Margaret A.WinkerMD, Deputy EditorIndividualAuthorPhil B.FontanarosaMD, Interim CoeditorIndividualAuthor
To the Editor: In Drs Sprang and Neerhof's
article1 there are 2 points that must be
challenged: that proposed federal legislation would ban only the intact D&X
procedure, and that these authors are truly concerned about pregnant women.
The argument that federal legislation would make only the intact D&X
illegal is fallacious. The wording of the proposed federal legislation about
D&X is vague when compared with the ACOG definition of intact D&X;
even a first-trimester vacuum aspiration procedure could be considered to
be "deliberately and intentionally deliver[ing] into the vagina a living fetus
. . . for the purpose of performing a procedure the physician knows will kill
the fetus, and kill[ing] the fetus."2 Because
intact D&X can be described to the public in graphic, disturbing terms,
it is being used as a Trojan horse; the desired outcome of the antichoice
movement is the criminalization of all abortion procedures. If intact D&X
were the only procedure felt to be abhorrent enough to be illegalized, why
is the precise ACOG definition of intact D&X not used in the language
of the legislation?
Lauster M, Spear SJ. The Law, the AMA, and Partial-Birth Abortion. JAMA. 1999;282(1):23–27. doi:10-1001/pubs.JAMA-ISSN-0098-7484-282-1-jbk0707
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: