Talk:Intact dilation and extraction/Archive 1

message: JonGwynne reverted a change of mine to the external links at the bottom of the page. He claimed there was discussion over the issue...I see non. I disagree with legislation being in the biased section, and there are three (to my mind) highly biased articles in the unbiased section (the bottom three links.) Personally, I don't like the arrangement of the links as is. I propose dividing them into four sections: "Legislation and Court Decisions", "Commentary", and "Advocacy Groups", and "Other". Any objections or alternative ideas? --MikeJ9919 01:33, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the section marked "External Links".  BTW, it is customary to put new commentary at the bottom of the page in order to maintain a chronological flow.--JonGwynne 03:15, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Links

message: Can we merge some sections of Intact dilation and extraction and Partial-birth abortion.  I request that we use PBA for the political / legal situation and use IDX for the medical situation.  Currently, there's a mix of duplication and information that would be better presented at the other page.  --Quasipalm 03:42, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the merger request, disagree with the separation idea. I feel the topic is sufficiently constrained for one article, and IDX should be merged into partial-birth abortion. I understand if others disagree...it's obviously a judgement call. --MikeJ9919 01:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Duplication

message: I just want to mention that I stumbled on this page trying to find out what Partial-Birth abortion is, but I still don't understand.
I think that in their zeal to describe all the debate around it, the editors forgot that some people just want to understand what, exactly, is a "Partial Birth Abortion".
---
Agree with the above poster.  CNN when discussing the overturning of the partial birth
abortion ban today, describes:
* The law was aimed at stopping a procedure, usually performed during the second trimester of pregnancy, in which a fetus is partly delivered, its skull punctured and its brain removed, often by suction.
If you're unfamilar with the issue, this description makes PBEs sound like they were specifically devised to be the most horrific way to abort a pregnancy.  You need to follow the article through to the   intact dilation and extraction article before you understand what the purpose of collapsing the fetus's skull by sucking its brain out is.
However, I don't have the balls to even try to update the article to say this. Mbac 18:20, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  naive comment 

message: I'd like to hear people's thoughts no the picture - Partial-birthabortion.jpg.  I have several problems with it...  First, it isn't a photograph but a drawing.  Even if the drawing was done by someone with medical knowledge, there is no way of knowing how accurate a depiction it is.  Second, the source of the drawing is a vehemently partisan organization called "Campaign Life Coalition" who are probably not the best source for accurate or objective information about the procedure.  Third there is no attribution in the picture or any description of why the abortion was being performed - for all we know the picture is not of an actual procedure at all but rather a pro-life "artist's conception" of what they think might go on during an ID&X.
Thus, I don't believe the image serves any purpose here other than to promote a specific point-of-view.
I am going to remove the link to the picture for now, if anyone feels strongly enough about it being returned, let's talk about it.  I would suggest that if it is deemed necessary to have illustrations of the procedure, they should be photographs of an actual procedure.
-----
Diagrams illustrating how partial-birth abortions are done should be included under "(Pro-Life Position) National Right to Life Description," since such diagrams are a part of their description.  The NRTL description is incomplete without the diagram.
However, IMO Partial-birthabortion.jpg is not the best diagram to use.  The diagram used under "National Right to Life Description" should one of two such diagrams that NRTL actually has on their web site: B&W PBA diagram or color PBA diagram.
I also think there should be descriptions of the procedure from clinicians, rather just from advocacy organizations.  On the "Pro-PBA" side a good choice (actually the only detailed description I know of) would be Dr. Haskell's description from his original 1992 monograph.  On the "Anti-PBA" side a good choice would be the description by Dr. Haskell's former nurse, Brenda Pratt Shafer (who is now pro-life).
Comments?
NCdave 20:51, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The picture 

message: Has nobody else here noticed that the "Planned Parenthood Description" doesn't describe this procedure at all?  It describes D&E, which is a procedure in which the baby is dismembered within the womb before being sucked out in pieces.  It is so lacking in detail that it isn't obvious without very careful reading just what it is describing, but that's what this means: "The fetus and other products of conception are removed from the uterus with surgical instruments and suction curettage."
The only description of PBA or IDX that I know of which was written by an advocate of the procedure is the one in Haskall's original 1992 monograph.  (That's not really surprising, IMO.  Detailed descriptions of truly horrific human behavior are rarely written by those who are guilty of it.  You won't find many NAZI-written detailed descriptions of the Auschwitz death camp's mass execution procedures, either.)
I'm opposed to abortion, so I certainly am not the right person to select what is supposed to be explicitly pro-PBA material (unless it turns out that there is only one such description extant to choose from).  I'll leave it to someone else here to find a pro-PBA description of the procedure, if you can.  I would ask that you try to find one that is not blatantly dishonest.
If you can't find one, then just use the one in Haskell's monograph.http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/partial-birth_abortion.htm
NCdave 06:44, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: (Pro-Choice Position) Planned Parenthood Description

message: The page at the Guttmacher Institute which summarizes State laws w/r/t post-viability abortion
http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_RPA.pdf
is obviously inaccurate.  It only lists 40 States, and it still shows Ohio has having no law in effect, though Ohio's PBA ban survived the last of its legal challenges and has been in legal effect since mid-2004.  (Note that Guttmacher is a Planned Parenthood affiliate -- not an unbiased source.)
However, I don't have a better summary.  So I just corrected the information about Ohio, and "fuzzied" the language to better reflect the unreliability of the other information.  The old version was:
:Four states (Delaware, Minnestota, Ohio and Utah) have no current policy regarding post-viability abortions because the laws in this states are blocked by court order. The remaining 44 states, plus the District of Columbia impose some regulation on late-term abortion
My latest version is:
:At least three States (Delaware, Minnesota, and Utah) have no current policy regarding post-viability abortions because the laws in those States are blocked by court order. Most or all of the remaining 47 States, plus the District of Columbia, impose some regulation on late-term abortion
I would welcome better information about this. NCdave 19:31, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Guttmacher unreliable

