this group of "anonymous". I've seen messages from people on both sides. It's not really all that hard to choose a screen name, I just use my email name.

Breast cancer

There is strong evidence linking abortion with breast cancer. A study of more than 1800 women appearing in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute in 1994 found that overall, women who had aborions increased their risk of getting breast cancer before age 45 by 50%. For women under 18 with no previous pregnancies, having an abortion after the 8th week increased the risk of breast cancer by 800%. Women with a family history of breast cancer fared even worse. All 12 women participating in the study who had abortions before 18 and had a family history of breast cancer themselves got cancer before age 45.

27 out of 34 independent studies conducted worldwide indicate a significant link between abortion and breast cancer.
When was abortion first suspected as a cause?
Dr. M. C. Pike, at the University of Southern California in l981, published the first serious scientific study that demonstrated a direct association of induced abortion with later breast cancer. He studied 163 women who developed breast cancer before age 33, and compared them with 272 controls. He showed that if a woman had aborted her first pregnancy, her chance for developing breast cancer was increased by a factor of 2.4 times. Pike MC, Henderson BE, Casagrande JT, Rosario I, Gray CE (1981) Brit. J. Cancer, 43:726.
Give me other definitive studies.
Certainly one of the definitive studies was by H. L. Howe. Her study was done in upstate New York using official statistics from the New York State Health Department. This was an excellent study by epidemiologic standards and was not subject to any kind of recall memory bias from people asked in questionnaires. It used only hard data. She investigated all the women in this area who developed breast cancer under age 40 and checked to see whether or not they had had abortions. The conclusion was that women who had aborted their first pregnancy had a 1.7 times increased risk of breast cancer. Those who had gone on to abort their second and/or third pregnancy had a 4.0 times increased risk. Howe HL, Senie RT, Bzduch H, Herzfeld P (1989) et al., Int. J. Epidemiol. 18:3004.
Another was in Washington State: Few studies on this issue receive media attention. This went worldwide and broke the defacto embargo on reporting the abortionbreast cancer link. Janet Daling did a very professional study that could not be discounted. It found:
- An induced abortion raises a woman’s chance of getting breast cancer before age 45 by 50%. If done before age 18, it increases 150%; if after age 30, it’s up 110%.
- A woman with a family member with breast cancer who had her first abortion after 30 years increased her risk 270%.
- All 12 women in the study with a family history of breast cancer, who aborted before age 18 — all 12 — got breast cancer before age 45. J. Daling, Risk of Breast Cancer Among Young Women, J. Nat. Ca. Inst., Vol. 86, No. 21, 11/2/94, pg. 1584
Other studies done since then include: Greece: An overall increased risk of 51% was reported in women who had abortions, compared to those who did not. It involved 850 patients in Athens. L. Lipworth, Int. J. of Cancer, April ’95 U.S.A.:
A statistically significant increased risk of 23% of breast cancer was shown to be attributable to induced abortion. For women over 60 years, the risk was 80%. P. Newcomb et al., Preg. Termination & Risk of Breast Cancer, JAMA 1/24/96, Vol. 275, No. 4, pg. 283
For a thorough explanation of the Newcomb study above, see Natl. RTL News, 2/6/96, by J. Brind. Paris: "Having at least two abortions if associated with an increased breast cancer risk" of 2.1 times. N. Andrieu, Role of Genetic & Repro. Factors in Br. Ca., Genetic Spidem. 11 (3): 285, 1994
There are, in addition, many competent studies done in the last 20 years which also confirm this linkage. See: Before You Choose, The Link Between Abortion & Breast Cancer; And: Legalized Abortion and the Sudden Increase of Breast Cancer, both by Scott Somerville, P.O. Box 159, Paeonian Springs, VA 22129.
These are comprehensive analyses citing 74 studies.
Has anyone investigated recurrences of previously treated breast cancer?
Yes, Dr. H. Ownby did this in 1983. This was a study of women who had breast cancer that had been treated and gone into remission. Ownby studied how many of these developed a recurrence of their cancer. His research showed that among women who had carried their first pregnancy to term, 10% had a recurrence of their cancer within three years. Of those women who had aborted their first pregnancy 20% had a recurrence. Among those who had aborted their second and/or third pregnancy also, 30% had recurrences. H. Ownby, Interrupted Pregnancy Poor Prognosis . . . in Breast Cancer, 1983 Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 3:339344
Fetal Development
From conception to birth

Illustration by R.K. O'Bannon Day 1: fertilization: all human chromosomes are present; unique human life begins.
Click photo to enlarge.

Day 6: embryo begins implantation in the uterus.
Day 22: heart begins to beat with the child's own blood, often a different type than the mothers'.
Week 3: By the end of third week the child's backbone spinal column and nervous system are forming. The liver, kidneys and intestines begin to take shape.
Week 4: By the end of week four the child is ten thousand times larger than the fertilized egg.
Week 5: Eyes, legs, and hands begin to develop.
Week 6: Brain waves are detectable; mouth and lips are present; fingernails are forming.

Week 7: Eyelids, and toes form, nose distinct. The baby is kicking and swimming.
Week 8: Every organ is in place, bones begin to replace cartilage, and fingerprints begin to form. By the 8th week the baby can begin to hear.

Click photo to enlarge

Weeks 9 and 10: Teeth begin to form, fingernails develop. The baby can turn his head, and frown. The baby can hiccup.
Weeks 10 and 11: The baby can "breathe" amniotic fluid and urinate. Week 11 the baby can grasp objects placed in its hand; all organ systems are functioning. The baby has a skeletal structure, nerves, and circulation.

Week 12: The baby has all of the parts necessary to experience pain, including nerves, spinal cord, and thalamus. Vocal cords are complete. The baby can suck its thumb.
Week 14: At this age, the heart pumps several quarts of blood through the body every day.

Week 15: The baby has an adult's taste buds.
Month 4: Bone Marrow is now beginning to form. The heart is pumping 25 quarts of blood a day. By the end of month 4 the baby will be 8-10 inches in length and will weigh up to half a pound.
Week 17: The baby can have dream (REM) sleep.
Week 19: Babies can routinely be saved at 21 to 22 weeks after fertilization, and sometimes they can be saved even younger.

Click photo to enlarge

Week 20: The earliest stage at which Partial birth abortions are performed. At 20 weeks the baby recognizes its' mothers voice.

Click photo to enlarge Months 5 and 6: The baby practices breathing by inhaling amniotic fluid into its developing lungs. The baby will grasp at the umbilical cord when it feels it. Most mothers feel an increase in movement, kicking, and hiccups from the baby. Oil and sweat glands are now functioning. The baby is now twelve inches long or more, and weighs up to one and a half pounds.

Months 7 through 9: Eyeteeth are present. The baby opens and closes his eyes. The baby is using four of the five senses (vision, hearing, taste, and touch.) He knows the difference between waking and sleeping, and can relate to the moods of the mother. The baby's skin begins to thicken, and a layer of fat is produced and stored beneath the skin. Antibodies are built up, and the baby's heart begins to pump 300 gallons of blood per day. Approximately one week before the birth the baby stops growing, and "drops" usually head down into the pelvic cavity.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sources Used:
Bergel, Gary (Produced by NRLC) "When You Were Formed in Secret." 1998.
Flanagan, Geraldine Lux. Beginning Life. The Marvelous Journey from Conception to Birth. New York: DK Publishing Inc., 1996.
Hopson, Janet L. Fetal Psychology. Oct. 1998. 07 Jan 2003.
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/tul/psychtoday9809.html.
Internet Sources:
"Fetal Development." 07 Jan 2003.
http://www.w-cpc.org/fetal1.html.
"When Does Life Begin? Abortion and Human Rights." National Right To Life.

