Talk:Intact dilation and extraction

message: I have replaced the phrase "disarticulate at the neck" with the phrase "decapitate it".  This is clearly not an easy area to edit in but I am trying for language which is as non-emotive as possible but does not obscure meaning - "disarticulate at the neck" is a rare and hard to understand phrase - Google gives it just 13 hits, many from Wikipedia and mirrors.  My first attempt, "behead", was hurried and admittedly crass, and I see that "remove the head" was unclear (remove from what?).  "Decapitate" is an accurate and I hope non emotionally loaded word to convey the meaning clearly.  Springnuts (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Decapitate" brings on images of the French revolution and La Guillotine.  As accurate as opponents of the procedure may find it, it's hardly a non-emotionally loaded word. "Disarticulate at the neck" is a direct quote from the reference for that statement. Perhaps that sentence could be reworded to make clear that phrase is a quote from a doctor who performs abortions? LyrlTalk     C   01:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Behead" also was emotionally loaded as being about executions.  My quarrel with the "disarticulate" term is pretty much just its being so obscure - I had to look it up - it sounded as if it meant to break the beck. not sever it.  How about "cut the head from the body"? "Cut" has no emotional weight in normal speech since it can be related to many activities across the moral spectrum (vegetables, surgery, flowers, knife crime, trivial accidents with paper) - it depends on context. Springnuts (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for taking so long to respond.  I like Springnuts' suggestion of "cut".  I've gone ahead and put "cut through the neck" in the article, I hope that will work for both of us (and anyone else interested). LyrlTalk     C   02:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Works better the way you have phrased it - thank you.  Springnuts (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Gah, one last thing of note. Near 100% of the first four pages when googling 'disarticulate at the neck' are propaganda single interest blogs for the anti-abortion movement. So again, to the editor in question who's use of weasel words I am addressing, you are cutting off your nose to spite your face brother, so please air your grievances on the talk page as opposed to reverting to weasel words incessantly. You may have a very strong argument as to why it ought to use such weasel words even, and consensus may very well agree with you. But if you just continue to revert we shall never know. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 07:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disarticulate at the neck 

message: I believe the article is misleading when discussing the origins of the term. It states that "This term was first suggested in 1995 by pro-life congressman Charles T. Canady, while developing the original proposed Partial-Birth Abortion Ban" however, I distinctly remember the term being discussed and even used in some educational media when I was attending school as early as 1990.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.236.114 (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we are currently using two citations to support the claim. If you could find the educational media that predates 1995, or any other citation, then we can discuss changing the article. But until we have another source, the current sentence meets WP:V, and unfortunately we cannot use your recollection as a WP:RS :) -Andrew c [talk] 23:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of Term 

