Editing Intact dilation and extraction (section)

=== United States politics ===
The term "partial-birth abortion" is primarily used in political discourse—chiefly regarding the legality of [[abortion in the United States]].<!--
 --><ref>[http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba1.htm D & X/PBA Procedures: Introduction] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060421234056/http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba1.htm |date=2006-04-21 }}. religioustolerance.org. Accessed April 14, 2006.</ref> The term is not recognized as a medical term by the [[American Medical Association]]<ref name="ama-assn.org">[http://www.ama-assn.org/ad-com/polfind/Hlth-Ethics.pdf Health and Ethics Policies of the AMA] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150320143132/http://www.ama-assn.org/ad-com/polfind/Hlth-Ethics.pdf |date=2015-03-20 }} ''American Medical Association''. H-5.982 Retrieved April 24, 2007.</ref> nor the [[American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists]].<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20080531043420/http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/press_releases/nr09-22-06.cfm ACOG Files Amicus Brief in Gonzales v. Carhart and Gonzales v. PPFA] September 22, 2006 ''The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists''. Retrieved April 25, 2007.</ref> This term was first suggested in 1995 by [[Congressperson|Congressman]] [[Charles T. Canady]], while developing the original proposed [[Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995|Partial-Birth Abortion Ban]].<!--
 --><ref>Alex Gordon. [http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jol/vol41_2/gordon.php "The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003"]. ''Harvard Journal on Legislation''. Volume 41, Number 2, Summer 2004. (see footnote 15)</ref><!--
 --><ref>H.R.1833. [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d104:HR01833: To amend title 18, United States Code, to ban partial-birth abortions] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081112030956/http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d104:HR01833: |date=2008-11-12 }}.</ref> According to Keri Folmar, the lawyer responsible for the bill's language, the term was developed in early 1995 in a meeting among herself, Charles T. Canady, and [[National Right to Life Committee]] lobbyist Douglas Johnson.<!--
 --><ref name="harpers">Gorney, Cynthia. [http://www.harpers.org/GamblingWithAbortion.html Gambling With Abortion]. Harper's Magazine, November 2004.</ref> Canady could not find this particular abortion practice named in any medical textbook, and therefore he and his aides named it.<ref>Adam Simon, “[http://mpsa.indiana.edu/conf2003papers/1032123442.pdf Elite Discourse, Programming and Survey Response in the Partial Birth Abortion Debate] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070614123429/http://mpsa.indiana.edu/conf2003papers/1032123442.pdf |date=2007-06-14 }}” (March 2003).</ref> "Partial-birth abortion" was first used in the media on June 4, 1995, in a ''[[The Washington Times|Washington Times]]'' article covering the bill.<!--
 -->{{Citation needed|date=July 2010}}

In the U.S., a [[Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act#"Partial-birth abortion" defined by lw|federal statute defines]] "partial-birth abortion" as any abortion in which the life of the fetus is terminated after having been extracted from the mother's body to a point "past the navel [of the fetus]" or "in the case of head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother" at the time the life is terminated. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the terms "partial-birth abortion" and "intact dilation and extraction" are basically synonymous.<ref name="SCOTUS">''Gonzales v. Carhart'', [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=05-380 550 U.S. ____ (2007)]. Findlaw.com. Retrieved 2007-04-19.</ref> However, there are cases where these overlapping terms do not coincide. For example, the intact D&E procedure may be used to remove a deceased fetus (e.g., due to a [[miscarriage]] or [[feticide]]) that is developed enough to require dilation of the cervix for its extraction.<ref name="extract">''[[Gonzales v. Carhart]]'', [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=05-380 550 U.S. ____ (2007)]. Findlaw.com. Retrieved 2007-04-30. ("If the intact D&E procedure is truly necessary in some circumstances, it appears likely an injection that kills the fetus is an alternative under the Act that allows the doctor to perform the procedure.")</ref> Removing a dead fetus does not meet the federal legal definition of "partial-birth abortion," which specifies that partial live delivery must precede "the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered, living fetus."<ref>[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1531- U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 74, Section 1531], "Partial-birth abortions prohibited."</ref>

In addition to the federal ban, there have also been a number of [[#State law|state partial-birth abortion bans]]. There, courts have found that state legislation (rather than federal legislation) intended to ban "partial-birth abortions" could be interpreted to apply to some non-intact [[dilation and evacuation]] (D&E) procedures.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/abortionbans/12669res20040326.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051128182129/http://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/abortionbans/12669res20040326.html|url-status=dead|archive-date=28 November 2005|title=American Civil Liberties Union :Abortion Bans: Myths and Facts|date=28 November 2005|access-date=4 April 2018}}</ref> Non-intact D&E, though performed at similar gestational ages, is a fundamentally different procedure.