quote:

---

Q. So do you ever use a chemical agent to cause fetal demise?
A. Yes.
Q. What is that agent?
A. The agent is Digoxin.
Q. What is Digoxin?
A. Digoxin is the name for Digitalis, which is a cardiac medicine that is typically used for
specific cardiac conditions, most typically heart failure.
Q. And at what gestational age do you use Digoxin?
A. We start using it at 22 weeks.
3
Q. Why do you choose 22 weeks?
A. We like to prevent an eventuality of a live birth, and because it seems to make the procedure
move along a little bit easier on the day of the procedure. …We administer the Digoxin with a
needle through the abdominal wall of the woman intro the uterus. We are aiming to get it into
the fetal heart, or at least into the fetal thorax. However, we are not able to do that every time. If
we are not able to do that, then we attempt to put the Diogoxin into the amniotic fluid. And it
seems to work less often when it is just put into the amniotic fluid.
Q. What percentage of time are you successful in getting the Digoxin into the fetal heart?
A. I would say approximately 50 percent.
~
Q. And what about the term "living fetus," what does that mean to you?
A. It would be a fetus that still has a heartbeat, and that would still apply to many of my cases.
Q. And in your practice do you bring the fetus to the point where the fetal trunk past the navel is
outside the body of the woman?
A. Yes, I do. That's what I mainly do.
Q. And that happens often?
A. Yes.
~
Q. You testified yesterday, I believe, that you have performed approximately 30,000 surgical
abortions throughout your career?
A. That is my best guess.

---

quote:

---

Q. In performing a D&E at 20 weeks gestational age and above, in your previous capacity, was there ever a time when you saw any indication that the fetus was experiencing pain?
A. I have no idea what that means.

---

quote:

---

Q. Doctor, if a woman’s cervix was so dilated the fetus could be delivered in intact it would not be necessary to collapse the skull because the fetus could pass through the cervix, right?
A. Correct.
Q. But you would not allow the fetus to pass intact if the fetus were at or about 24 weeks in gestation, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Because if the fetus were close to 24 weeks, and you were performing a transvaginal surgical abortion you would be concerned about delivering the fetus entirely intact because that might result in a live baby that may survive, correct?
A. You said I was performing an abortion, so since the objective of the abortion is to not have a live fetus, then that would be correct.
Q. In your opinion, if you were performing a surgical abortion at 23 or 24 weeks and the cervix was so dilated that the head could pass without compression, you would do whatever you needed to do in order to make sure that the live baby was not delivered, wouldn’t you?
A. Whatever I needed, meaning whatever surgical procedures I needed to do as part of the procedure? Yes. Then, the answer would be: Yes.
Q. And one step you would take to avoid delivery of a live baby would to be to deliver or hold the fetus’ head on the internal side of the cervical os in order to collapse the skull; is that right?
A. Yes, because the objective of my procedure is to perform an abortion.

---

quote:

---

Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief against the Act [Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003], which bans what the Act calls "partial-birth abortion." Those physicians who provide banned abortions risk criminal penalties and civil liability. The Act must be enjoined and declared unconstitutional because it suffers from the identical two constitutional flaws as the Nebraska statute banning so-called "partial-birth abortion" that was struck down by the United States Supreme Court in Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000).

First, in contravention of the Supreme Court's clear holding, the Act bans abortion procedures without providing exception for when such procedures are necessary or appropriate for the pregnant woman's health and without providing an adequate exception to protect women's lives. The Act thus deprives physicians of the discretion they need to make appropriate medical judgements regarding which abortion procedure to use, and requires physicians to use methods of abortion that impose unnecessary health risks upon patients.

Second, the term "partial-birth abortion," which is not a recognized medical term, is defined so broadly in the Act as to chill physicians from providing the safest and most common methods of abortion used in the second trimester of pregnancy prior to viability. The Act thus imposes an "undue burden" on the right to obtain previability abortions. Alternatively, the Act is so vague that it fails to give physicians fair warning of which abortion procedures are prohibited.

---

[ April 16, 2004, 03:28 AM: Message edited by: Rappin' Ronnie Reagan ]
 

---

Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
 
The question I have to keep asking is:

How young does an infant have to be before killing it isn't considered murder?
 

---

Posted by aretee (Member # 1743) on :
 
That's the question being debated. There are those who say that it isn't an infant until it is born...naturally. Others believe that life begins at conception. The term they're using here is "viable." I guess meaning when the baby can survive on their own.

Partial birth abortions are sick and that is all there is to it. My views about this have really changed over the past few years. Abortion has nothing to do with "reproductive freedom" as some put it. Reproductive freedom is having sex. Abortion is a way of escaping the consequences of your reproductive freedom.

(Note: that statement does not include medical cases and cases of rape.)

[ April 16, 2004, 08:17 AM: Message edited by: aretee ]
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
This will always come back to the "factoid" that 50 percent of zygotes will abort spontaneously (miscarry). You know, whales beach themselves. We don't know why, but it's generally considered a tragedy but a part of nature. If someone were to chase a whale onto the beach with their waverunner, even in the name of science, I think we'd generally find that unconscionable. Just to head off the "50 percent of pregnancies abort spontaneously in the first trimester so God believes in abortion" argument.

Oh, and Sopwith... I believe the age of sex differentiation is the age that society has an interest in protecting the fetus. That would be 7-10 weeks. Because (as far as I know) once a female has formed her eggs, her genetic contribution to society is determined. Morally, though, I'd say 3-4 weeks is the max someone would need to realize they have missed their period. But some women don't keep track. This is not a religious "moral". This is a responsiblity "moral".

The only exception I would make is where a person is being sexually abused by a first degree family member and no intervention can occur until the pregnancy is obvious. Or something of that nature. But in those cases, I wish the abortion could be performed in a way that is least painful for the fetus. Right now, an abortion would never involve anaesthesia for the fetus because it is not viewed as a patient, but as the illness to be removed.

[ April 16, 2004, 08:33 AM: Message edited by: pooka ]
 

---

Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
 
It also comes back to the issue of personhood. There are many who think that there's a difference between the potential for personhoond and personhood itself. A zygote falls pretty clearly into the potential for personhood case. When does something cross the threshold from the potential to actually being a person? That's a big grey area.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
It saddens me that some people are not aware of the details of partial birth abortion. Not saying that to everyone here, hatrackers are notoriously better educated than the general population.

I would ask for only one thing - whether pro-life or not, I would hope everyone who takes a side in the issue would be educated as to what we're really talking about here. Please, don't just stand on the sidelines and scream "Women's freedom!" or "Life!" without knowing what happens.

A beating heart is terminated. Partial birth abortion involves partially delivering a baby, then puncturing it's skull and removing its brain, so that it isn't born alive.

The reason this has to be done the way it is, is that at the time partial birth abortions are performed - the baby is viable, and the doctor's can't take the chance that the baby might take a breath.