message: Nunh-huh thinks that using the term "abortionist" to mean "the person who is doing the abortion" is POV-biased.  How can that be biased?  that is precisely the definition of the term.  He just replaced all the references to "abortionist" with "physician," throughout the article.
But the word "abortionist" is no more or less indicative of POV bias than the word "abortion," itself.
Physician is the wrong term, anyhow.  In the first place, it is overly broad: podiatrists and ophthalmologists don't do abortions, only abortionists do.  In the second place, it is overly narrow: it is, after all, possible for someone other than a physician to perform the procedure.
Moreover, consider this phrase from (Nunh-huh's version of) the article:
:"The physician begins the procedure by dilating the woman's cervix"
The fact is, even when partial-birth abortion is done legally, the dilation steps are more likely to be performend by a non-physician than by a physician.  That makes this version just plain wrong, even in the usual case.
The original version, however, is correct and accurate regardless of whether the person doing the dilation (or other steps) is a physician, an assistant, or someone else:
:"The abortionist begins the procedure by dilating the woman's cervix"
The correct term is "abortionist."  
Will you change it back, Nunh-huh, or shall I?
Nunh-huh also replaced all 3 instances of the word "baby" in the description with the word "fetus."  It did use "fetus" for the first two references to the baby, and "baby" for the last three.  So will someone tell me how switching from 3 uses of the pro-life preferred term and 2 uses of the pro-choice perferred term, to all five uses being of the pro-choice term and NONE of the pro-life term, makes this NPOV?
Cummon, you've GOT to know that's rediculous.
It is even more rediculous when you recognize that the three uses of "fetus" are TECHNICALLY INCORRECT.  By definition, a fetus is a baby BEFORE birth.  Not after birth, not during birth.  All three of the references to "baby" that Nunh-huh changed to "fetus" are references to the child AFTER he has partially emerged from the womb, which means that he is NOT a fetus.
Will you change it back, Nunh-huh, or shall I?
Why don't you fix the WRONG information in the "Planned Parenthood Description," instead of contorting perfectly good and accurate NPOV text with misused words for the purpose of injecting pro-abortion bias?
However, to his credit and my surprise, I see that Nunh-huh actually also made two good edits:
scoff -> deny, and grieving -> pregnant
NCdave 09:09, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How condescending of you to be surprised. Words have connotations as well as denotations: "abortionist" is an emotive word, not a neutral one, and is therefore inappropriate. I note your contention that a "fetus" is a "baby", but - as you realize - not all agree with your contention, and the rest of your choices make me suspect the reason you want to change it is also for its emotional impact.  A fetus is by definition unborn, and the "partially-born" would seem to be no-man's land.  If you want to have any lasting effect on the article, I would suggest you tone your language down a notch, or it will get toned down for you. Say what you want to say in a reasonable tone that can be agreed upon.   I note in passing that the article contains remarkably little information applicable to most of the world.  - Nunh-huh 09:25, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV language 

message: Just by including the same procedure as RTL description in the main text you are taking a POV, unless you can prove from a non-POV (preferably a legitimate medical source) that the PP description is not actually partial birth abortion. If they're both valid partial birth procedures, one or the other should not be favored by placing it in the body of the article without a disclaimer. – flamurai (t) 06:43, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
----
The PP description is of a D&E abortion, in which the baby is killed by dismemberment within the womb.  It is an entirely different kind of abortion.  That's not POV, that's just fact.  Just read the description.  PP doesn't call PBA "D&E," they call it "D&X" or "IDX" or "Intact D&X."  They are different kinds of abortion. 
The PP description of D&E abortion says, "The fetus and other products of conception are removed from the uterus with surgical instruments and suction curettage."  That means that the fetus is chopped up and removed (by suction) in small pieces.  That is horrible, but it is not PBA. NCdave 04:55, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The description 

message: *The Slate link isn't expressing a view on the procedure itself, just discussing the the terminolgy used to describe it.  Ergo, it isn't really POV.
*The "Dr. Sloane" link is another in the same categoty
*Ditto for the Reason link
:With regard to the above three issues, I strongly disagree. Obviously there is some disagreement over the inherent bias of the term itself or they wouldn't go to the trouble of arguing it. You yourself object to legislation being included in the unbiased section because of the use of terminology like "partial birth feticide." There was a long discussion above over the appropriateness of the article title. I suggest all Commentary be moved into a separate links section, as per my reorg at the top of the page.--MikeJ9919 14:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you on this. Therefore, I suggest all legislation, court decisions, and the like be moved into their own section. Thoughts on my proposed reorganization at the top of the page?--MikeJ9919 14:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: Some who want the procedure to remain legal in the United States say that the ban is based on religious views about when life begins. They argue that to rely on a single religious text to determine when the life of a child begins is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because different cultures and religions have differing views on the subject; to select the Bible as the authoritative voice on the subject would be the equivalent of the United States Government selecting Christianity as the nation's official religion. Those who want to outlaw this type of abortion counter that many laws in the United States have been based, at least in part, on Christian values.
I think the first sentence of this needs to change somehow to state that it's the Christian belief of when life begins that is debated.  Because it does beg the question a little, assuming that it's the Bible and Christianity that all these "religious zealots" are relying on to make their case against abortion.  This is clearly a paragraph stating opposition to the Christian belief on abortion, so something in the first sentence I think should state that.  With the example used, it's not the like the paragraph is bashing Judaism, Hinduism, or anything else.  Does anyone understand what I'm saying? Stanselmdoc 16:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I think something needs to change at least 

message: Hey 214, we keep reverting this paragraph back and forth.  (I like the original, you like your reframed one.)  I've reread the entire section now, and here's my proposal: we remove it completely.  The paragraph was original entered, it seems, as a way of paraphrasing why some would like the procedure of IDX or PBA to remain legal.  However, after a ton of edits, it now reads like it's talking about all abortion.  And now, after you latest edit, it doesn't talk about IDX or PBA at all.  Let's read:
:Some who want the procedure to remain legal in the United States say that the ban is based on religious views about when life begins. They consider the Bible to be the basis for any efforts to restrict abortion in the US, and from there they argue that to rely on a single religious text to determine when the life of a child begins is misguided because different cultures and religions have differing views on the subject. Those who want to outlaw this type of abortion counter that many laws in the United States are based on religious values, and that most world religions condemn abortion on demand and consider abortion acceptable only in very limited circumstances (Judaism: ; Islam: ; Hinduism:; Buddhism: ; Sikhism:; Catholicism:; Anglicanism: ). Likewise, some atheists are also opposed to abortion.
Virtually none of those links talk about IDX/PBA.  Shouldn't they go under relgion and abortion instead?  Honestly, I can see no other way to get this section back to NPOV but to remove this whole paragraph, the part arguing both the Pro-Life and Pro-Choice sides.  What do you think?  --Quasipalm 18:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of paragraph (214 please read)

