Say it with me: D&X, Late Term. Say it again and again

Because I just looked at the front page of this forum and saw the right wing's terminology used EVERY TIME.

Use quote marks all you want, the damage is done. We lost this battle because we let them control the language. And everyone here who uses the term PBA helped it happen. I'm disgusted that we can't even have a discussion about it without people throwing fake terms out, granting the right's premise.

When you let the opponent set the parameters, you are dooming yourself. At some point we have to take control of the debate back.

For Release: October 3, 2003
Contact: ACOG Office of Communications
communications@acog.org


Statement on So-Called "Partial Birth Abortion" Law
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists


Washington, DC -- The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) continues to oppose so-called "partial birth abortion" laws, including the conference committee bill approved by the US House of Representatives yesterday and sent to the US Senate. "Partial birth abortion" is a non-medical term apparently referring to a particular abortion procedure known as intact dilatation and extraction (intact D&X, or D&X), a rare variant of a more common midterm abortion procedure know as dilatation and evacuation (D&E).

Entire release posted here:
http://www.mahablog.com/

Every single one of those gutless Dems should be ashamed of themselves...

Chickenshits...

However, I was snipped at yesterday for using the phrase "late term abortion," because it gives the misimpression that this procedure is always called for in the third trimester, which is not the case. Frank Luntz would probably also point out that people have negative associations with the word "late," and might subconsciously view "late-term abortion" as an act of delinquency. Thus Luntz, who probably focus-grouped "partial birth abortion" into memehood would find "late-term abortion" a suitable substitute for "partial birth."

But your basic point is right on the money. See my thread about an ABC News poll confirming that Americans, while wanting to ban "partial birth abortions" (as the questionnaire has it), want the "health exception" to remain intact. This means, of course, that they don't want D&X's outlawed at all. They want to outlaw the fringe right's strawman. This is a strawman abortion advocates and Democrats should be making a LOT of hay about.

However, I was snipped at yesterday for using the phrase "late term abortion," because it gives the misimpression that this procedure is always called for in the third trimester, which is not the case. Frank Luntz would probably also point out that people have negative associations with the word "late," and might subconsciously view "late-term abortion" as an act of delinquency. Thus Luntz, who probably focus-grouped "partial birth abortion" into memehood would find "late-term abortion" a suitable substitute for "partial birth."

Then let's just call it D&X. I saw the post that asked you to stop using LTA. I personally don't see the problem with it. It does take place later in the term than most other forms of abortion.

But I do agree that the biggest problem is that people don't understand it, therefore they are more open to suggestion. PBA has a sensationalist connotation. I wish we could call it D&X, but people's heads would explode.


But your basic point is right on the money. See my thread about an ABC News poll confirming that Americans, while wanting to ban "partial birth abortions" (as the questionnaire has it), want the "health exception" to remain intact. This means, of course, that they don't want D&X's outlawed at all. They want to outlaw the fringe right's strawman. This is a strawman abortion advocates and Democrats should be making a LOT of hay about.

Amen times ten.

I think people hear that and think it means close to the end of a pregnancy. D&X is actually a second-trimester procedure, which is "mid term" as far as I'm concerned.

Maha, mother of two

But what kind of precedent do we set if we adapt our terminology to pander to the uninformed? If people are that misinformed about the procedure, we have a much bigger problem than what we call it. I'm happy to just use D&X, but I don't think most people who use the PBA label even know what D&X is. They probably think it's a rapper.

"D&X, which is the so-called 'partial birth abortion' procedure ..."

"The procedure erroneously called 'partial birth' but which is actualy 'D&X.'"

"D&X, the procedure forerly known as 'partial birth'"

Cumbersome, yes, but this is WAR, dammit! Nobody said it would be EASY!

I just think it's crazy that it's not politically correct to publically state that:
There's NO SUCH THING as "partial birth abortion".



------
http://gore2004.meetup.com
Support your local "the REAL President"

But your basic point is right on the money. See my thread about an ABC News poll confirming that Americans, while wanting to ban "partial birth abortions" (as the questionnaire has it), want the "health exception" to remain intact. This means, of course, that they don't want D&X's outlawed at all. They want to outlaw the fringe right's strawman. This is a strawman abortion advocates and Democrats should be making a LOT of hay about.

It means neither. Poll after poll shows a decided difference in views on abortion based on why the woman wants the abortion. "Health of the mother" is always WAY up there. So much so that even this unpopular procedure is still supported. They consistently oppose abortions done to "pick the sex of the child" or "married woman doesn't want another child" or abortions late in the term (presumably seventh and eighth months I guess).

The "health exception" that most want is presumed to be a very small number of cases. Allowing that exception can NOT be translated into people want the procedure to continue. What is it, exactly, that you think they DO want to stop?


Edit - fixed html tags

is welfare queens aborting their sixteenth baby the day before his or her birthday.

16th, because there is NONE. what a load of codswallop

Like at http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfarequeen.htm, where you learn that Saint Ronnie made up the Welfare Queen and her Welfare Cadillac to do two things: piss off the electorate enough that they'd support ending welfare, and divert attention from the insider traders.

Maybe Im confused on the argument, but if you are saying some people do not use abortion over and over again , you would be wrong. I have no data to back this up, but I have seen it in my field. I have seen more than one person use abortion making trips to have one every so often when pregnancy strangely takes place. Of course, I have also seen persons have as many children as they can have to get more money, and have seen fathers instructing their children on why working is not necessary when you can sit at home and get a check. Not saying I feel one way or the other, just that I have seen it.

;)

that women have abortions casually, who just KNOWS that women are welfare queens, who just KNOWS that women have children for money.

pray tell, just what field are you in that you encounter all these people? stats? anything that would lend at least a token of credibility to your sweeping generalizations?

why is it that those of us who work in these fields don't see these things, but others do?

But then why aren't we seeing legislation to deal with that problem?

Because the *entire* "PBA" fallacy is simply another way for the Anti-choice machine to attempt to undermine Roe and nothing more.

Why aren't we seeing legislation to include psychiatric counseling/economic aid for women who are seeking more than one abortion?

Mojo

I'm not sure this entirely about terminology.

When the procedure is actually described (presuming the way I've heard it is accurate - which is why I ask) people are even more against it than when you call it "partial birth".

The procedure generally takes place before the official 28 week viability threshhold. So claiming partial birth suggests that if the procedure weren't done, a complete birth would occur.

It isn't plesant to contemplate.

It does involve what is essentially a breach birth with the bulk of the fetus "delivered" prior to actually (well, you know).

I believe that's why it's called "intact" D&X.

One of the alternatives to D&X is D&E, in which the fetus is dismembered in utero and scraped out in pieces. There is no "partial birth" involved, but the downside is that there are more potential complications for the woman (perforations; pieces left inside; etc.)

If the language of the "partial birth" bill is followed precisely, I would think that D&E's could still be performed, since no part of the fetus is "delivered" before it is dismembered.

(What is it these people think they've accomplished?)

For very late abortions involving a fetus that has died in utero, or one with no chance of survival, I understand some physicians prefer to induce labor and go ahead with a delivery, rather than go through either a D&E or D&X.

"For very late abortions involving a fetus that has died in utero, or one with no chance of survival, I understand some physicians prefer to induce labor and go ahead with a delivery, rather than go through either a D&E or D&X. "

I'm a child-birth educator and this subject has confused me and your post has brought it out. As it was described to me, the procedure basically involves a breach birth. As you said, actual induced delivery is less dangerous than delivering breach, so what situation could there be where the woman's health is endangered by the delivery, but NOT by a breach delivery?

it has to do with blood loss. But I really don't know. I hope someone can answer. Both delivery and D&X are significantly safer than C Section though.

an ancephalic(sp?) head is sometimes 20 inches in circumference.

I play one on the web. :-) Please be advised that everything I say might be wrong, but I've been researching this for years.

First off, my understanding is that D&X is mostly a second trimester procedure and not the preferred mode of terminating third-trimester pregnancies (which are very rare).

