Partial birth abortion indefensible, wrong

We had two snow days in a row? The Chief is being retired? The YouTube creator is speaking at commencement?

This semester I've been abroad in Austria, studying up on my German grammar and taking full advantage of Vienna's renowned coffee culture - happily oblivious to all but the most newsworthy of campus events. And although last semester not a weekday went by without my thorough perusal of the DI opinion pages, I must confess that lately my thoughts have been too preoccupied with EU energy policy and "finding myself" abroad to pay much attention to the daily cheers and jeers printed here.

But two days ago, Eric Naing covered the recent Supreme Court ruling upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 2003, a topic I myself dealt with in these very pages during the initial hearings. Naing briefly glanced over the ruling, what partial birth abortion is and the implications the decision has for women, choosing to focus most of his column as a swirling tunnel of accusations pointed at (surprise, surprise) conservative Christians and George W. Bush.

Even the occasional DI reader will be familiar with Naing's tendency to blame most/all of America's problems on the Christian Right/Bush Administration, a tired but not uncommon battle cry from the ranks of the cynical far-left. I would have gladly done a point/counterpoint with him on this, but under the circumstances this trans-Atlantic attempt at balance will have to suffice.

To begin, this issue belongs neither to the political right nor to Christianity. Eighty Democratic Congressmen voted for the Partial-Birth Abortion Act, including such prominent members as Harry Reid (current U.S. Senate Majority Leader), Patrick Leahy (current chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee) and Evan Bayh. And while Christianity and anti-abortion beliefs often overlap, organizations like the National to Life Committee and Feminists for Life of America are purposefully non-sectarian. Washington Post and Village Voice columnist Nat Hentoff, who describes himself as a Jewish, atheist, civil libertarian pro-lifer, explains, "There is the biological fact that after conception, a being has been formed with unique human characteristics. He or she, if allowed to survive, will be unlike anyone born before." It is entirely possible, even rational, to find abortion repugnant outside the sphere of religious belief.

Of course, this particular Supreme Court ruling deals only with partial-birth abortion, aka dilation and extraction. Naing's description of the procedure, "when an intact fetus is delivered into the vaginal canal and then removed" artfully uses medical jargon to transform this brutal procedure into something almost benign. What literally happens is the doctor delivers the child up to a certain point - if headfirst, up to the shoulders, and if breech, up to the navel - then completes the abortion using any number of techniques, including jamming a sharp instrument into the skull and pulling the brain matter out, collapsing the skull or crushing the skull with metal tongs.

Perhaps this procedure could be slightly defendable if it were necessary to save the life of a mother. But the American College of Obstetricians could not identify a single circumstance in which partial-birth abortion "would be the only option" to save or preserve the health of the woman. The National Review Online stated, "Nobody has ever shown an instance in which partial-birth abortion was necessary to save the life or health of a woman."

Abortion advocates fight against this ruling and fear it as the first step toward outlawing all abortion. But quite frankly, that argument is pathetic in light of the facts. Partial-birth abortion is never necessary to save the life of the mother. It is a procedure of convenience. Naing asks you to "realize that this issue is about the rights and health of women, not politics," then puts forth a laundry list of grievances against the Bush Administration and the Christian Right.

This is not about the health of the woman. It is not about privacy and it is not about politics. It is about compassion and humanity on the most basic level, that if you insist on issuing a death sentence you might at least avoid using the most cruel and callous method possible.