Talk:Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act

Initial comments (2005)

It would be considerably more balanced if the strong "pro" quote were paired with an equally strong "con" quote - anyone have one?

I've seen several, but they sounded so confused and illogical to me that I recused myself :-)

We could try this:

Pro-choice groups oppose the law on three grounds:

1. It's the first step in a campaign to outlaw abortion completely, with overturning Roe vs. Wade the apparent next step.
2. It's unconstitutional in itself <-- not sure why, though, need to research this -->
3. It's "vague", that is, it's subject to deliberate misinterpretation by overzealous prosecutors trying to punish doctons for types of abortions that the Congress didn't really "mean" to include <-- I'm (nearly) making this up -->

Wait I thought the reason for outlawing 3rd trimester abortions was because the fetus could live outside the womb. Even most pro-choice groups agree with this. This is outlawing killing a baby thats basically been born and can survive outside the womb, I don't see the opposition... Redwolf24 9 July 2005 10:08 (UTC)

There may be no known precedent

"There may be no known precedent"? Either there is or there isn't, right? Or is there a contested precedent? --Danny Rathjens 04:18, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Can something be said regarding the status of this bill now? ie - So, the bill was declared unconstitutional, but is that the end of it, or is it still somehow in limbo? --SeekingOne 00:08, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

---

Yes, it is in limbo. It's in the courts. It will eventually end up in the SCOTUS, for sure. --NCdave 03:00, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC).

Huh?

What does "...partial-birth abortion made in or affecting interstate commerce." actually mean? Can abortions be made in interstate commerce? Please try to be less opaque about this in the intro.

Peter ^Isotalo 7 July 2005 19:48 (UTC)

• While I agree that the statement is vague, it actually follows the language of the Act itself fairly closely. Read the first sentence of the statute, I think it explains why the phrase is in the intro to this article. - Jersyko talk 16:50, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

• The commerce clause, is a figleaf of constitutional justification for any Federal action that is not one of its enumerated powers. As long as Roe v Wade stands, laws that limit it must have this excuse. It is tenuous, based a decision about five years ago against a federal law limiting the sale of drugs (or was it the use of guns) near schools. That decision said that the commerce clause must really be about interstate commerce, not a tenuous affect on it. Based on this precident, Partial Birth would also be struck down. Arodb 18:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, the definition used in the heading is inaccurate. It currently reads: "Partial-birth abortion is defined in the law as: an abortion in which the person performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus and completing the delivery."

The true definition in the law - beginning Page 17, Line 9 reads: "(1) the term 'partial-birth abortion' means an abortion in which -

       (A) the person performing the abortion deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother for the purpose of performing and overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and...."

A more appropriate shortening of the definition would be: "Partial-birth abortion is defined in the law as: an abortion in which the person performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus."

Religioustolerance.org

This article uses the religioustolerance.org website as either a reference or a link. Please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org as to whether Wikipedia should cite the religioustolerance.org website, jguk 14:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

If it does then it should also link the National Right to Life Council's PBA page. --   NERD42    EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  18:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality of this article

I find a few lines in this article that seem to try to lean the article to the government's side. It reads like a White House brief. For example, take a look at this line:

• The PBA ban enjoyed the support of the American Medical Association and large majorities of the American public.

Large majorities of the American public? Who can neutraly and specifically say that the act was supported by large majorities? My main problem with that line will be the word majorities because no one can certaintly say if large majorites of americans support such act. It seems rather POVish to me.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 12:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• I cut the passage in question (and the NPOV tag) for the moment. With regards to the public opinion, I found The Washington Times: "A January Gallup poll found 70 percent of Americans favored a federal ban of the procedure." With regards to the AMA, the stated policy is a little ambiguous, and I couldn't find any solid evidence that it officially supported the ban; the gist seems to be that the AMA prefers alternative methods, but hasn't gone as far as outright disapproval. Deltabeignet 22:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, whenever I have ever questioned a poll that was used on Wikipedia, I was told I was wrong and that the poll is proof. Yet in this situation, the poll is removed. Wikipedia clearly has an anti-human rights bias. 75.2.250.145 03:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Structure of this article nees work

Does it strike anyone else that chronology is the wrong way to organize this article? This isn't a timeline; it's an encyclopedia entry!

"Large Majorities"

The US is a Representative Democracy. That fact indicates that if a majority of our elected representatives vote in favor of a PBA, then by extension, a majority of the people are in favor of it. This is, of course, until such time that new representatives are elected and the law is either changed or amended to reverse the ban. Then the majority would be against it....

