The story is actually thirty years old, and here it is:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/history/790873,CST-NWS-high13.article

Horrifying reading.

"The series prompted immediate action. Within two weeks, two abortion clinics were closed down, a doctor's license was revoked, a criminal investigation was launched and a governor's task force was appointed to re-evaluate the state's regulation and licensing of abortion clinics and counselors."

It's time for another investigative report from Pam Zeckman. Maybe she can also ask Attorney General Lisa Madigan why she isn't enforcing parental notification laws in Illinois yet.

As the post says....so, what's new.

MK -

You wanna know what's new?

Back then the PC'ers who pushed abortion to become legal at any time for any reason actually cared about the conditions. Notice how it only took them two weeks to attempt to correct the problems?

Now a days when someone uncovers illegal stuff at abortion clinics the governor protects them, YouTube pulls the proof of the crime, the courts put a gag order on the investigator, and the media reports the story talking about all the laws broken by the investigator and leaves out what the investigator found.

ALOT is different now. PC'er's don't give a darn about women. At least they did in 1978 - maybe there is hope.

More on Dr. Bickham:

Ex-abortionist Dr.Arnold Bickham has been employed in Chicago Public Schools. as an assistant principal at Copernicus Elementary and as an interim principal at Sojourner Truth Elementary School in Cabrini-Green. CEO of Chicago Public Schools, Arne Duncan, acknowledged that in applying for employment, Bickham had disclosed his past to Chicago Public Schools, according to the Tribune.Under state law, individuals convicted of some non-violent crimes are not prohibited from working in schools; Bickham fell into that category. From March 2004: http://www.catalyst-chicago.org/arch/03-04/0304truthprint.htm

It should be a crime to put someone like that in charge of our children!

eeeeeeeeew. The dog! That's gross!

I guess the bottom line is that people just don't want to admit to their mistakes. PC'ers fought long and hard to make abortion safe & legal, but can't admit that it will never happen. They would have to be wrong, then. And if they're wrong there, where else are they wrong? Maybe that abortion itself is wrong? They won't admit it.

There is nothing good about abortion. Good comes from God, and evil comes from Satan. As long as Satan is working in the abortion industry, we can bank on it never being a "good thing".

PC'ers fought long and hard to make abortion safe & legal, but can't admit that it will never happen.

That a given thing does not have zero risk does not mean that it's not "safe" in our usual terminology.

Abortion does have some risks, but so does childbirth. Abortion, overall, is much, much safer yet you don't see people whining and moaning about the less-than-perfect deal with childbirth, not Pro-Choicers anyway, despite it being more risky than having an abortion.

Bad medical facilities and doctors aren't wanted by Pro-Choicers any more than they are by Pro-Lifers.

Abortion is plenty safe, even granting that there is not zero risk. And yes - thank goodness it is legal for women to have abortions if the pregnancy is unwanted, and thank goodness it is legal for women to continue pregnancies if they are wanted.

Doug

Bad medical facilities and doctors aren't wanted by Pro-Choicers any more than they are by Pro-Lifers.

I don't see much outrage from the PC side about these bad medical facilities and doctors.

DOUG -

FOR THE LAST FREAKIN' TIME!

BOTH ABORTION AND CHILDBIRTH HAVE A LESS THAN 1% CHANCE OF MATERNAL DEATH.

ABORTION COMPLICATIONS ARE COMPLICATIONS WITH THE MOTHER ONLY (OBVIOUSLY).

THANKS TO MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY CHILDBIRTH COMPLICATIONS THAT AFFECT THE MOTHER ARE VERY LOW AND VERY RARELY CAUSE PROBLEMS IN THE FUTURE. THE CHILD HAS MORE OF A CHANCE OF PROBLEMS AT CHILDBIRTH!

There, did you hear me now?

I've posted proof of this time and again. To be honest I'm beginning to wonder if PC'ers actually care about the truth. Especially when I post from NON-BIASED sources on this! Unless you think the CDC, AMA and Guttmacher are biased towards pro-life?

I am glad that abortion is so safe. Especially for the baby.

BOTH ABORTION AND CHILDBIRTH HAVE A LESS THAN 1% CHANCE OF MATERNAL DEATH.

No argument there, Valerie. What I said remains true.
......