message: I tried to edit this section a little bit, but gave up when I realized it was going to take a little more than I had time for.  The "health of the mother exception" is part of the holding in Roe v. Wade, not part of a non-binding concurrence by one Judge in a case which cites Roe v. Wade.  If someone else is willing to take up rewriting this so as to provide the appropriate description of this point of law, it would be appreciated.
O'Connors concurrence in Stenberg is just dicta.  The only thing that is binding, is the majority opinion, so it seems foolish that "opponents" would base their opinions on such.  (Which is why I suspect error in the article).  Also, the majority opinion in Stenberg also states the mother's health exception, so why is the reference to O'Connor's concurrence included at all?  She signed onto the majority opinion as well.  Peyna 05:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Law in the United States 

message: Perhaps this article could be effectively trimmed and merged into Intact_dilation_and_extraction#About_the_terminology, since that is really all it is about.  Essentially it is a "synonym" for D&X created by abortion opponents, and I don't see a need for an entire article devoted to all of the buzz words people come up with to push their agenda.  I'm holding off on adding a merge tag until there is some discussion, but really a lot of the info here is the same as that on the D&X page, with the exception of a little more detail on the terminology. Peyna 03:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a "merge" notice on Intact_dilation_and_extraction#About_the_terminology already, should we add one here as well?  Since really the only thing this article discusses that article doesn't is the Etymology.  That's really the only important part of this article anyway. Peyna 20:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge ?? 

message: The reference for this term given by 214.13.4.151, http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/al13.asp, does not say that it is a synonym for partial-birth abortion.  The use of this term, in context, is:
"Three major questions were addressed during the course of each trial: 1) whether the definition of partial-birth abortion also threatened the legality of other abortion procedures, particularly the procedure of Dismemberment and Extraction (D&E - and also known as dilatation and evacuation); 2) whether the use of intact Dilation and Extraction (intact D&X also known as partial-birth abortion) provides a benefit or detriment to the health of the woman;"
This quote is clearly using "dismemberment and extraction" to describe a different procedure to partial-birth abortion.  Incidentally, apologies for my edit of 19:22, where I reverted more than I intended. -- AJR 18:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm editing the sentence as it was not edited accordingly, it still maintains that D&E is an alternate name for the term partial birth abortion, which it is not.  D&E's are a separate, and distinct medical procedure from what partial birth abortion refers to, which is the aborting of an intact fetus, which by definition, D&E absolutely is not.  To say not all D&Es are PBA doesn't clarify it only confuses.  Not all D&Xs are PBA, while NO D&Es are PBAs.Gheorghe Zamfir 20:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Looking over the edits, I think I see where some of the confusion is occuring.  Dilation and Extraction is D&X.  Dilation & Evacuation, and Dismemberent & Extraction, are both terms interchangably used to describe D&E, but D&E is the SAME procedure regardless of whether you use the former or latter terms to come up with the abbreviation.  They are synonymous with each other, but neither refer to or are a synonym with D&X.  So regardless of what terms you use to abbreviate D&E, a D&E procedure is never synonymous with D&X.Gheorghe Zamfir 22:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clearing that up; I just took 214.13.4.151's edits and tried to reword them to make them more clear, but I didn't make any attempt to verify their accuracy. Peyna 23:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Okay, I think I see the point your latest edit 214.  Even so I made some further edits to make things clearer.  Even under the understanding of D&E falling under the PBA umbrella, it needs to remain clear that D&E is a different procedure from D&X, and not at all synonymous.  Also, the wording of the latest edit seems to differentiate phrases that ARE synonyms, such as IDX and DX, which both refer to the same procedure.  It is also seems to differentiate between dilation & evacuation and dismemberment & extraction, though both these terms also refer to the same procedure, in a Dilation & Evacuation procedure "the fetus is terminated and dismembered before it leaves the womb rather than delivering it intact," just like a dismemberment & extraction, because it is the same thing as a dismemberment & extraction, simply a different name, so I tried to word that to make it clearer.Gheorghe Zamfir 07:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed "Dismemberment Extraction" as an alternative name for "Dilation Evacuation."  Dismemberment is not a NPOV term and used primarily by abortion opponents.  See Google:
.  Dilation Evacuation is the actual name of the procedure  and is used by the medical community (and has twice as many hist on Google) .  --Quasipalm 14:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Dismemberment and extraction" 

message: I believe the reference to this being used in Ohio law in the Etymology section is inaccurate.  Ohio law enacted in 1995 referred to the procedure as "dilation and extraction."  It was then amended in 2000 to say "partial-birth feticide."  However, I can find no reference to "Brain-Suction Abortion" in any Ohio law past or present.  Perhaps such a bill was introduced and killed or modified, but as it stands the article is inaccurate.  Thus, I propose changing the Etymology section to read as follows: (and move the details on the ohio law to the law section)
::The procedure was first described as "Dilation and Extraction" by Cincinnati physician W. Martin Haskell, MD in a monograph that was distributed by the National Abortion Federation in September of 1992. .
::The term partial-birth abortion did not appear until several years later, when the  Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995 was introduced in the House of Representative on 14 June 1995.  That same year; however, Ohio enacted a law which referred to the procedure as dilation and extraction.  In 2000, Ohio amended the law  to use the term partial birth feticide, as well as to overcome the unconstitutionality of the prior statute.  There are limited other examples of the use of the term partial birth feticide. 
::Another alternative term is brain suction abortion, the use of which has been limited mostly to opponents of the procedure — specifically, pro-life activist Janet Folger .  Like partial-birth abortion, this term was created for the sole-purpose of casting the procedure in a negative light for political reasons (and can even be considered a misnomer, since arguably no birth or partial-birth occurs).
Peyna 23:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While not appropriate for this section, the full history of the law in ohio is that the D&X law was passed in 1995, it prohibitted the procedure in the 2nd trimester among other things, it was found unconstitutional by the 6th circuit in 1997, and then in 2000 ohio officially repealed it and enacted the new law referring to it as partial-birth feticide.  Of course, that information is more appropriate for the legal section of the article, or even the D&X article. Peyna 23:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Another update, the only reference I can find in Ohio statute and case law is the opinion in the case which declared the 1995 enacted law unconstitutional where the judge states, "A few physicians, including plaintiff Haskell, employ the D & X procedure, which has also been called the 'intact D & E' procedure and the "brain suction" procedure."  (similar phrase appears in the district and circuit court opinions).  The judge is not referring to the text of the law, but terms in use at the time by others. Peyna 23:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I went ahead and made the changes; I also moved the Ohio law info to the law section and divided into federal and state sections.  Is there any information on international uses of the term or has it be strictly confined to the U.S. ? Peyna 00:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brain-Suction Abortion 

