A reasonable ban

In general, I'm happy to call myself a feminist, and I'm proud of the work that feminists do. Unfortunately, in the case of abortion rights, I sometimes feel that feminism has gone astray. Although I'm pro-choice, I worry that abortion is promoted as a minor decision, as a type of political activism, or even as an exercise of feminine power. I think this is especially true of partial-birth abortion. I should begin by mentioning that, despite my pro-choice status, I'm opposed to partial-birth abortion, or "intact dilation and extraction."

What is partial-birth abortion? It's a procedure typically used during the fifth or sixth month of pregnancy, but is sometimes implemented as late as the seventh, eighth or ninth month. Although figures are difficult to find, estimates indicate it is used in 2,200 to 3,500 abortions per year, a small fraction of the overall number of abortions in the United States. The basic procedure consists of the following (squeamish readers should skip to the next paragraph):

After manually dilating the woman's cervix, the doctor uses an ultrasound to find the fetus' leg. The doctor brings the fetus' body through the birth canal, leaving only the head of the fetus inside the woman's body. Then, the doctor thrusts a sharp object, usually scissors, in the base of the fetus' skull. After the brain is vacuumed out, the now-dead fetus is pulled completely from the woman's body.

I took that from a pro-choice medical article giving instructions on how to perform the procedure. No, really.

Why oppose partial-birth abortion if you support choice? Partial-birth abortion is ethically distinct from other abortion procedures because it is performed outside the woman's body, a place where, legally, the infant has acquired its own rights. More importantly, although abortion is (and should be) legal, it is not necessary to promote every gruesome abortion method to preserve womens' choice.

Because of this factors, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 proposed to ban the procedure except in cases where the life of the mother is at stake. Unfortunately, the law has been tied up in ongoing court battles. Embarrassingly for many pro-choicers, activists have championed this form of abortion, claiming that it is necessary for three reasons:

Partial-birth abortions are necessary to preserve the life of the mother.

First, this is no problem as far as the law is concerned, since it already includes a provision for this circumstance (although it's a provision that misguided activists sometimes ignore). Second, groups such as the American Medical Association have frequently noted that partial birth abortion is never necessary to save the life of the mother, and it is not superior to other abortion procedures in terms of preserving the mother's health or future fertility. Even among doctors who perform abortions, it remains a disfavored practice, primarily because it is gruesome yet affords no further benefits. Furthermore, the procedure is rarely used outside of the United States, even in Canada and Europe.

If you outlaw partial-birth abortions, you won't be able to stop people from outlawing all abortions.

It's perfectly reasonable to put restrictions on the methods permitted for abortions, in the same way that any legal act can be regulated. For example, multiple U.S. states have a legal death penalty, but none permits death by stoning. Regardless of our individual positions on the death penalty, we understand that our culture has deemed death by stoning too cruel and barbaric to be acceptable.

A woman's right to choose is under siege!

This argument is related to the second argument, but it is more repugnant because it appeals specifically to women and capitalizes on their fears of persecution.

In reality, women's right to choose is under no threat. Even President Bush, the supposed foe of abortion rights, has repeatedly declared that he has no intention of overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 court decision that legalized abortion. And although Kate Michelman of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League likes to claim that "Roe v. Wade is hanging on by a one-vote majority," she is, in fact, utterly wrong: Only three of the nine current Supreme Court justices have ever voted against Roe v. Wade. The decision is "hanging" by a solid 6-3 majority.

The only thing clinging by a one-vote majority is partial-birth abortion. The renegade liberal justice, Anthony Kennedy, wrote in Stenberg v. Carhart that "the State [may choose] to forbid a procedure many decent and civilized people find so abhorrent" while still "protect[ing] the woman's autonomous right of choice."

Justice Kennedy is right. Banning partial-birth abortion should be a cause that both pro-choicers and pro-lifers can support. When it comes to women's rights, there are so many issues that demand our attention -- promoting education and civil rights, encouraging women to consider wide-ranging career choices and eliminating the threat of rape. Why have we gotten mixed up in supporting a procedure that is unsupportable?

Jennifer Weiss is a senior Linguistics and Theatre Arts major from Los Angeles. War On Error appears on Wednesdays.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.