ABORTION COMPLICATIONS ARE COMPLICATIONS WITH THE MOTHER ONLY (OBVIOUSLY).

Yup.
......

THANKS TO MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY CHILDBIRTH COMPLICATIONS THAT AFFECT THE MOTHER ARE VERY LOW AND VERY RARELY CAUSE PROBLEMS IN THE FUTURE. THE CHILD HAS MORE OF A CHANCE OF PROBLEMS AT CHILDBIRTH! There, did you hear me now?

Yes, and the fact remains that abortion, especially early-term abortion, is still much, much safer for women than carrying to term and giving birth.
......

I've posted proof of this time and again. To be honest I'm beginning to wonder if PC'ers actually care about the truth. Especially when I post from NON-BIASED sources on this! Unless you think the CDC, AMA and Guttmacher are biased towards pro-life?

The truth is that you are not contradicting what I say. A comparison of rates of incidence is not saying anything, necessarily, about the raw rates. The point is that abortion, like giving birth, is still "safe," regardless of the fact that the risk is not zero. We have safe and (thank goodness) legal abortion.

Doug

Doug -

"Yes, and the fact remains that abortion, especially early-term abortion, is still much, much safer for women than carrying to term and giving birth."

When would be another time you would be arguing minutia?

You are talking about one being .006% safer than the other. That is NOT "much, much safer". That is grossly misleading and you know it! Unless you can show me some other time that medical texts would say that one procedure is much safer than the other when the difference is .006%!

Valerie, it's not "minutia." A difference of 15 times, or 11, or 10, is significant, especially when what I was replying to is the notion that abortion is "not safe."

Once again, the comparison of rates is not saying anything, necessarily, about the raw rates.

Yes, the raw rates are both "low," but I've never said differently. I hear you on the decimal points and percentages, but it can also be said that the risk with childbirth is 1000% or 1100% or 1500% higher than with abortion.

In no way did I say anything like, "women who give birth have a good chance of being seriously harmed by it."

But when we start out with one person acting like abortion is not "safe and legal," then everything I said stands.

Per Doug:
Abortion does have some risks, but so does childbirth.

Doug,
Please quit trying to use this ridiculous analogy. If OB/GYNs were found to be unqualified, delivering babies out of clinics with no running water, giving false pregnancy results, losing lab reports, falsifying medical reports, allowing their pets to walk into a delivery room and lap up blood,
using dirty filthy instruments that were stored in a receptionist's desk.......do I need to go on?? Please. There would be outrage from every corner as there should.

Please try to stay on topic and quit diverting the issues.

Sandy 5:10PM

As well as not washing their hands or changing their gloves between patients, referring to their patients as "dogs" and abusing drugs(the Detroit abortionist), performing surgical procedures as moonlighting medical students, and yelling at patients to shut up when they cry out in pain.

Great post Sandy.

Per Doug:
Abortion does have some risks, but so does childbirth.

Doug,
Please quit trying to use this ridiculous analogy. If OB/GYNs were found to be unqualified, delivering babies out of clinics with no running water, giving false pregnancy results, losing lab reports, falsifying medical reports, allowing their pets to walk into a delivery room and lap up blood,
using dirty filthy instruments that were stored in a receptionist's desk.......do I need to go on?? Please. There would be outrage from every corner as there should.

Please try to stay on topic and quit diverting the issues.

Posted by: Sandy at February 14, 2008 5:10 PM
...............................

Are you attempting to assert that all deliveries happen in a sterile environment with highly trained medical and medical support personnel?
If it is your belief that deliveries are safer because there are always safe places to deliver, you would have a comparison. But you would be mistaken in your belief. The fact that a woman can go into labor at any time is one of the reasons that it can be dangerous.

Please try to stay on topic and quit diverting the issues.

Sandy, I am. Gynecologists get sued more than any other type of doctor, as far as I know. Yet the vast majority of them, same as the vast majority of doctors who do abortions, aren't "bad" or subjects or rightful "outrage."

The topic - what I replied to - was the notion that "safe and legal abortion" will never happen. Heck, we have it already. If one argues, as Valerie does, that giving birth is actually pretty darn safe (which overall I agree with) then obviously so is abortion, it's even safer yet.

