Editing Intact dilation and extraction (section)

===Controversy===
Some people believe the D&E procedure illustrates that abortion, and especially [[Late termination of pregnancy|late-term abortion]], is the taking of a human life and therefore ought to be illegal. People who believe this consider the procedure to be [[infanticide]],<ref>Koukl, Gregory. [http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5477 Partial-Birth Abortion Is Not About Abortion] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927190336/http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5477 |date=2007-09-27 }}. ''Stand to Reason''. Accessed April 25, 2006.<br />White, Deborah. [http://usliberals.about.com/od/healthcare/i/PBAbortion_2.htm Pros & Cons of Partial Birth Abortions] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070430093743/http://usliberals.about.com/od/healthcare/i/PBAbortion_2.htm |date=2007-04-30 }} ''About.com''. Accessed April 25, 2006.</ref> a position that many in the anti-abortion movement extend to cover all abortions.<ref>[http://www.patriarhia.ro/eng/bioetics.php The Official Point of View of the Romanian Orthodox Church on Abortion (summary)] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060513233915/http://www.patriarhia.ro/eng/bioetics.php |date=2006-05-13 }}. ''The Romanian Patriarchate''. Accessed April 25, 2006.<br />Achacoso, Jaime B. [http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9606ltrs.asp A Sin and a Crime] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061019020143/http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9606ltrs.asp |date=2006-10-19 }} ''Catholic.com''. Accessed April 25, 2006.<br />Gonzalez, Ramon. [http://www.wcr.ab.ca/news/2000/1023/prolifeteens102300.shtml Pro-life teens challenged] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061004185228/http://www.wcr.ab.ca/news/2000/1023/prolifeteens102300.shtml |date=2006-10-04 }} ''Western Catholic Reporter''. October 23, 2000. Accessed April 25, 2006.</ref> Some advocates, both for and against abortion rights, see the intact D&E issue as a central battleground in the wider [[abortion]] debate, attempting to set a legal precedent so as to either gradually reduce or gradually increase access to all abortion methods.<ref>[http://www.perrspectives.com/articles/art_slope01.htm Slippery Slope: Democratic Wavering in the Battle for Reproductive Rights] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060426103413/http://www.perrspectives.com/articles/art_slope01.htm |date=2006-04-26 }}. ''PERRspectives.com''. February 25, 2004. Accessed April 25, 2006.<br />[http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/rockridge/stratinit?b_start:int=1 Strategic Initiatives] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061013195330/http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/rockridge/stratinit?b_start:int=1 |date=2006-10-13 }} '' The Rockridge Institute''. Accessed April 25, 2006.</ref>

Dr. [[Martin Haskell]] has called the intact D&E procedure "a quick, surgical outpatient method" for late second-trimester and early third-trimester abortions.<!--
 --><ref name="presentation">Haskell, Martin. [http://www.sharonvilleclinic.com/uploads/6/2/0/0/6200039/idx.pdf Dilation and Extraction for Late Second Trimester Abortion] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130228101313/http://www.sharonvilleclinic.com/uploads/6/2/0/0/6200039/idx.pdf |date=2013-02-28 }}. Presented at the National Abortion Federation Risk Management Seminar, September 13, 1992.</ref> The [[Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act]] of 2003 describes it as "a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary."<!--
 --><ref>108th Congress, 1st Session, S.3. [http://news.findlaw.com/usatoday/docs/abortion/2003s3.html Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003].</ref>

