click here to jump to start of article
Join Our Newsletter

Get latest articles and videos with Jewish inspiration and insights​




Partial - Birth

Partial - Birth "Abortion"

Do you know what act the law is addressing?

by

The U.S. Supreme Court's upholding of the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act has elicited the usual cries of protest from abortion rights advocates and, also as usual, they include an assortment of Jewish groups and The New York Times.

That latter institution characterized the term "partial-birth abortion" itself as a "provocative label" for the presumably more descriptive "intact dilation and extraction." As it happens, The Times (and the other advocates) are correct about the inaccuracy of the term "partial birth abortion," but not because it exaggerates the repugnance of the procedure in question.

Despite concerted efforts by some to misrepresent the law, its language is stark and clear. It prohibits any overt act, like the puncturing of the brain, "that the person knows will kill" a fetus whose "entire... head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother."

The law addresses the killing of a baby whose head or most of whose body has emerged into the world.

Thus, it is not abortion at all that the law at issue addresses, but rather the killing of a baby whose head or most of whose body has emerged into the world. Readers of The Times' editorial page, and much of the "mainstream" media, might be forgiven for not realizing what the procedure actually entails.

Nor have the media done a very good job explaining what exemptions the law does or does not contain. Since it does not contain an exemption for the mother's "health," there is wide assumption (at least from the evidence of calls and e-mails I have received) that even if the mother's life were somehow threatened by allowing the partially emerged infant to fully emerge, the federal prohibition would stand. In fact, though, the law contains an explicit exception for cases where the procedure is deemed necessary to preserve the mother's life. As to a "health" exemption, the Supreme Court's majority found, among other things, that if there is any threat to maternal health (a possibility about which no medical consensus exists), "safe alternatives to the prohibited procedure... are available."

Even more troubling to me, as a Jew, than the misunderstandings of the facts is that a number of rabbis and Jewish organizational spokespeople have asserted that Jewish religious tradition is somehow offended by the recently upheld law. The president of Hadassah, to take one example, has baldly stated that the law "undermines Jewish values."

She and others who have made similar claims are misinformed, and in turn misinform.

To be sure, the Talmudic sources are clear that the life of a Jewish woman whose pregnancy endangers her takes precedence over that of her unborn when there is no way to preserve both lives. (That is why Agudath Israel, while we oppose Roe v. Wade's effective "abortion on demand," has not and would never favor a wholesale ban on abortion.) And, while the matter is not free from controversy, there are rabbinic opinions that allow abortion when the pregnancy seriously jeopardizes the mother's health. But those narrow exceptions do not translate into some unlimited "mother's right" to "make her own reproductive choices" – the position Hadassah enthusiastically trumpets.

Moreover, in the specific context of "intact dilation and extraction" – to use The Times' preferred nomenclature – Jewish law certainly confers no right to kill a live baby whose head, or most of whose body, has already emerged. Indeed, once birth has already occurred, Jewish law makes clear, the newborn child has no less right to live than does the mother. Stated simply, what the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act prohibits is, in the eyes of Jewish law, little if anything short of murder.

Nothing, of course, prevents a Jew, or Jewish organization or rabbi, from ignoring the teachings of the Jewish religious tradition.

But intellectual integrity, if nothing else, should prevent anyone from misrepresenting the content of a law, or what Jewish tradition has to say about killing an unborn child, or a born one.

Courtesy of JTA.

Published: April 21, 2007


Give Tzedakah! Help Aish.com create inspiring
articles, videos and blogs featuring timeless Jewish wisdom.

Visitor Comments: 28

(27) glenda urmacher, November 18, 2012 11:05 PM

the morning after pill should be made available to all females needing the termination of a pregnancy. To those against any form of abortion, please provide your name , social security #, and the fact that you are willing to support through University any fetus you feel should survive.! Unless you are willing to support a fetus. SHUT YOUR MOUTH WHERE A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOSE, IS HER'S ALONE.!

Ron, November 17, 2013 1:12 PM

Rights

I agree on a woman's "right to choose". In fact, I agree on a "man's right to choose". Therefore, all men and women should have a right to choose what they do with their life and not be subject to whims of their mother while they are in the womb. The fetus has unique DNA, unique goals in their lives, and are unique human beings. Your use the words "right to choose" are referring not to a right at all but to total control over the distruction of another life.

(26) ladydi, December 6, 2011 4:08 PM

Im stunned. I am anti abortion, which is my right, as is anyone who is pro abortion. If the fetus is growing, its alive!!! To kill it in such a barbaric manner is mind blowing to me. I cant even begin to imagine the pain of having a limb torn off. Or the head being crushed. Dear God, please have mercy on these women who committed these crimes.

(25) Marcus, October 27, 2007 5:33 AM

Congrats on this site for publiching the truth

I am glad this article is so in tune withour current american politics and our traditions and teaching's. the issue is not pro-life vs pro-choice its pro-child vs pro-convienience. There is a obvious if not sinister reason more males support abotion in all its forms its just sad that many of my brothers want no responsibility for there actions.

(24) Laura Adams, June 10, 2007 1:28 PM

A Point Well Madee

Bravo!!!
It is about time we analyze what is really going on here. I have no problem saving the life of a mother who is in danger. In reality what percentage of abortions represent this scenario? Are they enough to support he multi-million dollar profit of Planned Parenthood? Can we not find reasonble medical alternatives for stem cell research? I tremble to live in a society where those who are unable to speak out for themselves are arbitrarily murdered. Or shall we say sacrificed to the gods of convienience and profit?

See All Comments

Submit Your Comment:

  • Display my name?

  • Your email address is kept private. Our editor needs it in case we have a question about your comment.


  • * required field 2000
Submit Comment
stub