First of all, some clarification. The term “partial birth” is decidedly false as these are usually performed in the 2nd trimester before viability, and removing a fetus from the birth canal is not the same thing at all as a live birth. So I’m going to call is D&X which is what we call it on the OB/GYN service.
The thing that strikes me is that to uphold a ban on D&X would rquire a complete overturning of Roe v Wade. I’m sure we all have our own ideas on whether this is a good idea, but regardless I cant see the Roberts court doing this. There may be a majority of anti-abortion justices on the Court now, but precedent is powerful.
There are two fundamental problems with the proposed ban: 1) no exception for the health of the mother, in violation of Roe. 2) the more important one IMO, is that it’s banning a particular medical procedure independent of how far a pregnancy has progressed. You’re going to have all the medical lobby groups saying that it’s in the best interest of the mother to have all options open in the second trimester. Roe only allows regulation of 2nd trimester abortion for matters “reasonably related to maternal health,” a standard which a D&X ban clearly fails. And in the third trimester, D&X, along with every other abortion method, is illegal in every state I know of, except for cases when the mother’s health is in jeopardy. so what’s the point?
My impression: this is a stupid law which doesn’t really serve to reduce the number of abortions performed, and requires a radical restructuing of how we judge the legality abortion (is based on trimester). The latter may be the point, but I dont see it working.
Thoughts?