Banning an Abortion Procedure Because It Protects Womens' Health

Several weeks ago, in Gonzales v. Carhart, the Supreme Court rejected a facial challenge to the federal Partial Birth Abortion Act, even though there is substantial medical evidence that the prohibited procedure, an "intact dilation and extraction," is less of a risk to the health of many women than the alternative, unregulated procedures, including most importantly "standard" dilation and extraction, in which the fetus is dismembered before it is removed from the woman's body.

Pro-life groups are especially angry with Focus on the Family, one of the anti-abortion groups that sponsored the ban and that has most prominently celebrated Carhart. "The old procedure [standard D&E], which is still legal, involves using forceps to pull the baby apart in utero, which means there is greater legal liability and danger of internal bleeding from a perforated uterus. So we firmly believe there will be fewer later-term abortions as a result of this ruling." Tom Minnery, Focus on the Family Vice President. Continue reading ...

Yes, that's correct. The goodly pro-life folks believe the increased risk associated with the legal D&E procedure is the cost a woman should pay for her indiscretion.