2. Elective means 'not performed on an emergency basis". Elective, on demand abortions, ARE illegal after viability (approximately) in 40 states.

 3. The Phantom Procedure AKA the so called 'partial birth abortion' IF it is supposed to be the ID&X, is performed as early as 18 weeks and on rare occasions slightly earlier. Most such abortions,  99.6% according to AGI,  are performed prior to viability.

4. Most abortion opponents still believe that when they are talking about the Phantom Procedure they are talking about an ID&X.

5. In debating this issue with Abortion Opponents I very frequently hear, and believe it to be a majority opinion of that group sentences like " So when people refer to the practice of "PBA's" they are most likely referring to LTAs". In other words it appears that the majority of the people in the Abortion Opposition camp believe the term PBA and LTA are the same.

6. If you are referring to the ID&X procedure with very very few exceptions you are actually referring to mid term abortions.

Q. You refer to LTA as statistically insignificant in this debate. On the previous board you stated Late Term Abortions accounted for 0.6% of all abortions performed in the USA, which does indeed make it a statistical actuality. If something is statistically non-existent, I would expect the statistic to represent it to be 0.0%.

Then let me clear up this misconception first. If, in a very large set, - containing 1.25 million eg - you have a subset so small that it would not be noticed when generating statistics concerning that main set - say containing 500 eg then it is 'statistically insignificant'. It's so small that it's inclusion or removal will not significantly effect the overall statistical analysis.

Now I realize that a number of abortion opponents will interpret what I just said to mean that the so called PBA accounts for only 0.6% of abortions. Actually I didn't say that, and it is this type of conclusion that shows where the confusion is created in using a term that is SUPPOSED to describe a *TIME* when a procedure is carried out *AND* SUPPOSED to describe a particular METHOD being used and do both of these at the same time. The attempt to mix the two into one encompassing term is what has continually led to confusion.

Let's check the numbers for the METHOD first .

If you go look at this chart you will find there were 1,210,883 performed in 1995. Of those 0.6% were performed by 'other' methods and ID&X (Intact Dilation and Extraction) would be a small subset of that 0.6%. Now 0.6% of 1,210,883 is 7,265 and by far the majority of those would be D&E (Dilation and Evacuation). Let us guess that 1/4 (there is no way of verifying) of the 7,265 are actually ID&X it would mean a total of ¼ X 7,256 = 1,816 ID&Xs were performed in 1995.

Now let's check the TIMING.

Using a combination of the first chart linked above and this table for the % breakdown  we can figure most of that of those 7,265 , which includes the 1,816 ID&Xs, were performed after 18 weeks. (We also need some common sense to conclude that Ø of these were done before 16 weeks).

If they follow the pattern of other years (see 1992 ) then 75% of these 1,816 are performed in the 18-21 week range = 1,362 of them. 

This would be typical since test results are beginning to show fetal anomalies and the woman wants to terminate the pregnancy as soon as possible after that point. 

The breakdown for the remaining 454 would be (following the same 1992 pattern) 

% of later abortions Number and When performed

63% or  286  in week 21-22

30% or  136  in week 23-24

5% or  23 in week 25-26

2% or  9 after week 26

Remember that beyond this point the fetus is getting too large to use this procedure so after week 27 the number performed would be Ø. 

Perhaps now you understand what I mean by 'not statistically significant'.

So essentially what is being discussed - if you are seriously talking about combining the terms ID&X and LTA - is 9 abortions in 1995 and you can be sure these were performed for either fetal anomaly or to preserve the woman's life. As the AMA says other methods were available but they were the best method in the opinion of the attending physician. If 'pain' is your worry then there are certainly ways of taking care of this after sentience {26 weeks} (if it is not already a part of the physician's normal procedure). 
 

I believe the constant complaint of terminology is simply a red herring to divert attention away from what a "PBA" or LTA truly is. It is not a pretty picture. 

Sorry no. It's countering propaganda concerning a Phantom Procedure and if there are any stinky herrings around the people talking of infanticide on a huge scale are the ones making the stink. NO surgical procedure is aesthetically pleasing but that is not the objective.
 

I  assume ID&X is rarely used on a "viable" fetus.

Even if we were to grant the 24 week point as a possibly viable point then we are talking of 32 abortions in 1995,  and I stand by the reasons provided above - since I don't believe women are monsters who trip gaily to the local clinic or hospital to terminate pregnancies for no medical reason at 24 weeks. I find this presentation of women to be not only extremely disrespectful of those who are forced to terminate usually very wanted pregnancies at this late stage by circumstances beyond their control, but also it's misogynistic in it's portrayal of women. It is close to hate mongering in my book. Again these are medically necessary terminations and the alternative, much less aesthetically pleasing, methods which are available will leave the unfortunate woman with a towel filled with pieces to mourn.

You know perfectly well the controversy surrounding "PBA's" and LTA's is the fact that the fetus could most likely live outside the womb at the time the procedure (which many consider barbaric) is done.

Speaking pragmatically the purpose of abortion is to terminate a pregnancy. Again once we come to the 16-18 week stage there really is NO aesthetically pleasing method of achieving that goal. Whether the D&E, or ID&X, or LI (Labor Induction) which produces a partly formed fetus, or whatever method, the outcome will be the same - a dead fetus. If these abortions are performed before week 26 there is insufficient sentience and completed neural pathways for any possibility of the fetus experiencing pain. ID&X in these circumstances is just another abortion method, and depending on the skill, geographic location, and gestational timing of the pregnancy, may be the best choice available for a particular termination.

So the questions that need to be answered - and obviously they are a reflection of my own feeling on this topic - are these.

1/ Why, when used with a pre sentient termination where the possibility of the fetus actually experiencing pain is Ø, should any abortion method be chosen over another for any other reason than the skill and training of the operating physician. What I'm saying is that the objective, outcome, and 'non suffering' component is the same and there is no need reason for either choosing OR ELIMINATING one method.

Speaking directly to the NRLC claim that we "we put animals to sleep in a more humane fashion" this comment refers to sentient animals - so the comparison between non sentient fetuses is invalid. Further the legislation 'banning' the Phantom Procedure "PBA" does not refer to cranial decompression but to a procedure where the physician 'partially vaginally delivers a living fetus' - and if it did refer to cranial decompression would eliminate the common method of dealing with some hydrocephalic deliveries that often lead to the death of the woman. We frequently see this quoted (as 'sucking brains out') by opponents of ID&X but the words do not appear in the legislation because they really are not that interested in banning any particular procedure.

2/ When it is claimed that "80% of Intact D & X are performed on healthy mothers and healthy fetuses" the numbers above would indicate that this *could* be quite accurate if you make the assumption that ALL those performed before viability are NOT being performed for any 'medically indicated' reason concerning either fetal anomaly of the woman's health. However is not a safe assumption since many will be performed as a direct outcome of fetal testing in the 16+ gestation stage.

The question then is why do Abortion Opponents  make absolutely NO DISTINCTION between abortions performed PRE viability and AFTER viability with respect to this ID&X procedure - or to put it more clealy why do they pretend, by inserting the word 'birth', that all these ID&X abortions are being performed five minutes before birth when NONE of them would be possible at that stage?

I really hope Abortion Opponents now understand why this can not be true. This is what the propaganda concerning the Phantom Procedure tries to portray but this is not reality.

Eileen