message: I tried to put these quotes on the actual page but various editors persisted in deleting them, even though they are objective statements by the SUPREME COURT and Congress during an in depth discussion on the issue of Partial Birth Abortion.  In fact, I believe these court cases (Specifically Gonzales V. Carhart) one of the greatest sources of information on the issue.  Please see quotes below:
Dr. Haskell's testimony was used to describe the procedure in Gonzales V. Carhart:
"At this point, the right-handed surgeon slides the fingers of the left [hand] along the back of the fetus and "hooks" the shoulders of the fetus with the index and ring fingers (palm down).
"'While maintaining this tension, lifting the cervix and applying traction to the shoulders with the fingers of the left hand, the surgeon takes a pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand.  He carefully advances the tip, curved down, along the spine and under the tip of his middle finger.
"'[T]he surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull or into the foramen magnum.  Having safely entered the skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening.
"'The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into the hole and evacuates the skull contents.  With the catheter still in place, he applies traction to the fetus, removing it completely from the patient.'" 550 U.S. 7 (2007), Opinion of the Court.
Another excerpt from Gonzales V. Carhart
"Here is another description from a nurse who witnessed the same method performed on a 26.5-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 high-powered 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.'"  550 U.S. 8 (2007), Opinion of the Court.
The Supreme Court reported several variations of the procedure used by different physicians. Excerpt from Gonzales V. Carhart: "Another doctor, for example, squeezes the skull after it has been pierced "so that enough brain tissue exudes to allow the head to pass through." "Still other physicians reach into the cervix with their forceps and crush the fetus' skull." "Others continue to pull the fetus out of the woman until it disarticulates at the neck, in effect decapitating it. These doctors then grasp the head with forceps, crush it, and remove it." 550 U.S. 8 (2007), Opinion of the Court Excerpt.
Another testimony regarding the procedure from an Abortion Doctor before the Supreme Court: "Another doctor testified he crushes a fetus' skull not only to reduce its size but also to ensure the fetus is dead before it is removed. For the staff to have to deal with a fetus that has "some viability to it, some movement of limbs," according to this doctor, "[is] always a difficult situation." 550 U.S. 9 (2007).
In Gonzales V. Carhart, "Abortion doctors testified, for example, that intact D&E decreases the risk of cervical laceration or uterine perforation because it requires fewer passes into the uterus with surgical instruments and does not require the removal of bony fragments of the dismembered fetus, fragments that may be sharp." 550 U.S. 31 (2007), Opinion of the Court.
Congress found that "No one would dispute that, for many, D&E is a procedure itself laden with the power to devalue human life," "The abortion methods it proscribed had a "disturbing similarity to the killing of a newborn infant," and that ""Implicity approving such a brutal and inhumane procedure by choosing not to prohibit it will further coarsen society to the humanity of not only newborns, but all vulnerable and innocent human life, making it increasingly difficult to protect such life."" 550 U.S. 28 (2007), Opinion of the Court.
"Congress was concerned, furthermore, with the effects on the medical community and on its reputation caused by the practice of partial-birth abortion.  The findings in the Act explain:
"Partial-birth abortion...confuses the medical, legal, and ethical duties of physicians to preserve and promote life, as the physician acts directly against the physical life of a child, whom he or she had just delivered all but the head, out of the womb, in order to end that life." Congressional Findings."  550 U.S. 27 (2007), Opinion of the Court, Gonzales V. Carhart.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Deuter1000 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 30 July 2008
:The procedure is described in the "intact D&X surgery" section.  The description there is broad enough to cover both Haskell's procedure (the first quoted paragraph above) as well as variations used by other doctors (third quoted paragraph above).  
:The nurses' testimony in (second quoted paragraph above) is discussed in the fifth paragraph of the "controversy" section.
:Use of feticide to ensure a dead fetus as part of an abortion procedure is discussed in Feticide#Use during legal abortion.  Crushing the skull as a method of feticide would probably be a good addition to that article, but paraphrasing instead of just dropping in a lengthy quote would be much more encyclopedic.  The feticide article should also probably be better linked from this article.
:Advantages and disadvantages of the procedure, including those in the fifth quoted paragraph above, are already covered in the bulleted lists in "Circumstances and reasons for this procedure".
:Opinions of those who oppose the procedure (such as that in the sixth and seventh quoted paragraphs above) are discussed in the "Controversy" section.
:In summary, the quotes add a lot of length to the article, and decrease its readability, without adding encyclopedic substance.  It's not the content I am (and I presume the other editors who deleted these quotes are) opposed to: it's the format.  If there is relevant information in these quotes not currently covered in this article, please be more specific about it, and we can work to incorporate it in an encyclopedic manner. LyrlTalk     C   00:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That the quotes are true is not the issue, inserting large blocks of quotes and being selective (for you are not inserting all of the Supreme Courts hearings) which quotes to insert are issues. A succint description of the procedure is probably all that is needed to make it clear what is being described in the article. Detailed description of surgical technique is not called for, by way of comparison look at Cholecystectomy where Wikipedia not being a textbook means that the precise surgical details of cutting, tying off arterial bleeds, manipulating tissues and excising are not mentioned in that great detail compared to say WikiSurgery's 143 page description at http://www.surgicalscripts.com/Cholecystectomy-laparoscopic-Operationscript.pdf  Seeking to load the article with selective "gruesome" bits is therefore, IMHO, POV pushing (see WP:WEIGHT). David Ruben  Talk  00:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partial- Birth Abortion Supplementary quotes 

message: :Is IDX the same thing as what is called a "Live Birth Abortion" in American politics? It's kind of hard to keep up with all the new names the right wingers come up with. Craig Sniffen (talk) 04:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The common term in American politics is partial-birth abortion. IDX and PBA are not exactly the same thing, and the article discusses the differences. But generally speaking, you can assume that the terms are basically synonymous.-Andrew c [talk] 23:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is difficult to keep up with all the names those who cherish life use to describe killing an unborn child.  For future reference and sake of ease, why don't you just stick with premeditated murder :)  70.250.214.209 (talk) 05:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally, all of the terms "intact dilation and extraction (IDX)," "intact dilation and evacuation," "dilation and extraction," "D&X," "DNX," and "intrauterine cranial decompression" are political, to the extent that they try to take the moral sting out of the words used to describe this procedure.98.119.141.253 (talk) 19:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Live Birth Abortion 

message: What is the difference between Partial birth abortion, Postnatal abortion and Postpartum abortion ? Is it all the same and/or does it come close to infanticide ? 69.157.239.212 (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Partial birth vs. Postnatal vs. Postpartum

message: Sentence 2 under Partial-birth abortion. "The term is not recognized as a medical term by the American Medical Association[7] nor"... The link did not go any source of information; it seems it has moved. Please rectify.--Posted by: SoC (talk) -- Posted at:: 00:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 7 is dead link. 

