The pictures you will see below are not fiction. They are the definition of partial birth abortion.  The partial birth abortion has been performed legally in the United States for years. It is neither a "rare" procedure, nor is it done only for babies who are severely deformed or dying. It is, essentially, a variant of the even more common and equally gruesome Dilation and Evacuation (D&E) procedure.

In 1992, Dr. Martin Haskell presented his paper on this procedure at a Risk Management Seminar of the National Abortion Federation. He personally claims to have done over 700 himself (Interview with Dr. Martin Haskell, AMA News, 1993), and points out that some 80% are "purely elective." In a personal conversation with Fr. Frank Pavone, Dr. Haskell explained that "elective" does not mean that the woman chooses the procedure because of a medical necessity, but rather chooses it because she wants an abortion. He admitted to Fr. Frank that there does not seem to be any medical reason for this procedure. There are in fact absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered in this country which require a partially delivered human fetus to be destroyed to preserve the life or health of the mother (Dr. Pamela Smith, Senate Hearing Record, p.82: Partial Birth Abortion Ban Medical Testimony).

In April of 2000, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Stenberg vs. Carhart decision, which was handed down in June, 2000. The Court struck down a Nebraska statute which had banned partial-birth abortion. Nebraska, as well as over two dozen other states, had banned this procedure, but the Court said the procedure should remain legal. One of the reasons given was that any proposed ban must allow the procedure "for the health of the mother." Fr. Pavone was present at the Supreme Court both for the oral arguments and on the day the decision was issued. At a press conference on the Court steps, Father asked the lead attorney from the pro-abortion side whether any evidence presented to the Court had identified even a single medical circumstance in which this procedure was the only way to preserve the mother's health. Of course, none could be cited, and the reason is that none exist.

The Court argued, furthermore, that a "health reason" for the Partial-birth abortion procedure was present if, in the judgment of the physician, it was safer than alternative procedures. One of the problems with this line of argument is that one can identify many circumstances in which it is safer for the mother to deliver the child normally than to have a partial-birth abortion. Normal delivery excludes the dangers that arise from inverting the position of the child, and from inserting surgical instruments into the birth canal. Why not argue, therefore, that "live-birth abortion" should be legal as a safer alternative to partial-birth abortion. People like Jill Stanek have exposed this practice, in which children marked for abortion are born alive and then killed. This is exactly where the logic of partial-birth abortion leads.

On November 5, 2003, President George W. Bush signed into law the Partial-birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Pro-abortion forces, not having the support of the American public, challenged the law in court. Federal Courts in the 2nd, 8th, and 9th Circuits ruled the ban unconstitutional. Now, the Supreme Court has agreed to consider the case, and is reviewing the decisions of the 8th and 9th Circuit courts. Oral arguments were heard on Wednesday, November 8, 2006.

On April 18, 2007 the Supreme Court announced its decision to uphold the ban on partial-birth abortion.