This week's issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association features articles on late-term abortion that editor Dr. George Lundberg notes are sure to be controversial. All address partial-birth abortion. Two are point-counterpoints, and one is "a scientific discourse with abundant references." Lundberg writes: "We anticipate a flood of protests from many points of view on this issue. Nonetheless, we believed it important for JAMA to serve again as a forum for responsible discussion and debate on even this troubling and divisive issue" (JAMA, 8/26/98 issue).
In "Rationale for Banning Abortions Late in Pregnancy," Dr. M. LeRoy Sprang of Northwestern University Medical School and Dr. Mark Neerhof of Evanston Northwestern Healthcare, argue that partial-birth abortion is unsafe for pregnant women, painful for unborn children and unethical because of questions about fetal viability. They also note that "[a]n extraordinary medical consensus has emerged that [partial-birth abortion] is neither necessary nor the safest method for late-term abortion."
The authors note that in its policy statement on partial-birth abortion, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said it "could identify no circumstances under which this procedure ... would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman." In ddition, the American Medical Association backed federal legislation to ban the abortion procedure. Public opinion and state Legislatures also back banning the procedure, the authors note.
They conclude: partial-birth abortion "should not be performed because it is needlessly risky, inhumane, and ethically unacceptable. This procedure is closer to infanticide than it is to abortion." (Sprang/Neerhof, JAMA, 8/26/98 issue).