message: I have heard of cases where the partial birth abortion failed in that the baby was fully born.  I suppose it can pop out fast.  Further, I have heard that in some of those cases the baby is then, what, aborted?  murdered? terminated? Are there any reliable sources for either case (born alive or born alive then terminated)?  I do not see that mentioned in the article.  Shouldn't that be in the article?  I have even heard of a baby born alive and left for a day or so until it eventually died despite best efforts of a priest once he noticed some movement.  I am not likely to edit this page further, so I hope others will pick up the baton and go from there. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accidental live births 

message: In the partial-birth abortion section, it's claimed that the term "partial-birth abortion" is "primarily used in political discourse — chiefly regarding the legality of abortion in the United States." The source for this statement is a pro-choice, left-wing, anti-religious Canadian political organization that ironically has the term "religious tolerance" in its name. The term is used in other contexts in the United States, not just in reference the legality of abortion per se, but also in regard to the legality of the particular procedure, and also to the procedure itself. I think that a more neutral source should be found for this claim than one that has an ad for abortions on the page where we're supposed to verify the claim. I think that this sentence should be removed.
Also, I'm not opposed to relating the history of the term, as long as the information is properly sourced, but to say that the term "partial birth abortion" is not "recognized as a medical term" by the AMA or ACOG not relevant to a balanced article. It only serves the needs of those who support the legality of the procedure, and who want to score high school debating points by mentioning this fact. (Does using the word "discourse" ever get old)? Having the "shits" probably isn't "recognized" (whatever that means) by the AMA either, but that doesn't stop people from using the term, even though, like "partial-birth abortion", it offends some. This article has many shortcomings, but the first paragraph in this section (as well as the entire section for that matter) is so blatantly flawed that it needs a complete rewrite. Hopefully someone with more time than me will do it, but I'll give it a try eventually if no one else will. --AntigrandiosËTalk  10:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the term "Partial-Birth Abortion" is a political term not a medical term, not used in any medical textbook or recognized by any mainstream medical professional organization, it belongs in quotation marks in the section heading.  Using the phrase without quotation marks to head a section violates WP:NPOV.  Accordingly, I have inserted the necessary quotation marks.   Goblinshark17 (talk) 07:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partial-birth abortion section 

message: FOUR links to articles in support of this procedure, and only one link to an article against it. Last I checked, that is biased. DavidSteinle (talk) 21:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where are the links with opposing views? 

message: I have added a new subsection to the UNITED STATES section, entitled "clinical response to bans on the procedure", in which I point out that the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act only forbids "partial-birth abortions" of LIVING fetuses; therefore, late-term abortion providers now routinely induce fetal demise before starting the extraction, in order to avoid violating the ban.  Goblinshark17 (talk) 07:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: New subsection to UNITED STATES section: Clinical responses to bans

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Intact dilation and extraction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071114231038/http://www.sfgate.com:80/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/04/18/national/w070844D25.DTL&type=politics to http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/04/18/national/w070844D25.DTL&type=politics
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 12 external links on Intact dilation and extraction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614123429/http://mpsa.indiana.edu/conf2003papers/1032123442.pdf to http://mpsa.indiana.edu/conf2003papers/1032123442.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060513233915/http://www.patriarhia.ro/eng/bioetics.php to http://www.patriarhia.ro/eng/bioetics.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061019020143/http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9606ltrs.asp to http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9606ltrs.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061004185228/http://www.wcr.ab.ca/news/2000/1023/prolifeteens102300.shtml to http://www.wcr.ab.ca/news/2000/1023/prolifeteens102300.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614123430/http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBA%20activists%20lied.pdf to http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBA%20activists%20lied.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070501040628/http://judiciary.house.gov/legacy/215.htm to http://judiciary.house.gov/legacy/215.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070503180410/http://archive.salon.com/mwt/feature/2002/07/24/late_term/index.html to http://archive.salon.com/mwt/feature/2002/07/24/late_term/index.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fn%2Fa%2F2007%2F04%2F18%2Fnational%2Fw070844D25.DTL&type=politics
*Added  tag to http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03a0446p.06
*Added  tag to http://onlinedocs.andersonpublishing.com/oh/lpExt.dll/PORC/13316/13a49/13a6f/13a9a?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130516122301/http://www.politicalaffairs.net/the-myth-of-partial-birth-abortion/ to http://www.politicalaffairs.net/the-myth-of-partial-birth-abortion/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050828165219/http://slate.msn.com/id/2090201/ to http://slate.msn.com/id/2090201/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060410160320/http://www.ppl.org/PJune_PostViability_2001.html to http://www.ppl.org/PJune_PostViability_2001.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060617041839/http://dir.salon.com/story/mwt/feature/2002/07/24/late_term/index.html to http://dir.salon.com/story/mwt/feature/2002/07/24/late_term/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Intact dilation and extraction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927190336/http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5477 to http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5477
*Added  tag to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_n9_v61/ai_19732071/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified