117 STAT. 1204
PUBLIC LAW 108–105—NOV. 5, 2003 and 106th Congresses. These findings reflect the very informed judgment of the Congress that a partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman, poses serious risks to a woman’s health, and lies outside the standard of medical care, and should, therefore, be banned. (14) Pursuant to the testimony received during extensive legislative hearings during the 104th, 105th, 107th, and 108th Congresses, Congress finds and declares that: (A) Partial-birth abortion poses serious risks to the health of a woman undergoing the procedure. Those risks include, among other things: An increase in a woman’s risk of suffering from cervical incompetence, a result of cervical dilation making it difficult or impossible for a woman to successfully carry a subsequent pregnancy to term; an increased risk of uterine rupture, abruption, amniotic fluid embolus, and trauma to the uterus as a result of converting the child to a footling breech position, a procedure which, according to a leading obstetrics textbook, ‘‘there are very few, if any, indications for * * * other than for delivery of a second twin’’; and a risk of lacerations and secondary hemorrhaging due to the doctor blindly forcing a sharp instrument into the base of the unborn child’s skull while he or she is lodged in the birth canal, an act which could result in severe bleeding, brings with it the threat of shock, and could ultimately result in maternal death. (B) There is no credible medical evidence that partialbirth abortions are safe or are safer than other abortion procedures. No controlled studies of partial-birth abortions have been conducted nor have any comparative studies been conducted to demonstrate its safety and efficacy compared to other abortion methods. Furthermore, there have been no articles published in peer-reviewed journals that establish that partial-birth abortions are superior in any way to established abortion procedures. Indeed, unlike other more commonly used abortion procedures, there are currently no medical schools that provide instruction on abortions that include the instruction in partial-birth abortions in their curriculum. (C) A prominent medical association has concluded that partial-birth abortion is ‘‘not an accepted medical practice’’, that it has ‘‘never been subject to even a minimal amount of the normal medical practice development,’’ that ‘‘the relative advantages and disadvantages of the procedure in specific circumstances remain unknown,’’ and that ‘‘there is no consensus among obstetricians about its use’’. The association has further noted that partial-birth abortion is broadly disfavored by both medical experts and the public, is ‘‘ethically wrong,’’ and ‘‘is never the only appropriate procedure’’. (D) Neither the plaintiff in Stenberg v. Carhart, nor the experts who testified on his behalf, have identified a single circumstance during which a partial-birth abortion was necessary to preserve the health of a woman. (E) The physician credited with developing the partialbirth abortion procedure has testified that he has never encountered a situation where a partial-birth abortion was
VerDate 11-MAY-2000
10:15 Aug 27, 2004
Jkt 019194
PO 00000
Frm 00156
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581
D:\STATUTES\2003\19194PT2.001
APPS10
PsN: 19194PT2
�
