A poster writes: Here's a direct quote from Dr. George Tiller's website, on the informed consent page: (emphasis added) "12. No person shall perform or induce a partial birth abortion........ " It is quite probable that the State of Kansas, which compels this "information", has not changed it's literature despite the USSC ruling that there is no such thing as a Phantom Procedure. Kansas has some pretty unique definitions in their legislation around abortion - but that's a different story. The even more unfortunate part is that you don't even realize it doesn't exist. Most abortion opponents still believe that when they are talking about the Phantom Procedure they are talking about an ID&X. Haskell provided us with a very detailed account of a protocol that any physician could recognize and if it were banned could be very easily identified. What I've asked for is that Abortion Opponents provide exactly the same detail for the Phantom Procedure they called "Partial Birth Abortion". The excuse was given that they used the term PBA BECAUSE it's NOT 'Exactly' the same as an ID&X. If you check the NRLC site - Johnson Senate presentation is posted - you'll see that this is the claim that is being made. WELL if it isn't the same as an ID&X WHAT IS IT? It can't be both the same and not the same at one time. So here's the problem they had. They coined a new phrase to create revulsion in a medically uneducated public. They claimed the reason they were coining this new phrase was because the procedure they wanted to ban is not exactly the same as an ID&X but is very similar. They now needed to describe in detail what they were banning. Rational - normal - people would then take Haskell's description - get one of their anti abortion physician friends or even a team of them - and re write the procedure so that it covered what they were trying to ban. They could even include some of their smarter attorneys on the team. Doctors could then take that description and know exactly what procedure is being banned - when in the gestation it is being banned - and which specific steps are prohibited. With this information the courts would also know what is being banned, could support the legislation, and doctors could use the alternate (and often more dangerous I might add) methods.That is the documentary description of the Phantom Procedure I've asked numerous abortion opponents to provide me with. They can't because it doesn't exist. Before I go on you need to realize that **there never really was an intention to ban any procedure.** IF that was the real intent they would have done precisely what I said in the last paragraph. What really was happening was that they were trying to shape public opinion, and trying to apear to be opposing barbaric infanticide, and trying to get votes. It was a very expensive advertising campaign that the Repugnants and the Anti Abortion Propaganda Industry ( AAPI)crafted. They didn't mean it to span over more than two Presidential election campaigns but that's what it dragged out to. Now if the document I asked for does not exist then what has taken it's place. Is there anything even nearly like that document attached to the various PBA Ban bills presented to State Legislatures?? The answer is a resounding NO. What they did was replace the document you sometimes see copied and pasted on the web, - this one   - with a one sentence description that was supposed to cover the entire contents of that paper. Do you begin to smell a rat yet?? They kept SAYING they were banning an ID&X but they **never wrote that into any of the legislation**. The sentence was essentially dreamed up by Repugnant Senator Canaday I understand, and prohibited abortions where "the person performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus and completing the delivery." Does this APPEAR to be a D&X? - of course it does! But from the first time one of those bills were challenged in court it was obvious that it APPEARED to be SEVERAL OTHER procedures as well. Reasonable people who were genuinely interested in banning a particular procedure would have properly modified the description so that it met the requirememtns I set out above. But they weren't reasonable people and they weren't interested in banning a procedure. They were propagandists and politicians and they simply duplicated the same description in one state after another all the way to the Supreme Court. It was thrown out for the same reason in State after State. They didn't care - the propaganda was working and the political message was buying votes, and the longer it went on the more free advertising they got from the dupes. Best of all nobody among the dupes, was asking why they didn't write the legislation with a more than one sentence description so that it would be found legal. There was a second objective to this propaganda/political advertising campaign and it was the reason the AAPI stayed the course. They hoped that with enough stacking in the Supreme Court they would find activist justices that would rule the fuzzy language was fine. If that happened EVERY abortion method after 60 days gestation could now be covered by this ban. They kept hoping for just the right lineup of circumstances to overturn a major portion of Roe v Wade through the back door. They also started the campaign talking about Late Term (ie third trimester post viability) Abortions because they were the areas covered by State legislation and this presented a divide and conquer strategy. They then did a switch to any time in the gestation and attacked RvW directly. They claimed the emphasis on LTA in the early stages was the result of media coverage. It wasn't - it was a result of the way they presented the initial stage of the campaign, and even the name they chose for the slogan, and was a deliberate strategy on their part. So there you have it in a nutshell. There is no such procedure as the famous PBA and there never was. It's an advertising slogan - nothing more. It was part of an elaborate advertising and propaganda campaign that conned - and continues to con - millions (on both sides of the debate I might add because I've heard choice supporters say they can't support PBA - and also when challenged can't describe it). If you've ever said that you aren't alone in being the victim of the sting. We can go to Anti Abortion site after site and we will find various procedures described by the term PBA (and especially late term procedures). If it's not patently obvious, what I'm saying is that even the sponsors of the bill and the people who are menbers of the A nti Abortion P ropaganda Industry ( AAPI) have no definition for the Phantom Procedure. Why do they have no defintion? Well that's because there is none!! Prove me wrong folks. First get a copy of Haskell's paper (there's one on this site) - you know from Canaday, Santorum, and McCain and even the nebulous unnamed people at PHACT who claim to be physicians, that the ID&X is not the Phantom Procedure (because they say it is not and claim that's the reason for using another term). Provide me with a paper derived from government legislation; or a law journal or legal presentation; or a medical peer reviewed jopurnal or presentation; that unequivocally describes the Phantom Procedure - or PBA - in the same detail as the Haskell paper describes the ID&X procedure. If you are unable to do so you should be first of all asking yourself why? You should also be recognizing that you've been a victim of The Big Lie from the Anti Abortion Propaganda Industry. Court after Court - in State after State - right up to the Supreme Court, have recognized there is no such procedure. People who want to see real choices for women, where they have the support services they need to carry an unexpected pregnancy that they are unprepared for to term, might ask themselves some questions at this point. Who paid for this phony advertising campaign? - Who orchestrated it? - How much did it cost? - and How many pregnancies would have gone to term if the money squandered on it had been spent on support services for unplanned pregnancies? and finally HOW LONG WILL THE SCAM CONTINUE? Eileen