The ACOG position on "partial birth abortion" was first articulated in a position statement in the January 1996 AAPLOG LifeLine to fellows, in letters to President Clinton and to the Senate and House Majority leaders during this year of debate and voting on the issue.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has lobbied against the ban on partial birth abortion.

The following are ACOG's arguments against the ban and AAPLOG's rebuttals.

ACOG: This is the first time in history that our government has attempted to regulate medical decision making regarding a procedure recommended by a doctor.

AAPLOG: This is the first time in our nation's history that a medical procedure involving the purposeful convenience killing of a viable child that is 75% born has been de facto sanctioned by a recognized medical group, in this case, ACOG.

ACOG: We find it very disturbing that an action by Congress would supersede the medical judgment of trained physicians.

AAPLOG: The presumption is that trained physicians are beyond reproach and above legislative balance, that a trained physician or group of physicians could not possibly need correction. We find this statement to be self-serving and basically in error.

ACOG: ACOG is concerned that the law would criminalize a medical procedure that may be necessary to save the life of the mother.

AAPLOG: The bill specifically allowed for that exception. In addition, the bill specifically referred to a physician-initiated abortion procedure, not an emergency situation that a doctor may unexpectedly face in an emergency room or labor suite.

ACOG: ACOG criticized and scolded Congress for using "terminology that is not even recognized in the medical community," while in the same position paper used terminology (intact D&E) "not even recognized in the medical community."

AAPLOG: The term "intact D&E" first appeared in ACOG literature in the January 1996 Newsletter to fellows. This procedure has no ACOG approved protocol, no peer review, no safety database in the literature. This seemed a contrived attempt to legitimize the partial birth abortion technique by wedding it to "D&E" (an ACOG-recognized procedure, a sort of "legitimacy by association"). In fact, there is a significant difference between the two procedures.

ACOG: ACOG feels that "Congressional opinion should never be substituted for professional medical judgment."

AAPLOG: What kind of "professional medical judgment" would tacitly sanction a procedure not even formally recognized by the College, a procedure fraught with high risk technique, a procedure contrary to their own recognized standard of care for emptying a late trimester uterus? This seems to us a matter of ideologic blindness (pro-choice, no matter what the choice,) rather than "professional medical judgment."