Bush Signs Away Women's Right to Choose
By Ariana Klitzner
Contributing Writer

On Wednesday, November 5, President Bush signed into law the Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003. For the first time in 30 years since Roe v. Wade, a law has been ratified which limits a woman’s right to choose. This new law is problematic not only because it limits women’s abortion options, but because of the ways in which it does so.

First, “Partial Birth Abortion” is not a medical term. The type of abortion addressed by this law is actually only one form of late term abortion. Late term abortion refers to abortions performed in the third trimester of pregnancy. To be medically accurate, the procedure specifically targeted by the law is called “intact dilation and extraction” or D&X. However, the fact that the medically inaccurate phrase “Partial Birth” is used in the wording of the law makes the extent of the law vague. Due to its current ambiguities, the law has the potential to outlaw all forms of late term abortion, as well as procedures after the first 12 weeks. It will not only endanger the lives of women who need the D&X procedure, but also of women who may need an abortion after the first trimester. Since the law was passed, many clinics stopped offering any second and third trimester abortions for fear of penalties such as fines and up to two years imprisonment.

Labeling late term abortion as “partial birth abortion” not only encroaches on a woman’s right to protect her health, but it also places added stigma on an already difficult act. Much of the right-wing discourse about abortion has characterized women who choose to undergo an abortion as immoral and unable to responsibly control their reproduction. Included in Bush’s plan to reduce U.S. abortions, is the promotion of adoption and sexual abstinence, in addition to this ban on late term abortions. Placing those two programs in the same category as abortion shows the utter misconceptions surrounding abortions performed after the first trimester. Most women seeking abortions in their second and third trimester are not looking for alternate contraception options; they are undergoing the procedure for medical safety reasons. Right-wing discourse would have the public believe that there are hoards of sexually irresponsible women undergoing D&X procedures in their eighth month. This is simply not true. Only ten percent of abortions are performed after the first trimester, the majority of which occur in the second trimester when the fetus is not yet viable. Only 1% of abortions are performed after week 21. More importantly, D&X is performed in less than 0.2% of all abortion cases. However, the invasive and graphic nature of D&X is used delegitimize all late term abortions as well as those performed in the second trimester.

Though the wording of the law says, “A ban on the partial birth procedure will therefore advance the health interests of women seeking to terminate a pregnancy,” it is clearly part of the Presidential administration’s agenda to ban abortion completely in the United States. The administration, in its other policies, has already made clear that is does not support any type of abortion. According to the international Global Gag Rule, any organization, even those providing basic medical assistance to citizens of developing countries, are denied U.S. Aid for providing any information about abortion even if it is necessary for saving a woman’s life. The Partial Birth Abortion Act is simply one step in a process to ban all forms of abortion in the U.S., as the government has already effectually done internationally.

The constitutionality of the Partial Birth Abortion Act is currently being discussed by several courts because it does not protect the health of the mother. Under the new law, late term abortion is only allowed if, at the moment of the procedure, the life of the mother is endangered. It does not take into account medical circumstances which would affect the mother’s health, but may not directly result in death. In almost all cases, late term abortions are performed because the mother’s health is at risk. The danger can be the result of a woman’s preexisting medical conditions which would prevent her from safely carrying the fetus to full term. The procedure can also be used when a fetus suffers from such severe abnormalities that it will not survive being carried to full term or for long past its birth. In cases in which a fetus will not survive to full term, the woman’s life is also put in danger. For those fetuses that would only live a short time after birth, there is more heated debate on whether abortion is a possibility. For almost all of these births, however, the life of the child would be brief and filled with pain. While it is difficult to say that a fetus that could be carried to full term should not be born, late term abortions are meant to avoid the physical and mental suffering of both the child and the parents. It is more problematic to bring a child into the world so that it can languish in the hospital for six months, wearing away at the emotional, financial and physical well being of its parents, than it is to perform an abortion before it reaches full term.

The decision to have an abortion, especially a late term abortion, is not taken lightly by women or the doctors who advise them. Women do not have late term abortions because they were lazy and put off the procedure. They do not wake up one morning after seven months of pregnancy and decide they no longer want to have a child. Almost all women who have late term abortions, and most that have second term abortions, want to have a baby, but cannot because of medical complications. They need to have a full range of options available to them to protect their health. D&X is not a pleasant procedure, and I think it should be avoided if other medical possibilities exist. Many doctors, however, have argued that, in some cases, it is the only procedure that will prove effective. The most appropriate procedure for a particular woman is not up to Congress, the President, or me to decide. It is a decision that needs to be made by a woman and her doctor based on her individual circumstances. Enacting a blanket ban will only limit the options available to protect women’s lives.

The Partial Birth Abortion Act is a law that was sponsored solely by ten male politicians. A handful of old men should, in no way, be legislating limitations upon the personal decisions of women across the nation. I respect the right of each woman to make the decision that is best for both her own politics and her own body. To do so, she has to have the options available to her to make the best choices. The government, especially the President, should not have the power to take away a woman’s right to protect her own life or control her own body.