Second, in some circumstances the woman might be too fragile to go through labor. (I've done it a couple of times; it's a challenge, eh wot?) If the woman is in immiment danger of death from toxemia or heart failure or some such, she may not survive several hours of labor.

So the challenge is to remove the fetus as quickly as possible with the least trauma to the woman. And the real challenge of childbirth is pushin' out that big ol' head, as I'm sure you know. The point of D&X is to pull the fetus out quickly, and collapsing the skull makes it easier. It's grisly, but that's how it is.

Please read, also, statement by American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists:

http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/press_releases/nr10-03-03.cfm

//As it was described to me, the procedure basically involves a breach birth.//
Yes and no.
Everything is delivered but the head and so it isn't a complete breach birth.

"In a nutshell, D&X can be described as follows: dilation; more dilation; real-time ultrasound visualization; version (as needed); intact extraction; fetal skull decompression; removal; clean-up; recovery."
http://www.eileen.250x.com/Main/7_R_Eile/Haskell_Desc.html

//As you said, actual induced delivery is less dangerous than delivering breach, so what situation could there be where the woman's health is endangered by the delivery, but NOT by a breach delivery?//
"Patient Selection
The author(Haskell) routinely performs this procedure on all patients 20 through 24 weeks LMP with certain exceptions. The author performs the procedure on selected patients 25 through 26 weeks LMP.

The author refers for induction patients falling into the following categories: previous C-section over 22 weeks; obese patients (more than 20 pounds over large frame ideal weight); twin pregnancy over 21 weeks; patients 26 weeks and over."
So not every woman qualifies for the procedure as seen by Dr. Haskell.
And so, I'm guessing here, would have a D&E performed.

Mojo

Although I read that delivering the fetus on average results in four times the blood loss than that of D&X. Also, insome cases, a malformed fetus being delivered could cause complications for the woman that can be prevented by D&X.

When there is a question of emergency circumstances, a physician MIGHT risk a D&E in the interests of time, such as if the woman is bleeding to death. Other than that, the vast majority of abortions performed past 28 weeks involve labor induction with "twilight" sedation.

What PLers fail to grasp is that these procedures are essntially used in tragic cases with sound medical reasons. The procedures themselves are designed to preserve the life, health, and fertility of the woman where the fetus is essentially doomed by nature.

The running joke among PCers over the past 2-3 years is how we're all "Lying, blood-thirsty, abortion-ridden, sluts."TM and to listen to PLers describe us, that's exactly what they think. That we have some insatiable blood-lust for human feti.:eyes: :crazy: :tinfoilhat:

"As a physician, I know that there is no such thing in the medical literature as “partial birth abortion.” But there are rare times when a doctor is called upon to perform a late-term abortion to save a woman’s life or protect her from injury...There is no epidemic of third trimester abortions in the United States; the procedure is so rare that we have not had one in Vermont in the past four years. But this bill is worded so insidiously that it would outlaw many second-term abortions, even before a fetus is viable. That is a direct challenge to the logic of Roe v. Wade and every other Supreme Court abortion decision in the last 30 years..."

~ Howard Dean

..."dead (baby/fetus/whatever)" or "dead woman" it would be an easier sell politically. But that obviously isn't the case. There would never have been a need for Roe v. Wade if abortions were never performed for other reasons.

I think lots of the bill's supporters assume that the bulk of abortions are performed on women who "just broke up with the dad and don't want that baby" or "would prefer a girl/boy".

The polls I've seen actually show a majority of female Democrats against the procedure. If you think the only diference between this and other 2nd-3rd trimester abortions is the language used? Then we have started down that very slippery slope.

The slippery slope toward overturning Roe v. Wade?

As I see it, the driving force behind this "popular" movement is the ghorrible description of what actually happens. If this is, in fact, a third term fetus that is actually "delivered" breach with only the head remaining, then it's a "slip of the doctor's hand" from being out. The difference between "baby" and "medical tissue" simply can not be a slip of the hand. But if it's out and breathing, you can't "end the pregnancy" anymore... you now have a baby.

