Still trying to defend partial-birth abortion and failing miserably

Willie Parker is a Michigan abortionist who recently penned a post for the RH Reality Check blog. It never ceases to amaze how some pro-choice individuals will continue to put forward the same lame talking points on partial-birth abortion bans. It's like they assume their audience knows absolutely nothing about partial-birth abortion and partial-birth abortion bans. Parker writes,

The federal law doesn't use medical terminology, so it's difficult to define precisely what the law bans.

Here's the language the law uses. It doesn't need to have medical terminology to make it quite clear what it bans. If you don't get it, then as Joe Carter says, "If any doctors are still confused maybe I can put it in even simpler terms: If the baby's whole head is sticking out, don't kill her; if the baby's bottom half is sticking out and you can see where the umbilical cord attaches, don't kill him. If you're still confused then you need to put down the head-crushing forceps. For while you might be evil enough to be an abortionist, you're too dumb to be a doctor."

Would anyone seriously want someone stupid enough to not understand what this language bans operating on them?

As a consequence, doctors like me are barred from using certain medical techniques, even in cases when a woman's health is threatened and that procedure is the fastest and safest way to help her.

The procedure in question typically requires two days of dilation. How on earth could this be the "fastest" procedure when a woman's health is threatened?

Every abortion restriction that follows this pattern creates a barrier between women and their doctors. If you were facing a grave medical situation, who would you want to determine your best course of treatment: your trusted physician, or a politician in Lansing?

What grave medical situation in pregnancy would lead a doctor to forcibly dilate a cervix over 2 days before partially removing the child?

Ah, yes - the trusted physician whom you've never met before.

Several states are weighing legislation that would force doctors to perform unnecessary -- and expensive -- ultrasounds before an abortion.

Ultrasounds are unnecessary? But aren't they the only way to confirm an early term pregnancy isn't ectopic? Aren't they the standard way abortionists figure out how far along a woman is in her pregnancy so they know how much to charge and which technique to use? Don't the National Abortion Federation's Clinical Policy Guidelines note, "Ultrasonography, using a consistent and published table of fetal measurements can be of clinical value in verifying intra-uterine pregnancy and gestational age."