Wednesday, October 22, 2003
The Slope
The argument of the "slippery slope" is common in American politics, generally used as a scare tactic by individuals or groups which oppose the criminalization or decriminalization of a certain activity or item. The National Rifle Association uses the "slippery slope" argument to suggest that even the smallest restrictions on handgun sales might lead to the illegality of private gun ownership. Christian Conservatives argue that recognition of gay marriage is a "slippery slope" which will result in legalized bestiality, bigamy, incest, and child sex. A quick internet search for the phrase "slippery slope" will find impassioned arguments on such topics as medicinal marijuana, welfare reform, internet censorship, public smoking bans, and just about any other debate you can imagine. Sometimes, the "slippery slope" expounders have a point. Usually, as in the cases above, it's a bit of a reach. (Equal rights for women did not, as early "slopers" predicted, lead to unisex bathrooms and the banning of gender-specific clothing, after all.)
Most recently, the "slippery slope" argument is being used by abortion rights proponents to decry the recent "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003." (S.3 of the 108th congress; available here.) Democratic Representative Louis Slaughter, among many others, argue that the bill is "an attempt to whittle away at a woman's constitutional right to her privacy and control of her body." The National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) is running ads about how this is the "first step" toward a ban on all "reproductive freedoms," and the National Abortion Federation is filing lawsuits, claiming the bill's language is "so vague" that it would ban all late-term abortions. Other talking heads are going even further, claiming the bill will put women "in jail," or that women will be denied a medical procedure that could "save their life."
One wonders if any of these panicked opponents to the legislation have actually taken the time to read the bill. S.3 is nineteen pages in length, and goes into such explicit detail as to the specifics of what is being addressed, that if anything it's reminiscent of the recent HB 35-E bill in Florida, which was written with such dazzling specificity as to assure it will only be used in one case, at one time: authorizing the feeding tube reattachment to Terri Schiavo, all but referencing her by name. (Opponents of HB 35-E, who claimed this was the "slippery slope" to denying anyone from being taken off of life support, have also apparently never read that actual legislation, either.)
Partial-birth abortion (known medically as "intact dilation and extraction") is the process of inducing delivery of a living late-term fetus, then pausing the delivery while a portion of the child's body is still inside the birth canal. Before 100% of the body is outside of the mother, legally signifying "personhood," the skull of the child is punctured and its brains removed using a suction device. Once the heartbeat stops, the remainder of the newly deceased child is delivered, as in a still-birth. The reason even so many pro-choice individuals and legislators wished to ban the procedure is in the recognition that it's not so much an "abortion," but rather a form of infanticide, which uses a technicality in the law to protect its disputed legality. (I know some may object to my use of the term "child" in the above description, but the word "fetus" only applies to an unborn child, not one in-between being "unborn" and "born," as is the case in this discussion. Since nearly all dictionaries include "an unborn infant; a fetus" as part of the definition of "child," that term seems more linguistically accurate. )
To make certain that the law would not be used to criminalize any other forms of abortion, legislators were even more specific than my description above. "Partial-Birth Abortion" is therefore unambiguously defined in the bill as "deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus." To argue that this could be interpreted as a ban on "all late term abortions" seems more than a bit of a stretch.
Predictably, presidential candidate Howard Dean expressed outrage that "the Senate has decided it is qualified to practice medicine," claiming the bill "will endanger the lives of countless women." But both the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Medical Association oppose the procedure, with the AMA testifying before congress that intact D&E is "not an accepted medical practice" and has "never been subject to even a minimal amount of the normal medical practice development." No articles in peer-reviewed journals have ever been published claiming its benefits, and perhaps more tellingly, not a single medical school in the country has ever taught the procedure. Given the vast amount of testimony on the subject during the 104th, 105th, 107th, and 108th Congresses, I'd say it's quite clear that the legislators went out of their way to become medically knowledgeable on the issue. As to the Dean's "endangering" prediction, even the creator of the procedure testified that intact D&E "is never medically necessary to preserve the health of a woman," and not one expert could identify "a single circumstance" in which it helped or theoretically would help a pregnant individual. Indeed, there was extensive medical testimony which detailed the increased risk to a woman as opposed to traditional abortion, including "making it difficult or impossible for a woman to successfully carry a subsequent pregnancy to term," "an increased risk of uterine rupture, abruption, amniotic fluid embolus, and trauma to the uterus," "a risk of lacerations and secondary hemorrhaging . . . which could ultimately result in maternal death," and others.