But it's how gruesome the procedure is seen by the VAST majority of people who just don't want to think of it being done at all. Then next time around it's the D&E procedure... which, if they foprce people to think about it, is even more gruesome since the "baby" gets all cut up. If this can again be spun as a late term procedure it will easily be out the window.

Then what comes next? It becomes an easier sell. You see, people LIKE babies. They can picture them in their heads (I don't even want to think about this stuff). Far fewer can get their hands around what is happening to the women.

People rubberneck over gruesome images, getting thrilled at the same time they're horrified. So the solution is to take their focus off the necessarily gruesome imagery the right wants them to focus on and think of the big picture. We're talking about a BIG PICTURE, I repeat. The right is stuck looking at a knothole in one tree out of a much bigger forest.

D&X abortions are performed in the SECOND trimester. It's not clear from the data if any D&X abortions are performed in the THIRD trimester at all. Third trimester abortions are rare, and they could be done in other ways.

More than one friendly site lists them as third trimester abortions, with some also in the late second trimester.

The reason there are more ni the 2nd is because there are vastly more abortions performed in the second trimester, but when a 3rd trimester is done... it is almost always this procedure.

Third trimester abortions ARE very rare (why would you wait if you didn't have to) and are estimated around 1% of the total. But the ONLY options at that point (according to multiple sites) is an intact D&X or a hysterotomy (essentially a Cesarean section).

I think lots of the bill's supporters assume that the bulk of abortions are performed on women who "just broke up with the dad and don't want that baby" or "would prefer a girl/boy".

NO woman just walks in to her doctor's office and demands a late-term abortion because she just decided she didn't want the baby.

As I understand, before the actual abortion a woman endures a few days of very uncomfortable preparation procedures. No woman in her right mind would accept that amount of discomfort when she could as easily carry the fetus to term, have a normal delivery, and maybe place the child for adoption.

It's just infuriating that the right-wingers have so little comprehension of how women feel and think. Women are not featherheads, dammit!

But the statement is demonstrably untrue.

I agree no sane person would want that, but not everyone in the situation is entirely "sane" (there are a number of hormones involved). Why wait until six, seven, eight months have passed? But it does happen.

If NONE of these procedures are done apart from extreme medical necessity, then a "physical health of the mother" clause would bring 100% of Congress on board because we would all know that it is NEVER done apart from a medical necessity. Obviously, there are quite a few legislators who are actively seeking to protect the rights of women to have this procedure for OTHER than medically necessary reasons.

that are the result of Republican propaganda.

Most people were fine with Roe v. Wade. This bill is nothing more than a Republican scam to make all abortion illegal.

Everyone just assumes the public agrees with them. And polls to the contrary must be crazy.

In an LA Times poll, a majority of Democrats were in favor of making the procedure illegal (with a health exception in some cases). The Times is no right-wing rag, and Democrats are not all going to be caught up in some Republican spin machine.

People may agree with Roe, but remember that Roe clearly allowed for bans on 3rd trimester abortions and some 2nd trimester ones. It was later decisions (Doe?) that refined that a bit. If "most people" were in favor of an "abortion any time for any reason" rule, Roe would not have been necessary, since it was only legal in some states.

Democrats were in favor of making the procedure illegal (with a health exception in some cases).


The majority favored making a health exception--the majority of Democrats, the majority of Republicans, the majority of Americans.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=570575&mesg_id=570575


I made a neat little table that probably won't reproduce. You can see the data I copped following the link below. Effectively, it shows that while people clearly oppose "partial-birth abortions" across the boards, they don't want to outlaw the procedure in cases when a woman's health is endangered. A majority of only one of the control groups studied--white protestant evangelicals--thought it should be outlawed in both cases, but even with them, support for banning the procedure dropped radically (from 76 to 53 percent), and support for keeping it legal rose even more dramatically (from 12 to 43 percent). This means that banning this procedure is ultimately anti-democratic: the views of white evangelical protestants are given far greater weight than those of other groups.


http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/GoodMorningAmerica/poll030724_abortion.html


Note: I'm posting this yet again because I think it's surprising information and it has gotten lost in two other giant, unwieldy threads about late term abortion, because it's on a slightly different topic, which is the question of the sense of the democracy about this issue. Common knowledge is that this ban is popular. The ABC News poll strongly suggests otherwise.

