Here's a proposal to try to achieve something reasonably neutral.
Despite the fact that I think our commentator is biased in the opposite direction, upon re-reading the article I do agree that something should be done about the problematic terminology (though I don't think the article as a whole is particularly bad). The basic problem is that both terms are considered biased by the people who use the other term: the disagreement is over whether this partial removal of the fetus from the "womb" (or corresponding term if you prefer) properly constitutes "birth". Those who say yes call it "partial birth", while those who say no refer to it simply as "extraction". Many "pro-choice" advocates find the former biased, implying as it does that it's a baby being killed rather than a fetus being aborted; many "pro-life" advocates find the former biased, implying as it does that it's merely some tissue being "extracted".
Since I think perhaps some citations will help our credibility here (since it's so contentious an issue), I've been casting around for who to cite as neutral enough. So far the best source I've come up with is the Journal of Applied Ethics, which seems to take a fairly neutral stance on these issues, and consider all points of view more fully than the medical journals do. A quick survey of articles I could readily identify as "pro-choice" or "pro-life" indicated that they're numerically biased slightly in favor of "pro-choice".
They primarily use the terminology "partial-birth abortion", written in one of the following ways: * Partial-birth abortion * "Partial-birth abortion" * "Partial-birth" abortion
Some commentators further qualify it, as in "The loosely-defined 'partial-birth' abortion has featured prominently in the recent political debate over legalized abortion in the United States ...".
Use of the term "partial dilation and extraction" is fairly sparse, often also put in quotes; it's used now and then to identify a specific medical procedure when the details of the procedure are relevant to the argument (but not to refer to the entire issue). A typical sentence would be along the lines of "The most widely used 'partial-birth' abortion procedure is 'partial dilation and extraction', in which [...description...]".
With that in mind, and expanding on Ed's proposal, what do people think of the following:
one article --- [[Partial-birth abortion]] - A discussion of the legal, moral, and related issues, and a link to specific procedure(s) that commonly are held to fall under this heading. An introductory sentence (well, two) might be along the lines of
"The term '''''partial-birth abortion''''' is used by some to refer to abortion procedures such as [[partial dilation and extraction]] in which the fetus emerges partially from the uterus during the procedure. Note that some supporters of legalized abortion consider the term biased, and there is controversy over which procedures it covers; the remainder of this article [...some sort of disclaimer...]."
a second article --- [[Partial dilation and extraction]] - Dicsuss only the specific medical procedure, and mention that it features controversially in the debate over [[partial birth abortion]].
---
As for terminology within articles, it'll just take some careful reading to try to balance it. The basic tension is between opponents of legalized abortion, who want the descriptions to be as gruesome and detailed as possible, and between supporters of legalized abortion, who want the descriptions to be as detached, clinical, and jargon-filled as possible. Hopefully we can avoid doing either.
Does that sound reasonable?
.-Mark