Viability changes almost daily. The hospital where I delivered my babies has had a baby that weighed 14 ounces survive until discharge, and as far as I know, is still alive. The baby was discharged with no major health problems - no blindness, no known heart problems, like used to plague premature babies. A pound used to be considered the "line", anything under a pound had no chance at survival - no longer true.

If you are for abortion in every case, then you have to admit that you don't mind doctors killing babies that otherwise would be healthy, normal children. Babies that are so large, the mother's cervix must be artificially dilated, and whose heads must be crushed to prevent them from taking a breath.

I've told this story before, but some people are new. My mother used to work for an ob/gyn department at a major research hospital. She was their billing manager, and was one day in the clinic on a weekend trying to straighten out some records. They did all their late term abortions on the weekends.

While she was in a doctor's office, going over some things with him, a nurse came in to tell him that one of the babies was born alive. She asked if she should call the nursery (this was a hospital, not a free standing abortion clinic, but at the actual hospital)

He told the nurse "No, take it there. But walk real slow."

My mom said she will never forget the coldness with which he said it, and the annoyance in his voice - he was annoyed that a baby had the audacity to be born breathing and struggling for life. So, he told the nurse to carry it to the nursery as slow as possible so it would die on the way.

Now, if you want to be for abortion on demand in all cases - then that's certainly your right. I hope, however, you've considered what it really means. These are not meaningless blobs of tissue that we're talking about.

I wonder how many pro-choice activists have the courage to talk to someone who was born live in an abortion procedure and survived. I've heard one speak before, a beautiful, articulate woman who defied the doctor's attempts to kill her and actually lived.
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
Wow. Good post Belle. I'm a marginal pro-choicer, although that margin is getting slimmer and slimmer every year. I think the taking of a life, even a potential life, is a great tragedy.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

But in those cases, I wish the abortion could be performed in a way that is least painful for the fetus. Right now, an abortion would never involve anaesthesia for the fetus because it is not viewed as a patient, but as the illness to be removed.

---

Some doctors perform these with the mother under general anesthesia, which in most cases does represent an increased risk to the mother. There's testimony in one of the other transcripts from a doctor who does that, who says that the anesthesia crosses the placental barrier so likely saves the fetus some pain.

Edit: Excellent post, Belle.

Dagonee

[ April 16, 2004, 09:27 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
 

---

Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
 
Belle, as always, you are a treasure. Excellent post.

A strong person presents a strong argument, but a wise one arms themself with the facts.

[ April 16, 2004, 10:32 AM: Message edited by: Sopwith ]
 

---

Posted by aretee (Member # 1743) on :
 
Agreed. Great post, Belle.

I don't know how to approach this subject without being offensive and you did a beautiful job. I have done the complete pedulum swing. In high school and my first year of college I was completely pro-choice. The older I get and the more I want children, the more pro-life I become. It also has to do with my understanding of accountability for my actions. That was the key to my change of mind and heart.

Thanks, Belle.
 

---

Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
 
Aretee, what changed me from Pro-choice is very personal thing.

In college, I had a very serious relationship with a girl and sex was a big part of it. I wanted to marry her and spend my life with her at that time.

About the eighth month in, she announced that she needed some time alone and we needed to break it off. I had no choice but to accede to her wishes. That weekend, she and a couple of friends went off to Chapel Hill for St. Patrick's day weekend. They were going to stay with some of her friend's friends.

Four or five days later, she called me and we got together. She wasn't feeling good and something was laying heavy on her chest. She wouldn't and didn't speak of what it was, but we did get back together. I couldn't touch her for a while and she went through what I'd best call a depression.

A couple of months later, we broke up for good at her request and she ended up dating (and eventually marrying) my roommate, the guy who had introduced us.

I went on with life and one dark, dark early morning on St. Patrick's day, I was lying in bed unable to sleep. Somewhere in that haze of angst, puzzle pieces began falling into place. Her symptoms and depression, the change in the relationship and a thing she had said once in a discussion, something that I had let pass at the time it was said... "If I get pregnant while I'm in college, I'll just go off and quietly have an abortion. I couldn't face my parents, I couldn't give up on the career I want to have, I couldn't just get married and give up on college."

There was something about the profound hollowness I felt, the sense of a loss I'd never known before, that told me what had happened years before was what I now feared had happened. I've never had the guts to ask her, and my life has gone elsewhere with life and I am quite happy and completely in love with my wife.

But every St. Patrick's day, there's a quiet melancholy that sets in for me, one that most people don't know the reason for, not even my wife, I believe. And I wonder what it would be like to have that 12 year-old kid with me, the one I never got the chance to know.
 

---

Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
 
(((Sopwith)))

You're a real treasure, you know that?
 

---

Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
 
*tears*

Sopwith, you're a good man.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Wow... yeah. (((Sopwith)))
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Sopwith, I can't imagine. I have some of the same feelings when I see my best friend's daughter who might have been aborted (in reverse, of course, since she wasn't). I can't imagine what it would be like if my own daughter were involved.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
 
Sopwith... my husband has three of those children to meet someday in Heaven. It haunts him too. Not on a daily basis...just certain times of the year, and whenever he hears about someone we know having an abortion.
 

---

Posted by DiffidentVoice (Member # 3019) on :
 
I've been lurking for about a year now, but I have to pop up and point out an interesting article:

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0305/articles/condic.html

The author looks at the standards we use to declare someone dead - and reverses those standards to define the beginning of life.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Ooh! I didn't know First Things was still around or available on the web. Thanks for the link!

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 


Having given birth to three children, my feelings on this matter are very tender. I understand that there are some circumstances where abortion may appropriate or necessary, but the idea of ending a life in the womb hurts to think about. The quotes above are very painful to read.

And that story you shared Belle, wow. That is incomprehensible to me. It makes me think of the midwives of Israel while in slavery in Egypt who were ordered to kill any child born male. They could not bring themselves to do such a horrid thing and went ahead and did what they felt was right in the face of the punishment they might receive.

Edit: Sopwith, thanks for sharing your story. I can't help but be reminded of the song by Ben Folds Five "Brick". IIRC, that song is about the father of an aborted child. That song makes me cry.

[ April 16, 2004, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by aretee (Member # 1743) on :
 
That's part of what the pro-choice people don't understand. They talk about the right of a woman to control her body, but what of the man who helped in the conception of that potential life?

Sopwith, I am so sorry. I know a woman who gave her child up for adoption. I see the pain she suffers every year on mother's day. But, she can take solace in the fact that her daughter is still alive and even thriving. She has that comfort. She made that choice. You did not even have a choice as you were not given the knowledge of the pregnancy.

What of all the poor women (and men!) who are never told of the emotional trauma they will suffer later? The pro-choice people never talk about that. I know I didn't when I was pro-choice. I've seen too many people sick over the choice to terminate a pregnancy.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I have a bad habit of avoiding painful situations, even when they shouldn't be avoided. Reading about this was painful, but it's a good thing that I have read it. Thank you for educating me.
 

---

Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
 

quote:

---

I wonder how many pro-choice activists have the courage to talk to someone who was born live in an abortion procedure and survived. I've heard one speak before, a beautiful, articulate woman who defied the doctor's attempts to kill her and actually lived

---

quote:

---

By the organismal definition, I would almost say that in the beginning, the embryo is part of the mother's organism.

---

I didn't get a chance to read the article, but I don't think a baby can ever be part of the mother's organism. It's got separate DNA, it may even be a separate gender.

And it's the implanted zygote that sends the chemical signals through the uterine wall that begins the physiological changes in the mother at the time of implantation. So, the zygote is working at ensuring its own survival at that point.

Birth control pills by the way, when working properly, prevent ovulation itself. That prevents conception, not just implantation. If no egg is released, no conception can take place.
 

---

Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
 
Then I guess I'm not a real "pro-choice"
I like the idea to be between. Not in favor of abortion in any case, but not thinking either that abortion is fundamentally wrong in any case.

[ April 16, 2004, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: Anna ]
 

---

Posted by Yank (Member # 2514) on :
 
I have read a great deal about partial-birth before. After reading both transcripts and Belle's story, I am even more disgusted.
 

---

Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
 
I do hope some fence riding, pro choice people read that and are as shocked and horrified as I am. I think it points up the inherent selfishness in so many abortions. Why not let the child be born live, and adopted?

Sopwith, my sympathies are with you. I had a friend in college who attempted suicide on the anniversery of his girl friend's abortion.

Belle, so well written.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
I apologize in advance for the following story - it's hard to read. But I hope everyone will, because it's a very powerful testimony.

quote:

---

Accomplices in Incest
Case Study: "Doris Kalasky"

Forced to have sex with her father, Doris became pregnant. When the pregnancy was discovered, she refused to have an abortion. Her father, however, found an abortionist who would perform the abortion without her consent. She alone has had to pay the price.
I am a victim of incest; one of the "hard cases" for abortion. I was raped by my father when I was fifteen years old. It was not the first time, nor would it be the last. However, this time, I became pregnant.

One night, I became very sick and my parents took me to the hospital. (I believe now that they knew I was pregnant since they took me to a different hospital than normal.) The emergency room doctor discovered that, along with a very bad case of the flu, I was 19 weeks pregnant.

My father flew into a rage, accusing me of all sorts of things, and demanding I have an abortion. The doctor informed me that I was pregnant and asked me what I wanted. I had seen the "Silent Scream" in high school religion class and knew that abortion was murder. In spite of the pain and guilt I felt, knowing who the father of the baby was, it was far better to have a baby than the alternative - to kill it. I refused to have an abortion.

My father flew into an uncontrollable rage and demanded that I consent to the abortion, or that the doctor do it with or without my permission. The doctor refused because of my wishes. My father demanded that an abortionist be found - regardless of the cost.

Within one hour, this man arrived at the hospital, talked with my parents and decided to do the abortion, without speaking to me. I refused and tried to get off the examining table. He then asked three nurses to hold me while he strapped me to the bed and injected me with a muscle relaxant to keep me from struggling while he prepared to kill my baby. I continued to scream that I didn't want an abortion. He told me, "Shut up and quit that yelling!" Eventually, I was placed under general anesthesia and my child was brutally killed.

I was told that an abortion would solve my problem, when it was never really the problem in the first place.

I was told, "Your parents know what's best," when they obviously were only concerned about their own reputations.

I was told, "You make the right decision," when I was never given a choice. More importantly, where was my baby's choice?

I grieve every day for my daughter. I have struggled to forget the abuse and the abortion. I can do neither. All I think of is, "I should have done more, fought more, struggled more for the life of my child."

My situation may not be common, but I know it's not unique either. The emotions and problems I've had to deal with as a result of my abortion are common. The trauma of the rape and abuse were only intensified by the abortion. The guilt of knowing my baby is dead is something I will have to live with for the rest of my life.

I was violated and betrayed over and over by my father, who God created to love and protect me. I was humiliated, hurt, and yes, violated again by the abortionist.

Why do even pro-lifers talk about making exceptions for abortion in cases of rape and incest as if that is a way to have "compassion" for the mother? Why is this the only "loving" response to the situation? I have talked with pro-lifers who consider my abortion acceptable, under the circumstances. I want to tell people, "If you really want to be compassionate, give this mother the opportunity to choose life for her child. If you really love the mothers who have been victimized, don't let them be exploited again by someone who will make a profit from their dead child -- a memory that will haunt them for the rest of their lives."

The next time you hear of the "hard cases," please remind people that every crisis pregnancy is difficult for the mother. If you believe these cases are hard, you're correct -- they are extremely hard for the mother. But if you choose abortion, it's an impossible situation for the baby. The mom needs love, support and understanding, not the pain of allowing herself to be violated again in order to kill her child. Regardless of the circumstances, regardless of the pain involved, that helpless, innocent child has no voice, no defense, and no chance, unless we offer real love and real compassion to the mother.

My abortion was over five years ago. God is still healing me, but it has been a difficult fight. I hesitated to write to you because, although I'm actively pro-life, very few people know my story. It's still very difficult to share with people, however, I wanted to encourage you in your uncompromising stand for life.

"He heals the brokenhearted and binds up their wounds." (Psalm 147:3) God bless you.

---

From http://www.afterabortion.org/testimo.html
 

---

Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
 
Ooof. What a horrible, horrible situation.

Whether or not an abortion may be acceptable in extreme cases, it would likely haunt the mother (and the father) for the rest of their lives.

Having watched both of my beautiful children appear and take their first breaths, the thought of any abortion is completely repugnant to me. Abortion done just because the mother feels she has the right to choose, when the fetus is otherwise viable, represents the bottommost point in the deep, dark pit of selfishness, IMO. I don’t think there are any other issues that evoke such a visceral reaction in me.

Sopwith, I am sorry you have to deal with something like that. What a sad story.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Belle, why do you think parents should be able to deny their children an abortion, but not force them to have one?
 

---

Posted by aka (Member # 139) on :
 
If we make this a matter of the law, and of the courts, then who gets to decide? What does a girl or woman have to do to prove she was raped? Whose definition of viable do we use? Who pays the bills for the premature babies?

I abhor the thought of parents killing their unborn children in the womb. It's a terrible thing. And yet, the alternative seems worse to me.

I still feel the right way for society to go about solving this problem is by education about abstinence and birth control, including actual figures for how effective different birth control methods are, giving examples of the liklihood compared to other common events of which they may have experience like auto crashes or cancer rates. Education and a strong dose of reality are the most important thing. This will prevent more unwanted pregnancies.

Secondly, we should make birth control freely available to anyone, and provide good prenatal care and good health care for pregnant moms who are willing to give up their children for adoption, then find good adoptive families for those children. It does no good to take a punitive approach, outlawing abortion and then leaving the girls and babies with nothing, no resources, no health care, no loving family to raise them. If you want to talk about cruelty to children, let's talk about what it's like to grow up in poverty with parents who would rather you had never been born.

