a ban on a rare late-term medical procedure, but rather has the potential to stop abortion procedures as early as 12 weeks into the pregnancy. This realization is already affecting the lives of pregnant women and physicians who are faced with trying to understand this drastic change in the high Court’s interpretation of abortion.
To many, it’s unclear what the decision actually means, as the manipulation of the language surrounding abortion has been one of the primary tactics employed by those wishing to limit women’s choice. In fact, “partial birth abortion” is not a medical term — it is not used by any obstetricians or gynecologists who perform second trimester abortions. The procedure, at which the ban at issue is aimed, was developed in 1992 as a method of intact dilation and extraction, which was safer than other procedures. Dilation and extraction is when the cervix is dilated and the fetus extracted — the extraction serving as the safest means in some cases. However, in 1995 when the National Right to Life Committee coined the term “partial birth abortion,” it used it to refer to any dilation and extraction procedure, not merely intact dilation and extraction.
Indeed, this overly broad definition has helped anti-choice lobbyists move the country much closer towards a complete abortion ban as of last week. The fact is that intact D&E is a very rare procedure, accounting for less than 1 percent of all abortions performed in this country. However, within the much broader language of the ban, the court’s decision will quash a much larger swath of women’s rights — much more than 1 percent — while also setting a precedent which allows for a complete ban.
It’s a classic case of political manipulation. In this example the Act includes diagrams of “anatomical landmarks” that illustrate what constitutes an “intact” fetus during a procedure. In simple terms, navel outside of the cervix is now illegal. Navel inside the cervix is legal. As of last week, less than an inch of a partially extracted fetus is what separates a doctor acting under the law and one who can be prosecuted and sent to jail for up to two years. This inch has proven to be quite a contentious one. In Stenburg vs. Carhart, doctors who were experienced in surgical abortions argued that they could not predict with that amount of precision when performing a procedure. However, last week the Supreme Court claimed it did not have to accept “factual findings” when considering the Act and the court declared these protests to be “unavailing.”
As a result, in order to avoid prosecution and possibly losing medical licenses, the few doctors who do perform second-trimester abortions may stop performing the procedures as early as 12 weeks, or revert to more dangerous procedures. Opponents have claimed that women “shouldn’t” wait that long. However, women simply do not opt to have later-term abortions for frivolous reasons. Much of the reason late-term abortions developed in this country is due to the legislative and judicial decisions promoted by anti-choice advocates. Abortions are expensive (1975 Hyde Amendment bars insurance coverage), difficult to obtain (87 percent of counties in the country have no abortion provider) and are further constrained by state restrictions that limit access to abortion. A pregnancy does not stop to wait for a woman to raise money for medical, travel, lodging and childcare expenses.
The other disturbing impact of the decision is the alternatives it has forced on those who desperately need late-term intact dilation and extraction abortions. These are typically the most tragic and heartbreaking of cases, involving fetal abnormalities that rule out the fetal survival, such as severe hydrocephaly and fetal death. The reason for removing the fetus intact is to avoid leaving bone fragments in the uterus, which can lead to infections causing sterility or death of the woman. While anti-abortion advocates have claimed that this ruling represents a step forward, for women who need the procedure, it leaves physicians with one of the only legal alternatives — ripping the fetus apart in the uterus, making the procedure much more dangerous for the woman.
Another alternative resulting from the decision is to inject the fetus with a chemical to kill it before removing it intact, since it is no longer legal to remove “a living fetus” intact. It should be noted that the dilation process can take two to three days. While the patient waits for the dead fetus to be extracted from her body, the toxins injected into her pose a serious health risk.
What is particularly sad is that intact dilation and extraction is one of the only safe options for couples who wanted a pregnancy, but had something go wrong during development. The court actually suggests an alternative of hysterectomy or partial hysterectomy (complete or partial removal of the uterus) in these cases. This means that a woman who was looking forward to giving birth to a healthy baby is prevented from ever attempting childbirth again.
The shameful decision the Supreme Court upheld is the exact opposite of what it claims to be, a document that protects human life. This ban is detrimental to women’s health, the medical profession and sets a dangerous legal precedent for further restrictions on a woman’s right to safe, legal abortion.
Laura Taylor is a senior in the School of Industrial and Labor Relations. She can be contacted at lat34@cornell.edu. Kind of a Big Deal appears Tuesdays.