Abortion's Physical Complications

NRLC Today

Teens and Abortion

Planned Parenthood

Abortion in the U.S.

Reasons & Arguments for Abortion

Economic Impact of Abortion

Abortion Techniques

RU486

Stem Cell Research

The Basics

Pain of the Unborn
National Right to Life
www.nrlc.org

Fast Facts
Things every pro-lifer needs to know to help save lives.
ince 1973, the heartbeats of more than 47 million unborn babies
have been silenced by “safe, legal” abortion. That’s more than
all of the combined casualties of every major war in which the
United States has been involved.
Step by step, we are winning the battle and stemming the
tide. As long as there are men and women armed with the facts and
dedicated to the cause of life, we will be successful in returning
legal protection to unborn children.
S
Since 1973 there have been more
than 47 million abortions.
The annual number of abortions has
nearly doubled since Roe v. Wade,
from 744,6000 to 1,313,300 for 2000.
For every 1000 live births, there
are 306 abortions.
There are more than 140,000 second
and third trimester abortions each
year.
After reaching a high of over 1.6 million in 1990, the number of
abortions annually performed in the United States has begun to
drop back to levels not seen since the late 1970s. Thanks to the
efforts of grassroots pro-life activists, more and more Americans
have learned that abortion is not about a “blob of tissue,” and
that these children are more than just statistics. Pro-life
education has taught America that Abortion Stops a Beating Heart.
Abortion Stops a Beating Heart
Developmental Milestones
Day 1 -Fertilization! All human
chromosomes are present and a
unique human life begins.
Day 22 -The baby’s heart begins to
beat with the child’s own blood —
often a different blood type than
the mother.
Week 6 -At this stage, brain waves
can be detected. The child’s mouth
and lips are present and fingers
are forming.
Week 8 -At this stage, every organ
is in place. Bones and unique
fingerprints begin to form.
Week 17 -The baby can now have
dream (REM) sleep.
Abortion Statistics:
Not Just Numbers
http://www.abortiontv.com/Pics/AbortionPictures1.htm
Some years ago Dr. Dianne Irving decided to review the scientific literature to assess the various arguments as to when human life began. She was quite taken aback to find that there was really no disputation in the scientific community at all as to when human life began. They all agreed and had agreed for decades that human life began at conception!

"The real issue in cloning concerns its immediate product. Although cloning and fertilization are different processes of human reproduction, the immediate product of both processes is the same!.4 It might surprise many that there has been an unaltered scientific consensus for half a century that a real, already existing, live, whole human being begins as a human embryo (or zygote) immediately at fertilization. This is a scientific fact - not an "opinion", or a religious or theological belief. And public policy debates and decision making should not continue to escape that unavoidable scientific fact. The same is true for cloning. The immediate product of cloning is physically the same - an already existing human being in embryo form. (1)

The media have focused the statements of a few scientists who aren't even in the field of embryology and who have equivocated on this issue but have not taken a serious look at the extensive literature by those actually in that field. Dr. Dianne Irving notes in her paper discussing the clear and unanimous consensus of the embryologists that human life begins at conception:

The question as to when the physical material dimension of a human being begins via sexual reproduction is strictly a scientific question, and fundamentally should be answered by human embryologists--not by philosophers, bioethicists, theologians, politicians, x-ray technicians, movie stars, or obstetricians and gynecologists. (2)

The consensus of which she speaks was highlighted in Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearings back in 1981. They called in the best experts from around the world to brief them on what the scientific community knew about the question, "When does human life begin?" They were unanimous in agreeing that human life undeniably begins at conception:

Appearing to speak on behalf of the scientific community was a group of internationally-known geneticists and biologists who had the same story to tell, namely, that human life begins at conception - and they told their story with a profound absence of opposing testimony. Dr. Micheline M. Mathews-Roth, Harvard medical School, gave confirming testimony, supported by references from over 20 embryology and other medical textbooks that human life began at conception.

* "Father of Modern Genetics" Dr. Jerome Lejeune told the lawmakers: "To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion ... it is plain experimental evidence."

* Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic, added: "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

* Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, concluded, "I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty ... is not a human being."

* Dr. Richard V. Jaynes: "To say that the beginning of human life cannot be determined scientifically is utterly ridiculous."

* Dr. Landrum Shettles, sometimes called the "Father of In Vitro Fertilization" notes, "Conception confers life and makes that life one of a kind." And on the Supreme Court ruling _Roe v. Wade_, "To deny a truth [about when life begins] should not be made a basis for legalizing abortion."

* Professor Eugene Diamond: "...either the justices were fed a backwoods biology or they were pretending ignorance about a scientific certainty." (3)

Endnotes:

1. 1. Cloning: When Word Games Kill
Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D.
http://lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_06wordgame.html

2. When do human beings (normally) begin?
"scientific" myths and scientific facts
Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D.
http://lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_01lifebegin1.html

3. When does life begin?
Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearings, April 23-24, 1981
http://buchholzins.com/cir/whenlifebegins.senate.html

P.S. Respectful visitors are welcome to visit us at the Catholic Community Forum to discuss this and other issues further. http://www.catholic-forum.com/forums/

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBA_Images/PBA_Images_Heathers_Place.htm

Anthony P. Levatino, M.D., J.D.
5406 Remington Rd.
Las Cruces, N.M. 88011
March 4, 2003
Mr. Douglas Johnson
Legislative Director
National Right to Life
S12-10th Street Northwest
Washington, DC 20004
Mr. Johnson:
I am a board-certified obstetrician/gynecologist and a Fellow of the American
College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. I perfomled both first and second trimester
abortions from 1977 until 1985 including D&E abortions up to twenty-two weeks
gestation. I was Assistant Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Albany Medical
College from June 1993 to September 2000 during which time I served as both Residency
Program Director and Medical Student Education Director. I also served as the ACOG
District II, Section IX Vice Chaimlan from 1995 unti11998. Currently I am engaged in
the private practice of obstetrics and gynecology in New Mexico. My resume is attached.
The partial-birth abortion illustrations that I have forwarded to you were painted
by Mrs. Tanja Butler who is currently a professor of art at Gordon College in
Massachusetts. They were prepared under my supervision and, in my professional
judgment, they accurately depict the D&X abortion described by Dr. Martin Haskell in
his 1992 paper entitled "Dilation and Extraction for Late Second Trimester Abortion".
This type of late-term abortion later came to be known by the legal term of art "partialbirth
abortion" because of its similarity to full-term delivery of infants in breech position.
The images are size-appropriate to a fetus of approximately 24 weeks gestation. This is a
typical gestational age for partial-birth abortion although many of these procedures are
performed at even later gestational ages.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions
Very truly yours,
~~~
Anthony Levatino, MD, ill
Watson A. Bowes, Jr, M.D.
211 Huntington Drive
Chapel Bill, NC 27514
Phone (Fax) 919-929-3323 e 1-,"1,r) ","sl(-I\r o~ket'.ll -~jl corn .
,,\ ,\, I;" \;;- 10; , ,- .
March 6, 2003
Douglas Johnson
Legislative Director
National Right to Life Committee
512 lOth Street NW
Washington, DC 20004
Dear Mr. Johnson:
I served as a full-time faculty member in Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of
Colorado Health Sciences Center until 1982 and thereafter at the University North
Carolina unti11999. I am certified in Obstetrics and Gynecology and in Maternal-Fetal
Medicine by the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology .My major academic
interests were preterm birth, high-risk obstetrics and all aspects of labor and delivery .I
am a Fellow of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and I served on
the Committee on Ethics including two years as the Chair of the committee. Currently I
am Co-Editor-in-Chief of The Obstetrica/ & Gynec%gica/ Survey, a journal with wide
distribution among American and foreign obstetrician/gynecologists.
I have reviewed the illustrations of the partial birth abortion procedure painted by Mrs.
Tanja Bulter. Based on my 37 years of experience in clinical obstetrics, during which
time I performed many deliveries of premature infants, I can testify that these illustrations
accurately depict a fetus of approximately 24 weeks gestation and the anatomical and
spatial relationships are accurate. Also, I believe these illustrations accurately depict the
method of abortion described by Dr. Haskell in his presentation entitled "Dilatation and
Extraction for Late Second Trimester Abortion," at the National Abortion Federation
Risk Management Seminar in September 1992.
Sincerely,
~~:: :e~:'i
Emeritus Professor of Obstetrics & Gynecology
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Black-and-White Drawing of Final Stage of a Partial-Birth Abortion
Click here to see a line drawing of the final stage of the partial-birth abortion procedure. Click here to see a letter from eminent medical authority Watson Bowes, M.D., affirming that this drawing accurately depicts the final stage of a partial-birth abortion on "a fetus of approximately 24-26 weeks gestation." (PDF document)

Watson A. Bowes, Jr, M.D
211 Huntington Drive
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Phone (Fax) 919-929-3323
e-.m::'a il .T,'.'L.C",)1,V,"p,s";(-."-,i,r-o,"c, I'Q tlllall.corn
March 6, 2003
Douglas Johnson
Legislative Director
National Right to Life Committee
51210thStreetNW ~
Washi"ngton
DC 2 0004 _iC,;j
L~ ~!ii'.{'.
DearMr. Johnson
I served as a full-time faculty member in Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of
Colorado Health Sciences Center until 1982 and thereafter at the University North
Carolina until 1999 .I am certified in Obstetrics and Gynecology and in Matemal-Fetal
Medicine by the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology .My major academic
interests were preterm birth, high-risk obstetrics and all aspects of labor and delivery .I
am a Fellow of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and I served on
the Committee on Ethics including two years as the Chair of the committee. Currently I
am Co-Editor-in-Chief of The Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey, a journal with wide
distribution among American and foreign obstetrician/gynecologists.
I have reviewed the illustration of the partial birth abortion procedure that is found on the
web site, Based on my 37 years of
experience in clinical Obstetrics, during which time I performed many deliveries of
premature infants, I can testify that this illustration accurately depict a fetus of
approximately 24-26 weeks gestation and the anatomical and spatial relationships are
accurate. Also, I believe the illustration accurately depicts one of the steps in the method
of abortion described by Dr. Haskell in his presentation entitled "Dilatation and
Extraction for Late Second Trimester Abortion," at the National Abortion Federation
Risk Management Seminar in September 1992.
Sincerely,
~~:i~71
Emeritus Professor of Obstetrics & Gynecology
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

About "Dilation and Evacuation" (D&E) Dismemberment Abortions
At the same developmental stage at which most partial-birth abortions are performed -- in the fifth and sixth months -- many unborn children are killed with a different abortion method called "dilation and evacuation" ("D&E"). It also is very brutal and painful to the unborn child, as depicted in a series of illustrations produced by a professional medical art firm.

Copyright Ó 2003 Nucleus Medical Art, all rights reserved. www.nucleusinc.com
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/DEabortiongraphic.html
To go to the main list of resources on partial-birth abortion, click here.
To go to the list of information on medical issues pertaining to partial-birth abortion, click here.
To go to the list of information on the pain inflicted on the unborn child, click here.

The Pain of the Unborn Child

National Right to Life Statement on U.S. House Vote on Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act -- December 6, 2006
Statement of Administration Policy on the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act (H.R. 6099) -- December 6, 2006
(To view or download PDF version, click here.)
NRLC Update: U.S. House to vote on Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act on December 6, 2006 -- Update issued December 1, 2006
NRLC letter to U.S. House members regarding upcoming vote on Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act (H.R. 6099). -- November 27, 2006
Revised version of Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act (H.R. 6099) -- September 19, 2006
(PDF file)
NRLC Rebuttal to Pro-Abortion Paper on the Pain of Unborn Humans -- August 25, 2005
"Fetal-Pain Study Omits an Abortion-Rights Link" -- August 24, 2005
Some of the Methods Used

To see medical illustrations of a "dilation and evacuation" (D&E) abortion, a method often used during the second trimester, click here.

To see medically accurate illustrations of the partial-birth abortion method, usually used during the fifth and sixth months (and sometimes later), click here.

NARAL statement on Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act -- January, 2005
Factsheet: Pain of the Unborn: What Does An Unborn Child Feel During an Abortion? --September 15, 2004
(PDF file -- requires free Adobe Acrobat Reader)
NRLC cites federal court findings to urge cosponsorship of Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act -- September 1, 2004
Statement by Senator Sam Brownback (R-Ks.) on introduction of the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act (S. 2466) -- May 20, 2004
Statement by Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) on introduction of the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act (H.R. 4420) --May 20, 2004
Report of Dr. Kanwaljeet S. Anand, expert on fetal pain, to U.S. federal court reviewing the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act -- January 15, 2004
(PDF file -- requires free Adobe Acrobat Reader)
Memo from NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson to science and medicine editors/reporters on "medical pseudo-science that endangers women and their babies" (the anesthesia-kills-babies myth) -- January 2, 1996
(PDF document -- requires free Adobe Acrobat Reader)

Members of Congress Propagate the "Anesthesia Myth" (NRLC quotesheet, early 1996)
(PDF document)
"Leading doc tells Congress pro-choicers 'misinformed'," New York Post -- March 22, 1996
(PDF document)
Statement of Norig Ellison, M.D., president, American Society of Anesthesiologists -- March 21, 1996
(PDF file)

Statement of David J. Birnbach, M.D., president-elect of the Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology -- March 21, 1996
(PDF document)

Statement of Jean A. Wright, M.D., associate professor of pediatrics and anesthesia, Emory University School of Medicine, on the capacity of unborn children to feel pain during a partial-birth abortion. -- March 21, 1996
(PDF document)

Statement of David H. Chestnut, M.D., professor of anesthesiology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, on the effects of anesthesia on an unborn child -- March 21, 1996
(PDF document)

Documents preparatory to March 21, 1996 hearing in House Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee on "Fetal Death or Dangerous Deception? The Effects of Anesthesia During a Partial-Birth Abortion." Letter from subcommittee chairman Charles Canady (R-Fl.) about lack of medical experts willing to defend claims of pro-abortion groups; letter from NARAL President Kate Michelman declining to testify; witness list for the hearing. -- March, 1996
(PDF document)
"Anesthesiologists Question Claims in Abortion Debate." American Medical News -- January 1, 1996
(PDF document)
Revealing exchange between Norig Ellison, M.D., president of the American Society of Anesthesiologists, and Mary Campbell, M.D., medical director of Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington, regarding whether anesthesia causes fetal death -- November 17, 1995
(PDF document)
Testimony of Norig Ellison, M.D., president, American Society of Anesthesiologists, before the Senate Judiciary Committee -- November 17, 1995
(PDF document -- requires Adobe Acrobat Reader)
Partial-birth abortionist Dr. Martin Haskell addresses the fetal pain issue in 1993 interview with Cincinnati Medicine ("it's a lot like pets") (PDF file)
HomeIssue Info Stay Informed Special Events Legislation About Us
Abortion

Euthanasia

Health Care Reform

Medicare

Human Cloning

Factsheets

Brochures

Polling

Elections

THE PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT --
MISCONCEPTIONS AND REALITIES
By Douglas Johnson
Legislative Director
National Right to Life Committee (NRLC)
Legfederal@aol.com
(202) 626-8820
November 5, 2003
For the latest updates on the partial-birth abortion issue,
keep an eye on http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/index.html
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- When President Bush signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (S. 3) into law on November 5, 2003, pro-lifers saw the culmination of an eight-year struggle led by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) and congressional pro-life leaders
The bill represents the first direct national restriction on any method of abortion since the Supreme Court legalized abortion on demand in 1973.
A Gallup-CNN-USA Today poll conducted in late October found that among "young adults" (age 18-29), the ban is favored 77-19%, while among the older groups, support was 68-25%. A Gallup poll conducted last January, which specified that the method is "conducted in the last six months of pregnancy," and has a life-of-mother exception, found 70% for a ban.

Past polls of obstetrician-gynecologists and registered nurses found strong majorities of both groups in favor of making partial-birth abortion illegal (documentation below).
WHAT THE BILL DOES
The bill bans "partial-birth abortion," and it legally defines a partial-birth abortion as any abortion in which the baby is delivered "past the [baby's] navel . . . outside the body of the mother," OR "in the case of head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother," BEFORE being killed. The complete official text of the bill being signed by President Bush, in a searchable format, is here: http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/partial-birth%20abortion%20Ban%20act%20final%20language.htm
The bill would allow the method if it was ever necessary to save a mother's life. Such an exception has been part of the legislation since it was first introduced in 1995. Nevertheless, it is still not uncommon to see news reports that the bill would "never" allow the procedure, or to say flat out that it does not contain an exception to save a mother's life. CBS Evening News, for example, has made this error repeatedly over the years. An October 21, 2003, CBS Evening News report suggested twice that the bill would "never" allow a "late-term abortion," a compound fallacy.
THE TERM "PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION"
"Partial-birth abortion" is a legal term of art, defined by Congress as a matter of federal law, as quoted above.
Although supporters and opponents of the new law differ dramatically in their perceptions of what methods the law covers (as discussed below), neither side believes that the legal definition of "partial-birth abortion" is synonymous with the shifting and conflicting descriptions attached in various literature to such pseudo-medical jargon terms as "dilation and extraction," "intact dilation and evacuation," or "intact dilation and extraction."
In short, it is simply inaccurate for journalists to equate the legal term "partial-birth abortion" with these nebulous jargon terms.
Sometimes reporters say that "doctors call the procedure . . .," followed by one of the three conflicting jargon terms listed above. But many doctors -- probably, most doctors -- actually call it "partial-birth abortion." The term "partial-birth abortion" has been recognized and used by many eminent medical authorities for years, including former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, and hundreds of prominent obstetricians and gynecologists who have expressed support for the bill.
The Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, utilized by major medical websites such as those sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, the National Library of Medicine, and Harvard Medical School, lists a definition for "partial-birth abortion," but not the pseudo-medical jargon terms coined by abortion providers and used by many opponents of the bill. Check it out:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/mplusdictionary.html
In short, besides being a legal term of art, "partial-birth abortion" is as much a "medical term" as "heart attack" (which both journalists and others usually use in preference to "myocardial infarction").
Another thing that both sides agree on is that it is inaccurate to report, as CBS Evening News has done repeatedly, that the bill is a "late-term abortion ban." It is a ban not of "late-term abortion" but of a defined method -- and the legal definition of that method has never referred to a point in "term," but rather, to the location of the living baby when he or she is killed. (See "Is It Misleading to Call it Partial 'Birth'?," below.)
In reality, partial-birth abortion cannot be performed in the first three months, and most are performed in the fifth and sixth months. So, then, are partial-birth abortions "late-term" abortions? The question is impossible to answer, because the label "late-term" has no standard legal or medical meaning, and is used in wildly different ways. Pro-abortion groups exploit this ambiguity -- they use the label "late-term" as code for "third-trimester," meaning the seventh month and later -- a period that begins roughly three weeks AFTER babies typically attain the lung development sufficient to survive indefinitely outside the womb (so-called "viability").
When journalists describe the bill as a "ban on late-term abortions" or "certain late-term abortions," they introduce an element of ambiguity or outright distortion into everything else they say about the matter, because many readers may understand the label as referring to third-trimester abortions, while many others will regard abortions in the fifth and sixth months as "late-term abortions" too.
Consider the medical illustrations used this year during the House and Senate floor debates, which accurately depict a typical partial-birth abortion of a baby at 24 weeks (five and one-half months). Here is a proposed experiment for journalists: Show one of these illustrations to the first 10 people you meet on the street, explain that it shows "an abortion," and ask if they think it looks like a "late-term" abortion. We predict that most will reply in the affirmative. Yet, what the illustration shows is not, in the usage of NARAL and Planned Parenthood, a "late-term" (third-trimester) abortion. The term "third trimester" is used to refer to points as early as the start of the 25th week and as late as the start of the 27th week.
IS IT MISLEADING TO CALL IT A PARTIAL "BIRTH"?
Since 1995, NRLC has stressed that most partial-birth abortions are performed in the fifth and sixth months (although some have been performed later, and not always in cases of serious physical disorder of mother or baby). See NRLC's first media factsheet on the issue, dated June 21, 1995: http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/NRLC_factsheet_PBA_June_1995.pdf
Some critics of the bill argue that the term "partial-birth" is misleading because, they insist, it connotes that the typical partial-birth abortion is performed near or at full term (40 weeks, or nine months). For example, Will Saletan asserts in an essay in Slate ("The 'Partial-Birth' Myth," Oct. 22, 2003) that the name is misleading because "this procedure doesn't take place anywhere near the appointed hour of birth."
"The appointed hour of birth" is neither a "medical term" NOR a legal term of art. The objection is based on the premise that "birth" occurs only at or near full term -- or, in some variants, that "birth" occurs only after "viability." (Viability begins soon after the start of the sixth month.) But this premise is profoundly erroneous, in either form.
In federal (and most state) law, a "live BIRTH" occurs when the baby is (1) all the way outside the mother, even if the cord is still attached, and (2) displays any respiration, heartbeat, or movement of voluntary muscles. See the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection law enacted in 2002: http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/Born_Alive_Infants/index.html
Most partial-birth abortions are performed in the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy. Even early in the fifth month, babies who are expelled by premature labor will often be born alive. At that stage the baby's lungs are too undeveloped to permit sustained survival, but if the baby draws breath it is a LIVE BIRTH.
Medically and certainly legally, "live BIRTH" is an entirely different concept from "viability" (which relates mainly to lung development and the capacity for sustained respiration). The "live birth period" begins long before "viability." Even under the doctrine of Roe v. Wade, once outside the mother, a human who shows any signs of life is a "person" protected by law and the Constitution, whether he or she lives for five minutes or 100 years.
By 20 weeks (halfway through the fifth month), the LIVE BORN baby may breathe for an hour or so before dying. By 23 weeks (just into the sixth month), ONE-THIRD survive long term -- but you will never find out whether a given baby would have been part of the one-third, after her skull is punctured and brain removed in a partial-birth abortion.
By 24 weeks (about halfway through the sixth month), more than HALF are long-term survivors.
Thus, at the stages that most partial-birth abortions are performed, the great majority of babies would be "live births" if they were expelled by spontaneous premature labor, and many would be long-term survivors.
In other words, in a partial-birth abortion, a premature human is deliberately pulled to within just a few inches of being, medically and legally, a LIVE BIRTH -- so this method is indeed a PARTIAL LIVE BIRTH -- or 'partial-birth,' for short.
President Bush spoke the painful, literal, legal truth on November 5, 2003, when he said, "For years, a terrible form of violence has been directed against children who are inches from birth..."
[NOTE: Legally, there is NO SUCH THING as a "fetus" who is all the way outside the mother and alive. Under federal law (and most state law), even if pre-viable, this is a pre-mature "infant," and also a "person," a "human being," and a "child."
http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/Born_Alive_Infants/APmemo031302.html
http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/Born_Alive_Infants/index.html
http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/Born_Alive_Infants/jquiz.html
HOW MANY PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS ARE THERE?
Figures from abortion-industry groups have ranged from 2,200 for the year 2000 (from The Alan Guttmacher Institute [AGI], which is affiliated with the Planned Parenthood Federation of America [PPFA], a major abortion provider) to 3,000-5,000 (in 1997, by Ron Fitzsimmons, the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, although each of these figures was based on definitions somewhat different from that contained in the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.
The AGI figure is clearly a bare minimum. Responses to AGI's periodic surveys are purely voluntary. It is hard to understand why any abortionist would report that he was performing such abortions if he was not, but easy to imagine that many would throw the survey in the wastebasket. (An earlier AGI survey, using the same methodology, claimed that only 650 such abortions were performed in 1996 -- an absurd claim, but nevertheless was accepted as authoritative by The New York Times and other news media for years. It appears that AGI is now trying to "forget" that it ever made this claim -- see the exchange of letters in the Washington Times here:
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBAletterwashtimes110403.html
THE NEW LAW AND THE SUPREME COURT
In the case of Stenberg v. Carhart in 2000, by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court struck down a Nebraska law banning partial-birth abortions, holding that Roe v. Wade guarantees the right of an abortionist to use the method whenever he thinks it is preferable to other methods. The five-justice majority opinion, written by Justice Stephen Breyer, took pains to clarify that it did NOT intend to limit this doctrine to cases in which there was a pre-existing maternal or fetal health problem, but to ANY case in which a woman sought an abortion from Dr. Carhart in the second trimester.
Congress has now invited the five-justice majority to re-examine that extreme and inhumane decision. The new bill contains extensive congressional findings, based on years of congressional staff investigations and hearings, that partial-birth abortion is unnecessary to preserve "health," and indeed poses intrinsic risks even over and above other abortion methods. In addition, the definition of "partial-birth abortion" is more detailed and explicit than the definition found in the Nebraska law that the five justices struck down in 2000.
As noted, the "health" issue is addressed in the bill itself, in lengthy congressional findings. Beyond that, many of the claims of medical "necessity" for partial-birth abortion, on closer examination, turn out to involve not any bona fide risk to a mother's physical health, but rather, a diagnosis that the baby has Down syndrome or some other disorder that cannot be cured. The word "health," in most of these cases, is really a euphemism for pre-natal euthanasia. For further discussion, see
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/JohnsonAdesinterview041096.html
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/pbafact13.html
Some of the women who have figured most prominently in attacks on the bill, such as Viki Wilson of California, clearly did not have abortions that would be covered by the bill -- even under the interpretation, which is erroneous, that the bill covers dismemberment procedures (D&E).
HISTORY OF THE LEGISLATION
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was introduced by Congressman Charles Canady (R-Fl.) on June 14, 1995. The bill was developed in collaboration with NRLC. The current chief sponsors are Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and Congressman Steve Chabot (R-Ohio).
The House first passed the bill on November 1, 1995, 288-139. The Senate first passed the bill on December 7, 1995, 54-44. In the 104th and 105th congresses, Congress approved the ban but President Clinton vetoed the bills; in both of those congresses, the House overrode but the Senate sustained. In the 106th Congress, both the House and Senate passed similar bills, but no final bill was approved. In the 107th Congress (2002), the House passed the ban, but the Senate Democratic leadership blocked it from coming to the Senate floor. This year, the bill won final approval in the House approval in the House on October 2, 281-142, and in the Senate on October 21, 64-34.
TURNING POINTS IN THE DEBATE
The debate over partial-birth abortion began in 1992 with the circulation of an instruction paper written by Ohio abortionist Martin Haskell, explaining how to perform the procedure. The paper is posted here.
In the ensuing years, there have been several key turning points in the debate, which are documented in the NRLC chronological archive on partial-birth abortion, here: http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/index.html
The turning points include:
-- the eyewitness account of Brenda Pratt Shafer, a nurse who was "very strongly pro-choice" until she witnessed a partial-birth abortion close up.
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/pbacampaign.html
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/Shafer%20smeared.pdf
-- emphatic repudiation by the two major societies of anesthesiologists of the claim -- disseminated by major pro-abortion groups and accepted as fact by major journalists -- that anesthesia given to the mother causes painless death of the unborn child before a partial-birth abortion is performed. In congressional testimony, medical experts testified that by the late second trimester, the unborn child is very responsive to painful stimuli, and that this is not much affected by anesthesia given only to the mother.
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/Fetal_Pain/index.html
-- the unraveling of the manufactured claim that partial-birth abortions are performed only hundreds of times a year and only, or nearly only, in medically acute circumstances. This claim had been energetically promulgated by NARAL, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the National Abortion Federation, and other major pro-abortion groups -- often in the same press releases and factsheets that complained that the bill applied to abortions performed before "viability." But the disinformation campaign collapsed between September 1996 and February 1997, due to investigations by various journalists -- including writers for American Medical News, the Washington Post, Bergen Record, and PBS.
-- the decision, in February 1997, by Ron Fitzsimmons -- then and now the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers -- to repudiate what he called "the party line." Fitzsimmons estimated that the method was used 3,000-5,000 times annually, and "in the vast majority of cases" on "a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along" (New York Times, Feb. 26, 1997). Subsequently, other spokespersons for major abortion providers publicly defended Fitzsimmons and affirmed the accuracy of his statements.
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBA%20NYT%20lied.pdf
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBA%20activists%20lied.pdf
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/AMAFitzimmons1997.pdf
-- The June 2000 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Stenberg v. Carhart (discussed above).
REVIVAL OF DISCREDITED MYTHS
In the wake of the revelations described above, the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee held an unusual joint hearing on March 11, 1997, at which NRLC presented testimony that documented in detail the disinformation campaign that had been waged against the bill.
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/test.html
