And they say that the days of the back alley are behind us-balogna!!!!

EEEEWWWWW How gross! I hope this hell hole stays closed!

Would I be correct to guess that this abortion clinic primarily served the poor? I have a feeling wealthier women more often go to an ob/gyn to have an abortion in a hospital rather than at a clinic. This post reminded me more of class issues when it comes to health care in general than anything else.

What is the hook for?

Is there an e-mail to protest the reopening of this chop shop?

OMG-Women call NARAL! This is an outrage.No other woman should ever be subjected to such deplorable conditions.

Ashlee,

Would I be correct to guess that this abortion clinic primarily served the poor? I have a feeling wealthier women more often go to an ob/gyn to have an abortion in a hospital rather than at a clinic. This post reminded me more of class issues when it comes to health care in general than anything else.

As well it should. These clinics pray on the poor. They have been known to tell women that they are pregnant when they are not just to be able to perform an "abortion" and take their money.

They also pray on black women. Read up on Margaret Sanger, the founder of planned parenthood, and you'll understand how the whole thing is a plot to eliminate these "useless eaters."
MK

Ashlee and MK

You both make excellent points.
Attorney Frank Capece states that this mill is being held to a tougher standard than any other facility he knows of. I would suspect the local animal shelter meets tougher standards than this mill.
Over 30 years ago, abortion proponents promised that legal abortion would be the great equalizer between the rich and poor. Poor women would receive the same standard of care that rich women do. Right, does anyone really think the wealthy socialite or the CEO's daughter sits in the same abortion mill waiting room as the young woman from the housing project or the Appalachin holler?
Wealthy women will continue to seek their abortions discreetly and privately at the best facilities, poor women will continue to go to the nearest mill, which in some states, may not even be licensed and regulated. Small wonder these mills have such appalling conditions.
Concerning MK's comment about preying on black women. I would recommend the sites,
www.blackgenocide.org and www.blackgenocide.com
Also, California abortionist Allred, his first name escapes me, has made no secret of his seething contempt for black and hispanic women and has made statements that can only be called blatantly racist.
I have long maintained that there is more than just a tinge of elitism and/or racism in all this "concern" about lack of abortion access to the poor and/or minority woman. I also think its no coincidence that those so "concerned" are neither poor or a minority.

An abortion clinic in my neighborhood closed last year due to numerous health code violations. This was a so called "good clinic" with a "good reputation" It served both rich and poor. It was one of the few clinics left that performed partial birth abortions.The article in the news paper said that this clinic was not even recording/documenting vital signs prior to abortion procedures among other things.The final straw came when the arrogent abortionist failed to draw up emergency hospital transfer agreements.He botched an abortion, and he had some explaining to do.The state investigated and closed his office for good.

Mary,We were posting @ the same time. The racist abortionist's first name is Edward. Edward Allred aka "Fast Eddie" He makes no apologies about refering to his patients as "dogs." He earned the nickname "Fast Eddie" for his ability to line women up and perform their abortions quickly / fast food resturant style.

A question for NARAL:

The difference between a rusty coat hanger and a rusty crochet hook is....what?

I've posted this before and I will do so again. The only thing that Roe did for this country was; We took the back alley abortionist,put him in a white lab coat,and we gave him his own office to boot.They are still the same depraved men and women that they always were.Still molesting women,still butchering women and still killing their children on demand! Todays abortionist will still leave a woman for dead.Now I guess you could call it a front alley abortion.

While browsing I came upon an abortion clinic in Alabama. The site offered information on payment and services.
A woman had her choice of plans, assuming of course she was financially able to make this choice.
One plan offered a more discreet and private abortion experience. No need to sit in the lobby with those, you know, lower income types. As expected, this royal treatment would cost extra.
The other plan was for anyone else who couldn't pay extra.
Now, say a low income woman would also like to have a private and discreet abortion experience. What woman wouldn't? Unless she can come up with extra funding, which isn't likely, then she can sit in the lobby with the rest of the peasantry.
Two standards of care. One for those who can pay and another for those who can't, and in the same abortion facility. I thought legalizing abortion was supposed to make it fair and equal for all women.

Mary,

Hear, Hear!!!

MK

"mom of 3", you wrote:

"The only thing that Roe did for this country was; We took the back alley abortionist,put him in a white lab coat,and we gave him his own office to boot"

We also made it possible for public health agencies to regulate and oversee his work, and to protect the public from incompetent practicioners.

How would we identify and close down dangerous or incompetent practicioners, if abortion were illegal?

The american abortion industry is, with a few exceptions, very clean and safe. Again I refer you to the JAMA article (do you know what JAMA stands for?) whose abstract states "Legal-abortion mortality between 1979 and 1985 was 0.6 death per 100,000 procedures, more than 10 times lower than the 9.1 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births between 1979 and 1986. Serious complications from legal abortion are rare." That's from JAMA, Vol. 268 No. 22, December 9, 1992.

SpiritofMartinGardner,

Ideally, the abortion clinic and practitioners would be overseen and regulated, as women and the public were promised over 30 years ago, but sadly that has not been the case. Clinics are not always state regulated or licensed, which means incompetent people and dirty facilities. Ironically, its been the pro choice and feminists who have opposed regulation, the very people you think would be the first to demand it. How did the above mentioned situation in New Jersey occur if there was such strict supervision and regulation? These conditions didn't develop overnight. This incident is not isolated, you just haven't heard about the others. I would also refer you to the website,www.operationrescue.org.
You can find more information on clinic closings because of appalling conditions and incompetent staff, as well as efforts, particularly in the state of Kansas to regulate and license clinics. These efforts failed. You will probably say this is Operation Rescue and they're totally biased. In fact, the information is well documented and I feel presented very objectively. If you can prove what they report is inaccurate, I'm willing to listen.
Since there is virtually no regulation, reporting is inaccurate and you have to be wary of the statistics. Clinics have a huge advantage over these women. Women seeking abortions are desperate to protect their privacy and not that willing to come forward in the event of injury. The family of a woman who died from a legal abortion may not want this information known. Abortion clinics can be run by incompetent people, and unknown numbers of women have been injured or killed. Abortion clinics have been staffed by people with no formal training or licensing, its cheaper, and by doctors accused of everything from drug abuse, alcoholism, sexual abuse and assault, and appalling medical incompetence. The very people legal abortion was supposed to put out of business! Tragically these "doctors" were permitted to continue practicing, and to injure and assault even more women before they were finally shut down.
I've read that our country started out with around 2,000 clinics and we're now down to around 741. Why are they being closed and shut down?
Women were promised that "never again" would women be injured or die from illegal abortion. They're now being injured and are dying "legally" in dirty, unregulated and unlicensed clinics, incompetent staff, and dangerous doctors.

