Option A:

Judge Phyllis Hamilton’s finding that the ban on so-called partial birth abortion is unconstitutional stands in agreement with other legal decision-makers, as well as the general public. During the 2000 Sternberg v. Carhart case in Nebraska, for instance, the United States Supreme Court reached the same ruling, for two main reasons: the term “partial birth abortion” is overtly ambiguous, and the ban shows a lack of consideration for a woman’s health. An ABC News Poll taken in 2003 shows that a solid 61% of Americans believe a woman should be able to have a second-trimester abortion to ensure her health and safety. It is always necessary to remind ourselves that “partial birth abortion” is not an actual medical term. In a 2003 article, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists clarifies that the procedure is really called intact dilation and extraction, or D&X. Whenever we think about D&X, we must be mindful of the fact that D&X, according to the Centers for Disease Control in 2000, represents just 1.4% of all abortion procedures. Since the proposed ban does not indicate a specific stage of pregnancy, however, it is a threat to all abortions, including the 88% (CDC, 2000) which occur within a pregnancy’s first thirteen weeks. A law should not be made if it lacks explicit, medically-correct language. Women, reproductive healthcare providers, and the public deserve this information to make the decisions we individually believe are appropriate for our health.

Option B:

Judge Phyllis Hamilton finds the proposed ban on so-called partial birth abortions unconstitutional, and she’s not alone. In 1998, a federal judge in Miami ruled against the bans due to concerns about the ban’s threat to the legal rights of abortion providers and its outstanding failure to account for a woman’s health. The 2000 Sternberg v. Carhart case in Nebraska was closed with the United States Supreme Court’s finding that the term “partial birth abortion” lacks medical accuracy. According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ 2003 article, the actual term for a second-trimester abortion is known as intact dilation and extraction, or D&X. An important fact, conveniently suppressed by anti-choice extremists, is the Centers for Disease Control’s 2000 report that D&X procedures account for just 1.4% of all abortions. However, because bans on “partial birth abortions” do not include language about a given stage of pregnancy, the bans effectively jeopardize all abortion procedures, including the 88% that are performed within a pregnancy’s first thirteen weeks (CDC, 2000). The American public, as represented by a 2003 ABC News Poll, shows that a strong 61% of people support the D&X as an option to sustain a woman’s health and safety. We can’t let the government try to have us believe that our personal, medical decisions should be made by people other than ourselves.  

 Option C:

In finding bans on so-called partial birth abortions unconstitutional, Judge Phyllis Hamilton is setting a great example for legal decision-makers nationwide. Hamilton’s beliefs, according to an ABC News Poll taken in 2003, are in accordance with that of the American public. A full 61% of respondents agree that banning second-trimester abortions should not happen because it is not conducive to preserving a woman’s health. In the Sternberg v. Carhart ruling of 2000, the United States Supreme Court objects to the bans, in large part because the term “partial birth abortion” holds no medical definition. “Partial birth abortions”, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists reports in a 2003 article, are actually a procedure known as intact dilation and extraction, or D&X. What anti-choice rhetoric doesn’t mention is that by the Centers for Disease Control’s 2000 findings, just 1.4% of abortions are D&X. The bans, however, because of their inaccurate language, end up as a threat to all abortions, including the 88% which occur during a pregnancy’s first thirteen weeks (CDC, 2000). Enough barriers to safe abortion, namely financial constraints and geographic distance, already exist. With the Alan Guttmacher Institute’s 2000 discovery that 97% of non-metropolitan counties have no abortion provider and that less than 25% of abortions are covered in any way by insurance, we need laws that promote abortion accessibility and help women. Our healthcare decisions must rest with what we as individuals deem appropriate, not with the government threatening our right to medical privacy.