Editor’s note. This appeared in the current digital edition of National Right to Life News. All the many articles in this issue can be read at www.nrlc.org/uploads/NRLNews/NRLNewsJan2015.pdf.
One of the great humanitarian achievements of the Right to Life movement was the exposé of partial-birth abortion by National Right to Life. Our massive public education campaigns and our innovative laws to ban partial-birth abortion moved millions of Americans to take a second look at abortion, and millions of them switched to the pro-life side.
One of those who was shocked by partial-birth abortion wrote the majority decision in upholding the national ban on that procedure that we passed in 2003: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Kennedy had a record of indecision on abortion. But the majority decision he wrote in the PBA case showed a man appalled by the brutality of partial-birth abortion, in which an innocent unborn baby is induced to delivery and then killed by stabbing her in the head just as she emerges from the womb. Kennedy provided the decisive vote to ban this practice, which remains banned throughout the United States today.
But Kennedy didn’t only write about partial-birth abortion. He compared it to another abortion method that is so brutal it is truly hard to write about: Dismemberment Abortions.
Imagine a society in which it is perfectly legal to take an unborn baby, who often is developed enough to feel the most excruciating pain, and then to coldly and purposefully pull that child apart – dismembering her – body part by body part; arms, legs, torso, and head.
Nobody would believe a civilized society would do that. Right? Wrong.
We do that right here in the United States of America. In all 50 states.
Today, National Right to Life announces the 2015 Legislative Agenda for the Right to Life Movement. And along with passing the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act and the No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Act, we are determined this year to bring the tragic issue of Dismemberment Abortions to the public’s attention, beginning with passage of the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act, which has already been introduced in the Kansas legislature
Your support for National Right to Life exposed the brutality of partial-birth abortion. You got it banned. Your support moved a nation to switch in polls to majority pro-life. Now your support is needed to educate about and ban the unspeakable evil of killing unborn babies by tearing them limb from limb.
In 2015, the Right to Life movement placed a high priority on advocating for the ban on dismemberment abortions, a controversial procedure that has sparked significant debate across the United States. This article explores the motivations behind the movement, the specifics of the proposed bans, and the broader implications for abortion laws and reproductive rights.
Understanding Dismemberment Abortions
Dismemberment abortions, medically known as dilation and evacuation (D&E) procedures, are typically performed during the second trimester of pregnancy. These procedures involve the removal of the fetus in pieces using surgical instruments. According to medical professionals, D&E is a common and safe method for second-trimester abortions, often preferred because it poses fewer risks than other methods.
Right to Life Movement’s Stance
The Right to Life movement, which includes various pro-life organizations and advocacy groups, views dismemberment abortions as particularly gruesome and inhumane. They argue that the procedure inflicts pain on the fetus and that banning it would be a step toward more humane treatment of unborn children. The movement’s campaign for banning dismemberment abortions is part of a broader strategy to restrict abortion access and protect what they consider the sanctity of life.
Legislative Efforts in 2015
In 2015, several states introduced legislation to ban dismemberment abortions. These efforts were often spearheaded by pro-life legislators and supported by influential pro-life organizations such as the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC). The proposed bans generally included the following elements:
- Definition: Legislation often defined dismemberment abortion explicitly, typically describing it as a procedure that “dismembers the fetus by the use of clamps, grasping forceps, tongs, scissors, or similar instruments.”
- Exceptions: Most proposed bans included exceptions for cases where the life or health of the mother was at risk. However, these exceptions were often narrowly defined, leading to concerns about their adequacy in protecting maternal health.
- Penalties: The legislation proposed criminal penalties for doctors who performed dismemberment abortions, ranging from fines to imprisonment, along with potential civil penalties.
Arguments for the Ban
Proponents of the ban on dismemberment abortions put forth several key arguments:
- Humanity and Dignity: Advocates argue that dismemberment abortions are inhumane and that banning the procedure would uphold the dignity of the unborn child. They believe that even if abortion remains legal, certain methods should be prohibited to reflect societal values.
- Fetal Pain: Some proponents claim that fetuses can feel pain during the dismemberment procedure, although scientific evidence on fetal pain perception at various stages of pregnancy is contested.
- Incremental Strategy: Banning dismemberment abortions is seen as part of an incremental strategy to restrict abortion access more broadly. Pro-life advocates view this as a step toward reducing the number of abortions performed overall.
Opposition to the Ban
Opponents of the ban, including reproductive rights organizations and medical professionals, present several counterarguments:
- Safety and Access: They argue that D&E is one of the safest methods for second-trimester abortions and that banning it would force women to undergo riskier procedures. This could endanger women’s health and limit access to necessary medical care.
- Autonomy and Rights: Reproductive rights advocates emphasize the importance of a woman’s autonomy in making decisions about her own body. They contend that such bans infringe on the constitutional right to access safe and legal abortion services.
- Medical Judgment: Medical professionals argue that decisions about abortion methods should be left to doctors and their patients, not legislated by politicians. They warn that such bans interfere with medical judgment and could lead to suboptimal patient care.
Legal Challenges and Broader Implications
The proposed bans on dismemberment abortions have faced significant legal challenges. Courts have blocked or struck down many of these laws, citing constitutional concerns and the undue burden they place on women’s access to abortion. Key court cases have highlighted the tension between state-level abortion restrictions and federal protections established by landmark rulings such as Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
Broader Implications
The push to ban dismemberment abortions reflects broader trends in the abortion debate. It highlights the ongoing efforts by the pro-life movement to incrementally restrict abortion access through targeted legislation. These efforts often result in prolonged legal battles and contribute to a polarized national discourse on reproductive rights.
The debate over dismemberment abortions also underscores the ethical and moral complexities surrounding abortion. It raises questions about the balance between protecting fetal life and ensuring women’s health and autonomy. As legislative efforts continue and court rulings shape the legal landscape, the issue remains a contentious and pivotal aspect of the broader struggle over reproductive rights in the United States.
Conclusion
In 2015, the Right to Life movement’s focus on banning dismemberment abortions highlighted the ongoing battle over abortion laws in the United States. While proponents argue for the humanity and dignity of the unborn, opponents stress the importance of medical safety, women’s autonomy, and constitutional rights. The legislative and legal battles over these bans continue to shape the complex and evolving landscape of reproductive rights in the country.
Daniel Miller is responsible for nearly all of National Right to Life News' political writing.
With the election of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency, Daniel Miller developed a deep obsession with U.S. politics that has never let go of the political scientist. Whether it's the election of Joe Biden, the midterm elections in Congress, the abortion rights debate in the Supreme Court or the mudslinging in the primaries - Daniel Miller is happy to stay up late for you.
Daniel was born and raised in New York. After living in China, working for a news agency and another stint at a major news network, he now lives in Arizona with his two daughters.
