Is there a more “objective” term for the procedure than “partial-birth abortion”?
Some opponents of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (HR 1833) insist that anyone writing about the bill should say that it bans a procedure “known medically as intact dilation and evacuation.” But when journalists comply with this demand, they do so at the expense of accuracy. The bill itself makes no reference whatever to “intact dilation and evacuation” abortions. More importantly, the term “intact dilation and evacuation” is not equivalent to the class of procedures banned by the bill. The bill would make it a criminal offense (except to save a woman’s life) to perform a “partial-birth abortion,” which the bill would define– as a matter of law– as “an abortion in which the person performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus and completing the delivery.” [emphasis added] In contrast, the term “intact dilation and evacuation” was invented by the late Dr. James McMahon, and until recently, was idiosyncratic to him. It appeared in no st