As for the final paranoid concerns of women being "imprisoned" for seeking out this procedure, or "losing their lives" as a result of its ban, the bill makes two very clear and critical distinctions: 1) that a woman "upon whom a partial-birth abortion is performed may not be prosecuted," and 2) that this ban does not apply if a physician deems the action "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."
The bottom line here is that this legislation doesn't so much "restrict" abortion, but rather closes a loophole in the dividing line between abortion and infanticide. Opponents of the ban are quick to point out that partial-birth abortions "are rare", only a couple thousand a year, but that's hardly a persuasive argument, especially since the reason they're "rare" is because even the vast majority of abortion providers find the practice unethical. And why would it matter if it's 100 or 1000 or 10,000? We are talking about the partial birth of, and then destruction of, a living and viable or near-viable child. Consider this: there have been numerous documented cases on which, during this type of procedure, the rest of the child accidentally "slipped out," and was born live. In these cases, the child legally became a "person" and was therefore protected by law, and the mother who went in for an abortion had to be told that, oops, she has a crying son or daughter now instead. Now, regardless of one's impassioned level of support for legal abortion, can it honestly be intellectually argued that a child in this situation was not worthy of legal protection in any way when only 80-90% born, but all of a sudden became a person deserving of such protection when the remaining 10% was intentionally or unintentionally delivered? By not closing these barbaric loopholes, if anything, we'd be on a "slippery slope" toward full-out legal infanticide, which already some pro-choice organizations support, in situations where the mother didn't realize she was pregnant, or when the child is physically handicapped (or, as in China, merely a tool of population control). This issue isn't so much about abortion as it is about common sense and medical/legal consistency in human rights law. I say kudos to Congress, especially the majority of pro-choice legislators, who recognized that sometimes the extremists are wrong, and had the courage to stand up to ethically and logically indefensible positions.
The argument of the "slippery slope" is common in American politics, generally used as a scare tactic by individuals or groups which oppose the criminalization or decriminalization of a certain activity or item. The National Rifle Association uses the "slippery slope" argument to suggest that even the smallest restrictions on handgun sales might lead to the illegality of private gun ownership. Christian Conservatives argue that recognition of gay marriage is a "slippery slope" which will result in legalized bestiality, bigamy, incest, and child sex. A quick internet search for the phrase "slippery slope" will find impassioned arguments on such topics as medicinal marijuana, welfare reform, internet censorship, public smoking bans, and just about any other debate you can imagine. Sometimes, the "slippery slope" expounders have a point. Usually, as in the cases above, it's a bit of a reach. (Equal rights for women did not, as early "slopers" predicted, lead to unisex bathrooms and the banning of gender-specific clothing, after all.)
Most recently, the "slippery slope" argument is being used by abortion rights proponents to decry the recent "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003." (S.3 of the 108th congress; available here.) Democratic Representative Louis Slaughter, among many others, argue that the bill is "an attempt to whittle away at a woman's constitutional right to her privacy and control of her body." The National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) is running ads about how this is the "first step" toward a ban on all "reproductive freedoms," and the National Abortion Federation is filing lawsuits, claiming the bill's language is "so vague" that it would ban all late-term abortions. Other talking heads are going even further, claiming the bill will put women "in jail," or that women will be denied a medical procedure that could "save their life."
One wonders if any of these panicked opponents to the legislation have actually taken the time to read the bill. S.3 is nineteen pages in length, and goes into such explicit detail as to the specifics of what is being addressed, that if anything it's reminiscent of the recent HB 35-E bill in Florida, which was written with such dazzling specificity as to assure it will only be used in one case, at one time: authorizing the feeding tube reattachment to Terri Schiavo, all but referencing her by name. (Opponents of HB 35-E, who claimed this was the "slippery slope" to denying anyone from being taken off of life support, have also apparently never read that actual legislation, either.)