What new evidence has come to light since 1997 only reinforces the conclusion that some practitioners use the method routinely during the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy, and even later, and that the vast majority of partial-birth abortions do not involve any acute medical circumstances. For example, Kansas became the only state to enact a law that requires reporting of partial-birth abortions separately from other abortion methods. The first full year the law was in effect (1999), Kansas abortionists reported that they performed 182 partial-birth abortions on babies who were defined by the abortionists themselves as "viable," and they also reported that all 182 of these were performed for "mental" (as opposed to "physical") health reasons. See the compilation here.
Nevertheless, in recent months, NRLC has witnessed attempts to revive erroneous claims about partial-birth abortion that were thoroughly discredited in 1996 and 1997. Articles and broadcasts in major media outlets, including the Boston Globe and the Wall Street Journal, have adopted the premise the partial-birth abortions are nearly always performed to deal with serious physical disorders of mother and/or baby.
In January 1997, the PBS documentary program MEDIA MATTERS devoted a major segment to an examination of how much of the news media had uncritically adopted as fact assertions that were highly disputed from the beginning, and that were disproved when belatedly subjected to journalistic scrutiny. The transcript is here:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/mediamatters99/transcript2.html
One of the journalists interviewed in the MEDIA MATTERS program was Washington Post medical writer David Brown, M.D. After interviewing numerous abortionists, Dr. Brown wrote, "[I]n most cases where the procedure is used, the physical health of the woman whose pregnancy is being terminated is not in jeopardy." He also said, "Most people who got this procedure were really not very different from most people who got abortions."
After all that, can the pro-abortion advocacy groups revive the myth? It looks like they're trying. The Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), in a September 17, 2003 press release, asserted that the bill would "outlaw a medical procedure used primarily in emergency abortions." http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PPrelease091703.html
If they fool you twice, shame on you.
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBAmythsmemo01303.html
SUPREME COURT -- DIVIDED 6-3 ON ROE V. WADE (LEGAL ABORTION FOR ANY REASON), BUT 5-4 ON PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION
It has been erroneously reported in recent months by Gannett News Service that the current Supreme Court is divided 5-to-4 on legal abortion. In reality, six current Supreme Court justices have clearly expressed support for legal abortion for any reason to "viability," and for "health" even after that. For an explanation of what the term "health" means in the context of abortion law, by Washington Post medical writer Dr. David Brown, here: http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/roevwademyths.html
However, the 2000 ruling that struck down Nebraska's ban on the partial-birth abortion method was a 5-4 ruling, since Justice Kennedy -- a supporter of Roe -- voted to uphold the Nebraska ban on the partial-birth abortion method.
Another misconception: Gannett New Service and some others also continue to misreport that the Supreme Court allows greater restrictions on abortion after the first three months. The Supreme Court majority explicitly repudiated any such "trimester" distinction in the 1992 Casey ruling. For further discussion of these two misconceptions about the Supreme Court, see: http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/gannett_news_service_again_disse.htm
ILLUSTRATIONS, CERTIFIED MEDICALLY ACCURATE,
OF PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION AND "D&E" ABORTION METHODS
In legal documents filed in federal court in Nebraska on October 31, several abortionist argue (through the attorneys of the Center for Reproductive Rights) that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act does not distinguish between dismemberment procedures ("dilation and evacuation") that involve dismemberment of the baby inside the woman's body, and the "extraction" (partial-birth) procedures in which the baby is killed after being partly delivered outside the woman's body. They insist that the definition in the bill could apply to the dismemberment procedures, because they say are not sure what the words "living fetus" mean, and because fetuses take some time to die in the womb even after their arms or legs have been torn off.
The lawmakers who crafted the bill dispute that it covers such inside-the-body killing procedures. In order for readers or viewers to evaluate these conflicting claims, it certainly is important for them to be provided with the actual DEFINITION of "partial-birth abortion" from the bill. But since radically different interpretations are being placed on that definition, in order to really understand what the argument is about, readers or viewers need to SEE illustrations -- certified by medical authorities as entirely accurate -- of the two different abortion methods that are under discussion.
With respect to partial-birth abortion, the color illustrations displayed repeatedly on the floor of the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House are posted and downloaded here:
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBA_Images/PBA_Images_Heathers_Place.htm
We have the rights to use these illustrations and we have placed them in the public domain for non-commercial use. No further permissions are required to legitimate news media to reproduce any or all of them for non-commercial purposes, as long as none of the images are altered (other than enlargement or reduction in overall size).
At the bottom of the same website page, you will find letters from medical authorities (including the eminent Professor Watson Bowes, co-editor of the Obstetrical and Gynecological Survey, a leading journal), certifying that these drawings accurately depict a partial-birth abortion (as defined in the bill) at 24 weeks, which is about 5-1/2 months. Most partial-birth abortions are performed in the 18 to 26 week range, so this depicts such an abortion in the typical time period when they are performed.
With respect to the second method, the "dilation and evacuation" or "D&E" method, which some pro-abortion groups insist is also covered by the bill, the medical illustration firm Nucleus Medical Art offers a standard textbook illustration, which we have purchased a license to display on our website. It depicts an unborn child being dismembered at 23 weeks.
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/DEabortiongraphic.html
WHAT DO MOST DOCTORS AND NURSES SAY?
In a very unbalanced article in that appeared in the Boston Globe on October 28, reporter Carol Cruzan Morton noted that the bill contains congressional findings that the banned method is "risky and medically unjustified," but she immediately asserted, in the Globe's own voice, that these are "claims that most doctors dispute." No poll of doctors or other authority was cited to support this assertion, nor has any been provided by the Globe in response to subsequent requests.
The only poll of physicians on the subject we have seen was conducted by Medical Economics and published in October, 2002, asking the question, "Should the procedure that's often called 'partial-birth abortion' remain legal?" Among all physicians, only 27% were for keeping the method legal, while 44% said it should not be legal (a plurality), and 28% weren't sure. Among the obstretrician-gynecologists, however, there was a clear majority of 57% for the ban, and only 33% for keeping the method legal. Medical Economics Senior Editor Dorothy L. Pennachio wrote that among various medical specialties, "Ob/gyns are least likely to be on the fence -- only 10 percent say they're not sure; they're also most likely (57 percent) to believe the procedure should be outlawed." See:
http://www.memag.com/be_core/search/show_article_search.jsp
searchurl=/be_core/content/journals/m/data/2002/1011/
ethabort.html&title=Abortion%3A+A+right+or+an+outrage%3F&navtype=m&query=abortion

A 1999 random sample of 2,000 hospital-based registered nurses by RN magazine found that 63% favored a ban on partial-birth abortion.
http://www.conservativenews.org/InDepth/archive/199903/IND19990315c.html

MORE COMPLAINTS ABOUT TERMINOLOGY BY CRITICS OF THE BILL

Some opponents of the bill have recently objected to some terms used by supporters, including "premature infant," "child," "kill," and "abortionist." However, each of these terms has been acknowledged and used as well by practitioners of partial-birth abortion and their defenders.

"Premature infant" is accurate. As explained above, the method is usually used in the fifth and sixth months (sometimes later). Even at the start of the fifth month, if a woman goes into spontaneous labor, her baby often will be a live birth. Babies born starting just after the start of the sixth month now very often survive indefinitely. The usage occasionally seen in the news media, "a fetus who survived an abortion," is a medical and legal oxymoron. A member of the species Homo sapiens who has been entirely expelled from the mother and who is alive is a premature "infant" -- and, under federal law, an "child" and a "person."
http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/Born_Alive_Infants/index.html
http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/Born_Alive_Infants/APmemo031302.html
As to "child," even the inventor of the partial-birth abortion method, the late physician James McMahon, told American Medical News, "After 20 weeks [4-½ months] where it frankly is a child to me, I really agonize over it. ... On the other hand, I have another position, which I think is superior in the hierarchy of questions, and that is: 'Who owns the child?' It's got to be the mother." The article is here:
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/AmericanMedicalNews1993.pdf
There are numerous examples of pro-abortion advocates acknowledging what should be obvious: Abortion "kills" a developing human. For example, Faye Wattleton, former president of Planned Parenthood, said in 1997, "I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don't know that abortion is killing." Regarding partial-birth abortion specifically, the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, Ron Fitzsimmons, told The New York Times, "It is a form of killing. You're ending a life."
As to the term "abortionist": At the very first congressional hearing on the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act on June 15, 1995, Dr. J. Courtland Robinson, professor of ob-gyn at Johns Hopkins, testifying on behalf of the National Abortion Federation against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, repeatedly identified himself as an "abortionist," and even as a "Christian abortionist." [Hearing Record, 104th Congress, First Session, June 15, 1995, Serial No. 31, at pages 86-87.] If the term was good enough for the lead witness for the National Abortion Federation, it is good enough for us.
WHAT IS NEXT?
At an October 28 press conference, President Bush was asked, "Do you believe that the climate has changed since the last campaign and all abortions should be banned?" The President's accurate answer, and NRLC's comment on his answer, are here:
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/bushcommentpba102803.html
The U.S. House of Representatives passed, in the last Congress, four major pro-life bills other than the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, all of which died without action in the U.S. Senate, which was then under Democratic control. NRLC hopes that the U.S. Senate will take up each of these measures during the current Congress. They are:
-- The next major pro-life bill likely to come up in the Senate is the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (S. 1019, H.R. 1997), also known as "Laci and Conner's Law." This is a bill to recognize an unborn child as a victim when he or she is injured or killed during the commission of a federal crime of violence. NRLC believes that such crimes have two victims. http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_victims/index.html
-- The Child Custody Protection Act (S. 851, H.R. 1755) would make it a federal offense to take a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion, if this abridges the right of a parent, under the home-state law, to be involved in her abortion decision.
http://www.nrlc.org/federal/ccpa/index.html
-- The Abortion Non-Discrimination Act (S. 1397) would prohibit state or local government officials from using government power to compel health care providers to participate in abortion.
http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/abortion/andaindex.htm
-- The Human Cloning Prohibition Act (S. 245, H.R. 534) would prohibit the creation of cloned human embryos. The House passed this legislation in the current Congress on February 27, 241-155.
http://www.nrlc.org/killing_embryos/cloningmisconceptions031803.html
BROADCAST DEBATES
NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson debated Center for Reproductive Rights President Nancy Northup regarding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act on National Public Radio's "Diane Rehm Show," October 29, 2003 (requires RealPlayer): http://www.wamu.org/dr/2003/drarc_031027.html#wednesday
Johnson debated Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) President Gloria Feldt on June 10, 2003, on the Public Radio International program "To The Point," http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/index.html
(requires RealPlayer)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
For further information on partial-birth abortion, or to arrange interviews or broadcast debates, call (202) 626-8820 or send e-mail to Legfederal@aol.com
Click HERE to return to the main Partial-Birth Abortion page.
Click on the animated image above to see the individual illustrations enlarged.
National Right to Life applauds U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act -- April 18, 2007
L.A. Times: "The ruling culminates a 12-year campaign by the National Right to Life Committee to outlaw the procedure that its leaders dubbed 'partial birth abortion.'" -- April 18, 2007
U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Gonzales v. Carhart, upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act -- April 18, 2007 (PDF file)
Statement by President Bush on the Supreme Court upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act -- April 18, 2007
NRLC's Douglas Johnson on National Review Online: "Is it really a partial birth?" -- November 8, 2006
Partial-Birth Abortion Returns to the U.S. Supreme Court -- November 7, 2006
Los Angeles Times story highlights NRLC leadership in bringing partial-birth abortion to public attention in 1995 -- November 7, 2006
Partial-Birth Abortion Misconceptions and Realities:
a memo by Douglas Johnson, with links to key documents on the history of the controversy over partial-birth abortion.

The Pain of Partial-Birth Abortion
During the first year after the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was introduced in mid-1995, many opponents of the bill, such as NARAL's Kate Michelman and syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman, insisted that anesthesia given to the mother painlessly kills the babies before they are pulled feet-first from the womb and stabbed through the back of the skull. But in congressional testimony in 1996 -- virtually ignored by the news media -- this myth was emphatically refuted by the heads of the two major professional societies of anesthesiologists. Other experts testified that the babies are alive and fully capable of experiencing great pain during a partial-birth abortion. To learn more about the pain that partial-birth abortion inflicts on pre-mature human babies, and about the "anesthesia myth," click here.

Key Document: Is Partial-birth abortion a 'health' issue?
Click HERE for a collection of links to key documents on medical issues relating to partial-birth abortion. NOTE: Many of these documents, but not all, require the Adobe Acrobat Reader.

"Life, Death, and Partial-Birth Abortion: One Woman's Story," by Carolyn A. Johnson -- December 5, 2003

U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Review Federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act -- February 21, 2006
Bush Administration files new legal brief urging U.S. Supreme Court to review lower-court ruling blocking enforcement of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act -- February, 2006
Ruling by U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act conflicts with 2000 U.S. Supreme Court decision -- January 31, 2006
"Partial-Birth Abortion on Trial," by Cathy Cleaver Ruse, Esq. (Human Life Review, Spring 2005) Read the shocking sworn testimony, in federal court, by those who perform partial-birth abortions. (PDF file)
Eighth Circuit ruling underscores that Supreme Court will decide if partial-birth abortion remains legal -- July 8, 2005
Blood Brothers: Why the leading practitioners of late abortion wrote checks to John Kerry, by NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson -- October 2, 2004

"Surgical Editing: A Case Study in Pro-Abortion Media Bias," by NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson -- December 23, 2003
Why partial-birth abortions are performed: Letter from NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson published in Wall Street Journal -- November 10, 2003

GLEN MCCOY ©2003 Belleville News-Democrat. Reprinted with permission of UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE. All rights reserved

National Right to Life Comments on Court Orders and Statement by President Bush -- November 6, 2003
President Bush Signs Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act into Law -- November 5, 2003
NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson challenges Alan Guttmacher Institute's attempt to "forget" its own claims on partial-birth abortion -- November 4, 2003
"Partial-Birth Abortion -- You Can Look it Up in the Medical Dictionary!" -- October 29, 2003
On October 29, 2003, NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson debated Center for Reproductive Rights President Nancy Northup on NPR's nationally broadcast "Diane Rehm Show" on the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. If you have the common RealPlayer software on your computer, you can listen to the program by clicking here.
Statement by President Bush at press conference and NRLC comment -- October 28, 2003
UPDATE: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act: NRLC's rebuttal to opponents' claims -- Oct. 23, 2003
Op-ed by NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson published in USA Today -- October 23, 2003
Final language of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (S. 3), as approved by both houses of Congress (October 21, 2003)
To view or download PDF version, click HERE (requires free Adobe Acrobat Reader)
U.S. House gives final approval to Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, but some Democratic senators delay final Senate vote -- Oct. 4, 2003

"Gannett News Service again disseminates discredited myths," by NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson -- Oct. 3, 2003

"Partial Truths: The Media Mistell Partial-Birth Abortion Stories," by National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez -- Oct. 2, 2003
"Discredited Myths About Partial-Birth Abortion -- and Some Journalists Who Won't Let Go of Them," by NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson -- Sept. 6, 2003
Dueling letters from Colorado abortionist Dr. Warren Hern and NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson -- Boulder Camera, June, 2003