Nothing in that data disputes what I said. A MAJORITY of DEMOCRATS WERE in FAVOR of making the procedure ILLEGAL ("with a health exception in some cases"). By almost 2-1. And the "Women" in the poll thought it should be illegal by almost 4-1 numbers.

Your poll link says exactly what I said. And the L.A. Times poll question was "Do you favor or oppose a law which would make it illegal to perform a specific abortion procedure conducted in the last six months of a woman's pregnancy known as a partial-birth abortion, except in cases necessary to save the life of the mother?" and a majority (53-42)of DEMOCRATS said yes. A larger percentage of independents (56-39) agreed.

The debate is NOT whether the procedure should be legal or not, the debate is only whether there should be an exception to the prohibition to account for maternal health.

"Perhaps surprisingly, women are somewhat more likely than men to say partial-birth abortion should be illegal regardless of the mother's health, 37 percent to 28 percent. "

may be popular, but keeping the procedure already in place legal is even more popular. PBA is a fiction--a very unpopular fiction. D&X is reality, and people across the spectrum see the need for it. Apples and oranges. Fiction and fact. PBA and D&X.

The doctors have shown (I think convinvcingly) that the procedure IS sometimes needed for medical reasons (though some doctors disagree strongly). It is only a political spin to pretend that it is NEVER an elective option. And strong majorities in all the polls want that to be illegal.

The thing that amazes me is how stupid so many here think our elected representatives are. They know how to stick their finger in the wind and see which way it is blowing. You couldn't get roughly 2/3 of congress to vote over and over and over to ban a procedure that a majority wanted. Especially those who run year after year on a pro-choice platform.

The ABC poll shows very clearly that a majority of Americans want the exclusion. This means very clearly that they want doctors to have the technique available to them in the event of a medical emergency, to save the mother's life in those rare instances when continuing a troubled pregnancy would be dangerous for her. We are not talking about having this procedure done for fun, or to skirt rules, or to just be baaaaaad. We're talking about med-i-cal e-mer-gen-cy. Americans do not want to second guess the doctors or their patients in these instances.

that it is NEVER medically necessary to use the procedure.

I read one claim (by a Catholic site) that a paper written by a doctor who had done over 700 or 800 of them said that it was "elective" in better than 80% of the cases, and NEVER the only choice.

Here I see people claiming the opposite - that it is NEVER elective ("why would anyone do such a thing, it's uncomfortable seems to be the refrain") and always a life-saving event that in any case is incredibly rare (maybe the doctor was lying, but I'd presume, unless he was the only one on the east coast doing it, that 700 for one doctor implies a lot of abortions each year)

it follows that it is a necessity in 20%. This means that it is not the case that it is *always* elective, as even your Catholic priest confesses.

I don't know what the actual numbers are for the elective and the necessary. I do know that banning a procedure that is even rarely medically necessary is an unnecessary intrusion into nobody's business but a doctor's and a woman's. Thus, all your struggle to deny that this is ever necessary is a gigantic waste of time and energy.

"elective" and "necessary" are not the only two options. It's possible that the other 20% are medically necessary abortions, but that they don't need to be done with the particular procedure involved in the discussion. If truthful, the doctor is saying it is NEVER necessary to perform that particular procedure (which could get it by the Supremes).

BTW. I thought your use of "priest" and "confesses" a particularly good turn of a phrase.

Burtworm has a good handle on the math (take it from someone who knows)

If 80 + x + y = 100 can you PROVE that x = 20? Without knowing what "y" is? Especially when the word problem implied that "x" was in fact zero?

Elective = choice

necessary = no choice

If something is not elective, it's necessary.

It said "elective in 80% of the cases and NEVER the only choice" that doesn not mean that a PARTICULAR PROCEDURE was necessary. Only that an abortion was necessary. Some other procedure would suit.

