The 'partial-birth' debate in 1998

Humanist, March-April, 1998 by John M. Swomley

As the 1998 elections draw near, the Republican-controlled Congress is expected to attempt another over-ride of President Clinton's veto of the so-called Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 1997. After consulting with their religious allies, congressional Republican leaders will no doubt organize such an override attempt to take place on a date determined to have maximum impact on the elections.

Legislation prohibiting this particular type of late-term abortion first passed in the 1996 session of Congress and was vetoed by the president on the grounds that the bill permitted such abortions only if the mother's life were threatened, not if her health were in danger. It then became an issue in the presidential campaign of 1996, leading to new legislation by Congress and another presidential veto in 1997.

Given this continuing threat to reproductive freedom, it is compelling to review a few public cases of women whose lives would have been endangered had this legislation been law at the time of their pregnancies.

VIKKI STELLA from Naperville, Illinois. Parents of two daughters, Vikki and her husband Archer discovered at thirty-two weeks of pregnancy that the fetus had only fluid filling the cranium where its brain should have been, as well as other major problems. The Stellas made "the most loving decision we could have made" to terminate the pregnancy. Because the procedure preserved her fertility, Vikki was able to conceive again. In December 1995, she gave birth to a healthy boy, Nicholas.

MARY-DOROTHY LINE from Los Angeles, California. In the summer of 1995, Mary-Dorothy was told at twenty-one weeks of pregnancy that her fetus had an advanced, textbook case of hydrocephalus -- an excess of fluid on the brain. It was so acute and so advanced that it was untreatable. Practicing Catholics, she and her husband Bill sought a medical miracle but were told that no surgery or therapy could save their baby. Indeed, the medical experts who reviewed the case told her that her own health was at risk, and so the Lines decided to end the pregnancy. Mary-Dorothy was able to become pregnant again and gave birth to a healthy baby girl in September 1996.

COREEN COSTELLO from Agoura, California. In April 1995, seven months pregnant with her third child, Coreen and her husband Jim found out that a lethal neuromuscular disease had left their much-wanted daughter unable to survive. Its body had stiffened and was frozen, wedged in a transverse position. in addition, amniotic fluid had puddled and built up to dangerous levels in Coreen's uterus. Devout Christians and opposed to abortion, the Costellos agonized for over two weeks about their decision and baptized the fetus in utero. Finally, Coreen's increasing health problems forced them to accept the advice of numerous medical experts that the intact dilation and extraction (D&X) was, indeed, the best option for Coreen's own health, and the abortion was performed. Later, in June 1996, Coreen gave birth to a healthy son.

MAUREEN MARY BRITELL from Sandwich, Massachusetts. Maureen and her husband Andrew, practicing Catholics, were expecting their second child in early 1994 when, at six months' gestation, a sonogram revealed that the fetus had anencephaly. No brain was developing, only a brain stem. Experts at the New England Medical Center in Boston confirmed that the fetus the Britells had named Dahlia would not survive. The Britells' parish priest supported their decision to induce labor and terminate the pregnancy. During the delivery, a complication arose and the placenta would not drop. The umbilical cord had to be cut, aborting the fetus while still in delivery in order to prevent serious health risks for Maureen. Dahlia had a Catholic funeral.

CLAUDIA CROWN ADES from Los Angeles, California. In 1992, in the twenty-sixth week of a desperately wanted pregnancy, Claudia and her husband Richard were told after an ultrasound that the male fetus she carried had a genetic condition called trisomy-13. its anomalies included extensive brain damage, serious heart complications, and liver, kidney, and intestinal malformations. Its condition was incompatible with fife. After consulting with many physicians, Claudia and Richard chose the D&X as the medically appropriate procedure for Claudia and the most compassionate procedure for their would-be son.

There are, of course, other cases wherein severely handicapped children would have been born had Congress succeeded in enacting the "partial-birth" legislation. The crucial question is whether medical decisions should be made by qualified physicians or by politicians.

The major medical associations oppose government intervention. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said, "The physician, in consultation with the patient must choose the most appropriate method based upon the patients individual circumstances." A legislative ban would force doctors in many cases to select what they consider a second-best method in order to avoid criminal prosecution.