[merrill1277]

In a 5-to-4 decision announced Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. (Ban on a certain awful procedure
used for second trimester abortions). There were a couple of articles in nytimes dot com about this today. I was struck by a couple of quotes
cited in the articles and thought how, if they apply to women (who may have) undergone PBA, they should apply to all girls/ women who carried a pregnancy to term as well, including those considering adoption.


"Respect for human life finds an ultimate expression in the bond of love the mother has for her child," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy

I so believe this, but sadly, this is not upheld in most states, where enforcement of open adoption agreements is not enforceable and/ or where there are too many loopholes to evade the agreements.


"In an article to be published shortly in The University of Illinois Law Review, Professor Siegel traces the migration of the notion of abortion's harm to women from internal strategy sessions of the anti-abortion movement in the 1990s to the formation of legal arguments and public policy."

"The South Dakota abortion ban that the state's voters repudiated in November was a prime example of that strategy coming at least temporarily to
fruition. Entitled "South Dakota Women's Health and Human Life Protection Act," the ban included as an official legislative purpose the protection of "the mother's fundamental natural intrinsic right to a relationship with her child."

Something utterly disregarded in closed adoption policy. Many of us who lived through this are still alive to speak of horrors of this failed experiment, yet it continues today.


"The South Dakota Legislature has also enacted an "informed consent" law requiring doctors to tell a patient seeking an abortion that "the pregnant woman has an existing relationship" with the "unborn human being" in her uterus. Whether the state can require such a script is a question that was argued last week before the federal appeals court in St. Louis. The language would be unlikely to raise alarms at the Supreme Court, based on the majority opinion on Wednesday."


News Analysis (Linda Greenhouse):

"The ruling, they said, will bolster their argument that the issues raised by abortion - among them defining fully informed consent by women who want
to end pregnancies and the question of when a fetus feels pain - are legitimate topics for state legislation."

Fully informed consent, and knowledge of what potential issues an adopted child may face (including sealed records) that could cause pain, should be
part of options and pre-adoption counseling as well.

[loveajax]

I am not a medical expert, but I don't believe there really is a medical term called "partial birth abortion" - - i think that is a term "cleverly" devised by pro life advocates. My SIL, due to a "missed" diagnosis, had to go a late term termination to save her life -- believe me, it was devestating esp. when she and my brother wanted nothing more than to parent that child.

i personally am offended both by SD laws and the S Ct decision. i think frankly the whole "horrible" closed adoption era that you cite was one of the products of women's lack of reproductive freedom

i personally feel that if a woman who is pregnant needs the state (or for that matter an agency, etc.) to "advise" her of the natural bond she has with her fetus or child, then that is a BIG problem and assumes women are idiots.

I do agree with more counseling of expecting moms contemplating adoption, including something that probably is rarely mentioned -- the potential pain that their child may feel in not being raised with their bio family. but frankly, i would not want women "pressured" to do anything while they were pg -- whether that be aborting, parenting or placing a child for adoption.

just my opinion, obviously.

[Sleepydream]

Taken from the health encyclopedia A-Z

Abortion, partial birth

Definition: Partial birth abortion is a method of late-term (after 20 weeks) abortion that terminates a pregnancy and results in the death and intact removal of a fetus. This procedure is most commonly referred to as intact dilatation and extraction.

So I guess technically the medical term is "intact dilatation and extraction". No matter what you call it, IMHO it is barbaric and I am personally relieved that the ban has been upheld.

Again, just my opinion obviously (of which I have many strong ones on this particular subject, but I will stop there).

[Hadley2]

This procedure, intact dilation and extraction, or IDX, is not used for elective abortions. It is not used by or for "choice." It is used when conditions that are not discoverable until very late in pregnancy threaten a woman's health and or life.

It is most often used to terminate already dead, nonviable, and/or fetal hydrocephalic pregnancies. In the first two cases, the procedure mitigates the health risks of carrying, laboring and delivering a dead fetus or one that cannot/will not survive. Hydrocephalic pregnancies cannot be delivered live vaginally or, I think, with a lateral C because of the size of the head. A vertical C section means, I believe, that the woman can never be safely pregnant again--she is at great risk for a ruptured uterus. The alternative method for ending such pregnancies, dilation and extraction, or D&E, which is still legal, is collapsing the skull and dismembering the fetus in the womb--how that is less "barbaric," I don't know. That method also poses a risk of the "water" pouring out of the skull and rupturing the uterus as well as the obviously higher risk of uterine rupture due to error, higher risk of infections, etc.