Doug,

These Chicago hacks operated openly and legally in one of Chicago's most exclusive neighborhoods. This made it safe, right?

Sally,

Of course women don't always make it on time to the hospital. I nearly delivered a woman on the elevator. However every effort is made to provide the cleanest safest environment for delivery.
I think Sandy's point is that conditions like this would never be tolerated under any other circumstances and you can't compare hacks like these to ethical OB/GYNs, who don't bring family pets to the office or perform procedures on you with the same pair of gloves he/she wore for the previous patient.

Mary,
Thank you for both posts. The gest of this article is that women are being run in and out of abortion mills that are unsanitary and unsafe.

Yet, never do we hear any outrage that this has occurred, only diversions and silly comparisons that don't even compare.

Doug,
You are not even close to staying on topic here.
Please. ARRGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

These aborionists don't even come to the standards of a vet clinic. I'm sure FF would even have to agree with that.

So you are saying that just because abortion is as safe as childbirth all of these infractions should be ignored??? That's what I hear you saying.

Would you want your wife, sister, cousin or friend or anyone for that matter to visit one of these clinics? How do you know they wouldn't run into an unlicensed quack or unsterile surgical equipment?? You wouldn't since they don't regulate these clinics.

Sandy,

You're very welcome. It seems the only thing that happened here was the back alley hacks moved to a nicer neighborhood and put out a shingle.
There is this naive and dangerous notion that legalizing something puts the criminal element and other dubious characters out of business. All too often we are only giving them more and better opportunities.

Doug -

you did not answer this:

"Unless you can show me some other time that medical texts would say that one procedure is much safer than the other when the difference is .006%!"

Answer that.

I've looked for it, can't find it. It's because one is not any more safe than the other if you go by reality.

When you say

"A difference of 15 times, or 11, or 10, is significant, especially when what I was replying to is the notion that abortion is "not safe."

you are dealing in FRACTIONS! NOT WHOLE NUMBERS!

Once again, give me any other medical procedure that a professional will say one procedure is safer than another based on a fraction of a difference.

Do it. Name it. I'm waiting.

When you say BS stuff like that you are giving a false impression. You are using scare tactics that are not true in reality. Medicine deals in reality, not in statistics. and a fraction of a difference is NOT reality. Is not now and will never be!

Wanna know about lawsuits?

From the Malpractice Defense Services, LLC:

www.malpracticeservices.com/html/recent_statistics.html

"There are currently 125,000 medical liability lawsuits in the system. (AMA Analysis)

75% of medical liability claims are closed with no payment to the plaintiff, yet cost about $19,000 per physician in defense costs. Of the cases which go to trial, physicians are found to be not negligent 83% of the time, yet defense costs average $94,000 per physician. Only 1% of cases result in trial victories for plaintiffs. (Physician Insurers Association of America - PIAA - 2005) "

OB/GYN's get sued if the baby is born with any form of minor problems because it wasn't detected before birth. Those are part of the claims that get closed without any payment. They get sued if the forceps leave a mark, if the belly button becomes an outie and not an innie because of the way the umbilical chord was cut. They get sued if they use topical numbing creams, if they don't use topical numbing creams, it they use the wrong brand of topical numbing creams. They get sued if the mother had to push one too many times, or if the baby cries wrong after delivery. You would be amazed at some of the lawsuits my sister sees working at a children's hospital.

When abortionists actually do get sued it is because of death, infertility or massive infection. They get shut down because they are practicing medicine in a facility that isn't fit for veternarians to work in. The health depts look the other way - for 5 years in 2 clinics in NJ. THIS is why we say that abortion is NOT safe. Because many states have virtually no laws to protect the women but plenty of laws to protect the abortionist. States are not even mandated to report anything to the government - every other medical procedure that is done over one million times a year in this nation is mandated by law to send reports to the government, but not abortion.

Plastic surgeons, ENT Dr.s, Dentists etc. they are mandated by law to report anything and everything! But not abortionists.

THAT is why abortion is not safe. In many states No one is governing their actions. No one is regulating proper procedures, no one is investigating the sterility of the practice.

Do you get it now? Or are you still going to stand behind a fraction and justify the inappropriate actions of our government by allowing women to be treated worse than dogs and looking the other way. Hell, I don't blame the abortionist - most people today would take candy from a baby if given the right situation. No one is watching them. And when they do get caught nothing happens.

Sandy,

About the Detroit abortionist. He was interviewed and questioned about the dog a patient and her companion claimed they saw enter the surgical area.
He denied there was a dog. The reporter asked where two different people would get the notion of a dog being present and why they would state in sworn affadavits that a dog was walking around the surgical area.
The abortionist replied that they must have heard him referring to one of his patients!
When he was asked if he always referred to his patients as "dogs" the abortionist replied "if you saw what they sent me from Chicago you'd see what I mean".

Valerie,

Excellent post. Another factor is that these women are fearful of exposure and that works to the advantage of the hacks and sexual abusers who are all too often operating on them. They have these women in a very precarious position and are well aware that they do.

One night we operated on a woman who was feverish and infected after her "safe legal" abortion. I suspect she delayed coming into the hospital because of denial and the fear someone would discover she had an abortion. Her mother was with her and apparently had no idea what was wrong with her daughter. Since the daughter was a legal adult this was confidential and we had to be careful what we said. What she wanted to tell her mother was her concern.
Thankfully only a D&C was necessary and the woman was discharged in the morning after IV antibiotics. The surgeon called the abortionist, thinking he would want to be informed of what had happened to a patient of his.
The surgeon returned to the OR in a rage. The abortionist brushed him off as "you pro-life doctors" and had absolutely no concern about the woman. The surgeon reminded him that an injured woman, not anyone's politics, was the only issue here and whatever his politics, it didn't change the medical facts concerning this woman.
He told the abortionist he called because he thought he might, just might, be concerned about this patient and would want to know another one of his abortion cases was treated in the office by the surgeon's partner.
He couldn't have cared less. He also didn't seem too concerned about any possible lawsuits.

Mary, I fully agree with you re: your above post.

Let's face it: Regardless of what the PC-ers, Proaborts, and radical feminists say or do, regardless of how long they deny the ugliness of abortion and it's AFTERMATH, and regardless of how long abortion remains legal and supposedly "safe", it will NEVER lose it's societal and historical STIGMA.

Doctors who do abortions will never be regarded as heroes, or for doing anything positive or beneficial for medicine by the medical community OR the citizenry at large.

The fact that there are fewer abortionists now than ever before speaks for itself...and their numbers are lessening every year.

When was the last time you were at a social function and people were saying "Oh...who's your abortionist?", while discussing health related issues. You're not apt to hear women say, "Oh my...my abortionist punctured my uterus, left an arm inside me, never followed up with me afterwards, and the place was filthy and stunk."

Abortion's "glory days" are over...and the stigma remains. The industry has enjoyed 35 years of duping the public, deceiving women and failing to win-over the new generation. Their dirty secrets, their illegal actions, their damage to a generation, and exposure for what they are all about is now impossible to deny or hide any longer. The industry is collapsing in on itself and corrupt politicians are desperately trying to save it...but it's too late. The truth is out, and more and more WOMEN, men and children are seeing abortion for what it is.

Amen, Mike!! Well said!!

Doug,

That a given thing does not have zero risk does not mean that it's not "safe" in our usual terminology

Wasn't one of the reasons that abortion was made legal, because it wasn't safe?

I'll just use your argument against you...

Abortion should remain illegal. Back alley/coat hanger abortions were working just fine. After all, That a given thing does not have zero risk does not mean that it's not "safe" in our usual terminology

Doug, Doug, Doug,

much, much safer

Prove it. Prove that it is MUCH MUCH safer.

I triple dog dare you!

Mike,

Phenomenal post!

Valerie, Mary, Mike, MK,
All great posts. There is just no way anyone can justify this. I can't wait to see Doug's response to all of your wonderful comments.

Prove it. Prove that it is MUCH MUCH safer. I triple dog dare you!

MK, just the fact that whatever multiple we go with - as among those figures that Valerie originally mentioned, i.e. 15 times safer, 11 times, safer, 10 times safer, etc., that's quite a difference. Again, this is not saying that a given woman would be "likely" to be harmed by giving birth, it's comparing the rates of incidence.

Doug

"That a given thing does not have zero risk does not mean that it's not "safe" in our usual terminology"

Wasn't one of the reasons that abortion was made legal, because it wasn't safe?

MK, it was illegal abortions in the US that were much less safe than legal ones, all in all.
......

I'll just use your argument against you...

Abortion should remain illegal. Back alley/coat hanger abortions were working just fine. After all, That a given thing does not have zero risk does not mean that it's not "safe" in our usual terminology

Doesn't matter. Illegal abortions were not said to be "safe" in the first place, while today it certainly can be said that abortion is safe, just as is childbirth, in fact moreso.

Good grief - Anonymous started out with the notion that safe & legal abortion "will never happen." Well, if we go with that, then obviously continuing pregnancies and giving birth is not safe, and even worse than that....

Or, if we note the actual incidence of severe problems with the woman giving birth, which is of course quite low, then the point remains that we already have safe and legal abortion too.

Doug

These Chicago hacks operated openly and legally in one of Chicago's most exclusive neighborhoods. This made it safe, right?

Mary, since you used it as an example, I imagine the answer is no.

These aborionists don't even come to the standards of a vet clinic. I'm sure FF would even have to agree with that.

Sandy, anecdotes don't necessarily prove anything. Nobody is telling you there have never been any such things as you describe.
.....

So you are saying that just because abortion is as safe as childbirth all of these infractions should be ignored??? That's what I hear you saying.

Nope, not saying that at all.
......

Would you want your wife, sister, cousin or friend or anyone for that matter to visit one of these clinics? How do you know they wouldn't run into an unlicensed quack or unsterile surgical equipment?? You wouldn't since they don't regulate these clinics.

No, of course I wouldn't, anymore than I'd want them going to the gynecologists who have raped or otherwise abused women.

Anyway, if we say that we do not have safe and legal abortion, then we can only logically say we also do not have safe and legal childbirth.

Or, if we say we do have safe childbirth, then obviously we also have safe abortion.

Doug

Valerie: you did not answer this: "Unless you can show me some other time that medical texts would say that one procedure is much safer than the other when the difference is .006%!" Answer that.

It's just simple mathematics, Valerie. A multiple of 10 or 11 or 15 times is a very large one, regardless of the raw rate of incidence.

"Fractions" and "whole numbers" do not change anything here. There is no "whole numbers" anyway, because from the get-go we are talking about less than one, less than 100%.

Whether we are comparing .006 with .09 or 6% with 90%, the multiple is the same, the relative safety is the same. It can thus be said that the risk with one is 15 times greater than with the other. It would not change if we were using .00006 and .0009, etc.

Going back to what Anonymous said, if abortion is not "safe," then continuing pregnancies and giving birth is 15 times (or whatever multiple one settles upon) more unsafe.

Or, if we do look at the actual probability of a woman being severely harmed by childbirth, and we say it's "safe," then the obvious point is that abortion is indeed also safe, and in fact is 15 times (or whatever) as safe.
......

When you say BS stuff like that you are giving a false impression.

Wrong. What I have said is true.
......

You are using scare tactics that are not true in reality.

Wrong again. "Once again, the comparison of rates is not saying anything, necessarily, about the raw rates." I've noted that several times.
......

Medicine deals in reality, not in statistics. and a fraction of a difference is NOT reality. Is not now and will never be!

The risk is reality, and "medicine" or not doesn't change that. It is not " a fraction of a difference." It is a multiple. And for the manyeth time, this is not saying that a woman "is likely to be harmed by continuing pregnancies and giving birth."

If we look at the raw numbers, then Anonymous was wrong about abortion not being safe.

Doug

Doug,

No surgery is 100% safe. The abortion process inserts foreign objects into a woman's uterus to scrape away the remains of an attached human being. There is a chance of perforating the uterus which is not present with childbirth. There is a higher chance of infection because of this. You are NOT going to find a SANE OB/GYN that believes abortion is inherently safer than childbirth. The operative word (pun intended) is "sane". It is foolish to say so.

Mike,

Your post is indeed excellent. And so true.
Our local abortionist was interviewed by our city newspaper. The man would just not admit he did abortions. Its not like the whole city doesn't already know, its been no secret for years.
His excuse was that it was an issue of patient confidentiality. Excuse me. No one is asking for the names of and information about your patients. Doctors advertise all the time what services they perform. How does that violate patient confidentiality?
Why wouldn't this man just come out and proudly admit what everyone already knows he does?

Doug,

If legal abortion is safer, why was the death rate from illegal abortion steadily declining for years prior to Roe v Wade and at an all time low the year before Roe v Wade?

Mike makes excellent points here, but the pro-abortion choicers say because of his gender, he should have no say in these matters.
Makes no sense to me.

Janet,

Especially when there is no problem with men supporting abortion. I say if a man can't oppose abortion, he cannot support it either.

No discussion of safe childbirth can be had without addressing the high C-section rate in the U.S. - performed by OB/GYNs who in at least some cases, just have to get to that golf game, or don't want to come to the hospital at 3 a.m. After all, a C-section is much more lucrative than a vaginal delivery. And, it too, can cause uterine punctures and tears, in addition to the incision which, by definition, is uterine damage.

Where is the outrage over this practice?

Janet and Mary:

We'll take this real slow for you.

Men who tell a woman what she can and can't do with her own body are (diplomatically) paternalistic and (not quite so diplomatically) controlling-male-chauvinist-misogynist-pigs.

Men who tell a women that it is her body and thus her choice are fair-minded, logical, supportive, feminists (Cheers Doug and Hal!)

Can you grasp that now?

Janet and Mary:

We'll take this real slow for you.

Men who tell a woman what she can and can't do with her own body are (diplomatically) paternalistic and (not quite so diplomatically) controlling-male-chauvinist-misogynist-pigs.

Men who tell a women that it is her body and thus her choice are fair-minded, logical, supportive, feminists (Cheers Doug and Hal!)

Can you grasp that now?

Phylosopher 11:32,

I think most men don't think much about abortion until they are confronted with it, which is unfortunate. They're shell-shocked when their girlfriend brings it up and they don't know how to respond, so they say "OK", whatever. To me, that's a sign of short-sighted thinking which isn't very appealing.

I prefer a man with strong convictions who is confident, and not afraid to stand up for what he believes. I'll take him any day over one of your "feministy" men.

Abortion is neither a male issue nor a female issue, it is a COUPLE issue.

Phylosopher,

Let me take this slow for you as well. What you're saying is that so long as men agree with you on the issue of abortion, they are this side of sainthood and are qualified to speak on the issue. If they have the audacity to disagree with you, then it is because of obvious character flaws and they should keep silent.

Your sense of fairness and tolerance inspires and humbles us all.

I read that the largest demographic group supporting abortion is males 18-25 years old. Imagine that! Could it be these are young men inclined to want to have their fun and walk away?
I see plenty of young single mothers left to lives of poverty and welfare dependency because some "man" felt his only obligation to his pregnant partner was an offer to pay for an abortion and her circumstances are "her" fault for not doing so. Truly logical, fair minded, supportive, and feminist.

I agree the C-section rate is outragous and is done often at patient request, which is totally unacceptable. There is also the litigation problem, people no longer accept that certain disabilities and pregnancy complications cannot always be predicted and prevented. I know one OB who was served papers for performing a life saving C-section and emergency hysterectomy for placenta acreta. The legal action was quickly terminated when the OB asked the lawyer what other option, besides letting the patient bleed to death, he had.

I will say this Phylosopher, for all the sections I've seen and deliveries I've sat in on because of possible complications, I have never seen an OB bring his family pet into the delivery area, scream at patients to "shut up", refer to patients as "dogs", or use rusted, dirty instruments.

Phylosopher,

In future posts I will also thank you to address me as an adult and not as a 5 year old child. I suspect I am considerably older than you, as I am most people on this blog, and do not appreciate your condescension.

Look,

I've said this before and it seems to be ignored.

To get a truly accurate representation, you would have to compare maternal deaths that occur at 14 weeks or less. Comparing 9 months of pregnancy and then the birth of someone 100 times the size is not accurate.

Women have abortions at 8-14 weeks. They deliver babies at 40 weeks. How is that comparable?

That's like saying it's safer to have stage 1 cancer than stage 4 cancer.

Obviously there are less maternal deaths from abortion. Obviously more could go wrong carrying to term. You have 7 more MONTHS that something COULD go wrong, and you are delivering an 8 pound baby instead of an 8 ounce one.

This doesn't negate the fact that having an abortion is not safe.

How about "NOT" having an abortion is infinitely more safe than having one?

I've said this before and it seems to be ignored. To get a truly accurate representation, you would have to compare maternal deaths that occur at 14 weeks or less. Comparing 9 months of pregnancy and then the birth of someone 100 times the size is not accurate. Women have abortions at 8-14 weeks. They deliver babies at 40 weeks. How is that comparable?

MK, we are talking about the risks of both ending pregnancies and continuing them. Deciding to continue a pregnancy means that the 40 weeks (or whatever the exact term ends up being) will be the deal. Sure - there is increased risk as the time is extended, and that is taken on by the decision.
......

That's like saying it's safer to have stage 1 cancer than stage 4 cancer.

Well, I'd say that's correct, but the time of gestation makes a huge difference, i.e. go late enough and abortion is actually more risky than giving birth.
......

Obviously there are less maternal deaths from abortion. Obviously more could go wrong carrying to term. You have 7 more MONTHS that something COULD go wrong, and you are delivering an 8 pound baby instead of an 8 ounce one.

No doubt, it all factors in.
......

This doesn't negate the fact that having an abortion is not safe.

And if we go with that, then neither is continuing pregnancies and giving birth.
......

How about "NOT" having an abortion is infinitely more safe than having one?

That's untrue. Having an abortion, especially an early-term one, is safer than continuing the pregnancy and giving birth.

If legal abortion is safer, why was the death rate from illegal abortion steadily declining for years prior to Roe v Wade and at an all time low the year before Roe v Wade?

Mary, I'd think it would be due to less abortions and/or better medical care. What came after Roe has no necessary bearing on what came before, i.e. if the trend was there, then it was there and doesn't reflect on legal abortion.

Doug

No surgery is 100% safe. The abortion process inserts foreign objects into a woman's uterus to scrape away the remains of an attached human being. There is a chance of perforating the uterus which is not present with childbirth. There is a higher chance of infection because of this. You are NOT going to find a SANE OB/GYN that believes abortion is inherently safer than childbirth. The operative word (pun intended) is "sane". It is foolish to say so.

Janet, yes, there is some risk pretty much no matter what.

Yet having an abortion is usually safer than continuing the pregnancy. Go early enough in gestation and the disparity is massive - for abortions at less than 9 weeks, the woman's risk of death if she continues pregnancy and gives birth is roughly 70 times as great.

Doug

Doug,

So you would agree that legalizing abortion was not necessary to make abortion safe, that in all likelihood it did nothing more than increase the abortion rate, and give criminals and dubious characters opportunities, i.e.Chicago.

Mike makes excellent points here, but the pro-choicers say because of his gender, he should have no say in these matters. Makes no sense to me.

Janet, I didn't see anybody say what you claim, but Mike is certainly welcome to his opinions and to express them, as far as I'm concerned.

Now as far as him telling a given woman what to do if she's pregnant, then of course lots of people aren't going to want him to have a say.

Doug

So you would agree that legalizing abortion was not necessary to make abortion safe, that in all likelihood it did nothing more than increase the abortion rate, and give criminals and dubious characters opportunities, i.e.Chicago.

No, Mary, because legalizing made it much safer. That's not mutually exclusive with a prior trend of decreasing deaths from illegal abortions.

I also don't really know how "safe" illegal abortion was, even right before 1973.

Doug,

No legalizing it didn't make it safer, as we can see with Chicago and other incidents since.
The death rate from illegal abortion was at an all time low in 1972 and had been steadily decreasing for years prior to 1972.
This sounds to me like it was becoming increasing safer, largely due to better antibiotic, IV, and surgical procedures. Also, most illegal abortions were done in doctor's offices, not back alleys, and the doctors tended to be much more careful, an injured patient could well mean a prison term. Modern day abortionists don't have this concern. They certainly didn't do them on an assembly line basis. Also, an injured woman was much more likely to survive because of improved medical care.
Its also possible not that large a number of women were even seeking abortion. Maybe there was no truth to the conventional wisdom that if every woman who wanted an abortion would get it no matter what.
When abortion was legalized, and with the abortion industry unregulated, the assembly line abortions began, the hacks could put out a shingle,(many examples given in above posts) the profiteers saw a great opportunity, disreputable doctors saw a quick and easy buck, women flocked in droves. Abortion became a method of birth control for some. In Chicago, medical students operated for a quick buck, something unheard of and unacceptable under any other circumstances.
You end up with the situation that occured in Chicago and similar situations in later years.
Legal abortion is not proving any safer. How much safer can you be than 1972, when the death rate from illegal abortion was less than 200, some saying it was only 36?
Women haven't stopped being injured and killed Doug, its just that you aren't hearing about them anymore.