Elective means you can choose it or something else. If a procedure is not elective, it is necessary. No room for spinning it otherwise.

There are THREE possibilities (assuming his story is correct, which I do not know one way or the other).

a) Percentage of cases where abortion is not medically necessary ("elective") but is performed.

x) Percentage of cases where abortion is necessary and only a D&X will serve.

y) Percentage of cases where abortion is necessary, but D&X is not necessarily indicated but is performed anyway. (Some other procedure would serve).

With these variables we know that a+x+y=100.
As stated, a=80 and x=0. Therefore, "y" must = "20" yet you break the equation down to prove that "x"=20

You may be right, but that isn't the way the "problem" is stated.

in which D&X is medically necessary to save a patient's life. Even the law acknowledges this by allowing the exclusion for just such cases. Call all other instances those in which D&X is elective, if you'd like. Do you believe the Congress of the US is medically competent to delineate the elective from the necessary? Neither do I, but that is precisely what the Congress is pretending to be able to do.

"Elective" in medical terminology does NOT MEAN UNECESSARY!

When a physician says a procedure is "elective" it means it can be scheduled vs. performed immediately. Appendectomies are "elective" the majority of the time. Are you under the impression that a diseased appendix doesn't HAVE to come out? That it was "elective" in 80% of the cases means that the woman wasn't dying in front of her physicians eyes, therefore the procedure was scheduled. It says NOTHING about the necessity of aborting in those cases. Threats to a woman's life through pregnancy are not always immediate threats so some time can be taken to decide the course of treatment. In those cases you'll see a large volume of "elective" abortions.

In this case "elective" meant "not medically necessary". And insurance companies use the term the same way - so I'm not confident that your medical usage of the term is correct.

Regardless, the article specifically quoted the doctor as:

He personally claims to have done over 700 himself (Interview with Dr. Martin Haskell, AMA News, 1993), and points out that some 80% are "purely elective." In a personal conversation with Fr. Frank Pavone, Dr. Haskell explained that "elective" does not mean that the woman chooses the procedure because of a medical necessity, but rather chooses it because she wants an abortion.

While the site is something like "priests for life", the paper they are quoting from is from the 1992 National Abortion Federation Fall Risk Management Seminar.

I have never seen "elective surgery" used as "medically necessay, but not going to kill him today".

a propaganda campaign brought about something most people don't really support, the corporate media ran with it, the Republicans took it to the bank (literally), and the Democrats, as usual, stood by like frightened rabbits and watched it happen - not exactly the first time something like this has happened

1) assuming your beloved polls supported your position (and I don't agree that they do)

let the right wing define the argument, and don't be surprised when they win - this whole "partial birth" propaganda campaign was their doing - but remember many thought Bush was doing a good job a few months ago, and many supported the war before they knew about the lies - funny how things change when the propaganda falls away

2) I still disagree with the poll findings - and I have lots of company - the wording and way these polls have been conducted have been widely dissed in alternative media

From http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20030804&s=pollitt

One wonders why the pollsters offered such stark and minimal choices. Why not ask, as the journalist Cynthia Cooper suggested in an e-mail to the History in Action feminist list, whether women should be forced to bear a child against their will? Why not see if women realize that a rape victim who didn't promptly report the crime to the police could not make use of a rape exception? Why not find out what women actually know about abortion law and access? Interestingly, when the pollsters told women what affirmative action was, support for it went up.

In line with numerous polls that show stagnant or slightly declining support for abortion rights, the numbers got worse between the 2001 and 2003 surveys. Yet other polls from January 2003 showed much more support for abortion rights--an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found 59 percent agreeing that abortion should be left up to a woman and her doctor, up from 57 percent in 1990. In an ABC/Washington Post poll, 57 percent agreed abortion should be legal in all or most cases; 56 percent said it should be as easy as now to get an abortion, or easier. A Gallup poll had 53 percent saying Roe was a good thing--versus only 30 percent saying it was a bad thing.

