Would it mean anything, if I told you that in 25 years practicing obstetrics and gynecology, never once was it necessary to consider using the procedure known as intact dilatation and extraction. The procedure known more commonly as partial birth abortion.

That's 25 years, and over 3000 babies. Indeed four of those years were at the world-renowned Parkland Memorial hospital in Dallas Texas. Parkland, where any complication that could happen will happen if you only wait long enough. Again I stress never was it necessary to call upon the procedure known as partial birth abortion to save the life of the mother.

It has been well over a decade since I have performed a newborn circumcision without some type of local anesthetic. Indeed, circumcisions were always known to be painful, but the period of pain was so brief that it was thought to be negligible. However, more enlightened minds in the field of pediatrics came upon the scene, and demonstrated how cortisol levels increased as a result of un-anesthetized circumcision procedures, providing laboratory evidence that the newborn indeed did feel pain.

But we are asked to discount the possibility of fetal pain perception when dealing with the language of partial birth abortion. We are asked to suspend our knowledge of pain pathways and assume that a scalp laceration, skull fracture, dural tear and brain laceration will pass unnoticed by a child as long as his or her head is still within the birth canal.

The current argument before the various district courts across America deal with just these unpleasant facts. Borrowing from judicial language that has been used to strike down similar restrictions on late term termination of pregnancy, the bill recently passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president of the United States, is said to be overly broad and restrictive.

Central to the argument is the concern that other mid-trimester termination techniques might be included in the overly broad language, thus preventing or prohibiting the use of such a procedure when the mother's life is in jeopardy. While other mid-trimester procedures may be grim, they lack the sheer brutality of the partial birth abortion procedure.

But by any measure, intact dilatation and extraction, performed in the last trimester of pregnancy, is never the only option for concluding a pregnancy when the mother's health is compromised. Induction of labor with a vaginal delivery, or cesarean section may both be used to conclude a pregnancy when a mother's health is threatened. The only theoretic "advantage" of a partial birth abortion procedure is this: it guarantees that the baby will be dead upon delivery.

There are complications that may occur during pregnancy which do require the pregnancy be concluded in order to preserve the health of the mother, or indeed save her life. But the mother's survival statistics are not improved or worsened by insisting that the child be dead upon delivery. During the third trimester of pregnancy, labor can be induced or cesarean section performed. If the degree of prematurity is severe, or the complications requiring delivery are grave, then indeed the child may succumb to these conditions. But the partial birth abortion procedure is unique in that it always guarantees a dead baby.

The American Medical Association has characterized the partial birth abortion procedure as" basically repulsive". It perverts the whole notion of what medical care stands for; protecting life and limb, relieving pain and suffering, and the time-honored principle of 'first do no harm". American medicine is better than that. Indeed Americans are a better people than that.

The United States Congress has performed the necessary background investigations over the past eight years, and crafted legislation that prevents harm to innocent life and preserves the life and health of the mother. The courts now should not interfere.