Yes, these things are horrific. Let's not replace them with something even more horrific. Let's have an enlightened and loving policy toward unborn children, one that actually does them some good.

[ April 16, 2004, 06:24 PM: Message edited by: aka ]
 

---

Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
 
"Belle, why do you think parents should be able to deny their children an abortion, but not force them to have one?"

Because in both cases a life is being preserved.
 

---

Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
 

quote:

---

Secondly, we should make birth control freely available to anyone

---

Unquestionably. Mandatory would be even better, were it not for pesky civil rights Maybe if it were in the water like fluoride...

quote:

---

It does no good to take a punitive approach, outlawing abortion and then leaving the girls and babies with nothing, no resources, no health care, no loving family to raise them.

---

quote:

---

Anna, I think all but the most zealous "Pro-Lifers" admit that there are times when abortion is appropriate.

---

I don't think I share that conclusion. The mother's life being in danger poses a veritable exception, but in practice is often a red herring where a c-section and neonatal ICU would suffice. (I don't advocate forcing the pregnant to go to court, though; at some point there must be trust, perhaps reviewed statistically).

However, the rape exception makes little sense for someone purporting to sympathize with the fetus. It's not at fault.

Personally, I see little rationale to ban abortion before the age of 18 months or so, when cerebral development surpasses that of other primates. We are not experiencing a population crunch like Europe, and immigration seems poised to make up any difference regardless, perhaps excepting the benefits from the children of Nobel prize winners and such. I very much appreciate the argument for potential life, having been a potential myself at one point, but its implications are too imposing on the entities we already consider people. (No Pill? Infertile couples must seek IVF?)

As for the immediate topic: abortions should be performed as humanely as possible. If we're going to be sucking people's brains out, a little spinal anaesthetic is the least we could provide.

[ April 16, 2004, 06:55 PM: Message edited by: Richard Berg ]
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
I absolutely agree with ak.

While I find abortion -- any abortion, but especially past 40 days post-conception -- repugnant, I do not consider it murder. And I agree that abortions for convenience alone (or instead of birth control) are awful beyond words.

I have carried and given birth to three children; I have lost one. Unless it were to save my own life (a choice which a friend of mine had to make ), I don't think I could possibly abort a child.

But sometimes the lines are so blurry. Where is the line that determines acceptable risk to the mother's life/health? What about a woman who is quite seriously at risk of psychological damage if forced to continue a pregnancy? What of other children she may have, and the risk to them?

The government is not known for its ability to decide matters of complexity -- and certainly not rapidly. While there is no question that the private sector has NOT done well with the issue, I fear government regulations (with some exceptions) would make things worse.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Personally, I see little rationale to ban abortion before the age of 18 months...

---

Did you mean 18 weeks?

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
 
::agrees with ak and rivka::
 

---

Posted by Kamisaki (Member # 6309) on :
 
Okay, so that's how you feel about abortion in general, but what about this specific case. The thread-starter is specifically about partial birth abortion. Is anyone still willing to defend that particular practice?
 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
Sopwith:

You have my deepest sympathy. I'm sorry that such a thing happened.

aka -

Why do you think that banning abortion means we would ignore the girls? On the contrary: all the funds that are used to pay for abortion can now be used to pay for counselling and education to prevent pregnancy.

The embryo is alive and human. To kill something that is alive and human is considered murder. Abortion is murder. What else is it?

Richard,

I am appalled. Have you ever had children?
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
[Edit: responding to Kamisaki] *sigh* Actually, yes.

In some cases of risk to the mother's life and/or health, this type of abortion is medically necessary.

Not that I would want anyone I know going anywhere near the doctor being interviewed in this case. Then again, I suspect he was chosen specifically for anti-sympathy points.

[ April 16, 2004, 07:18 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
He was chosen by the plaintiffs - the pro-choice side.
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
When I read these stories I often feel depressed or ill at ease. That story Belle related made my just plain ill. That's disgusting in the worst way and helps me understand why people believe in Hell if only to send "people" like her father to burn in it forever. I wish I could forgive someone if they did something like that to me, but I doubt I'm strong enough for it.

*being violently ill graemlin*

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Dagonee, then they made a really BAD choice!
 

---

Posted by Kamisaki (Member # 6309) on :
 
Rivka, do you have any links to evidence of that? I've heard it both ways, some say it's medically necessary sometimes, others say that different procedures can be used.

In any case, it's obvious that in this doctor's case, most of the abortions weren't medically necessary. 30,000 from one guy?

It doesn't make any sense to me that we must avoid any type of regulation for this sort of thing for fear of the government making it worse somehow.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
You know what, let me confirm that. i assumed it from something previous that I realized may not be true. I will get back to you.

Edit: Yep - she's a PPFA witness.

[ April 16, 2004, 07:26 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I cases such as were described, I don't see how it crushing the baby's skull before the "birth" helps the health of the mother any more than bringing it out and allowing it to breathe.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
*was thinking the same thing as what Porter said*
 

---

Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
 

quote:

---

In any case, it's obvious that in this doctor's case, most of the abortions weren't medically necessary. 30,000 from one guy?

---

quote:

---

It does no good to take a punitive approach, outlawing abortion and then leaving the girls and babies with nothing, no resources, no health care, no loving family to raise them. If you want to talk about cruelty to children, let's talk about what it's like to grow up in poverty with parents who would rather you had never been born.

---

quote:

---

Not that I would want anyone I know going anywhere near the doctor being interviewed in this case. Then again, I suspect he was chosen specifically for anti-sympathy points.

---

quote:

---

Counseling depends on the individual clinic and the state laws. IN Alabama counseling is mandatory, and an ultrasound must be performed if the patient requests one. They must be at least shown pictures of the fetal development stages.

---

quote:

---

How about "humanity?"

---

quote:

---

Is there a way to point out a time when they pass the cognitive abilities of a cow? Since we're allowed to kill cows...

---

The time we pass the cognitive abilites of a cow is sometime after our natural birth.
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
How about this?

quote:

---

One of the most successful paradigms used to explore newborn memory and perceptual abilities has been that of habituation. Habituation can be defined as the decrement in response to stimuli following repeated presentation of the same stimulus... The earliest habituation response has been demonstrated at 22-23 weeks of gestational age and seems to occur earlier in females than in males (27). Interestingly, the onset of auditory habituation corresponds to the onset of fetal auditory abilities (28). It may be that habituation is present earlier than this however as the fetus is unable to respond to auditory stimuli before this time, habituation to auditory stimuli is unable to be evidenced earlier than 22 weeks gestation. Stimulation using other sensory modalities, e.g. olfaction/taste, whih are functional at earlier gestational ages (16,21), may reveal habituation at even earlier gestational ages.

---

quote:

---

The time we pass the cognitive abilites of a cow is sometime after our natural birth

---

Maybe we should re-think eating cows.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Suneun, I am among those who view human life as sacred above animal, but that has to do with my faith. I have often wondered at people who are upset with killing animals since animals kill other animals much more viciously than we do, but removing the aspect of my particular faith, I can see why abortion and killing animals could be a moral dilemma.

Porter tells a joke: If God didn't intend for us to eat animals, He wouldn't have made them out of meat!

Me: But God made us out of meat too. What does that say about God's intentions?


 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
Bev: Mmm, meat. Or I could be a level six Vegan, "nothing that casts a shadow."
----
I have no problem linking the legality of killing a fetus with the current medical technology. Something along the lines of:

1) If a fetus can be removed safely from the mother and live through medical intervention, it may not be terminated. Instead, it may be removed and put under governmental "ownership." "Removed safely" and "live" would be based on some sort of statistics I guess.
2) If a fetus could not live if removed successfully under medical intervention (99% of the time or somesuch), then the fetus may be electively terminated by the mother.

Currently, afaik one of the biggest stumbling blocks to very-early preterm viability is hyaline membrane disease (premature lung).

Note: Sorry about the excessive posts. I just kept thinking and having different comments. Going to sleep now, and will be gone all day tomorrow. So I won't be purposely ignoring responses, just unavailable.

[ April 17, 2004, 01:35 AM: Message edited by: Suneun ]
 

---

Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
 
Now I'm interested, Sunuen. Since you've volunteered in an abortion clinic, do you have an idea of the top reasons given for getting an abortion? Could you rank them from 1 to 5?
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
From my personal experience? These were 1st, 2nd trimester abortions, the vast majority between 6 weeks and 14 weeks or so.

Guess at a ranking:
1) Failed birth control method (I was told in lecture today that in 50% of unintended pregnancies the couple was using birth control)*
2) No birth control method: Felt they were too young (16-18 yo), had 'other plans,' etc
3) No birth control method: Older, didn't expect to get pregnant
4) Rape

* Please don't read this as "birth control methods don't work." Read this as twofold: 1) Out of the VERY large number of people who use birth control, some fail. 2) Many people don't use birth control properly. So you could split #1 into:

a) Did not use birth control properly: Improper condom usage, missed pills, used "calendar method."
b) Used birth control properly, still got pregnant.

Edit: Revised: The ranking with the split of #1 should be (in my observation, but you could prob find the numbers)
1) Young, no BC
2) Incorrect birth control usage
3) Old, no BC
4) Correct BC usage
5) Rape

[ April 17, 2004, 02:01 AM: Message edited by: Suneun ]
 

---

Posted by Kamisaki (Member # 6309) on :
 
Suneun, your suggestions would certainly be better than the current situation. The only pro-choice people who really make me angry are those who fight against any and all regulation of abortion just because of the slippery slope that if we allow some regulation, it's going to completely take away current choice. They blind themselves to the current realities of the situation for political points.

Of course that could be said of a lot of people about many different issues, but I'm not gonna go into that.
 

---

Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
 
Wow--that actually surprises me. I would have figured the "extreme" cases to be less extreme and closer to the top of the ranking. A non-viable fetus didn't even make your top four. Most abortions take place, in other words, because the baby is not wanted for one reason or the other.

What bothers me, I guess, is that the extreme cases are so often cited in defense of abortion, but I have seen so little justification of the decision to abort the pregnancy simply because it is not wanted. The discussion gets mired in arguments about whether the fetus is a human being, and what a woman's right to choose is all about. These two arguments have always seemed to me to be rationalizations used to convince oneself that abortion is a reasonable measure. Actual justification is always deflected. There are a deluge of statistics about non-viable fetuses, and the justification is clearer there. But the justification for what seems to be the primary reason for abortion still eludes me.
 

---

Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
 
(This is Suneun, I should be sleeping)

Nonviable fetus is the primary reason of abortion in the late side of things (the 20-24 week abortion types) AFAIK. This is because you won't know whether or not the fetus is nonviable until pretty late (amniocentesis and other tests). If the pregnancy is particularly poor, then the woman might miscarriage early on (and may not even know about it). This is where you see the statistic that about 60% of pregnancies end up in spontaneous abortion (miscarriage). In lecture today, we were told that this stat comes from a study in which they checked a sampling pool prospectively testing hormone levels regularly, so many of the participants would never have known they had a miscarriage otherwise. For people who know they're pregnant (missed period, get a pregnancy test), about 20% of those result in miscarriage. Still quite high. I think many of those are particularly nonviable fetuses.

But besides chromosomal or genetic causes of nonviable fetus, there are many deformations that occur in the placenta due to environmental factors/sheer bad luck. For example, teratogens affect the fetus the most between the 3rd and 8th weeks of pregnancy, but may not be noticable until much later. Some fetal anomalies can result in a reasonably healthy baby. Some can't.

I had to be vague here and there in the above, because it comes from memory. If you'd like, I can look up numbers or cite studies, as could other folks.

[ April 17, 2004, 03:01 AM: Message edited by: dabbler ]
 

---

Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :
 
I think I'm going to be sick. I admit it, I couldn't read the whole transcript. And then I read most (or at least skimmed) of these replies.

Did you actually READ what that said!?

At least 80% of those "fetuses" given Digitalis had beating hearts at the time when thier bodies were delivered, at which time the doctor used a knife and/or sissors to remove the head (which is still inside the mother's vagina or uterus). It's only THEN that the skull is crushed to facillitate removal.

I couldn't read any further... it just made me sick.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
For what it's worth, I don't personally believe that abortion is a valid option in any situation.

I read it, Boon. I think some others did too. Some people are now coming to grips with the fact that the child is experiencing his death, pain and all.

It really ticks me off that they don't use the term "baby" ONCE in the entire thing. (If they did, I missed it.) Not because it isn't a baby, but because the word "baby" makes people feel guilty. It lets people realize what's really occuring.

[ April 17, 2004, 08:56 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 

quote:

---

Fair enough -- there's little objective ground here. I assume you mean conception, since that's when the being becomes identifiably, biologically human? If not, denoting "humanity" becomes quite intractable unless you can prove otherwise; if so, I think you'll run against common sense and societal mores in many ways.

---

quote:

---

The fetus has human tissue and human blood. Human eyes, human ears, and human bone.

---

quote:

---

I have yet to determine how a fetus of any creature is less alive than its counterpart on the other side of the uterus.

---

quote:

---

It really ticks me off that they don't use the term "baby" ONCE in the entire thing. (If they did, I missed it.) Not because it isn't a baby, but because the word "baby" makes people feel guilty. It lets people realize what's really occuring.

---

quote:

---

The D&E (dilation and extraction) is the most common type of second trimester abortion. During this procedure, the mother's cervix must be dilated much more than in a first trimester abortion simply because her baby is now too large to pull it from the uterus solely by using the suction machine.