In short, IDX is the safest method to end such a pregnancy. Any other alternative puts the woman's health, reproductive future, and sometimes life in danger.

I am not going to make a statement about or debate the prognosis for or value of hydroencephalic babies. If you are interested in knowing the facts on that, you can research that on your own.

I just think that people should know this procedure is not used to end a pregnancy for convenience or simply because the mother has chosen not to have a baby. Quite the opposite, as this condition is not discovered until long after she has clearly made the decision to carry to term--the few women who've had this procedure wanted a baby and I doubt anyone who hasn't lost a baby, especially late in pregnancy, can even begin to imagine how difficult it must be.

[Sleepydream]

It is most often used to terminate already dead, nonviable, and/or fetal hydrocephalic pregnancies.

"The IDX procedure may be used to remove a deceased fetus (due to a miscarriage) that is developed enough to require dilation of the cervix for its extraction, but removing a dead fetus does not meet the federal law definition of "partial-birth abortion," which specifies that partial live delivery must precede "the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus."

I just think that people should know this procedure is not used to end a pregnancy for convenience or simply because the mother has chosen not to have a baby.

Taken from Wikepedia:

"Although prominent defenders of the method asserted during 1995 and 1996 that it was used only or mostly in acute medical circumstances, Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers (a trade association of abortion providers), told the New York Times (Feb. 26, 1997): "In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along."

Hydrocephalic pregnancies cannot be delivered live vaginally or, I think, with a lateral C because of the size of the head

The fetus may have hydrocephalus, where the head may expand to a radius of up to 250% of a normal skull at birth, making it impossible for it to pass through the cervix. If live birth is desired, the physician may drain the excess fluid in utero using a syringe, or a caesarian section with a larger than usual incision can be used.

The alternative method for ending such pregnancies, dilation and extraction, or D&E, which is still legal, is collapsing the skull and dismembering the fetus in the womb--how that is less "barbaric," I don't know.

I agree, it is just as barbaric a practice as partial birth abortion and I pray for the day it too ceases to be an option in this country.

[Hadley2]

The point is that the Supreme Court has ruled that this or any other medical procedure can be banned for non-medical reasons regardless of the medical need of a patient.

In practical terms, there is a fine line between health and life. I was put at risk for severe infection and almost bled out during a miscarriage in 1990 because a doctor did not want to "abort," via a D&C, a five-week old embryo we knew was dead. I was told several times that I could and should "manage" the miscarriage at home. Had my husband and I not finally disregarded that "advice" and rushed to the emergency room, I would not be here typing this now. It was not until much later that I learned this doctor was making profound healthcare decisions for me based on non-medical reasons.

I just don't see any connection between the legal mandating of such unsafe healthcare decisions on the basis of non-medical reasons and the concept of "informed consent" to anything. The decision removes both information and consent from the equation.

I kind of wish I hadn't posted in the first place as this doesn't seem to have much of anything to do with adoption. I won't post again as I don't want to get enmeshed in arguments any further.

I just hoped that, possibly, some people might begin to understand that this is a ruling that says it is OK to endanger a patient for nonmedical reasons and that the people for whom this procedure is recommended as best practice are not "opting" for it as a method of "birth control" or to end an unwanted pregnancy--they are women who very much wanted to have the baby and may well never have the chance to have another thanks to this decision.

[merrill1277]

The script of the case, for the sake of accurate information, is online at
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=us/000/05-380.html

Allowances are made and doctors are not prosecuted when a woman's life is in danger. (They may come under peer review if the case was not clear)...

"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."

No one is passing judgement on women whose life was in danger. It's about a method, which is described in the script of the case.