message: (PBA) refers to most intact dilation and extraction (IDX) procedures where the fetus is alive at the time of the procedure
Ok, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't life (clinically defined) begin when the egg is fertilized?  Why isn't the victim of a regular abortion considered alive when it's aborted?  Salva 04:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: As evidenced by the last few edits, the controversy section has some problems with how it refers to people with respect to the procedure.  First we have supporters and critics of the procedure, but then we have supporters and critics of the ban on the procedure.  It tends to be pretty confusing and make it difficult to understood who is who.  Peyna 12:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy Section 

message: I think this isn't brought up by the pro-choice side because they try to sweep all mention of fetal pain under the rug.  And I think it's not brought up by the pro-life side because they're trying to argue that PBA/D&X is the most inhumane abortion procedure.
But it has been argued, by people other than me, that a fetus's death from other late-term abortion procedures is more painful than a death from having its skull crushed, or from bleeding to death (some PBA providers cut the umbilical cord and let the fetus bleed to death before performing the procedure).
* Speech by Congressman Joe Pitts The American Civil Liberties Union went so far as to argue that testimony on fetal pain in relation to partial birth abortion was irrelevant partly because D&E abortion, involving dismemberment, is more painful than a partial birth abortion.
* An interview with Dr. Tim McDonald So how do you get pain control to the fetus? If you ban the partial birth abortion, then you have to do something else to evacuate the fetus. And all the other things you can offer are pretty brutal—injecting chemicals into the amniotic fluid that causes the skin to slough off the fetus, essentially causing the fetus to be burned
....
It’s a very gruesome thing.
But as I was writing this article about abortion and fetal pain, I realized that of all the procedures, this was the one that gives us the best access to the fetus so that we can provide anesthetic. If the obstetrician has access to the umbilical cord, you could inject a potent narcotic into the cord to deaden any sense of feeling that the fetus would have. Or you could inject a high dose into the thigh or arm.
As it turns out, of all the termination procedures available, the one that has been singled out as the one to ban is probably the one that affords the obstetrician with the greatest chance to provide pain relief.
Since fetal pain is an important aspect in many people's decision on this issue, I think it important that some mention of this argument be present in the article. Lyrl 02:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fetal pain from PBA/D&X vs. D&E and other late-term abortion procedures 

message: This article seems to only talk about legislation and controversies in the US. Someone who has knowledge should add information about other countries (for example, in how many countries this procedure is legal etc).
:"Partial-birth abortion" is a political term, not a medical term.  It's also a term largely not used outside of the US.  As such, I would think that Intact dilation and extraction is probably the article that need more international information.  --Quasipalm 21:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too US-centered 

message: There are so many different POV problems in this article, I scarcely know where to begin.
A few points though:
1.  The opening paragraph must contain reference to the fact that "partial birth abortion" is not a medical term.
2.  The etymology section must contain reference to the fact that the term was invented by a pro life organization in support of their legislative agenda.
3.  The section about Ron Fitzsimmons and George Tiller is particularly problematic and should be left out completely.  First of all, RF's quote is not sourced and GT's is only sourced on wiki.  But even if the sources were accurate, the quotes themselves are not relevant to IDX/PBA, they're talking about ordinary abortions.
4.  Use of quotes from biased sources (pro-life or pro-choice organizations) should be eliminated from the body of the article.  If a cite can't be reasonably neutral, it should either be left out or moved to the "External Links" section if someone feels very strongly that they should stay.
5.  The statement that "it is undisputed that many laws in the United States are based on religious values" is simply untrue and must be removed. (unsigned)
:I agree with 1, 2, and 4.  I'm neutral on 3 until further research and mildly negative about 5.  Why don't you go ahead and make some of these changes, and we'll see how it goes?  Be bold, right? Alienus 01:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This user has already made those changes.Gheorghe Zamfir 02:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing this out.  It was my error not to have noticed. Alienus 08:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV issues

message: It looks like the cartoon is historically significant for this topic.  From here:
:no one had ever written as detailed and clear a set of intact extraction medical instructions as Haskell was now providing, and his paper, reprinted into a volume of the session’s proceedings, was in right-to-life hands within a matter of weeks.... a homemaker and occasional clinic protester named Jenny Westberg... happened to have some experience at cartooning.... It was Westberg’s idea, upon reading Haskell’s paper, to write about it for Life Advocate, and to illustrate her article with drawings of her own.
:....The issues of Life Advocate containing Westberg’s drawings were mailed to subscribers in early 1993, and when more mainstream organizations such as the National Right to Life Committee saw them, the pictures were modified slightly and then reprinted at once into newspaper advertisements and millions of widely distributed brochures. Their extraordinary impact, which continues to this day, bewilders even Westberg. “I had no idea the pictures were going to be made available internationally,” she says, “or that they were going to be shown in Congress.”
Basically, this technique was invented and started gaining popularity in 1983.  It was not until more than a decade later that we got this whole issue over so-called Partial Birth Abortion - and this cartoon is apparently what set the whole thing off.
The whole copyright issue is problematic, though.  Perhaps we should just include an external link to a site that displays the picture, and limit the actual article to descriptions of the cartoon.Lyrl 23:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cartoon 

message: On this paragraph:
"Since the Stenberg v. Carhart decision, Virginia, Michigan, and Utah have introduced laws that remain virtually identical to the unconstitutional Nebraska law. The Virginia and Michigan laws were similarly struck down due broadness and the failure to provide a health exemption, Utah's law remains pending trial, though is uneforceable due to a court-issued preliminary injunction."
The Utah injunction and pending trial back is from 2004, I assume there must be something new on this front in one way or another, but haven't been able to find an update myself.  Anyone more familiar with the matter have any info? Gheorghe Zamfir 08:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: State Law Update?