"To the Point"
On June 10, 2003, NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson was a guest on "To the Point," a radio program produced by Public Radio International and KCRW-FM in Los Angeles, which is broadcast on a number of radio stations around the nation, concerning the implications of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. The other guests -- all supporters of Roe v. Wade -- were Planned Parenthood of America President Gloria Feldt, Prof. Jeffrey Rosen, Prof. David Garrow, and Prof. George Lakoff. Hear the 40-minute audio recording by clicking here. (requires RealPlayer)

Key Document
Revived media myths about Roe v. Wade: An important and timely memo for journalists and policymakers (Feb. 14, 2003)
To view or download PDF version, click HERE (requires free Adobe Acrobat Reader)
To view or download WordPerfect version, click HERE

Official White House policy statement on the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (H.R. 760) -- June 4, 2003
For PDF version click here (requires free Adobe Acrobat Reader)

NRLC letter to the U.S. House of Representatives against Hoyer-Greenwood phony ban and in support of H.R. 760 -- June 2, 2003
(PDF version. Requires Adobe Acrobat)
(Word Perfect Version)

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Passes U.S. Senate; Pro-Life Forces in House Work to Defeat "Phony Ban" -- April 5, 2003
Key Document
Official report of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee on the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act -- April 3, 2003 (PDF file)

Official report of the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives on the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act -- April 3, 2003
(PDF file)
On partial-birth abortion, both sides look to the Supreme Court -- March 17, 2003
Senators Daschle and Johnson voted to allow third-trimester abortions based on claims of emotional "health" by voting for Feinstein Substitute -- March 14, 2003
(PDF file)

U.S. Senate Passes Ban on Partial-Birth Abortion, But 33 Senators Vote Against the Ban, Saying Roe v. Wade Protects Partial-Birth Abortion -- March 13, 2003

White House statement on Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act and hostile amendments -- March 10, 2003
(PDF file)
Key Document
Key Facts on Partial-Birth Abortion -- February 14, 2003 (HTML version)
To view or download PDF version, click HERE (requires free Adobe Acrobat Reader)
To view or download Microsoft Word version, click HERE
To view or download WordPerfect version, click HERE

President Bush calls for enactment of Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in State of the Union address -- January 28, 2003

To read or hear what the nurse Brenda Pratt Shafer saw during a partial-birth abortion, click HERE

Congressman F. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wi.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, draws the attention of reporters to a medical drawing of a partial-birth abortion, during a press conference on Capitol Hill to announce the reintroduction of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act on February 13, 2003.
NRLC photo by Patricia Coll.

Guttmacher Survey of Abortion Providers Finds Reported Number of Partial-Birth Abortions More Than Tripled -- January 14, 2003
Senators, NRLC Assail Senate Democratic Leadership for Smothering Bill to Ban Partial-Birth Abortion -- Oct. 3, 2002

After Approval by House, Fate of Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Rests With Senate Democratic Leadership -- August 6, 2002

White House statement in support of Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act -- July 23, 2002

Pro-Life Lawmakers and NRLC Launch New Effort to Ban Partial-Birth Abortion -- July 7, 2002

Media Myths About Partial-Birth Abortion: NRLC Letter Published in the Wall Street Journal -- May 14, 2001
NRLC Press Release on Supreme Court Ruling on Nebraska Ban on Partial-Birth Abortion -- June 28, 2000
Supreme Court Decision and Dissents in Stenberg v. Carhart -- June 28, 2000
Lawmakers Back Away From House Vote on Roe v. Wade -- May 25, 2000
Pro-abortion U.S. House leaders admit their bill would allow third-trimester abortions for "mental health" -- March 16, 2000
I'm Not Answering these Questions -- 10-20-99
Partial-Birth Abortion Diagrams
What's wrong with the Hoyer-Greenwood bill (H.R. 809)? A letter from NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson published in the Washington Post -- August 17, 1998 (PDF file)
"Partial Truth," by Matthew Scully. From National Review, an examination of how the news media gullibly adopted pro-abortion propaganda regarding partial-birth abortion. -- June 22, 1998
(PDF file)
"The Daschle 'Late-Term Abortion' Bill: four loopholes big enough to drive a scissors through." NRLC ad in Capitol Hill publications, opposing the Daschle "phony ban" -- early 1997
(PDF file)
"Call It Partial-Birth Abortion -- It's the Law!" NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson explains why the term "partial-birth abortion" is accurate and is the ONLY legally correct term for what the bill bans -- and why pro-abortion groups hate the term -- June 19, 1997
(PDF file)
Letter from the American Medical Association endorsing the 1997 version of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. The AMA did not endorse the legislation in later years because it decided it would not support abortion bills with criminal penalties, but the organization never contradicted the factual statements made in this letter that partial-birth abortion "is not good medicine" and "not medically indicated." (May 19, 1997)
PDF version (requires free Adobe Acrobat Reader)

"Daschle Bill May Not Ban Anything," The Washington Times (May 15, 1997). This article contains revealing quotes from both sides about Sen. Daschle's "phony ban" amendment to the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (which later became Sen. Durbin's "phony ban") (PDF file) -- May 15, 1997
Under the legal doctrine of Roe v. Wade, it's not what you are, it's where you are. For over 12 weeks, one baby girl was a legally protected "person," but her TWIN SISTER was not. Read about it here. – April 2, 1997 (PDF file)
Key Document
Testimony of Douglas Johnson, Legislative Director, National Right to Life Committee on the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (H.R. 929, S. 6) -- 3-11-97
What is at Stake in the Partial-Birth Abortion Debate: Douglas Johnson's Opening Statement to a Joint Congressional Hearing -- 3-11-97

U.S. News & World Report columnist John Leo shows how the truth about partial-birth abortion was deliberately concealed -- March 10, 1997
American Medical News: "Abortion rights leader urges end to 'half truths'" (on partial-birth abortion) -- March 3, 1997 (PDF file -- requires Adobe Acrobat Reader)
Key Document
"Abortion: Activists Lied," The Record (Bergen, NJ) -- February 27, 1997
"Partial-Birth Betrayal: Democrats Seething as Activist Admits Lie," Roll Call (The Newspaper of Capitol Hill) -- February 27, 1997 (PDF file)
Key Document
"An Abortion Rights Activist Says He Lied About Procedure," New York Times
-- February 26, 1997
Misinformation on National Abortion Federation website as of Feb. 25, 1997. (PDF document -- requires free Adobe Acrobat Reader.)
The pro-abortion misinformation campaign on partial-birth abortion collapses: NRLC paper to media on reports by American Medical News and PBS Media Matters on how pro-abortion groups misled the news media and the public about partial-birth abortion -- February 25, 1997
(PDF file)

A transcript of a 20-minute report in which the PBS TV documentary program MEDIA MATTERS examined how the major news media gullibly accepted and transmitted pro-abortion misinformation on partial-birth abortion in 1995 and 1996 -- January, 1997
Letter from professors of obstetrics in the Physicians' Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth (PHACT) to the president of the executive board of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), challenging a statement issued by ACOG on partial-birth abortion -- January 29, 1997 (PDF file)
Watch What He's Doing, Not What He Says: How President Clinton Is "Having It Both Ways" on Partial-Birth Abortion -- 1997
Leaked memo written by Democratic political pollster Celinda Lake, "Positioning on so-called 'partial birth' abortion," advising her clients, pro-abortion members of Congress, on how to "frame" the issue
-- September 17, 1996 (PDF file)

Why Are Partial-Birth Abortions Performed? -- late 1996
"The View from Mount Koop." In interview with American Medical News, former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop says partial-birth abortion is never a medical necessity for the mother. -- Aug. 19, 1996
(PDF file)
"Frequently Asked Questions on Partial-Birth Abortion," by NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson -- 9-11-96
Note: This material is still useful, but some of it can be found presented with more current information in Mr. Johnson's testimony before a joint hearing of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee and U.S. House Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee, in March, 1997.
"CBS 60 Minutes on Partial-Birth Abortions: A Critique," by Douglas Johnson -- June 10, 1996
Euthanasia of partly born humans: Why some partial-birth abortions are performed in the third trimester -- April, 1996
What the Nurse Saw...... 1995
American Medical News (newspaper of AMA): Candid answers from Dr. Warren Hern and other abortionists on partial-birth abortion -- Nov. 20, 1995 (PDF file)
Letter from NARAL, PPFA, NAF, AGI, and dozens of other pro-abortion organizations, misinforming Congress that partial-birth ("D&X") abortions are "fewer than 500 per year" and performed mostly in medically acute circumstances. -- October 2, 1995 (PDF document -- requires free Adobe Acrobat Reader.)

How pro-abortion lawmakers tried to smear the nurse who testified about what she witnessed at a