This is what the AMA wrote to Senator Santorum in favor of the ban years before the ban came into effect:

May 19, 1997

The Honorable Rick Santorum
United States Senate
120 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Santorum:

The American Medical Association (AMA) is writing to support HR 1122, "The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997," as amended. Although our general policy is to oppose legislation criminalizing medical practice or procedure, the AMA has supported such legislation where the procedure was narrowly defined and not medically indicated. HR 1122 now meets both those tests.

Our support of this legislation is based on three specific principles. First, the bill would allow a legitimate exception where the life of the mother was endangered, thereby preserving the physician's judgment to take any medically necessary steps to save the life of the mother. Second, the bill would clearly define the prohibited procedure so that it is clear on the face of the legislation what act is to be banned. Finally, the bill would give any accused physician the right to have his or her conduct reviewed by the State Medical Board before a criminal trial commenced. In this manner, the bill would provide a formal role for valuable medical peer determination in any enforcement proceeding.

The AMA believes that with these changes, physicians will be on notice as to the exact nature of the prohibited conduct.
Thank you for the opportunity to work with you towards restricting a procedure we all agree is not good medicine.
Sincerely,

P. John Seward, MD
Executive Vice President
American Medical Association
(found at nrlc.org)



About the term:


"The term partial-birth abortion is now a legal term of art. That is, partial-birth abortion has been adopted by numerous state legislative bodies as the ... legal term to refer to a very specific and carefully defined method..." (nrlc.org)

By Douglas Johnson
NRLC Legislative Director
October 29, 2003

You have probably heard pro-abortion spokespersons claim that "partial-birth abortion" is a "political" term that is "not found in medical dictionaries." (Example: NOW President Kim Gandy, Oct. 21, 2003, press release: "Try as you might, you won't find the term 'partial birth abortion' in any medical dictionary.") This claim is diversionary, since "partial-birth abortion" is a LEGAL term of art that is defined by Congress in the bill itself (S. 3).
However, the claim is also untrue. If you go to major medical websites such as Medline at the National Institutes of Health, or the Intelihealth site affiliated with the Harvard Medical School, and use the medical dictionary search tools (which access the Merriam Webster Medical Dictionary), you find "partial-birth abortion" defined as "an abortion in the second or third trimester of pregnancy in which the death of the fetus is induced after it has passed partway through the birth canal." See:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/mplusdictionary.html
http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/9276/9276.html
By the way, this widely used medical dictionary does NOT list the pseudo-medical jargon terms that pro-abortion groups insist are the proper "medical" terms for the method, "dilation and extraction," "intact dilation and evacuation," or "intact dilation and extraction."
For further information on this subject, see "Call It Partial-Birth Abortion -- It's the Law!" (requires free Adobe Acrobat Reader). http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/CallItPBA.pdf

Originally Posted by Sleepydream

Taken from Wikepedia:

Originally Posted by Sleepydream

"Although prominent defenders of the method asserted during 1995 and 1996 that it was used only or mostly in acute medical circumstances, Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers (a trade association of abortion providers), told the New York Times (Feb. 26, 1997): "In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along."

Thanks for that info. It doesn't make sense that if the ban provides for exceptions, as when a mother's live is in danger, that it was originally being used only for those mothers.

more from Kennedy:

"Consequently, he said, the government has a legitimate interest in banning a particularly problematic abortion procedure to prevent women from casually or ill-advisedly making “so grave a choice.”
Justice Kennedy

“Respect for human life finds an ultimate expression in the bond of love the mother has for her child,” he said, adding: “It is self-evident that a mother who comes to regret her choice to abort must struggle with grief more anguished and sorrow more profound when she learns, only after the event, what she once did not know: that she allowed a doctor to pierce the skull and vacuum the fast-developing brain of her unborn child, a child assuming the human form.” Justice Kennedy

[ChristieS]

Originally Posted by merrill1277

"Respect for human life finds an ultimate expression in the bond of love the mother has for her child," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy

I so believe this, but sadly, this is not upheld in most states, where enforcement of open adoption agreements is not enforceable and/ or where there are too many loopholes to evade the agreements.

I agree that this is a lovely idea and that there are many firstmothers where this is true.

Sadly, there is another side which is simply not presented very often:
This is where the birthmother insists on an open adoption agreement, then fails to keep up her side, but uses (actually, misuses) the agreement to continue to legally file against the aparents, keeps the adoption in jeapordy, and (all the while failing to keep up her end) keep the case in litigation for YEARS.