On this note I would mention a nurse I knew who worked in NY city. She spoke of women who came into the ER with self induced abortion. I asked if these women couldn't have had legal ones. She couldn't contain her laughter. She said in NYC they're given away, that there are clinics on every street corner and any woman, no matter how desperately poor, can have one. I asked her why then would these women induce themselves. She only shrugged and said "damned if I know".
I also knew a nurse Doug who told all of us how she would have induced her own abortion if she had been pregnant, which thankfully she wasn't. Why bother with the time and expense of a clinic when she could discreetly do her own at no cost?
It seems the reasons women sought illegal abortions, the fear of disclosure that they're pregnant, protection of privacy, and in the nurse's and possibly the NYC patients' case, convenience, may still make women attempt to self induce or seek an abortion from someone who will not ask any questions, as they did in the past.
After all Doug, do you think celebrities and socialites sit in the same clinic waiting rooms as the welfare mothers? Why do you suppose they don't? Because the rich and /or famous will do what they always have, seek out their private doctors for discreet abortions, the poor and middle class will go to unregulated clinics.

Legal abortion is not proving any safer. How much safer can you be than 1972, when the death rate from illegal abortion was less than 200, some saying it was only 36? Women haven't stopped being injured and killed Doug, its just that you aren't hearing about them anymore.

On this note I would mention a nurse I knew who worked in NY city. She spoke of women who came into the ER with self induced abortion. I asked if these women couldn't have had legal ones. She couldn't contain her laughter. She said in NYC they're given away, that there are clinics on every street corner and any woman, no matter how desperately poor, can have one. I asked her why then would these women induce themselves. She only shrugged and said "damned if I know".
I also knew a nurse Doug who told all of us how she would have induced her own abortion if she had been pregnant, which thankfully she wasn't. Why bother with the time and expense of a clinic when she could discreetly do her own at no cost?
It seems the reasons women sought illegal abortions, the fear of disclosure that they're pregnant, protection of privacy, and in the nurse's and possibly the NYC patients' case, convenience, may still make women attempt to self induce or seek an abortion from someone who will not ask any questions, as they did in the past.

Mary,

Very interesting points. Just a thought....Self-induced abortion is a lot like self-mutilation. Would we ever dream of telling women that it's their CHOICE to self-mutilate? NO. So why do we tell them it's their choice to abort?

Janet,

We also tell people they can't commit suicide. I've seen people use some of the most horrendous methods you can imagine to try to kill themselves and survive mutilated, crippled, disfigured and brain injured.
Why have we heard no outcry about this but we certainly do about women injuring themselves self aborting?
People do things to themselves for various reasons, mental illness, desperation, attention seeking, and sometimes just plain stupidity.

Mary,

I heard a report on the radio today about a new law going in effect in the summer.( I'm not sure if it's only Illinois....) Something about families being able to have a family member committed into a mental facility if it is suspected that they may be a danger to themselves or another person. Currently I think it's only possible after they've done something. It would be interesting to see how pregnant women would be dealt with if put into a facility by her family. Forced abortion? Pre-natal care in the mental hospital? Any thoughts?

Janet,

Actually more lenient laws allowing confinement by another family member were once on the books, though I don't know Illinois history specifically. Not surprisingly these laws were abused.
I think this law is necessary and can be effective if there are safeguards against abuse, and if anything, long overdue. Brittny Spears is certainly an example of someone in desperate need of help not getting it.
I don't think there would be forced abortion. Even with this law there will be legal safeguards, i.e. how long someone can involuntarily be committed, etc.
The only time I have seen procedures forced is for attempted suicide, they either cooperated with us or we strapped them down and forcibly pumped their stomachs. They were considered void of any legal rights once they made the attempt. However, we did not have the right to force any other procedure on them that did not involve saving their lives.

Thanks, Mary!