- --Drocque 02:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

What complete nonsense.Richard75 16:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a nice example of why most present systems of parliamentary government are undemocratic. That is, they do not (necessarily) conform to the wishes of the people they govern. I find it very difficult to vote because every party has policies with which I disagree, and I don't want anyone claiming that they have my support because I voted for them. Time for government by referendum? The technology is there to support this (nearly).--King Hildebrand 15:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Divisions

Isn't it rather pointless having the entire content of the divisions posted here - especially without any linkies? If this information is really needed, could we prune this down to a list of Democrats who voted for, and Republicans who voted against? Morwen - Talk 17:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• It's important to show who supported this law, and who opposed it, that's what most people would like to know. How you make the divisions? By political party, by states, Democrats who voted for, Republicans who voted against, by gender, you name it. If you can see next to the names of every member, indicates the party affiliation(R,D or I) and their respective states. This way covers most information from Congressmen. I just finished writing all the names, making the links will be next, Morwen it'd be great if you could help doing that. Thanks a lot. --Cefaro 00:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995

Seems to me that the text from the 1995 act could easily be included in the article on PBABA of 2003 -- maybe in a History section

I would support a merge, but perhaps we'd need to change the intro to say something like "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act refers to two different pieces of legislation introduced in the US Congrass, the first in 1995, and the second in 2003. etc"--Andrew c 04:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there a health exception?

The intro states that the bill "does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself." But the "Status of the law" part has several mention of there being no health exception. --219.74.97.2 06:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I second this. It seems like the article contradicts itself in these sections. See, "Objections to this statute are primarily because there is no exemption if the health of a woman is at risk." VERSUS "Despite its finding that "partial-birth abortion… is… unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother", the statute includes the following provision: “ This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself."

I've edited the article to make it clearer, for example by adding some words at the end of this sentence: "Objections to this statute are primarily because there is no exemption if the health of a woman is at risk, unless the woman's life is threatened."Ferrylodge 09:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There is an exception here it is from the Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003

§1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited (a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. --Kylehamilton 00:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

So there is a life exception, but not a health exception, and this difference is considered to be significant.-Andrew c 01:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The medical community and the term PBA

Recently, the following sentence was inserted or reinserted into the first paragraph: "The medical community does not recognize the term 'partial birth abortion' as an actual medical term or procedure." When I first spotted this reinsertion, it seemed like it warranted at least a footnote, since the "medical community" rarely has a single monolithic view about anything.

Upon further research, I really think that this quoted sentence should either be modified or removed, for several reasons. First of all, it's unclear whether or not this quoted sentence is referring to the word PBA as defined in the federal statute. The definition of PBA in the statute may provide specificity that was not previously provided in the Nebraska statute. The Solicitor General argued to the Supreme Court in November as follows: "[T]his statute, unlike the Nebraska statute, clearly uses an anatomical landmark approach that is based in the text of the statute and clearly distinguishes between the D&E procedure on one hand and the D&X procedure on the other hand." So, it's by no means certain that the entire medical community rejects the federal statutory definition. This is one of the issues in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart.

Additionally, even if the reinserted sentence is talking about PBA severed from its federal statutory definition, still there is some authority that at least part of the medical community recognizes it as a valid term. See Gynecologic, Obstetric, and Related Surgery, at 1043; Sprang & Neerhof, Rationale for Banning Abortions Late in Pregnancy, 280 JAMA 744 (Aug. 26, 1998); Bopp & Cook, Partial Birth Abortion: The Final Frontier of Abortion Jurisprudence, 14 Issues in Law and Medicine 3 (1998).

So, I think the reinserted sentence ought to be removed, or maybe it could be rephrased and put into the body of this Wikipedia article.Ferrylodge 06:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

List of Representives and Senators unneccesary

The vote counts are all that are needed; the actual list of representives and senators is severely breaking the flow of the article. Jon 20:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree.Ferrylodge 20:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I too agree. I think that having an overview of the course this law took through the courts is interesting though (and because not all of the cases were called Gonzales vs. Carhart, that isn't necessarily the first place a user may look). I have tried to summarize the history here, using text from the other article, and I expanded the other article with the old text from here (a little confusing, I know). I hope there isn't too much redundancy. Feel free to make it more concise, or we can discuss it's inclusion of editors disagree with its existence here. I also reverted a recent change to that section that expanded the section, used a non-neutral source, and blanked information concerning why the courts ruled the way they did. We can discuss that edit further as well. -Andrew c 23:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There's further discussion of this topic at Talk:Gonzales_v._Carhart.Ferrylodge 01:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Very biased. How can I flag it for a neutrality check? 24.225.242.0 02:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Before flagging the article, why not discuss the details of your concerns here on talk. Cite examples of bias, and maybe even suggest improvements. The more specific your concerns, the better we are at helping address them. Thanks.-Andrew c 02:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The roll call was reinserted into the article, and I removed it, because no explanation was given. The article provides links to the congressional roll call votes, so I don't see the need to include the whole list of Senators and Representatives in this article. I don't know of any other Wikipedia article about a statute, where the article includes the full roll call.Ferrylodge 02:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