After sufficient dilation is accomplished, the abortionist begins the D&E procedure by rupturing the amniotic sac which contains the unborn child. He then begins the process of dismembering the baby and pulling it out of the uterus in pieces. To do this, the abortionist uses suction as well as surgical forceps which basically act like a pair of pliers. He inserts this instrument into the uterus and starts to open and close it until a part of the baby or placenta is grasped. That piece is torn off and is pulled out. This process is repeated until the abortionist feels that the procedure has been completed.

Sometimes, the baby's skull is too large to pull out of the uterus, so the abortionist must first crush it with the forceps. The abortionist will know that the child's skull has been sufficiently collapsed when the baby's brains flow out of the uterus. Among abortionists this is called the "calvaria sign" and it signals that the skull will then be much easier to remove.

Once the abortionist has pulled out everything he can feel with the forceps, he will use a curette to scrape any remaining parts off the sides of the uterus. After that, the suction machine can be used again to vacuum up whatever debris is still in the uterus.

Throughout a D&E procedure, all of the extracted baby parts are placed on a tray where they are then reassembled. This is done to make certain that the entire baby is accounted for and that no parts are left behind.

One way that the D&E procedure is often made easier is by killing the baby a day or so before the procedure is scheduled. This extra step is generally referred to as a "ditch" and is accomplished by inserting a long needle through the mother's abdomen and into the heart of her baby. Then, a chemical agent - usually digoxin - is injected through the needle causing the child's death. The advantage of doing this is that the feticidal agent (digoxin) causes the child's body to soften, making the dismemberment and removal process much easier. Despite that advantage, however, ditching does have one potential downside. Because the chemical used to kill the baby is toxic, it is crucial for the abortionist to know that he has inserted the needle into the baby and not the mother. To verify that, the abortionist will sometimes let go of the needle before injecting the drug and see if it jumps around independent of the mom's movements. If so, he knows that he has hit the baby and can proceed. (This part of the ditching process is sometimes referred to as "harpooning the whale").

A variation of the D&E is called intact D&E. In this procedure, the baby is not pulled out in pieces but removed whole. Normally, the abortionist will use a feticidal chemical to kill the baby first or he will position the baby so that he can crush its skull. However, in some cases the baby will actually survive the procedure and emerge alive. In the abortion industry, live births are referred to as "The Dreaded Complication."

Since most Intact D&E abortions are performed on babies who are too young to survive once separated from the mother, the usual response to a live birth is to simply set the child aside and allow it to die on its own. The abortion industry calls this practice "comfort care." In some cases, abortionists have been observed actively killing the child by drowning it, crushing its tracheal tube, or snapping its neck.

Another type of second trimester procedure is known as instillation. This procedure begins with the abortionist sticking a long needle through the mother's abdomen and into the baby's amniotic fluid sac. A substantial amount of amniotic fluid is then drained from the sac and replaced with either a saline or urea solution. This usually kills the child, but it may take hours during which some women report feeling their baby violently thrashing around. Photos of children killed by instillation procedures generally show massive chemical burns covering the child's entire body.

Once the process of killing the baby has been initiated, the mother is given drugs to induce labor so she will eventually deliver the dead child. Because there have been cases where babies have survived this process, some abortionists inject a drug into the baby's heart prior to delivery to make sure it is dead. (Urea has also been used as a prepping agent for D&E abortions. The urea is inserted into the amniotic sac but instead of inducing labor, a D&E is performed. The advantage of this is that the urea solution helps soften up the baby and makes it easier to dismember and remove.)

Another type of second trimester procedure is called induction. The mother is given a drug - usually prostaglandin or oxytocin - that causes her to go into labor. Often the abortionist will kill the baby at the same time in order to avoid the possibility that the mom will deliver a live baby. In other instances, the labor-inducing drug which was given to the mother will kill her baby. However, it is well established that live births are a real possibility with induction procedures. As in the case of Intact D&E abortions, these procedures are usually performed on babies who are too young to survive outside the womb. Again, if the baby emerges alive, the usual response is to set the child aside and allow it to die on its own, or for the abortionist to kill it once it's delivered.

The final methods of second trimester abortion are hysterectomy and hysterotomy. Of the more than one million American babies killed by abortion every year, approximately 5000 are destroyed in this manner. The relative rarity of these procedures is driven by the fact that they have a higher incidence of maternal complications and death than other second trimester abortion methods. During a hysterectomy abortion, the mother's entire uterus (including the baby) is removed and the baby usually dies during the procedure. The hysterotomy abortion is similar to a cesarean section. The abortionist does not remove the uterus, but cuts it open and removes the baby. If the child was not killed prior to removal, it is set aside to die.

---

quote:

---

The most common first trimester abortions are vacuum aspiration and suction curettage. Vacuum aspiration is performed with a machine that uses a vacuum to suck the baby out of the uterus. The vacuum is created by a hand held pump (manual vacuum aspiration) or by electricity (electric vacuum aspiration). The electric machine is far more common in the US. Generally, the manual pump is only used to kill children who are less than 6 weeks old. Except in the very earliest abortions, the mom's cervix will be dilated large enough to allow a cannula to be inserted into her uterus. The cannula is a hollow plastic tube that is connected to either the hand or electric pump by a flexible hose. As a vacuum is created, the abortionist runs the tip of the cannula along the surface of the uterus causing the baby to be dislodged and sucked into the tube - either whole or in pieces. Suction curettage is a variation of vacuum aspiration in which the suction machine is used to get the baby out, with any remaining parts being scraped out of the uterus with a surgical instrument called a curette. Following that, another pass is made through the mom's uterus with the suction machine to help insure that none of the baby's body parts have been left behind.

Another form of first trimester abortion is the D&C (dilation and curettage). During this procedure, the mother's cervix is dilated and a curette is scraped along the sides of the uterus to dislodge the baby. Suction is not used for this type of abortion, but since the mother is usually asleep the abortionist can dilate the cervix large enough that many passes with the curette are possible.

Some first trimester abortions are not accomplished using surgery, but chemicals. This procedure begins when the mom is given either mifepristone (Mifeprex; RU486) or methotrexate. Mifepristone causes the baby to become detached from its mother's uterus while methotrexate is actually toxic to the baby and, therefore, kills it directly. Once the child is either detached or dead, the mom is given a labor-inducing drug which causes the uterus to cramp and expel her dead baby. This type of abortion only works up to about the 9th week of pregnancy.

---

quote:

---

However, a large number of abortions are in fact 2nd trimester - between 12 and 23 weeks.

---

quote:

---

The reason Planned Parenthood chose those doctors was because they wanted to illustrate that the other procedure that was not outlawed (dilation & evacuation) could be potentially more harmful than the procedure that was outlawed (dilation & extraction). In dilation & evacuation, as the witnesses said, the fetus is pulled out with forceps. In dilation & extraction (called "partial-birth abortion"), the fetus is pulled out of the woman's body except for the head and then suction is applied to remove the brain. The fetus is then pulled the rest of the way out.

---

quote:

---

The PPFA's own witness admits to crushing the skull of babies to prevent them being born alive, even if the cervix is dilated enough to allow the baby to be born without crushing the skull.