message: Goodandevil, however justified you think your changes are, there is no consensus for them, so you need to first come here and discuss the matter.  Your continued refusal to do so, combined with your willingness to revert without explanation, are in bad faith.
If you're right, come here and prove it.  If you can't, then there's no reason to think that you're right. Alienus 17:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am reverting to consensus that was achieved long ago. I also removed blatant POV from several sections, including the first line.  Good 20:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war started by Goodandevil's changes 

message: Neutral version:
*Partial-birth abortion (PBA) is a controversial term sometimes used to refer to the controversial "Intact dilation and extraction" ("IDX" or "Intact D&X") abortion procedure. The term is not a medical, but is a descriptive term used primarily in public, political, and legal discourse — chiefly regarding the legality of abortion in the United States.  
POV version:
*Partial-birth abortion (PBA) is a controversial term sometimes used to refer to "Intact dilation and extraction" ("IDX" or "Intact D&X"). The term is not a medical one but one invented primarily for use in public, political, and legal discourse — chiefly regarding the legality of abortion in the United States. 
If it must be noted that the term is controversial, then the sickening abortion method itself must also carry such an editorial label. Calling the term (widely adopted for common usage) "invented" is also an attempt at editorializing. The medical term was also "invented", but that is not mentioned by the article.   The Neutral version eliminates the POV, while also being truthful and without hding anything.  
Good 20:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The version you call "neutral" repeats the word "controversial".  It also fails to point out that the term was in fact invented solely for anti-choice polemics and has no medical basis. These problems make it less than neutral, so your edit is in violation of NPOV requirements. Alienus 23:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was settled long ago here on the talk pages. I am simply restoring the neutral language that makes no judgments, and sticks to the facts. The procedure is more controversial than the term PBA, so the article should not reflect the opposite. And the term is a descriptive though nonmedical term that the public has adopted.  When discussing the issue in common parlance, no one uses the term IDX. It is not POV to use terms in common usage. It is POV to label such a term as a political invention.  Especially in the intro.  And what is the source fo r the terms origin being definitavely purely political rather than simply descriptive?Good 08:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked through old edits, and I looked through the talk page and couldn't find this matter 'settled'. Could you point me to the section where this is already covered? If the procedure is more controversial than the term, why not go edit the procedure's page. PBA is not the medical term for the procedure. Because the term is political, that aspect should at least be discussed. --Andrew c 16:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro POV problem

message: I have added this intro to the controversy section:
*In the USA, thousands of abortions are performed each year on late-term fetuses, many of which are viable. Such abortions are legal as long as the pregnant woman requests the procedure. The doctors who perform these late term abortions and other abortion advocates have acknowledged that such late-term abortions are normally performed upon healthy woman carrying a healthy fetus. [See comments of Dr. Martin Haskell: [6], Dr. Ron Fitzsimmons [7], and Dr. George Tiller [8] ] The medical description of the procedure strikes many as inhumane. [9]. As a result, for over a decade there have been attempts to criminalize late-term abortions. 
(Links to the quotes from the partial-birth abortionists are hot in the actual particle).
This explains how the issue became so controversial and why. Good 20:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely how many of these late-term abortions are on viable fetuses?  If you want to say "many", you need some numbers.  My understanding, however, is that it's not "many" by any measure.  Why don't you come up with a reliable source for it, then we'll talk. Alienus 23:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: These are good points. Alienus 07:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: A quick Google search shows that the term PBA is not universally accepted and is seen by many in the Pro choice lobby as an attempt to heighten the emotions of an already difficult debate. It is not a medical term and appears to be a commonly used term by Pro life groups. If it is represented as such then it is NPOV. To say it is the "common term" is POV and misleading. Whatever your personal views on this subject it must be reported factually. Pansy Brandybuck AKA SophiaTalkTCF 11:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why all the fuss about PBA?

message: Alien, I was simply refuting point by point your attempts to obfuscate. For clarity: 
*To most people abortion is not simply a religious matter (as you have tried to paint it) - rather its a common sense and human rights issue that also comports with religious views that human life is the greatest material good. 
*Clinical terms for "gravida" and "fetus" are often "mother" and "baby".  
You can keep posting dismissive comments and pretending to be polite while sneering and posting links to rules that you don't yourself heed - but I will try to keep rephrasing until you understand. I did not bring these issues up, YOU did. Good 01:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Once more for clarity

message: Today's NYT (April 3, 2006) notes that both sides of this debate invoke God (and always have).  Funny how some editors here think pro-life policy is simply religious but pro-abortion policy is wholly secular.  Such a view is clearly POV - and abortion-related wikipedia articles should not be written under the erroneous assumption that it is factual.  Even the pro-abortion NYT understands that such a view is balderdash. Good 09:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Today's NYTimes headline: ''The Abortion-Rights Side Invokes God''