As stated above, I agree. However, I wanted to point out that Iraq Resolution lists the complete roll call; Federal Marriage Amendment lists those who crossed party lines in the vote (just the first few I looked up. The Patriot Act, however, doesn't list anyone).-Andrew c 02:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a List of United States federal legislation, and it's very unusual to include the full roll call. I'm not dead set against including it here, but I just want someone to explain why it's a good idea.Ferrylodge 02:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia differers in format from articles to articles. Personally the more information the better. The reader can easily scroll through a list if they don't want to read it. I can understand how the voting role may not have important in 100 years, but being a current event, I think a role call would be valid to some readers. My suggestion is to make it as condensed as possible and put it at the end of the article. But really I could go either wayMantion 07:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've reinserted the roll call as a set of Appendices at the very end (after the footnotes and external links). That way, the flow of the article won't be interrupted. I hope this will be satisfactory.Ferrylodge 08:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The legislative history itself isn't particularly current (there have been two elections since then), but this is a good compromise. Jon 21:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The inclusion of the roll call interupts to the flow of the article even when place at the end. I don't see any precedent for "appendix sections" under Wikipedia:Guide to layout and I've never encountered one in an article before. Thus I'm going to move the roll call to List of votes for Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act and link to it from the "See also" section here. -Severa (!!!) 22:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said I could go either way, I don't think a separate page is needed, but see nothing wrong with it. I still think Wikipedia is in it's infancy and style, layout and formats are not set in stone. I have liked a lot of the changes that we have seen over time and I think when speaking of specific bills and policies, role call is maybe the most relevant information. I think going forward we don't need 2 pages about a bill, that seems silly. If the page is about a bill, then who made it a bill is very relevant. Maybe we should have a 3rd page for which president signs it into law, because he is part of the process as well. Oh and a 4th page for who authored it, and a 5th page for the various organizations that lobbied for and against the bill. Having appendices of relevant information at the end of an article doesn't interrupt flow. Mantion 23:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL and NRLC

As I quoted in my edit summary, Try to avoid linking to multiple pages from the same website; instead, try to find an appropriate linking page within the site. There is a link to NRLC's "linking page" on the topic of PBA. And then there is a link to one specific article found on that linking page. There is no need for two links from the same cite (when we only have 5 external links to begin with), when the second link can easily be accessed from the first "linking page". Does CouldBeeWorse care to explain why we need 2 links from the same source (and one of the links can be accessed from the other), when the WP:EL guidelines suggest otherwise?-Andrew c 03:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The Human Life Review is not an NRLC publication. Yes, the HLR article in question is one of at least 135 separate of documents relating to "partial-birth abortion" that are linked or archived on the NRLC's extensive archive on this issue. It is, as far as I can tell, the only one of those 135 documents that contains extensive verbatim quotes from the actual federal trials on the subject of the Wikipedia article, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, so I think the direct link is warranted. It would be theoretically possible for somebody who already knew exactly what they were looking for to reach a copy of the article via the NRLC archive, or via Google or other routes I suppose, but that does not make the link redundant here superfluous, because few if any would find or even know about the journal article without the direct link.CouldBeeWorse 03:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

All 3 of these cases are cited directly in the footnotes. Therefore the "extensive verbatim quotes from actual federal trials" are clearly available to readers. I see no reason to single out one pro-life analysis out of a group of 135. Again, because this file is hosted by NRLC, it is better to link to a broader links page, per the EL guidelines. -Andrew c 06:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree Nil Einne 10:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I can see CouldBeeWorses point. but I am not an expert on WP:EL Guidelines.Mantion 07:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Penalties for violation

The penalties are mentioned at the top of the article, but I feel the discussion of the penalties should be expanded, perhaps farther down in the article.

The penalties for this law are severe:
for the doctor, up to two years imprisonment and a fine
for the doctor, liability for civil prosecution, with trebel damages, and physical and psychological injury damages, with a wide variety of family members and guardians that can bring suit against the doctor.

There's currently no mention of the civil liabilities section in the article.

The law claims the procedures are permissible to save the life of the woman, but it seems to define this as, go ahead and perform the procedure, and you can then justify the facts of the case to your state medical review board.

There are no penalties for the woman, this also isn't mentioned. How best would an expanded penalties section fit into the article flow? Dbackeberg 14:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a penalty of violation section should be added somewhere on this is page on a law. In fact, I'd use recomending using much of the factual content in the above but without the commentary. As for placement, check other criminal law pages on the site and see if there's a normal place in these articles. Somewhere the article should also state all the exceptions listed in the text of the law itself. But there's no need to try to list what the law doesn't cover, there's an infinate list of things not in the law. Jon 21:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a "Medical Term"?

Does the fact that partial-birth abortion is not a medical term merit inclusion? I mean, the pro-abortion crowd has been using this as a tactic for some time now, and the response to it is fairly well known. If the term "partial-birth abortion" is not to be used, since it's not a medical term, than the use of the phrase "heart attack" should be discontinued immediately, as it's definatly a "non-medical" term that is used much more frequently by the press than partial birth abortion.

I am not sure who posted the above but I have to say no one can argue with his or her reasoning. I guess were done with that debate.Mantion 07:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

PMID 12294330, PMID 9673308, PMID 10404899. I don't see how a lawyer turned congressman can coin a medical term for a procedure that already existed years before PBA was first used. And we have sources that say PBA is not a medical term. I'll add them to the article if required. Compare "Partial birth abortion is not a medical term" with "Partial birth abortion is a medical term"-Andrew c 06:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Andrew c, what is the purpose of saying that this is not a medical term? The purpose is disparagement, is it not? The term appears in the Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, so why do you insist on disparaging it? This article need not say that it is a medical term, and it need not say that it isn't a medical term. Why can't we take that middle ground?

The word "syringe" may be fancier than the word "needle" but does that mean we have to disparage the latter as a non-medical term every time we use it? The term "myocardial infarction" may be fancier than the term "heart attack" but does that mean we have to disparage the latter as a non-medical term every time we use it?

I don't know if it was a doctor, a lawyer, or a janitor who coined the term "syringe" or the term "bandaid" or the term "crutch" or the term "pill". It doesn't much matter, does it?Ferrylodge 06:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

See Organ123's comment over at talk:IDX. Saying "non-medical" is more neutral than Organ123's proposal. PBA isn't simply a lay-term for fancy medical jargon. It was a term coined for political framing, like "Death Tax". PBA simple isn't a neutral term like crutch, pill, needle. The term PBA is controversial, and by simply choosing to 'ignore' the controversy, we silently take sides in the issue. The term "Partial birth abortion" itself is used to disparage the medical procedure, so the issue is complex. By using a biased term, but qualifying it as non-medical, we touch on both sides of the debate. We don't go as far as to call the term "biased" or "illegitimated" or anything like that, simple "non-medical", and the term itself is presented. The issue is that PBA is not simply a neutral, lay term for a fancy worded medical procedure, and acting like it is ignores our sources and the history of the debate. Per NPOV, we should attribute and substantiate biased terms.-Andrew c 06:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Organ123's comment was on a different point. He said that the IDX article should note the political origin of the "partial-birth" phrasing, and I have no objection to what Organ123 said. I did not attempt to delete any of that historical material from the IDX article. But that doesn't mean the term "partial birth abortion" has to be disparaged as "non-medical." Yes, it had a non-medical origin, but that doesn't mean that it remains non-medical (which is just a euphemism for illegitimate), or that it has to be called non-medical even if it is not a fancy Latin term. The terms "cocaine" and "suicide" are both stigmatized, but that doesn't mean our Wikipedia articles should attempt to de-stigmatize them by alleging that they are not "medical terms," regardless of whether we cite to drug-legalization or right-to-die sources that say they are not "medical terms".

The statement that "partial-birth abortion" is a "non-medical term" is a red herring (i.e. a classic form of propaganda). Yes, the term itself may have originated partly as an exercise in propaganda by some pro-life groups, but that does not justify counter-propaganda by a Wikipedia article. The term has been accepted by all three branches of the federal government, it appears in medical dictionaries, it is also in common use, and it was formulated to be somewhat descriptive. Why must Wikipedia adopt the pro-choice mantra that it is not a medical term?Ferrylodge 06:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)