---

quote:

---

Q. Doctor, if a woman’s cervix was so dilated the fetus could be delivered in intact it would not be necessary to collapse the skull because the fetus could pass through the cervix, right?
A. Correct.
Q. But you would not allow the fetus to pass intact if the fetus were at or about 24 weeks in gestation, correct?
A. Correct.

---

quote:

---

We also can read from the transcript that when the skull is crushed, it can result in sharp edges that may then puncture the uterus or cervix and cause harm to the mother, from slight harm with minimal bleeding up to exanguination - which is such a lovely way of saying "bleeding to death"

---

quote:

---

Q. And when you are crushing the calvarium, there is the same risks that we talked about earlier,
possible perforation or laceration of the cervix, the lower uterine segment, or the uterus; is that
right?
A. Yes.
Q. And a cervical or uterine laceration, it can be relatively minor or it could be relatively severe;
is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. If it’s severe enough, there are some cases where a woman might exsanguinate and die, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you tell us what exsanguinate means?
A. To bleed to death.

---

quote:

---

Why, why, why in the world, if the objection that Planned Parenthood has is that banning this procedure will cause a health risk to the mother - would they then support an unnecessary potential complication that could result in the death of the mother?

---

quote:

---

But, in this state, if you are in an abortion clinic and a doctor perforates your uterus and you begin to bleed to death they will do nothing for you except call 911 and wait for the paramedics.

---

quote:

---

Alabama defines “abortion and reproductive health centers” as “hospitals” and requires that they meet licensing requirements and minimum health and safety standards in such areas as personnel qualifications, records maintenance, admission requirements, abortion procedures, post-operative care, and infection control.

---

quote:

---

The partial-birth abortion law didn't ban dilation & evacuation (the procedure you describe), it banned dilation & extraction.

---

quote:

---

So are you saying they ever encourage a woman to wait longer to abort so that the procedure would be less dangerous?

---

quote:

---

Have you read this whole thread?

---

quote:

---

if you can prove to me that private offices that perform procedures all need to have the same life saving equipment, then I would agree with you that abortion clinics should have it too.

---

I don't get it-- why OPPOSE safety precautions, Suneun?

Can you clarify this stance?

[ April 20, 2004, 01:11 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
I don't think the "life saving equipment" listed were to save the fetus's life.
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
The question is, are they being fair? Are they asking every office in which potentially fatal procedures are done to have this equipment? If so, then I support it.

But if it's trying to single out one type of operation that may not be any more dangerous than another, then I can see where there would be opposition. The costs of adding such equipment, training, and resources are likely quite high. If you're saying only Type A needs this equipment, then you're burdening one segment for political gain, not necessarily to help the patient.
 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
Uhm, yes. When I had an endoscopy, it was done in the hospital. Just in case of complications.

And I've seen defibrilators in the surgical room (where you get stitches and casts) in our doctor's office.

I really don't see anything unfair about requiring the same safety net in an abortion clinic.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
That's my understanding, too, Suneun.

So, logically, the life-saving equipment listed would be intended to be used on the women having an abortion, should the need arise.

So. . . again, why the protest?
 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
I also found it kind of odd that pro-"choice" advocates in Oregon opposed legislation that required a medical form that outlined the risks and procedures of the abortion, something that was required for every other elective surgery and a 24 hour cooling off period between the decision and the operation.
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
I asked whether or not private offices needed to have the same extensive life saving equipment. If they do, all good. But I'm not convinced they do.

Many, many procedures are done in private offices. Can they all provide blood or life saving treatments beyond basic CPR? Have crash carts and cardiac meds?

I made a conditional question and you're arguing as if you knew the answer to the question without providing the answer.
 

---

Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
 
I'm shocked to hear that offices doing conscious sedation, or surgical procedures such as colonoscopies, wouldn't at least have a crash cart with code meds and a defibrillator. In fact, I just don't believe it. MY office has a crash cart about 15 feet from this computer I'm using and we don't do anything more invasive than vaccinations here.
 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
A defibrilator is on a crash cart, Sunenun, in our regular doctor's office. To get any test more invasive than a Pap smear or to even to get a Rhogam shot when I'm pregnant, I've had to go to the hospital or the woman's clinic that is in a wing off the hospital.

[ April 20, 2004, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: Amka ]
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
I don't know the answer, silly.

That's why I'm asking YOU. It's YOUR camp that made the illogical protests against lifesaving equipment.


 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
Thanks for the personal evidence, but that's not what i'm looking for. I'm looking for a federal law that states what all medical offices need to have. If they're all required to have life saving equipment, then I totally support extending that to all clinics/offices that do procedures.

What I'm saying is, I haven't figured out whether or not it's illegal to not have these devices in a private office doing procedures. So far, I found on allnurses.com a thread about crash carts which seemed to imply it was optional. Surely an important thing to have, but not illegal to not have it.

Therefore, I reiterate: Saying that every office and clinic that performs any surgical procedures should have X devices is great. Saying that a specific type of clinic must while ignoring the others is mainly political in nature and I could see why some people would be opposed to it.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Do you recognize the difference between having teeth extracted and extracting a fetus from INSIDE SOMEONE'S BODY?

I see the differences. I can understand why there would need to be more precautions in the second case.
 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
It is basically a curved knife they are sticking in your body to scrape the baby off the uterus.

If what you want is a law that would require any clinic that performs a similarly invasive procedure to have a crash cart, I'm not opposed to that.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 

quote:

---

I assure you that there are fatal risks in colonoscopies and endoscopies. There were perforations in 1.96/1000 colonoscopies in one study. For endoscopies, "Between 0.1-0.2% of complications considered directly related to the procedure resulted in morbidity and 0-0.7% were fatal."

---

quote:

---

This legislation is only fair if other facilities with similar are REQUIRED to have it as well. Sure, maybe 99% of these facilities have the equipment anyway, but they aren't required to, so likewise neither should abortion clinics.

---

quote:

---

Financial In 2001, the average cost of an abortion at 10 weeks was $372. For low-income and younger women, gathering the necessary funds for the procedure often causes delays. Compounding the problem is the fact that the cost of abortion rises with gestational age: in 2001, the cost of an abortion performed at 16 weeks gestation was $774 and $1,179 at 20 weeks. For various reasons, most patients pay for abortions out-of-pocket. For example, in 2001, only 26 percent of patients received services billed directly to public or private insurance (Henshaw & Finer, 2003). For some, these costs can pose significant barriers to access.

---

quote:

---

how are safety requirements for abortion procedures compared to medical procedures with similar complication/fatality rates?

---

quote:

---

Fact Sheet:
The Shortage of Abortion Providers

* 87% of all U.S. counties and 97% of all rural U.S. counties have no abortion provider.1
* Since 1982, the number of abortion providers has decreased by 37%.1
* 58% of all OB/GYN doctors who provide abortions are 50 years of age or older. This means the number of providers will continue to decline as current providers reach retirement age, unless younger clinicians learn to perform abortions.2
* In 1983, 42% of all OB/GYN doctors performed abortions. In 1995, only 33% did. The overwhelming majority of abortions are performed by a small group of doctors: Only 2% of U.S. OB/GYN doctors perform more than 25 abortions per month.3
* 72% of OB/GYN residency programs do not train all residents in abortion procedures.4
* From 1982 to 2000, the number of hospitals providing abortions has decreased by 57%.1
* Only 15% of chief residents in family medicine residency programs have clinical experience providing first trimester abortions.3
* “Physician-only” laws in most states require careful legal research to ascertain whether advanced practice clinicians (nurse practitioners, nurse midwives, and physician assistants) can provide medical and/or surgical abortions under their professional regulations.
* Many nursing programs do not adequately prepare students to care for women having abortions, contributing to a shortage of nurses willing and trained to assist abortion providers. Lack of faculty qualified to teach about reproductive options, fear of anti-choice backlash, and the absence of appropriate didactic materials are barriers to incorporating abortion into existing curricula.
* Abortion is one of the only medical procedures with a “conscience clause” that allows medical providers to refuse to participate in the care of a patient.
* There have been 15,087 reported instances of violence and/or harassment against abortion providers since 1977, including 7 murders and 17 attempted murders (actual instances are most likely much higher.)5 In 2000, more than half of all providers experienced anti-choice harassment.6

---

You'll note that funding is NOT one of the issues brought up-- availability of the operation, and doctors willing to carry it out are.

Can you think of why that might be?

[ April 21, 2004, 09:57 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"You'll note that funding is NOT one of the issues brought up-- availability of the operation, and doctors willing to carry it out is.

Can you think of why that might be?"

I'd imagine it's a combination of several factors, from personal conscience to legal opposition to public intimidation.

---

So, then, you aren't willing to speculate on why a law might have been drafted requiring abortion clinics in SPECIFIC to possess special equipment? Scott, let's face it: it's just another attempt to chip away at the clinics by any means possible.
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
jehovoid, I assume you didn't read my various parts that admitted that if you believe in the personhood of the fetus the whole safety argument is nonsensical, right?

Scott, it's a catch-22. I personally would like to see abortion go the way of the dinosaurs. The best way to do it, IMO, isn't to chop the legs out from under "safe" abortions. It's to educate people to the point that only a tiny minority (since I think there will always be a small segment of women who do this) would think of going the abortion route.

If you look at abortion from the perspective of a medical procedure (which some in here are not, as is there right), then from a medical point of view, abortions are being singled out, because there is a large (majority) of people who don't like it. I would love to for there to be a crash cart at every medical facility, period. So ask the lawmakers, why are they restricting this law only to abortion clinics? When kat said that some people are ignoring safety for politics, it could have been just as easily been made for the side she is sympathetic to.

-Bok
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Tom-- I concede the point.

Bok-- When you call a place a 'clinic,' certain laws apply to it. When you call a place a 'hospital,' more laws are applied.

I don't deny that BOTH designations, and the application of the terms to any given office, can be political: the question becomes then, is the medical equipment necessary for the safety of patients undergoing an abortion?
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
Jon Boy - my immediate reaction was to get angry with your link, but I can't work out whether you meant it as satirical against the anti-abortionist lobby, the pro-choice lobby or some other group.

I'm being quite serious here - I guess I'm just being dense.

But if you let me know, I'll respond appropriately.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Hmmm, why would it matter who it's aimed at as to whether you'd get angry?

Dagonee

[ April 21, 2004, 11:11 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
Imogen, it seems to me that the article is satire against the pro-choice people. I really don't see the difference between killing a five-year-old and killing a baby that's only moments away from being born.
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
Scott: Sure, but so should any other medical facility, 'clinic' or otherwise, that performs procedures with similar (or in my case, I'd even say ANY) complication rates.

If the pro-life folks really wanted to help, they'd propose the same law for any facilities that perform operations with certain complication rates. You'd find much less opposition, I'd bet.

Basically, what you conceded to Tom was what I, and I presume Suneun, were saying. This wasn't really about patient safety, this was about making political hay. If you still believe that the opposition should step aside when there are possible long term repurcussions, well, that's a fair difference of opinion.
--

As an aside: I can see 2 reasons for the drop in doctors learning the abortion procedures. One is moral, and one is financial (okay, there is also a societal pressure one as well, but that won't change anyone's mind).

-Bok
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
So now do we get to talk about the inconsistency with pro-choice advocates' stand on parental consents when compared with consent needed for other surgeries?

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
Jon Boy - ok. And I can understand that satire in terms of late birth / partial birth abortions. Especially in the terms you couched it - if a baby is "only moments away from being born" then I cannot justify an abortion in any way, shape or form *except* if it is *absolutely* necessary to save the mother's life.

I do see a difference in first trimester abortions, but I guess that's a different discussion for a different thread.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 

quote:

---

This wasn't really about patient safety, this was about making political hay. If you still believe that the opposition should step aside when there are possible long term repurcussions, well, that's a fair difference of opinion.

---

I don't understand your last sentence-- can you clear it up for me?

I concede that the the bill may have been introduced to 'chip away' at abortion rights; however, my question stands: is it a good idea to have this equipment? If it is, no matter what everyone else in the medical field is doing, isn't it JUST to require it?
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Scott, what if we passed a law requiring all Hispanic men to wear seatbelts?

Wouldn't that be a good idea?
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
Scott, I think it IS good to require it. To put it in more neutral terms, I think the law is poorly written because it only applies to a subset of medical facilities that ought to have these safety requirements. I think the state legislative body ought to go back and draw up a more comprehensive law that will protect more patients. Why should abortion seekers get more safety than some other patient with a comparable (in terms of complications) medical procedure?

-Bok
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Then only Jorge would survive the car crash.

Proof that America cares about immigrants.



Tom, I get where you're going-- but the simple fact is that, as I stated earlier, there's a big difference between having a tooth extracted, and having a fetus pulled out of your body.

I am fine with having all invasive surgeries require the same type of safety precautions as is required with abortive surgery.

Why were the clinics not required to implement these safety precautions in the first place? To turn the argument on its head, why did the law seem to state, 'Everyone but Hispanics needs to wear seat belts?'

Who is to say that this law wasn't a rectification of an oversight?
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
But did the law actually say the equivalent of "evryone but..."?

I think that is an assumption that has yet to be tested. I think it's more likely that there are many "out-patient" procedures [EDIT: done] at doctor's offices separate from hospitals that may not have the same safety equipment.

-Bok

[ April 21, 2004, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 

quote:

---

Bok-- When you call a place a 'clinic,' certain laws apply to it. When you call a place a 'hospital,' more laws are applied.

---

quote:

---

A fifteen year old girl should not be forced to keep the baby if she doesn't want it, the same way a fifteen year old cancer patient shouldn't be refused treatment because her parents don't want her to get treatment. It's just that in the second case, it's often exterior forces acting.

---