There also needs to be some protection for the aprents. Perhaps the unenforceable contracts are meant to help protect against cases such as this (my case). Agreements should not be allowed simply as an inroad to allow the birthmom to change her mind as many as five years later (again as in my case).

There do exist cases such as mine where the birthmother is not interested in maintaining contact - only in continuing the adoption indefinitely and allowing for continued motions to be filed against the aparents even when the birthmother completely fails to follow through on her end.

I believe open adoption to be the best of both worlds - but not in every case. The aparents need protection from agreements such as this. The birthmother in my case has an enforceable contract - and has used this against us, putting my family through years of turmoil, all the while failing to follow through on her end.

I just want to point out that there may be a valid reason for states not to allow enforceability. And to present the "other side" for those who do not know.

Please know that I am ALL for open adoptions - and wish we had one. It is sad for us that we do not, and that the agreement has been used against us even though we have done nothing wrong.

[merrill1277]

Originally Posted by ChristieS

I just want to point out that there may be a valid reason for states not to allow enforceability. And to present the "other side" for those who do not know.

Originally Posted by ChristieS

Please know that I am ALL for open adoptions - and wish we had one. It is sad for us that we do not, and that the agreement has been used against us even though we have done nothing wrong.

Hello Christie,

I'm sorry to hear of all the turmoil your family has been put through. I believe you that you've done nothing wrong. I would wonder about what kind of counseling the birthmother received prior to the adoption (which I know wasn't up to you, but the agency). Was the adoption private or agency?

Yours seems like an exceptional case, and the laws that don't enforce open adoption agreements, if based on this kind of protection, are probably based on a lower percent of sitations that could or do occur though.

Another example of this is closed records laws. In actuality, only a small minority of birthmothers (1 - 3 %) are found not to want to be contacted (and that number includes women who would at least be open to their [birth] son or daughter having their OBC and some medical info and who just don't want contact). Therefore the sealed records law is (supposedly) based on protecting the privacy of a small minority of women who were not "promised anonymity" in the first place but for difficult and painful reasons can't face the past now. What about the majority? Most birthmothers - estimates of 90 to 98% have been found in studies - are in favor of open records. Adoptees shouldn't be denied access to their OBC's and medical information just because of a small minority of women. Really, this is just used as an excuse by closed records lobbies such as the NCFA and others to keep them closed.

In other countries like Great Britain, cases (like yours) are heard and decided on a case by case basis. Unfortunately, not here.

[ChristieS]

You make some good points. I agree that where there exists a rarity of cases those should not be the ones to set the standard. I also believe there needs to be accountability on both sides, and that there needs to be a legal avenue for protection in cases like mine.

I also do not understand the point of having an unenforceable agreement or contract. That does not make sense to me. I would never have signed a contract - enforceable or not - without full intent and follow-through of compliance. But sadly I know there are cases where aparents do not comply.

What happens when it is the birthparent who does not comply? That needs to be legally addressed as well, and there seems to be no accountability except for aparents. As you stated "In other countries like Great Britain, cases (like yours) are heard and decided on a case by case basis. Unfortunately, not here." We have been trying for years to have our case heard and decided - but so far no luck.

To answer your question, my case was a private adoption handled through the courts. And as far as I am aware was handled the same as any through an agency.

I have wanted - all along - an open adoption. I have been the one to invite all birthfamily to be a part of my son's life. I have offered completely open-ended visitation, sent pictures regularly - up until both birthparents requested I do not do that. Then I offered open visitation whenever they wanted. The next thing I knew I was ordered to sign a contract fpr what I had been doing all along anyway - and then the "Agreement" was used to file against us.

I don't understand it. I dreamed of my son being able to know his birthfamily - even extended family, but it is not to be. I am sad for him for that. I am also extremely upset that the "Agreement" has been used against us over and over - when we have complied all along.

Don't get me wrong - we have "won" the motions against us - but it has cost us - cost my son - financially (read plenty of $$$$$$$$$$$ which would better have gone to him) and cost us emotionally. And we still have outstanding motions against us to get through.

I'll never understand that.