message: The article Late-term abortion exists and has virtually no content.  It should either redirect here, or this should be moved there.  What do people think? -GTBacchus(talk) 17:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be better to merge the content into Late-term abortion as this is a more commonly known term - predating PBA and much more NPOV. Then D&X and D&E could be linked from there with the term PBA being correctly identified as a political not medical term used by some to describe some forms of D&X. PBA is a very USA term which I had not heard of until coming across it here. Having two close friends who had to suffer this due to fatal abnormalities of much wanted babies I am very concerned that the way the article is currently written would be very distressing to them. Pansy Brandybuck AKA SophiaTalkTCF 18:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur with the confused personification of wisdom, who is undergoing a brief hiatus disguised as a hobbit (that means concur with Sophia.) There is virtually nothing at Late term; propose we simply delete, move this there, and be done. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Ditto. Alienus 18:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, in another day or two, if no other admin has done it yet, I will. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PBA is largely an American term. LTA should be the main article and if anything PBA should link off from there as a subset of LTA's. The only 2 LTA's that I have personal knowledge of do not conform to the PBA method mentioned here as the foetal skull was not collapsed (or they didn't look like it from the photos my friends had of thier babies) and I think much is being made of this issue to heighten emotions. This is a difficult subject and being acurate with the facts is very important to avoid misinforming the reader. Pansy Brandybuck AKA SophiaTalkTCF 22:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The BBC is familiar with the term.  THank God late term abortion is normally outlawed. But in th US it is legal through till the very end. The fact that PBA does not exist to any large extent elsewhere in the world is all the more reason to keep PBA as its own article. Also: wikipedia articles should not be written so as not to hurt someone's feelings.  The article should not seek to make anyone feel bad, but the articles should not choose language so as to soft-pedal any facts.        Good 22:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disclosure: I am a Christian living in the UK.  The law here is much less of a mess than that in the States, partly because we have pretty much one legal code rather than multiple state legislatures, but mostly because for the most part it is written by medical professionals in the Department of Health without excessive interference from people who are ideologically opposed to medical termination of pregnancy in principle.  The time limit is, I believe, 24 weeks, and there has been some talk of reducing that to 20 weeks, but in extremis terminations can be performed much later.  A fairly broad view is taken of what constitutes harm to the mother - few terminations are refused in the first trimester at least - but the definition of harm tends again to be in the hands of the doctors, and there is fair evidence that they take a more conservative view later in the term.  Parents are not required to be notified, something which has recently been unsuccessfully challenged in the courts.  The law allowing terminations was the result of many, many problems caused by back-street abortionists; the evidence is that attempting to ban termination just drives it underground.  The word "abortion" is also considered loaded, and is much less likely to be used in formal debate than is the case in the US. The term "partial birth abortion" has never, to my knowledge, been used in the context of the UK debate.  As to soft-pedalling facts, that rather dpeends on what you mean.  If by not soft-pedalling facts you mean describing this as a "procedure for killing babies" (not that you have), then that would fail WP:NPOV.  To describe it as a non-medical term coined by opponents of the procedure is accurate and harms nobody.  As long as we remain neutral and avoid weasel words there should be no problems.  Just zis Guy you know? 10:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The BBC uses the term in the context of a report from America - it is not used in the UK at all as far as I'm aware. In the UK LTA's are legal up to birth in the case of abnormality of the foetus - presumably to give women the option of not having to go full term with a baby that will die at birth (both the cases I know of fall into this category). In fact to have carried the baby to term would have limited the number of live children one friend could have had as she has to deliver full term babies by c section due to hip problems (she was told 3 c sections was her limit). I'm not contesting that people's feelings will be hurt by reading this article - what  concerns me is that generalisations are being made about the technique that are false and seem motivated by a desire to distress the reader. Pansy Brandybuck AKA SophiaTalkTCF 23:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The main article should be at late-term. Partial birth should address that it is a term used by american pro-life, has gained wider currency, the history and useage of the term, in other words. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  This article encyclopaedically describes the procedure known by opponents as "partial birth abortion" and to merge that with late term abortion would skew the latter article to no good purpose. Just zis Guy you know? 09:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge with [[Late-term abortion]]? 

message: This page says "In 2002, 1.29 million abortions took place" in the second paragraph.  There is a graph between the sections "medication abortion" and "safety of abortion" that shows 1.4% of abortions take place at 21 weeks or more.  1.29 million multiplied by 1.4% is 18,000 abortions after 21 weeks per year.
I apologize for linking to the wrong page for the second citation.  The correct link has a section called "Provider Caseloads and Types of Procedures"; the dilation and extraction procedure is discussed in the last paragraph of that section. Lyrl 22:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize for missing the graph on your first reference. I was doing a text serach of the page for certain key numbers. 18,000 seemed a little high compared to this, however the CDC information was based on voluntary reporting. I guess there were around 436,000 unreported abortions, at least estimated by AGI.--Andrew c 01:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote in the 3rd paragraph about most LTA's being done on healthy women and healthy foetus' is nearly 10 years old - are there any newer data/quotes? It's also a quite confusing read as it's talking about LTA's in general not PBA's. This confusion would be solved by making the main article LTA with this article as a subtopic of IDX which is where it really belongs and would save all the duplication of having to explain the LTA statistics. Pansy Brandybuck AKA SophiaTalkTCF 20:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Alienus, I think you've got a very strong point.  Particularly in view of the fact that the PBA is purely a political term rather than a medical one.  Details of the procedures are described under the appropriate technical articles.  The proper focus with this article is the political and social context. Ande B 01:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations in intro 

message: A section on this subject was just removed. While the current version of the section wasn't very helpful and focused on abortion in general, I think we a) do need some mention of the general religious problems with abortion and b) how different religious groups have handled this specifically. There are some strange cases. For example, among certain groups of orthodox jews, they support many forms of abortion but strongly condemn partial birth abortion since under halachah a  fetus is consider to have full rights of a person as soon as the head passes out of the birth canal. Thoughts? JoshuaZ 00:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious view of PBA 

message: In addition to his usual issue with the fact that this is a political, not a medical term, G&E added the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Partial-birth_abortion&diff=48400815&oldid=48400615
I don't think we should be adding great chunks of text like that without discussion, especially since quite a bit of it looks to me to be pushing a particular POV, and it seems like an attempt to fork intact dilation and extraction. Just zis Guy you know? 10:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See above: consensus for those changes is lacking.  As is consensus for making this a POV fork of intact dilation and extraction. Use of the term "abortion advocates", for example, is inherently POV.   Many people who are pro-choice do not advocate abortion, they merely support the right to it.** Some pro-choice people believe that abortion is often morally wrong, but choose not to impose their own moral judgment on others (that would be me). Why de-emphasise the fact that the term is a non-medical one coined by opponents? ***   That is the literal truth. Just zis Guy you know? 12:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry - there is a POV fork here.  The text you inserted was a POV representation of the text already at intact dilation and extraction.  Why duplicate it?  We already have an article describing the procedure and its history.  If you want to merge this content into the article on IDX and redirect to there (as the title which is technically correct for the procedure) feel free to propose such a merge.  This entire article is perilously close to a POV fork of that anyway, but can be justified as a description of the political term. Just zis Guy you know? 16:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, I'd love to you see support that claim with citations from a reliable source. Alienus 01:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added by Goodandevil 

message: I propose that we remove the interest groups section of the external links. This article is about PBA, not pro-choice or pro-life or the abortion debate. --Andrew c 16:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection.  Link to an article on the politics of abortion. Just zis Guy you know? 18:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  interest groups? 

