There is no way for the proponents of "Partial Birth Abortion" to distinguish the morality of this procedure from that of infanticide, and their attempts to use the "health and safety" of the woman in defending its use lead to some logical inconsistencies that bolster the comparison to infanticide.  Let's see how this is so.

“Partial Birth Abortion”, officially known as “Intact Dilation and Extraction" or "intact D&X”,  is a method of late-term abortion whereby the doctor positions the fetus in the breech position in the uterus, pulls one or both legs through the birth canal, delivering the rest of the body through the birth canal except for the head. The head is finally delivered only after an incision is made at the base of the skull and the brain tissue is sucked out.1

This procedure was banned by the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 20032, which was signed into law by President George W. Bush on November 5, 2003. The Act has been declared unconstitutional by several federal judges and on November 8, 2006, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case Gonzales v. Carhart and it's companion case, Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood.3  Although the Act contains an exception to the ban when necessary to preserve the life of the mother, the lower courts found the law unconstitutional because it lacked an exception for the health of the mother. 4

The American Medical Association, while not disputing the constitutional right of a woman to an abortion, has this to say about the procedure and its necessity for the health of the mother:

“According to the scientific literature, there does not appear to be any identified situation in which intact D&X is the only appropriate procedure to induce abortion, and ethical concerns have been raised about intact D&X...Although third-trimester abortions can be performed to preserve the life or health of the mother, they are, in fact, generally not necessary for those purposes. Except in extraordinary circumstances, maternal health factors which demand termination of the pregnancy can be accommodated without sacrifice of the fetus, and the near certainty of the independent viability of the fetus argues for ending the pregnancy by appropriate delivery.5

The doctors are saying that not only are third-trimester abortions generally not necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother, but also that they know of no situations where this particular method, Intact D&X, would be the only procedure available. 

Suppose for a moment that the proponents of this procedure are right, the American Medical Association is wrong and that "Partial Birth Abortion" or “Intact Dilation and Extraction” in some cases is in fact the only appropriate procedure available to induce abortion.  Couldn't one then propose an even safer procedure, namely delivering the entire fetus intact and then either killing it outside of the birth canal or leaving it to die?  The mother would be even safer because there would be no need to insert any surgical instruments whatsoever into the birth canal.  What makes sucking the brains out of the fetus in the birth canal more ethical or moral than killing it a few seconds (or inches) later anyway?  Are the full rights of a person imparted to the fetus by having its head travel a few inches down the birth canal?  If so, then what about the millions of babies delivered alive via Cesarean Section at an even earlier gestational age?  If not, then why is killing it after it has been fully delivered wrong?  The defenders of the legality of this procedure have not been able to answer these questions, nor will they ever be able to.  Partial Birth Abortion is morally and logically indistinguishable from infanticide, and it's time for its supporters to admit this.