Partial birth abortions, late term (which can mean 2nd trimester too) are not medical terms. You won't find those words in a clinical framework. Another example of manipulation by right wingers and the media's inability to see through it. Confusion is the name of the game here.
The debate over D&X's shouldn't exist at all - done in cases of saving the mother's life or fatal/severe birth defects of the fetus.
So what we have here is a ploy, by using the phony term "partial birth abortions" to eventually outlaw all abortions.
Something needs to be done about it, but I don't know what.

We need to get everyone who agrees with us to write letters to the editor and call our radio stations and demand they stop using one sided language. We have to correct them in public and on the streets. Or something.

in one case, the intact fetus is partially removed before performing the abortion? It seems clear that there is not much difference from a medical standpoint. If it is safer to do it this way that the traditional way at this point in the pregnancy, then it should be done--period.

are done by chemically dilating the cervix over a period of a couple of days, partially removing the fetus by the feet, then crushing the head to allow passage through the cervix. And no, it's not pretty to think about - that's why the right wingers have had so much success with their fake terminology, visually numbing cartoons and stories of women choosing this procedure in order to fit into a prom dress.
It is extremely rare (which most people don't understand) - cudos to Dean for speaking up about it.

It's pointless and too risky to the health and life of the woman. The procedure you're describing is an ID&E (Intact Dilation and Extraction). This is a SECOND TRIMESTER procedure with very few exceptions. There are cases where fetal development is so grossly retarded the procedure may be used in the third trimester, but those feti are doomed no matter because of the poor development.

The typical third trimester fetus has a head circumference nearly equal to the ciurcumference of the fetal body, rendering the procedure you described useless since its primary purpose is to reduce the amount of dilation needed to remove the fetus.

The ONLY 3rd trimester procedure performed is the one discussed and a C-Section delivery. The C-section is more dangerous to the woman.

The difference is that 3rd trimester abortions are almost never done (not that this procedure is never used) and in many cases are forbidden already (either by the state or medical board), except to save the mother's life.

...what some people call partial birth abortion

But it's not SOME PEOPLE anymore. If you look at page one of this forum, you'll notice that nearly EVERYBODY uses the term. They think it's OK if they put quotes around it or add "so called".

Now if there's a legitimate debate about whether LTA is an appropriate term, I will gladly amend my comments to promote using the term D&X. But it sickens me to the core to see the right's language adopted by the left.

for someone who's not medically knowledgeable to know LTA isn't medically appropriate. They hear it on the radio, hear it on TV, hear it spew out of the mouths of our leaders - gotta be legitimate, right?
Most people in this country don't even know the names of the medicines they take every day.

I call them out every time they use the phrase "pro-life." What does that make me, "anti-life?" What a joke. Call it for what it is: anti-choice.

I keep at it. I'm not "anti-war." As far as I'm concerned, they're "anti-peace." I try not be be the negative end of anything. You score points for being the positive. It requires rigorous deconstruction of what your opponent is saying, but you can disarm him every time with this tactic.

Sorry to wander from the topic, but the point is that who controls the language controls the debate. There have been many informative articles on DU about this very subject.

but I refuse to let them se the terms of the debate, nor do I allow them to control the language.

it is sad that far too many people think that the words are not important-- what they don't understand is that words shape our perceptions. just look at the difference between anti-choicer or pro-lifer.

I'm so disappointed that our party prefers the roll over and play dead approach. What they fail to see is that this is what got us into this mess. Had they been strong, we'd have a majority in the house and senate, and this would not even be an issue.

we need to emulate the repug's tactics. They built their power base from the ground up during the 70s and 80s with drilling and catch phrases. Now look. The good news: we're doing it here on DU. Grass roots activism, and the endless repetition of memes. We have to work harder to get the message out, and control that message.

It surely is discouraging work some days, when I get blank stares from the lock-step crowd.

I predict the party will suffer even more losses

then the party will rebound by public demand

there will be a Demcratic majority by the end of the decade, and fresh new leadership that reflects the will of the people

this issue blame them.

do some critical reading on the issue