Partial-birth abortion (known medically as "intact dilation and extraction") is the process of inducing delivery of a living late-term fetus, then pausing the delivery while a portion of the child's body is still inside the birth canal. Before 100% of the body is outside of the mother, legally signifying "personhood," the skull of the child is punctured and its brains removed using a suction device. Once the heartbeat stops, the remainder of the newly deceased child is delivered, as in a still-birth. The reason even so many pro-choice individuals and legislators wished to ban the procedure is in the recognition that it's not so much an "abortion," but rather a form of infanticide, which uses a technicality in the law to protect its disputed legality. (I know some may object to my use of the term "child" in the above description, but the word "fetus" only applies to an unborn child, not one in-between being "unborn" and "born," as is the case in this discussion. Since nearly all dictionaries include "an unborn infant; a fetus" as part of the definition of "child," that term seems more linguistically accurate. )
To make certain that the law would not be used to criminalize any other forms of abortion, legislators were even more specific than my description above. "Partial-Birth Abortion" is therefore unambiguously defined in the bill as "deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus." To argue that this could be interpreted as a ban on "all late term abortions" seems more than a bit of a stretch.
Predictably, presidential candidate Howard Dean expressed outrage that "the Senate has decided it is qualified to practice medicine," claiming the bill "will endanger the lives of countless women." But both the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Medical Association oppose the procedure, with the AMA testifying before congress that intact D&E is "not an accepted medical practice" and has "never been subject to even a minimal amount of the normal medical practice development." No articles in peer-reviewed journals have ever been published claiming its benefits, and perhaps more tellingly, not a single medical school in the country has ever taught the procedure. Given the vast amount of testimony on the subject during the 104th, 105th, 107th, and 108th Congresses, I'd say it's quite clear that the legislators went out of their way to become medically knowledgeable on the issue. As to the Dean's "endangering" prediction, even the creator of the procedure testified that intact D&E "is never medically necessary to preserve the health of a woman," and not one expert could identify "a single circumstance" in which it helped or theoretically would help a pregnant individual. Indeed, there was extensive medical testimony which detailed the increased risk to a woman as opposed to traditional abortion, including "making it difficult or impossible for a woman to successfully carry a subsequent pregnancy to term," "an increased risk of uterine rupture, abruption, amniotic fluid embolus, and trauma to the uterus," "a risk of lacerations and secondary hemorrhaging . . . which could ultimately result in maternal death," and others.
As for the final paranoid concerns of women being "imprisoned" for seeking out this procedure, or "losing their lives" as a result of its ban, the bill makes two very clear and critical distinctions: 1) that a woman "upon whom a partial-birth abortion is performed may not be prosecuted," and 2) that this ban does not apply if a physician deems the action "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."
The bottom line here is that this legislation doesn't so much "restrict" abortion, but rather closes a loophole in the dividing line between abortion and infanticide. Opponents of the ban are quick to point out that partial-birth abortions "are rare", only a couple thousand a year, but that's hardly a persuasive argument, especially since the reason they're "rare" is because even the vast majority of abortion providers find the practice unethical. And why would it matter if it's 100 or 1000 or 10,000? We are talking about the partial birth of, and then destruction of, a living and viable or near-viable child. Consider this: there have been numerous documented cases on which, during this type of procedure, the rest of the child accidentally "slipped out," and was born live. In these cases, the child legally became a "person" and was therefore protected by law, and the mother who went in for an abortion had to be told that, oops, she has a crying son or daughter now instead. Now, regardless of one's impassioned level of support for legal abortion, can it honestly be intellectually argued that a child in this situation was not worthy of legal protection in any way when only 80-90% born, but all of a sudden became a person deserving of such protection when the remaining 10% was intentionally or unintentionally delivered? By not closing these barbaric loopholes, if anything, we'd be on a "slippery slope" toward full-out legal infanticide, which already some pro-choice organizations support, in situations where the mother didn't realize she was pregnant, or when the child is physically handicapped (or, as in China, merely a tool of population control). This issue isn't so much about abortion as it is about common sense and medical/legal consistency in human rights law. I say kudos to Congress, especially the majority of pro-choice legislators, who recognized that sometimes the extremists are wrong, and had the courage to stand up to ethically and logically indefensible positions.