message: To improve the quality of this article, neutral citations are needed for these inclusions in the article: 
*1. For the assertion that the term partial birth abortion is used solely by pro-lifers.
*2. Who uses the term PBA to apply to D&E?
*3. Who is calling D&E a seperate procedure?
*4. Neutral source for annual IDX numbers (other than the activist AGI).
____G_o_o_d____ 03:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deja vu. Didn't I list a whole slew of references further up on the talk page a few weeks back? Anyway. #1. I do not believe the wording is implies "used solely by" but perhaps that specific part could be cleared up. #2 Who doesn't? See my citations (especially the supreme court ruling This Court agrees with the Eighth Circuit that the D&E procedure falls within the statutory prohibition of intentionally delivering into the vagina a living fetus...). #3 Everyone. Here  is a pro-life site that lists D&E and D&X seperately. and here  is a health organization that lists them seperately. #4  I don't know how to respond to that. Do you have any other source that has tried to calculate the number of annual procedures? --Andrew c 03:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Andrew, you're completely right.  Evil is jumping the gun by making changes BEFORE a consensus here supports them.  Perhaps that's because he doesn't expect that support, so he's trying to make it fait accompli so as to undercut these discussions.  Perhaps he's just hasty.  Either way, I reverted his last string of non-consensual changes, which were not of good quality. Alienus 17:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was still in the middle of my partial revert when you did the full revert. So take a look and see if you agree with my compromise version. (The first paragraph is starting to read poorly. The sentences are disjoined and choppy. I think all these little nit picks and fine points and compromises are destroying the reading of the first paragraph.)--Andrew c 17:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with the content of your compromise version, although we can always improve the language. Alienus 19:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for trying to work in some of my concerns. But we need to go further. The opening three paragraphs of the PBA article contain more information about D&E than IDX. While the court ruling of language in the PBA laws (but not the term PBA itself) is significant, this article mis-represents reality. No one thinks D&E is PBA except some lawyers who did not like the PBA law, and found a legal technicality (in the law's language other than the term "PBA" itself) that seemed vague emough to void the law. Instead the articel reads as if people actually use the term PBA to refer to D&E abortions. In fact, if written correctly, the article ought to treat this matter much more tangentially. The discourse on the technical flaw found in the law (but NOT in the actual term "PBA") belongs in the article on abortion law or Abortion in the United States.  Please post a source that demonstrates that it is usual for people to use the term PBA to mean D&E (not simply that a law that aimed to outlaw IDX PBAs unintentionally contained langauge vague enough that it could be interpreted to ban some D&E abortions). ____G_o_o_d____ 19:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: That may be true - but is there a source for that? ____G_o_o_d____ 11:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations needed

message: I found this:
*The Alan Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of the abortion industry, reports that the rate of maternal death for women having an abortion at 21 weeks' gestation or later is more than twice the maternal death rate in childbirth. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine reports 15 to 16 weeks' gestation as the point at which abortion becomes more dangerous than childbirth.(Thorp, J.M. and Bowes, W.A. "Pro-Life Perinatologist--Paradox or Possibility?" The New England Journal of Medicine, April 30, 1992, p. 1217, 1218.)
That PBA carries twice as much risk for maternal death as does childbirth, I think, deserves a mention in the article. ____G_o_o_d____ 08:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That say nothing about "partial birth abortion". It has no place in this article. On top of that, how do expect us to trust the non-neutral, activist AGI? There is no need for their propaganda in this article :P (that is unless it benefits our personal POV) ha!--Andrew c 17:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, one source is not AGI, but a medical journal. And it covers all abortions done after 15 weeks - and virtually all IDXs are done after 15 weeks. So it certainly is relevant information. Espcially since the article already discusses health risks. You must have some handle on logic. Logic would tell us that AGI, an abortion advocacy research think tank, is not skewing the figures to make abortion look any worse than they are forced to by the data - though they might refuse to report data that makes abortion look bad (or skew it to make it look better). Because AGI is an abortion advocacy business, when AGI data exposes a chink in the abortion armor, the data is not as suspect as it is when it makes abortion look as safe as taking aspirin.  Of course this data is certainly relevant if this article is to make any claims about the safety of having a late-term PBA abortion. If such claims are in this article, then this data about the higher death risk of late term abortion versus childbirth will need to be included to avoid presenting an incomplete picture. Besides, it is abortion advocates who make the claim that PBA is safer for some women, so using abortion advocacy data to actually note the higher death risk with PBA is not at all problematic to my earlier expressed preference to treat AGI data and all other data generated by abortion advocacy as POV. Until abortion articles at wikipedia do treat AGI as POV, I don't feel obliged to follow a standard that the article rejects.  And again, in this case, the abortion advocates' claim that IDX is sometimes the safest thing for a woman is already in the article - so arguing that the article should keep out the abortion advocates' other claim that abortion after 20 weeks has a higher risk of fatality than childbirth is quite illogical. ____G_o_o_d____ 19:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Something to add here, and to the IDX article

message: I found two interesting references to what amounts to the same thing as IDX: fetal craniotomy.
It is over 100 years old. And is still a recommended procedure.  What is most interesting is that the WHO website even gives line drawings - which are almost identical to the ones that are always falsely characterized as being pro-life misrepresentations of what occurs during IDX.
*Academic Ob/Gyn paper from 1888  
*World Health Organization procedure guide for midwives and doctors
I ask someone to suggest language for including this information.
____G_o_o_d____ 08:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you put aside the WP:OR and instead look for a WP:RS that cites this. Your judgement on this matter is questionable Alienus 19:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not original research. The World Health Organization and Human Life Review have already researched it for us. BTW, since you are pro-abortion (check the dictionary before carping about that word), I invite you to knock it off with the "I am neutral, you are biased" crap. It is not helpful - and it has no effect on me. ____G_o_o_d____ 19:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On topic: What does this have to do with PBA? Maybe try expanding the existing Craniotomy article first? When I get more time I'll look through the 308 google hits for 'Craniotomy "partial birth"' and see if there is anything more helpful in regards to this article. Off topic: look up 'anti-choice' in the dictionary. --Andrew c 19:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does appear that craniotomy used to be the solution when a full-term or near full-term child just would not exit the uterus. The craniotomy was done with the child totally inside, not after breach deliver of the feet and torso. Today ceasarian is used - but it used to be much more risky, so craniotomy was sometimes employed.  Currently, the procedure seems to also be recommended in developing countries for the removal of a late term dead fetus from a woman when cesarian is not possible. That is what the diagram shows - an IDX of a dead fetus.  I did find testimony that abortionists do use the term "craniotomy" to refer to perforating the skull so as to crush it to make it easier to exit the uterus. Which is in fact exactly what PBA entails. As I said, it is interesting - perhaps the term craniotomy could be incorporated into the IDX article to describe that portion of the procedure.  ____G_o_o_d____ 21:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Craniotomy

message: "When you're a doctor who does these abortions and the leaders of your movement appear before Congress and go on network news and say these procedures are done in only the most tragic of circumstances, how do you think that makes you feel? You know they're primarily done on healthy women and healthy fetuses, and it makes you feel like a dirty little abortionist with a dirty little secret. I think we should tell them the truth, let them vote and move on. 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. The abortion-rights folks know it, the anti-abortion folks know it, and so, probably, does everyone else."  - Ron Fitzsimmons, Executive Director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, New York Times, 2/26/1997 
____G_o_o_d____ 09:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a nearly 10 year old quote - it shouldn't be used at all. If there is a more up to date version talking about current abortion figures then that could go in. However the quote above  could be used in a "history of abortion" article or the history of IDX (if there is one). Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 15:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have a souce that anything has changed in regard to what the abortion lobby spokesman stated 9 years ago, by all means cite it. Otherwise this is a voice with authority making a statement that there is no reason to doubt. ____G_o_o_d____ 18:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote appears to be related to the issue of late-term terminations, not the term "partial  birth abortion".  It would apply equally to any late-term termination of a viable pregnancy. Just zis Guy you know? 19:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: In context, I believe this statement was made precisely about PBA. That is what the NYT story was about. And he was answering a question about IDX PBA. He even refers to the vote in Congress - which was the PBA ban vote. I have found the congressional record that contains the information on pages 13 and 14 of this PDF file.    ____G_o_o_d____ 20:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Abortion lobbyist notes that PBA/IDX is on healthy women with healthy fetuses

message: I have made factual edits to the Partial-birth abortion article. If you have sources that contradict those facts, please let me know.  For example, the statement of Fitzsimmons was changed to note the date of 1997 - so i made a corresponding change to note that the 2200 number is also from the late 1990s. The same standard needs to be applied to all information included. If the date is so important for the Fitzsimmons comment, then the date is likewise important for the AGI data. And I also had to correct the flase information that Fitzsimmons made the statement as the former Exec director - he was the director when he made the statement and he was expressly retractin and apologizing for the previous misinformation (lie) he had put out during a TV appearance. This is well documented by the mainstream press. And the AGI data is no problem, but even the wikipedia article notes that the Alan Guttmacher Institute is in the business of abortion advocacy - so the reader should be made aware that AGI has a pro-choice bias. Otherwise to avoid bias the article would need to include  the annual number estimated by pro-life advocacy groups without noting the source and simply stating langauge such as "there are estimates that range from 2200 to 5000 per year" - and i don't think some of you would want that to happen.   ____G_o_o_d____ 11:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe either of the quotes need to be dated in the text.  The AGI number was collected by the most reliable method (their survey methodology is very thorough).  It is the most recently available number.  If others dispute that, we can work it out on this talk page, we don't need to take the discussion into the actual article.  I believe the date of the Fitzsimmons quote is irrelevant to its merit.  It's probably as accurate today as it was ten years ago.  But I question whether the reasons women have late term abortions are relevant to an article about a specific procedure.  If the objection to LTA is that the women and fetuses are healthy, the objection should be to ALL methods, not just one.  If the objection is to one method, then the health of the women and fetuses is irrelevent.Lyrl 23:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The safety of late-term abortions is relevant to the late-term abortion article.  Once the decision has been made to have a late-term abortion, the safety of late-term abortion overall is not relevant to the decision of which procedure to use.  The safety claims for PBA come from not having toxic chemicals injected into the uterus, and not having sharp objects repeatedly inserted into the uterus as happens with other methods of late-term abortion.  I.e. the comparison is to other LTA methods, not to childbirth.  No studies have been done to compare the safety of different LTA methods, however, so all claims that PBA is more or less dangerous than other methods are currently hypothesis only. Lyrl 23:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New factual edits

message: I'd move to remove the third paragraph. It is clearly about the IDX procedure, not PBA. Maybe it could be replaced with something along the lines of: "Depending on what definition of PBA is used, the procedure only makes up between 0.15% to 2% of all abortion procedures". --Andrew c 14:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what you are saying is that pro-lifers use PBA to refer only to IDX, and the politicans are the ones who made the mistake of not clearly defining the term when they went to ban the procedure? If PBA and IDX are synonymous, then there is NO reason to have two different articles about the exact same thing, because they would just be POV forks. Also, if PBA and IDX were synonymous, you would think that the first instance a court decided that the proposed ban's language was vague, the politicians would have fixed that. The fact of the matter is, for whatever reason, none of the legislature aimed towards banning PBA has made it clear that they want one specific abortion procedure banned in certain circumstances. If it has all been a big mix up, it should have been fixed by now (look at the AMA's history. how they initially proposed a new wording and supported a ban, but later retracted their support of any of the legislation.) I think this issue goes into "what should the purpose of this article be?"--Andrew c 15:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3rd paragraph