Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Supreme Court Upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban

The Supreme Court upheld a ban on partial birth abortion today after constitutionality was brought into question. The decision was five to four in favor of the ban, which does not allow any exception for women who may need to have this type of abortion in order to save their lives. (I am not including victims of rape or incest in those affected, because after much research I have not come across any instance in which the IDX procedure was used for such.)

While both liberals and conservatives are waring against one another with regard to the decision, I think it's important to take a step back and examine the statistics.

Partial birth abortions account for about 0.25% of approximately 1.3 million annual abortions performed in the United States. Which means that this decision affects between 2,500 and 3,000 women annually. However, only 2% of all abortions are a result of a threat to the mother's life. Therefore there are 50 to 60 women per year who may require the IDX procedure to save their lives. (In some cases the D&E method is an option.)

Why is there no exception in this ban to save the lives of these women? Granted, this does seem like very few lives compared to 1.3 million abortions, but isn't the point that every life is sacred?

1 comments:

  1. It seems to me like the IDX procedure is mostly unnecessary except for some extraordinarily rare circumstances (the hydrocephalus case in the Wikipedia article). If the child is unwanted, why wait until IDX is the only option? If the life of the mother is the issue, and assuming that the child is wanted, why not have a c-section and deliver the baby prematurely?

    I can't square killing the baby after the point in the pregnancy where it has a chance of survival outside the womb with saving the life of the mother when there's an option for a live birth.
    ReplyDelete