Intact dilation and extraction (IDX or intact D&X;), also known as intact dilation and evacuation (intact D&E;), dilation and extraction (D&X;), intrauterine cranial decompression and controversially in the United States as partial birth abortion, is a surgical abortion wherein an intact fetus is removed from the uterus via the cervix. The procedure may also be used to remove a deceased fetus that is developed enough to require dilation of the cervix for its extraction.

Women choose to have late-term abortions for a variety of reasons. Once a pregnant woman has made the decision to have a late-term abortion, she or a doctor may choose IDX over other available late-term abortion procedures because:

- Although a woman may experience contractions, she does not have to experience labor.

- IDX is an outpatient procedure; the woman does not have to be hospitalized.

- The woman does not have to undergo abdominal surgery.

- The procedure results in a largely intact body over which the parents may grieve.

- Instruments are inserted into the uterus fewer times than in a D&E;abortion, potentially reducing the risk of uterine tearing.

- The fetus may have hydrocephalus, where the head may expand to a radius of up to 250% of a normal skull at birth, making it impossible for it to pass through the cervix. If live birth is desired, the physician may drain the excess fluid in utero using a syringe, or a caesarian section may be done as soon as amniocentesis indicates lung maturity. If abortion is desired, D&X;may be the simplest procedure.

Reasons a woman or physician may not choose IDX, opting instead for another abortion procedure, include:

- IDX requires a larger dilation of the cervix than D&E;.

- Podalic version (turning the fetus into a breech position) can be dangerous to the woman.

- The incision in the fetal skull is made blind; the physician may miss and injure the woman's cervix.

Though the procedure has had a low rate of usage, representing 0.17% of all abortions in the United States in 2000 according to voluntary responses to an Alan Guttmacher Institute survey, it has developed into a focal point of the abortion debate. In the United States, intact dilation and extraction was made illegal under some circumstances by the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart.

There is debate over use of the term "partial-birth abortion". Those who oppose the term consider it a political term used to frame the argument in a way which is favorable to those who seek greater legal restrictions, or a total ban, on this or all abortion procedures, and have called the alleged political framing "partial truth abortion".

The term "partial-birth abortion" is primarily used in political discourse — chiefly regarding the legality of abortion in the United States. The term is not recognized as a medical term by the American Medical Association nor the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. This term was first suggested in 1995 by pro-life congressman Charles T. Canady, while developing the original proposed Partial-Birth Abortion Ban. According to Keri Folmar, the lawyer responsible for the bill's language, the term was developed in early 1995 in a meeting among herself, Charles T. Canady, and National Right to Life Committee lobbyist Douglas Johnson. Canady could not find this particular abortion practice named in any medical textbook, and therefore he and his aides named it. "Partial-birth abortion" was first used in the media on 4 June 1995 in a Washington Times article covering the bill.

Abortion provider Warren Hern asserted in 2003 that "No peer-reviewed articles or case reports have ever been published describing anything such as 'partial-birth' abortion, 'Intact D&E;' (for 'dilation and extraction'), or any of its synonyms."[38] Therefore, Hern expressed uncertainty about what all of these terms mean. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Gonzales v. Carhart that these terms of the federal statute are not vague because the statute specifically detailed the procedure being banned: it specified anatomical landmarks past which the fetus must not be delivered, and criminalized such a procedure only if an "overt" fatal act is performed on the fetus after "partial delivery."

According to a BBC report about the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Gonzales v. Carhart, "government lawyers and others who favour the ban, have said there are alternative and more widely used procedures that are still legal - which involves dismembering the foetus in the uterus." An article in Harper's magazine stated that, "Defending the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban... requires arguing to judges that pulling a fetus from a woman's body in dismembered pieces is legal, medically acceptable, and safe; but that pulling a fetus out intact, so that if the woman wishes the fetus can be wrapped in a blanket and handed to her, is appropriately punishable by a fine, or up to two years' imprisonment, or both." The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that intact D&X;remains legal as long as there is first an "injection that kills the fetus."

When the child has a sever illness or can all of a sudden harm the mother during birth (at an extreme chance, not the .13 percent of women die during birth bullshit).

but, with retarded kids or those kids with that disease that causes sever pain from just touching, yeah, terminate it.

Medical reasons only.

A partial birth abortion is very rarely elective. Most recent statistics show that in the US, only 450 of these procedures were performed in 2008. Reasons for such are, simply put, that the foetus is not developing but has developed to the point where it needs to have cervix dilation to remove it.