According to a [[BBC]] report about the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in ''[[Gonzales v. Carhart]]'', "government lawyers and others who favour the ban, have said there are alternative and more widely used procedures that are still legal - which involves dismembering the fetus in the uterus."<ref>{{cite news | title = US top court backs abortion ban | publisher = BBC | date = 2007-04-18 | url = http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6569007.stm | access-date = 2007-04-18 }}</ref> An article in ''[[Harper's Magazine|Harper's]]'' magazine stated that, "Defending the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban... requires arguing to judges that pulling a fetus from a woman's body in dismembered pieces is legal, medically acceptable, and safe; but that pulling a fetus out intact, so that if the woman wishes the fetus can be wrapped in a blanket and handed to her, is appropriately punishable by a fine, or up to two years' imprisonment, or both."<ref name="harpers" /> Alternately, opponents of abortion rights frame the issue as one in which a partially-born infant's life is disposable, whereas pulling the infant only a few more inches down the birth canal automatically transforms it into "a living person, possessing rights and deserving of protection."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.abortionfacts.com/facts/2|title=Fact #2: Every human being is a person. – AbortionFacts.com|website=www.abortionfacts.com|access-date=4 April 2018|archive-date=26 December 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171226103542/http://www.abortionfacts.com/facts/2|url-status=dead}}</ref> The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that intact D&E remains legal as long as there is first a feticidal injection while the fetus is still completely inside of the mother's body.<ref name="extract" />

There is also controversy about why this procedure is used. Although prominent defenders of the method asserted during 1995 and 1996 that it was used only or mostly in acute medical circumstances, lobbyist Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the [[National Coalition of Abortion Providers]] (a trade association of abortion providers), told ''[[The New York Times]]'' (February 26, 1997): "In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/26/us/an-abortion-rights-advocate-says-he-lied-about-procedure.html|title=An abortion rights advocate says he lied about procedure|work=[[The New York Times]]|date=1997-02-26|page=A11|access-date=2009-06-08 | first=David | last=Stout}}</ref>
Some prominent opponents of abortion rights quickly defended the accuracy of Fitzsimmons's statements,<ref>Ruth Padawer, [http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBA%20activists%20lied.pdf "Pro-choice advocates admit to deception"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070614123430/http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBA%20activists%20lied.pdf |date=2007-06-14 }}, ''Bergen Record'', February 27, 1997.</ref> whilst others condemned Fitzsimmons as self-serving.<ref>Melanie Conklin, [https://archive.today/20120708152326/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_n9_v61/ai_19732071/ "Whatever happened to the abortion lobbyist who repented?"], ''The Progressive'', September, 1997.</ref>

In support of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, a nurse who witnessed three intact D&E procedures found them deeply disturbing, and described one performed on a 26½-week [[fetus]] with [[Down Syndrome]] in testimony before a Judiciary subcommittee of the [[United States House of Representatives|U.S. House of Representatives]].<ref>[http://judiciary.house.gov/legacy/215.htm Testimony of Brenda Pratt Shafer, R.N.] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070501040628/http://judiciary.house.gov/legacy/215.htm |date=2007-05-01 }} Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee On The Constitution, U.S. House Of Representatives, March 21, 1996. Retrieved May 2, 2007.</ref>

A journalist observed three intact and two non-intact D&E procedures involving fetuses ranging from 19 to 23 weeks. She "watched for any signs of fetal distress, but ... [she] could see no response, no reflexive spasm, nothing. Whether this was a result of the anesthesia or an undeveloped fetal system for pain sensitivity, one thing was clear: There was no discernible response by the fetus."<ref name="salon">{{cite journal |last=Woodbury |first=Margaret A. |title=A doctor's right to choose |website=Salon.com |date=2002-07-24 |url=http://archive.salon.com/mwt/feature/2002/07/24/late_term/index.html |access-date=2007-04-29 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070503180410/http://archive.salon.com/mwt/feature/2002/07/24/late_term/index.html |archive-date=2007-05-03 }}</ref>

Abortion provider [[Warren Hern]] asserted in 2003, "No peer-reviewed articles or case reports have ever been published describing anything such as 'partial-birth' abortion, 'Intact D&E' (for 'dilation and extraction'), or any of its synonyms."<ref>Hern, Warren. "Did I Violate the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban?" [http://www.slate.com/id/2090215/ (''Slate'', October 22, 2003)].</ref> Therefore, Hern expressed uncertainty about what all of these terms mean. The U.S. Supreme Court held in ''Gonzales v. Carhart'' that these terms of the federal statute are not vague because the statute specifically detailed the procedure being banned: it specified anatomical landmarks past which the fetus must not be delivered, and criminalized such a procedure only if an "overt" fatal act is performed on the fetus after "partial delivery."<ref name="SCOTUS"/>