Mary,

Thank you. I purposely didn't answer this post because I knew you would do a better job.

and you did...

MK

MK,

Thank you for your kind words. They are very much appreciated.

Mary,

No prob.
They were sincere.
mk

Mary, you wrote:

"You can find more information on clinic closings because of appalling conditions and incompetent staff..."

Doesn't this support my point? The clinics ARE being inspected and regulated, and closed when they are not up to standards. No such oversight would be possible if abortion were illegal.

"I've read that our country started out with around 2,000 clinics and we're now down to around 741. Why are they being closed and shut down?"

As the baby boom ages, there are fewer and fewer women of reproductive age in the USA. That means, if you are an abortion doctor, every day you wake up there are fewer women who might come to you for help than there were the day before. Hence, fewer clinics as the demand for their services decreases.

Additionally, we now have non-surgical abortion methods (RU486 & misoprostol or methotrexate & misoprostol) which can be prescribed by any family doc or internist, further decreasing the demand for free-standing abortion clinics.

SpiritofMartinGardner,

Not really. If there were inspections and regulations, the conditions would never be permitted to exist in the first place. These conditions do not develop overnite, they take months, and when a clinic knows there are no state regulations, much less inspections, what incentive is there to maintain any standards? Standards after all aren't cheap, so if you need not spend the money, why should you? Please keep in mind that the appalling conditions in the New Jersey clinic were only discovered after the woman's injuries were reported to the state by the local hospital that treated her, not by a routine inspection. Who knows how long they existed, or would have continued had this hospital not reported.
George Tiller, who's clinic is in the state of Kansas where there is no regulation, induced labor in late term patients and then sent them to a hotel to wait it out! Where pray tell was the Health Department? An untrained and unlicensed clinic employee supervised the patient's care and administered drugs. Where was the licensing and regulation department? Under no other circumstances would that ever be considered an acceptable standard of care. That would be like your doctor allowing his/her receptionist or file clerks to administer treatment and medication to you as they see fit.
I couldn't be more thankful that state regulations and licensing exist for hospitals, beauty salons, veterinarians, restaurants, even kennels. I'm sure you are too. Why should abortion clinics be an exception?
As for the reasons the clinics close, I don't quite agree with your assessment. Baby boomers aren't the last generation to become pregnant. In fact, there has been serious concern about the fact that fewer doctors want to perform them and that clinics are diminishing in number. Go to www.naral.org and you will see from a prochoice perspective, on a state by state basis, the concern there is for the diminishing number of clinics. Also, on the operation rescue website, you will find info on clinics that were closed down and doctors that lost their licenses and were imprisoned.
RU486 has not been the panacea it was supposed to be and is a very drawn out and complicated process. Honestly, I have no idea why any woman would choose this over a surgical abortion. The patient must make a minimum of 2 visits, she may end up finally aborting anywhere, a very emotionally trying experience, she can suffer severe pain, bleeding, and nausea. There have been instances where these sever symptoms have masked life threatening infections and ectopic pregnancies, resulting in misdiagnoses and death. Not just any doctor can administer this drug, its not an aspirin tablet. The drawn out process of an RU486 abortion can be costly and time consuming for the physician who does administer it, not to mention the increased liablity risk, so why should he/she put up with the aggravation and expense? I understand few doctors have any interest in involving themselves with RU486, regardless of where they stand on the abortion issue.

Mary,

Double Kudos!
MK

Mary, you wrote:

"If there were inspections and regulations, the conditions would never be permitted to exist in the first place. "

Abortion clinics in the USA are subject to the same inspections and regulations as any other clinic dispensing medical services. The folks from the government can pay you a site visit any time they want. This is not a matter of opinion. It's a fact.

I agree with you about non-surgical abortion--unless it is performed very early in pregnancy (

Finally, I would point out that NARAL has its own agenda as well. When they compose a web site, they want readers to send them $. Hence they have a tendency to exaggerate the "abortion-provider shortage". There is no shortage except in a few southern states. And no shortage likely in the future either--the organization Medical Students for Choice now represents thousands of med students, residents, and nurses nationwide.

The clinics have closed primarily because of a lack of demand for their services. If demand were greater, there would be more clinics.

Hi again Mary. You wrote:

"George Tiller, who's clinic is in the state of Kansas where there is no regulation, induced labor in late term patients and then sent them to a hotel to wait it out!"

So what? He gives a Family Practice Grand Rounds lecture on “Induction Abortion as an Outpatient”

Also, if there's no regulation in Kansas, then what is all this "Charge Tiller Now" BS about? Charge him with what? With violating (drum roll please...) a Kansas abortion regulation.

SOMG,

If the gov't has been responsible for inspection and regulation, then they have failed miserably in their responsibility to do so, the New Jersey situation being only one example. Again, in Kansas, attempts to establish regulation and licensing by the state failed. The governor of Kansas is prochoice and she opposed regulation. How did Tiller get away with his appalling practices? Simple, there is no state regulation.
Licensing, inspection, and regulation is done by the state. You have state boards of regulation and licensing, state health departments, and state disciplinary boards. My wallet is stuffed with the licenses I must get from my home state and another state that I practice in.
SOMG, RU486 can only be used in early pregnancy, and still you see these serious complications and deaths.
I must differ with you on NARAL. Whatever their motives, and I am certainly no fan of theirs, I in no way doubt the shortage exists. And I certainly do not doubt the sincerity of NARAL's concern, and I feel you shouldn't either. When I read, not only on NARAL but on other sites about states that have one clinic, doctors who are flown in, the use of doctors who are well past the age of retirement, and the efforts to legalize the performing of abortions by non-physicians, I can only come to one conclusion, a shortage. Also, these are not southern states I'm referring to.
About medical students for choice. Idealism is one thing, the real world quite another. I've worked in the medical area longer than they've been born and believe me SOMG, there is an undercurrent of contempt toward abortion and doctors who do them. Sure doctors will pay lip service, even send the occasional pregnant mistress for a discreet abortion, but dirty their own hands, no way. I trained in a hospital that performed abortions, the majority of OR personnel refused to participate. These idealistic young people may support abortion, but it doesn't mean they won't encounter a great deal of stigma which could very well discourage them from performing abortions. I predict the shortage will last.
I will concede that some clinics have closed because of lack of demand. Could this be because social attitudes toward abortion are changing, as polls indicate, especially among younger Americans, and Americans are becoming less tolerant of abortion? They have also closed because of safety and health code violations, the New Jersey clinic being only one example. Please go to operationrescue website and write in Central Women's Services for another example of a closed clinic in Kansas that is comparable to the above mentioned one in New Jersey.
I would like to say SOMG that I have very much enjoyed our discussion.

SOMG,

I think we posted simultaneously! About Tiller sending patients to a hotel. Tell me SOMG, would you stay in a hotel where women bleed, expel amniotic fluid, and are physically ill? The thought makes me gag. I can't think of a more effective way to spread infection and disease, that's why I wonder where the Health Department in that state is.
Outpatient care of any kind does not mean sending a patient to a hotel to be supervised by unqualified office staff. It means the patient is supervised at the hospital or clinic by qualified, licensed personnel and discharged when it is safe to do so. It also means you are prepared to admit the patient to a hospital if your outpatient facility is unable to properly care for the patient or it is unsafe to discharge the patient.
You're quite right about Tiller. He is being charged with violating a late term abortion law in Kansas. We were talking about clinic regulation and inspection, which the governor of Kansas opposed.

Actually the Kansas law they're trying to charge him with violating is probably unconstitutional because it does not include the health exception, substituting more restrictive language about loss of an organ or a bodily function.

That's really what it's all about, challenging the health exception.

My prediction: a lower court would eventually strike the law down and the Supreme Court would refuse to hear the appeal. That's if they were to charge Tiller. But the fact is, you rtls lost the last election in Kansas, big time, and it's childish to expect the new administration to do your bidding.

You are right, I suppose, that there are regional abortion provider shortages in some places other than the south. I should have said, rural places where there are shortages of primary-care providers generally, places like west virginia where they offer to pay your student loans for you if you'll go there and be a primary care provider, some of these places you have to travel a while to find a free-standing abortion provider. But the idea that there's a national shortage or that American women will be forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term any time soon because of a shortage of abortion providers is a silly bugaboo.

You mentioned "the efforts to legalize the performing of abortions by non-physicians", and that's an interesting question in itself. A suction abortion at 8-12 weeks can be done by anyone who knows how to use a speculum, a 50-ml syringe, and a foot of narrow plastic tubing. Anyone who can insert and remove an IUD can do one. Why should you need an MD to do that?

somg, 3/17, 9:09p said, "Abortion clinics in the USA are subject to the same inspections and regulations as any other clinic dispensing medical services.... This is not a matter of opinion. It's a fact."

This is not a fact in at least one state, Illinois. I expect there are more. The abortion lobby often tries to repeat successes in one state in other states.

In 1983 abortionist Dr. Richard Ragsdale and the ACLU sued IL for attempting to enforce laws that brought abortion clinic standards to the same standards of other outpatient surgery clinics (ASTCs).

Now IL abortion clinics:

(The ACLU states on its website, "Unnecessary regulations, such as... superfluous record-keeping, and square-footage requirements, do not enhance the safety of an abortion in any way.")

(The ACLU states on its website, "Elaborate ventilation mechanisms that provide periodic air changes can cost several hundreds of thousands of dollars to install and operate. These costs could force clinics to close and prevent new clinics from being built.")

Excuse me, Jill. I did not say that abortion clinics have to meet the same standards as outpatient surgery clinics. I said that they have to meet the same standards as any other clinic dispensing medical services.

Naturally the requirements for outpatient surgery clinics, where the docs actually cut the patients, are stricter. The Ragsdale court got it right.

SOMG - If you do not agree with the basic premise that surgical abortions are outpatient surgeries, then our conversation can go no further. Even podiatrist offices qualify as ASTCs, where ingrown toenails are removed.

If you do not agree that mothers getting surgical abortions qualify for the same medical guidelines as animals getting surgical abortions, then again, our conversation can go no further.

Jill,

Interesting and very informative. Thank you.

SOMG,

We will just have to agree to disagree on the issue of the provider shortage.
On the issue of non-physicians. Abortion is a surgical procedure and should always be respected as such. It should not be trivialized as something that anyone with the proper equipment can do. Wasn't legal abortion supposed to stop anyone with the proper equipment from performing abortions?
There are risks such as hemorrhage,infection, perforation, and fetal tissue retention, to name a few. I have seen plenty of these from abortions performed by physicians. Is the non-physician trained and qualified to handle complications and emergencies?
Please SOMG, do not trivialize IUDs. I have seen major surgery required because they perforated a uterus and bowel. I still remember one woman's horror when she woke up with an unexpected colostomy, an opening in her abdoman to expel waste. Thankfully this was temporary until her bowel healed and was closed a month later.
Who would you prefer to have perform any surgical procedure on you, however "minor"? A person with the proper training and credentials, who is prepared to handle any emergency, or someone who just has the necessary equipment?

Jill, there's no point in quibbling. You know quite well that although some early abortions (D&C but not manual suction) are considered surgical procedures, they occupy a class by themselves as regards patient safety.

Incidently, some podiatrists do pretty hair-raising surgeries. Have you ever seen a large bunion or a case of hammertoe corrected surgically?

I would be interested in reading your response to my last question, which was:

A suction abortion at 8-12 weeks can be done by anyone who knows how to use a speculum, a 50-ml syringe, and a foot of narrow plastic tubing. Anyone who can insert and remove an IUD can do one. Why should you need an MD to do that?

Mary, you wrote:

"Who would you prefer to have perform any surgical procedure on you, however "minor"? A person with the proper training and credentials, who is prepared to handle any emergency, or someone who just has the necessary equipment?"

Manual suction abortion is not a surgical procedure. That is, it involves no cutting or use of edged tools. And I would be very comfortable having it performed by a properly-trained nurse practicioner or even a physician's assistant.

Excuse me SOMG, but suction abortion IS an invasive surgical procedure, and as I said before, must be respected as such. It involves surgical dilatation of the cervix and suctioning, which can result in damage to the uterus as well as the complications I mentioned in my previous post. At times a currette, a sharp edged tool, may be necessary to complete the procedure.
At our hospital, suction aspiration is routinely used on patients who have miscarried and retained fetal tissue and it is definitely treated as a surgical procedure. Only licensed and credentialled physicians may perform this procedure, and yes, they often must complete the procedure with a currette.
For that matter, various procedures where doctors use scopes to examine the digestive system(both ends of it) the urinary system, and respiratory system involve no cutting or use of sharp edged tools. They are however considered invasive surgical procedures. Again, only licensed credentialled physicians may perform them.
SOMG, if you would settle for any less for any invasive procedure on yourself, that is certainly your choice. I wouldn't recommend it, nor would I permit it for myself.

SOMG, 8:41a, wrote: "You know quite well that although some early abortions (D&C but not manual suction) are considered surgical procedures, they occupy a class by themselves as regards patient safety."

What does that mean? Do you or do you not consider D&Cs to be surgical procedures? Should their practitioners follow the same guidelines as podiatrists and veterinary clinics or not?

I'll get to your ensuing question after you provide closure to this one.

Jill, I would put D&C in a special category--neither non-surgical, nor full-fledged surgical. Call it semi-surgical. I'd put wart removal and ingrown tonails in the same category. There's no reason any of these semi-surgical procedures should have to be done in an outpatient surgery center. As I said, I agree with the Ragsdale court.

I don't know anything about veterinary clinics and not much about podiatrists, but if what you say is true, it sounds like they may be over-regulated. Why should a veterinary clinic need wheelchair and cart storage, a reception and information counter, a waiting area, public toilets, a public telephone, or drinking fountain? Why would it need to provide private interview spaces or overhead shelters at the entrances? Or change areas (including lockers and toilets) where patients can change in privacy and be prepared for surgery?

For that matter why should ingrown toenails have to be treated in an outpatient surgery center? My response to this whole question would be to lighten the regulations on the vets and the podiatrists, not to over-regulate the abortion clinics.

SOMG,

That is because you are neither a dog needing veterinary care, nor a woman needing an abortion.

Obviously, the things you picked out are not the things required for vet care...it's the ones that involve cleanliness, safety and comfort...you know like toilets?

So we should take away the toilets at the vet and not put them into the abortion clincs. That way when the abortion goes wrong there will be no toilet to deliver the baby into? Or the women should sit for 6 or 7 hours in the waiting room and never pee or have a drink of water?

You also obviously, have never had an ingrown toenail removed.

Jill is right. With your logic, we could go back to performing abortions in alleys and to hell with roofs. Who needs running water. We'll just do abortions when it raining. That we can prop open the patients mouths if they get thirsty, and wash the instruments all at the same time. And hey if you gotta pee, there's plenty of garbage cans. You know, the same ones we can throw the babies in when were done with them...

And why buy a special suction machine? Let's just use the hoover. What are you kiddin' me?

MK

Mary, you will not prove anything by ranting.

BTW, you wrote:

"And why buy a special suction machine? Let's just use the hoover."

Actually a manual suction abortion can be performed at 8-12 weeks of pregnancy using a 50-cc syringe to generate suction. No electricity needed!

Whoops--I should have addressed my last post to MK, not to Mary.

SOMG,

If you think that was ranting you don't know me very well. Just ask my kids...you want ranting? I can do ranting.

You're arguments were just so ridiculous. How is it possible to overregulate a place where women are exposing themselves in a most vulnerable way.

By not having these regulations, you see what happened in New Jersey. Even with regulations abortionists (like people in all businesses) will try to get away without following these regulations. "(Why? Because it's cheaper).

Look, I'm on the pro-choice side, and it would do my side good to follow your advice because then ALL the clinics would close (as they are now) due to unclean and unsafe practices.

But I care about the women AND the babies and do not want to see either one hurt. I certainily couldn't in good conscience say that I hoped all the women having abortions would die of sepsis, that's what they get for having abortions...

You however, are on the pro-choice side, and your side claims that they want what's best for women, yet you would allow these disgusting! practices to go on.

So which one of us is really for women? From the sound of your posts I'd swear you were an abortion doctor trying to save a few pennies.

Look, most of the women in these clinics are practicing unsafe sex. Which means a lot of STD's. Including HIV and Hepatitis. Having seen the poorest of the poor and many an immigrant entering these clinics I might even make an argument for tuberculosis. So requiring instruments to be clean, floors to drain, sinks to be in another room, toilets to be available, and fresh air circulated, just seems to me to be common sense.

You make these women sound like cattle. Line em up, suck em out, move em on...

If I ranted, which I don't think I did, it would be because you sounded so callous. And I would rather be accused of ranting than be accused of being heartless, possibly even sadistic.

MK

Excuse me, MK. I was not defending the NJ clinic or its practices.

I am arguing that abortion clinics generally should not be required to meet the standards required for outpatient surgical clinics where the docs actually cut into the patients. Early abortion is not dangerous enough to justify imposing these additional requirements. The attempt to force clinics to meet these higher standards is nothing but an effort by right-to-lifers to increase the cost of abortion services. According to Jill, the court in Ragsdale agreed with me.

In the USA we don't need to take any steps to make our abortion clinics safer. With a few exceptions our abortion clinics are very safe. Morbidity and mortality are extremely low. Again I refer you to the JAMA article I cited before.

You wrote: "From the sound of your posts I'd swear you were an abortion doctor trying to save a few pennies. "

The cheaper you operate, the less you need to charge the patients. Poor patients, many of them uninsured, are grateful for low fees.

SOMG, 3/18, 1:457p said: "Jill, I would put D&C in a special category--neither non-surgical, nor full-fledged surgical. Call it semi-surgical. I'd put wart removal and ingrown tonails in the same category. There's no reason any of these semi-surgical procedures should have to be done in an outpatient surgery center."

SOMG, you speak as if you are a medical professional, yet I cannot imagine you are. Please clarify.

I have functioned as RN in D&Cs performed in a hospital of women whose children have died at the age of which you speak (8-12 wks). Your premise that this is not outpatient surgery is ridiculous.

A pre-op H&H and blood type are drawn. The woman must be fasting. The D&C is performed in a surgical suite with a sterile field. Doctors scrub each hand 5 minutes before.

In those D&Cs are an anesthesiologist who gives the woman twilight sedation, the OB/GYN, and a nurse. I worked at a teaching hospital, so a medical student and/or resident were also present.

The procedure is invasive. Furthermore, suction alone does not always do the trick. Uterine scraping is often also required.

Afterward, the woman is post-op for 2 hours, hooked up to monitors measuring breathing and heartrate. A nurse must be in the room with her at all times. The patient can only go home if she can urinate and hold food and is, of course, not bleeding profusely. She must also get a Rhogam shot if she is RH-.

Your description of a "manual suction abortion," sounds like a menstrual extractor, which I understand only to work when a period is due or right after a missed period. Please provide information.

I cannot imagine that the abortion industry, which props itself by extending fears of back alley abortions, would advocate what you are advocating - abortions with no MDs. There can only be two reasons: cutting costs or shortage of doctors. This most certainly cannot be promoted as an abortion method that would advance the safety of aborting mothers.

SOMG,

Thank you for the clarification! I hoped I didn't come across as ranting, something I try very hard to avoid doing.

I would like to expand on Jill's post concerning how a "routine" d&c is done. As I stated in a previous post, our hospital also follows the same procedure Jill outlined. Before anyone assumes that these procedures are risk free and routine, I had one such "routine" post miscarriage D&C begin hemorrhaging and lose almost 4 units of blood before it could be brought under control. Thankfully the patient was stabilized and recovered uneventfully, thought I aged 20 years in 10 minutes.
To treat ANY surgical procedure as minor or routine is to invite disaster.

Mary Kay,

Shame on you. You chastise everyone else on here for losing their temper and then you go and do the same thing. If you can't give a thoughtful, sincere, and tempered argument then you would do well to wait until your emotions have cooled off and give your rebuttal then.

MK

No, Jill, I am not going to post personal information on a right-to-life discussion board. Call me overcautious but there it is. I will, however, address the substance of your post point by point.

You wrote: "Your premise that this is not outpatient surgery is ridiculous. " Again, I'd call it a semi-surgical procedure, because you don't cut the patient, and because the risks to the patient are extremely low. But if the premise is ridiculous, then why did the Illinois court find in favor of Dr. Ragsdale?

"A pre-op H&H and blood type are drawn." So what?

"The woman must be fasting. " That's totally unnecessary for a D&C.

"The D&C is performed in a surgical suite with a sterile field." You don't need a sterile field. Just sterile instruments.

Doctors scrub each hand 5 minutes before. " Washing your hands before touching a patient is just ordinary cleanliness. 5 minutes sounds like more than necessary and you don't need to scrub the patient or anything. Again, it's not as if you were going to cut into her.

"In those D&Cs are an anesthesiologist who gives the woman twilight sedation, the OB/GYN, and a nurse." That's more people than necessary. The abortion docs can administer twilight anaesthesia, and no nurse is required.

"The procedure is invasive." I'd call it semi-invasive. The cervix gets breached. It's not like cutting into someone's abdomen or anything. Would you call inserting an IUD "invasive"?

"Afterward, the woman is post-op for 2 hours," It takes more than two hours for the twilight anaesthesia to wear off.

"hooked up to monitors measuring breathing and heartrate" That's totally unnecessary.

"A nurse must be in the room with her at all times." That's a waste of the nurse's time.

"The patient can only go home if she can urinate and hold food and is, of course, not bleeding profusely." Naturally.

" She must also get a Rhogam shot if she is RH-" Of course. So what?

It sounds as if your hospital was doing considerably more than necessary to provide a safe and effective suction aspiration and/or D&C. All these extra features--a separate anaesthesiologist, a nurse, heartbeat and breathing moniters--do not significantly improve safety and do increase the cost to the patient.

You wrote: "There can only be two reasons [for allowing non-MDs to do early suction abortions]: cutting costs or shortage of doctors. " The goal would be to cut the patient's costs. Why pay for an MD's time if the job can be done just as safely by a nurse-practicioner? Just as long as there's an MD on call if you do need him (or her), or an ER to go to.

You wrote: "Your description of a "manual suction abortion," sounds like a menstrual extractor, which I understand only to work when a period is due or right after a missed period." You understand wrong. Menstrual extraction using a 50-cc syringe for suction can be safely and effectively performed up to 12 weeks of pregnancy.

SOMG, here we strangely find ourselves in an unusual debate....

The pro-lifer is arguing that D&C abortions are serious and worthy of being regulated the same as outpatient services provided by podiatrists and veterinarians.

The pro-abort is arguing that early abortions are not serious, may be committed by nonphysicians, are overzealously committed in hospitals, and that regulations of other outpatient human clinics, animal clinics, nail salons, and roofers should be dialed down to those of abortion clinics.

Ok, we've reached an impasse on that topic.

I am honestly curious about the concept of promoting menstrual extractions up to 12 weeks of pregnancy. Please provide links to information on the safety of self-induced or nonnphysician induced menstrual extractions.

SOMG, on your question, "why did the Illinois court find in favor of Dr. Ragsdale?" here is the complete answer, perhaps TMI. I wrote about this previously in an article for Illinois Leader in 2003:

The following information was provided by Paul Linton, one of the attorneys involved in that case as it made its way through the court system before being waylayed by supposed pro-life AG Neil Hartigan just three weeks prior to getting its proper day before the U.S. Supreme Court:

The Ragsdale case started several years after Illinois enacted the original ASTC Act and years after the orginal Act had been amended in response to the Sun Times/BGA series on "The Abortion Profiteers," in 1979.

Certain statutes and many regulations were preliminarily enjoined by the federal district court and that decision was affirmed, in a 2-1 vote, by the court of appeals.

That injunction had been upheld by the Seventh Circuit (on a standard of review, "medical necessity" that no longer applies in light of Casey).

The State (that is, the Attorney General on behalf of the state defendants) appealed to the Supreme Court. The case was fully briefed on the merits and had been scheduled for oral argument when, only three weeks before the argument was to have taken place, the parties announced that they had settled the case.

Hartigan agreed to settle the case for what can only be called political reasons, as Judge Posner later noted in his concurring opinion upholding the settlement.

The plaintiff, Dr. Ragsdale, was eager to settle the matter, in my view, because of his concern that the Supreme Court would reverse the Seventh Circuit and uphold the entire (or nearly the entire) regulatory scheme.

The case was taken off of the oral argument calendar pending resolution of the underlying issues. The parties settled, obtained approval of the settlement from Judge Nordberg (over many objections from many persons, including our former clients, four members of the defendant class of State's Attorneys) and that decision, approving the settlement, was affirmed in a 2-1 vote by the Seventh Circuit.

The Supreme Court denied review and thereafter dismissed the earlier appeal.

Jill, I would refer you to A WOMAN'S BOOK OF CHOICES by Rebecca Chalker and Carol Downer, although that is not where I first learned about the safety and ease of early manual suction abortion. That was in a GYN lecture on providing abortion, a lecture given by one of the most prolific and successful abortion docs in the country.

I do not know of any online sites or studies that specifically compare the safety of having this done by an MD with the safety of having it done by a non-MD. The legal requirement that abortions be done by MDs (or equivalent degree holders--osteopaths can do them too) makes such studies impossible.

But you only need to watch one or two early-pregnancy manual aspirations to realize how straightforward and easy they are. And you only need google to look up how safe they are.

SOMG, I'm interested in information on the procedure itself as it relates to being committed at 8-12 weeks. I am aware of the menstrual extraction kit. I have read of its use when a period is due or after a period is missed, when a mother would be about 2-3 weeks pregnant. I was not aware until you wrote of it that the menstrual extraction kit was used for later abortions.

Jill here's a site (which I found through google--you could easily have found it yourself)

http://www.choicetolivewith.com/manualaspiration.html

which states:

"This abortion [manual aspiration] can be done between 3 and 8 weeks from the date of the first day of your period, although some doctors use the procedure up to the 12th week."

Interestingly, this site calls it a "surgical procedure". However, wikipedia states "Suction-aspiration abortion is considered to be a non-invasive procedure, as surgery is not involved. "

Purely a matter of semantics.

SOMG, you should wish to assume responsibility for the "facts" you present, not place the onus on the one questioning them.

You stated at least twice on this thread, "A suction abortion at 8-12 weeks can be done by anyone who knows how to use a speculum, a 50-ml syringe, and a foot of narrow plastic tubing. Anyone who can insert and remove an IUD can do one. Why should you need an MD to do that?"

and

"Manual suction abortion is not a surgical procedure. That is, it involves no cutting or use of edged tools. And I would be very comfortable having it performed by a properly-trained nurse practicioner or even a physician's assistant."

In that regard, the site you linked to as corroboration debunks you as a fraud on numerous points, first of which is your cavalier use and dismissal of medical terminology as it suits you.

You cite Wikipedia, which anyone in the abortion industry can amend, even you? Try Mosby's for the definition of noninvasive: "pertaining to a diagnostic or therapuetic technique that does not require the skin to be broken or a cavity or organ of the body to be entered."

So let's get it straight that surgical abortions are invasive, although you dispute the word "surgical," too. Sheesh.

Second, your link repeatedly refers to "doctor" when describing how the procedure is committed. Yet you would be comfortable with other than a doctor? On whom, an enemy?

The procedure may require dispensing a relaxing drug beforehand. It requires a pelvic exam and perhaps the use of the drug misoprostol to soften the cervix. It may involve use of a tenaculum. The cervix may need numbing. The abortionist must examine "the contents of the tube" to make sure "the lining, placenta, and baby are all present and accounted for." (Interesting, "baby.")

And as I suspected, this procedure would not be commonly committed on a 12-week pregnant mother.

Risks involve uterine puncture or cervical tearing, which can cause infection and/or bleeding; hematoma (uterine blood clot); undiagnosed ectopic pregnancy because this procedure is done so early in pregnancy; incomplete abortion; and death.

And you would relegate this procedure to a PA or RN? And you promote making abortion clinic regulations less stringent than animal clinic regulations?

You won't say whether or how you're involved in the industry. You're obviously a mill owner or manager.

Oh my...I believe I'm again agreeing with the pro-life side. I would be appalled to know that ANY clinic isn't held up to stringent medical standards, including abortion, veterinary, dermatological, etc. I would not have wanted my good friend to have encountered any environment that wasn't sterile enough for ANY type of invasive procedure. Hell, I wouldn't have let my dog (whom I love VERY VERY MUCH) go to a place that wasn't spotless. If any clinic isn't meeting strict cleanliness standards, then I would be more than supportive of its closing until conditions improved.

Having said that, I feel I must address certain other concerns of mine. The reason I feel that these places lack such sterile environments in the first place is the bare-bones funding they are given (especially from the government). I am in no way excusing this inequity, to do so would be to accept that these places put women in danger. But I am saying that this lack of money may increase the likelihood that these clinics may be less than desired in the way of sanitation. Pro-life clinics are given funding from the government because of the abstinence-only thing. Pro-choice clinics don't receive much funding. They're forced to operate at levels so that poor women can try to afford the care they need...which may mean cuts to other things deemed necessary for a surgical procedure.

If the government wants to make sure these places operate efficiently and safely, I believe funding must improve. You might not agree with that, but that's my take on it.

I do believe that all medical clinics should be regulated. But I don't support the idea that these abortion clinics be closed unless there's a damn good reason. If they meet the standards that are acceptable for any medical procedure, I'm more than supportive of them staying open for any woman who needs them. As in, I don't want them being closed down because some pro-life politician makes up bogus information about the sanitation of these clinics. That is also abominable to any female citizen in need of its services. Pro-choice, pro-woman, pro-health. :)

*Lyss*

Reading some of these posts is leaving me aghast.

Semi-invasive and semi-surgical. These terms are certainly new to me and exactly how are they defined? This is the first I have heard them used.
"Twilight sleep" is not benign, but can be dangerous and even fatal if a patient is not properly monitored. The argument that abortion patients need not be monitored is absurd, and very dangerous, especially if the abortion provider is both operating and providing the sedation for "twilight sleep" simultaneously. A properly trained and credentialled person should be administering the drugs and monitoring the patient. No health care provider should ever administer drugs for "twilight sleep" without monitoring and resuscitation equipment, and is guilty of gross negligence and malpractice if they do.
This is why a D&C patient should be fasting. If a patient has not been fasting, has drugs for "twilight sleep", is sensitive to them and becomes over sedated and stops breathing, she may vomit and aspirate it into her lungs as you are trying to assist her breathing. Plan to hear from her family's lawyer.
Even if the patient is not given any sedation, she may have an unexpected reaction to the local anesthetic injected into her cervix and stop breathing, or suffer cardiovascular collapse. Imagine administering oxygen with an ambu bag while the patient is vomiting. Again, plan to hear from the family lawyer.
OK, she's given no local anesthesia or sedation. Have you considered that she may be so fearful and nervous that she suffers a vaso-vagal reaction? What pray tell is that? Its a nervous system reaction to fear that can result in a profound slowing of the heartrate and subsequent blood pressure drop. Its also a common response to very painful stimuli, fear, or to an invasive / surgical procedure however "semi" it may be. I have seen near cardiac and cardiac arrest so these reactions are not to be taken lightly. In fact, they can be extremely unnerving. This condition can be quickly diagnosed and treated when patients are properly monitored.
I think I make the case for how critical monitoring is in regard to patient safety.
No nurse in the room? Imagine needing emergency assistance and being unable to find help. No matter how "minor" a procedure, a nurse is always present in the OR room. She is also responsible for documentation, proper sterility and setup, and rendering whatever assistance is necessary, to name just a few of his/her responsibilities. The nurse is not an expensive luxury but a vitally important part of patient care.
As I stated in my previous post, to treat ANY surgical /invasive procedure, however semi you may think it is, as minor or routine is to invite disaster.

Mary, although I believe we are on opposite ends of the big debate, I wholeheartedly agree with you here. I wouldn't have allowed my knee surgery to take place if I had felt ANYTHING out of place about the clinic I went to. The same goes for any medical practice. There were nurses and anesthesiologists and the surgeon monitoring my relatively minor surgery. I don't understand why the same standards shouldn't apply to an abortion clinic. I just think the real problem lies in the funding that these clinics get...not enough. And since they attempt to charge as little as possible for the abortions they do perform, there's little left to cover the overhead.

I tell you what, I'm scared of routine gynecological exams...to think of having something altogether more invasive performed on me without the proper training of the physician and without the proper personnel is just terrifying. We do, however, need to keep the facilities open that meet all the requirements for cleanliness and proper staff. And we need to make sure that funding is allocated where it is needed to make sure that other facilities can operate at the highest possible level of safety.

But when faced with the realities of the danger of childbirth and the danger of a safely-performed abortion...we really must look at the statistics. Childbirth is still MUCH more dangerous than an early-term abortion.

SOMG-I was reading your posts. You really blew it from the get go. Once again,I stand firm on the issue that I stated before. These mills are not safe places.

Mary, you wrote:

""Twilight sleep" is not benign, but can be dangerous and even fatal if a patient is not properly monitored. The argument that abortion patients need not be monitored is absurd, and very dangerous, especially if the abortion provider is both operating and providing the sedation for "twilight sleep" simultaneously. A properly trained and credentialled person should be administering the drugs and monitoring the patient. No health care provider should ever administer drugs for "twilight sleep" without monitoring and resuscitation equipment, and is guilty of gross negligence and malpractice if they do."

All you prove by posting this is that you have never observed abortions being done at a Planned Parenthood clinic.

"mom of 3" you wrote:

"These mills are not safe places."

Again: "Legal-abortion mortality between 1979 and 1985 was 0.6 death per 100,000 procedures, more than 10 times lower than the 9.1 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births between 1979 and 1986. Serious complications from legal abortion are rare." That's from JAMA, Vol. 268 No. 22, December 9, 1992.

Do you know what JAMA stands for, dear?

Jill, all you need to know about my involvement with the abortion industry is this: I am better informed than you.

Mary, you wrote:

"As I stated in my previous post, to treat ANY surgical /invasive procedure, however semi you may think it is, as minor or routine is to invite disaster."

Really, Mary? ANY surgical procedure? What about cryogenic removal of warts? Removal of an ingrown toenail?

By the way, Jill, you wrote: "Mosby's for the definition of noninvasive: "pertaining to a diagnostic or therapuetic technique that does not require the skin to be broken or a cavity or organ of the body to be entered."

By this definition a digital rectal exam is an invasive procedure. That's silly.

Why is no one responding to me??? *tear*

SOMG,I'd like you to answer this question for me. Why do you think that former Arizona abortionist Brian L. Finkle was allowed to remain in practice for years despite numerous accusations of rape and molestations from patients? He is in prison now[that dirty old man] Please tell me why these women said that they were not believed right away? When the women did finally file their complaints against him, he said that they were all just drug seekers angry that he refused to write them prescriptions for narcotics.

Hi Alyssa,

Please no tears! This has been my first chance to get to the computer.
Thank you for your support. It is obvious that you are on the opposite end of the pole from Jill and me, but we all wholeheartedly agree that abortion patients are entitled to the highest standards of care and safety, as women were promised when abortion was legalized over 30 years ago.
You are very wise to follow your instincts concerning the safety of the care you receive in any facility.

SOMG,

I will rest my case concerning minor and routine procedures with this following account: I once had a patient on the table for a very minor and routine procedure. She had had no medication, local, oral or intravenous. She was in excellent health and alert. She told me she felt faint. Small wonder she did since she barely had a pulse. You guessed it, a vaso-vagal reflex. I was able to quickly treat her and she responded well. Apparently she had been masking her fear and apprehension very well. I have seen near panic attacks over the most minor procedures and yes, that includes mole removal and ingrown toenails.

Concerning "twilight sleep". What my posting didn't show was that I am trained and credentialled in this area and have administered drugs for "twilight sleep" for more years than you've probably been born. If this is being administered by uncredentialled people without proper monitoring and continous observation of the patient, as well as resuscitative equipment on hand with people trained in its use in Planned Parenthood facilities then this is substandard care. I would be charged with gross negligence and malpractice were I to do the same, as well as likely fired.

SOMG,JAMA stands for The Journal of the American Medical Association.You see,I am also a medical professional.I take care of geriatric patients.I really don't know how abortions are performed exactly,however I do know that it is an invasive procedure.Now are you telling me that most anyone could perform this procedure?Are you talking about a PA or a Nurse Practitioner? I think if I were pro-choice you would cause me to re think my position.

Also,Somg Can you explain to me why abortionist Edward Allred is still in practice? What do you think of all of his racial remarks? Do you feel that a black,mexican or hispanic woman would be safe in his hands? He despises them!! I'll wait for your response.

"mom of 3", you wrote:

"I really don't know how abortions are performed exactly"

Don't you think you should inform yourself before professing a strong opinion on the subject, as you do?

"Now are you telling me that most anyone could perform this procedure?Are you talking about a PA or a Nurse Practitioner? "

I'm not saying ALL abortions can be safely performed by PAs or NPs--just manual suction abortions early in pregnancy. And the PA or NP would have to be properly trained beforehand. And you'd have to have an MD on call or an ER nearby.

I have no inside information regarding Allred and Finkle; I only know what I have read about them. As others have pointed out, every field has its bad practicioners. If abortion were illegal, how would we identify them and close them down?

I have researched abortion.I have never seen one done. Never had a reason to.If abortion were illegal, how would we identify them and close them down? Are you serious? Edward Allred is still in practice. I think he has been identified! Now my question is why is he still in practice after these racial remarks? Also,he calls his patients 'dogs'

"Edward Allred is still in practice. I think he has been identified! Now my question is why is he still in practice after these racial remarks? Also,he calls his patients 'dogs'"

I think the only way these clincs can be shut down is if they violate health standards or if the doctors there are malpracticing.

Racist comments are not the same thing. You can be a racist asshole and still do your job. I'm not saying that it's right, but that's how it is.

SOMG,

Isn't it odd that no one picked up the fact, that while you have argued that clinics don't need these regulations, you didn't argue that they don't have them.

You have confirmed what this post says. There is no proper regulation of Abortion Clinic Standards and this puts women at risk.

I was so busy reading the argument that we don't need them, that I missed the fact that you were confirming that we don't have them.

Girls, are you paying attention? Abortion clinics are nasty places. There are no laws to force them to "clean up their act".

Even if you are pro-choice, this should outrage you. And our good friend SOMG confirms it.

Thanks SOMG, you did a better job than I could have.

MK

You're right, MK, I would be appalled if a clinic was filthy. But if it's operating under sanitary conditions, then I'm alright with it being open.

MK, American abortion clinics are subject to the same regulations and oversight as any other medical clinic.

If you knew anything about abortion you would already know this.

SOMG, and if you knew how to tell the truth, you wouldn't repost the same lie previously attempted and refuted.

SOMG,
We keep trying to tell these girls that the entire abortion industry is based on lies and the desire to make blood money off of women's tragedies. They think we are making it up.

But Jill just posted the lack of laws required to run an abortion clinic. All you argued was that we didn't need them. But the facts remain, that we don't have them.

Pay attenion my new friends. This is the face of the abortion industry.

MK

PS Martin Gardner was a man of high moral principles. What would he have to say about your lack of conscience.

MK

Gosh, MK (and you too, Jill), you really seem to be trying to make yourselves appear more stupid and misinformed than you are. I don't think you need to do that.

Jill posted a set of requirements for OUTPATIENT SURGICAL CLINICS, not medical clinics generally. Surgical clinics, where the docs actually cut the patients.

OF COURSE, surgical clinics where the docs cut the patients are held to stricter requirements than ordinary medical clinics and than abortion clinics. That doesn't mean the abortion clinics are unregulated, just that they are regulated less strictly than outpatient surgical clinics.

How do you think they closed the NJ clinic? They closed it for violating (drum roll please...) clinic regulations. If abortion clinics were unregulated, the NJ clinic would still be open.

Martin Gardner's main mission in life was to debunk junk science, to correct popular scientific misinformation. He would have had a field day with you, especially with the www.abortionbreastcancer.com site. (He also wrote the notes for THE ANNOTATED ALICE and THE HUNTING OF THE SNARK, but that's another story).

Perhaps it's just me, but I have never heard of a medical doctor making blatantly racial comments and staying in practice. It seems to me that someone ought to take this VERY seriously.He is operating on these women.If he has this much pent up rage,he may intentionally harm them.

Hi SMOG,

I am very perplexed as to the unbiased statements that you quote from JAMA ... 'Tis weird because for every abortion there is a 'death' (usually of the child-kind), [guess baby's that die are of so little merit that they do not even receive mention in JAMA ... except perhaps in 'obstetrics'] otherwise there would be no abortion ... def. 'the interruption of a process'.

You think it OK for a non-Doc to do 'early abortions' ... is it OK then for Doc's to do later procedures? Why? Is killing another human ever OK?

hi again SOMG, (sorry if I got your handle wrong on the previous post!)

I remember the photo of a general in the Vietnamese army blowing out the brains of a kneeling Vietcong (soldier?) ... arms tied behind his back (no execution mask - zip ... on a dirt street!). This photo did more to end the Vietnam War than all the rest, imho.

It seems that the pro-choicers think little of having their own killed via abortion by generals (qualified doctors). I'll bet though that babies would end up just as dead if they were killed by less-qualified professionals ... a little messier, but just as dead!
(Editing disabled while spellchecking)
Stop spell checking

SMOG (oops, sorry, typo I'd change it but I already sent the post),

I just looked up 12 different abortion clinics in Illinois, and as far as I can see, not one of them only offered abortions for the first 8 weeks.

They all offered surgical abortions.

So, even if they offer suction abortions, they still offer surgical ones. Which means that surgery is taking place, even if not on every patient.

So while you might argue your smarmy way out of drinking fountains and toilets in a semi surgigal, non surgical, atmosphere, as far as I can tell these clinics don't exist.

So when the law was made up for Illinois standards, it was made with the majority of abortion clinics in mind. Clinics that offer surgical abortions.

And why is it that you are soooooo proud of the fact that (nah,nah,nah,nah,nah) you know more than me about abortions. Is this supposed to impress me.

I wish I knew less. I wish there was nothing to know.

But I am certainly glad that I cannot pronounce myself an "authority" on abortion procedures. What kind of a person brags about murdering babies?

Get behind me satan...

For the record, I have not even broken a sweat while typing this. So I don't think I can be accused of ranting. But if you do choose to accuse me of this behavior, I accept full responsibility because I can't think of a better reason to rant.

Does anyone have a bar of soap...I feel soiled just speaking to this man.

MK

John McDonell,

We must have been posting at the same time...

Funny how we both got his name wrong, isn't it?
MK

JMcD, you wrote:

"Is killing another human ever OK?"

The answer is yes--if another human is occupying your body, and living off your body's life support functions, you are entitled to kill and expel him/her at your pleasure.

Because it's YOUR body, and YOUR life support functions.

I think some other posters threshed this out elsewhere on the site--the article may be gone by now.

MK, you wrote:

" I am certainly glad that I cannot pronounce myself an "authority" on abortion procedures."

Then you have no business trying to regulate them, no business trying make abortion-related laws, and no business trying to determine national policy.

The fact that so many rtls know so little about abortion is one of the reasons so few people in the health professions take your concerns seriously, and is also one of the reasons so many americans support Roe/Wade (one poll found that 66% of americans oppose the effort to overturn Roe/Wade).

"I wish I knew less. " Not much room for that, I'm afraid.

" I wish there was nothing to know. " Yes, I also wish unwanted pregnancy could be prevented altogether. I would also venture to bet that I have prevented more unwanted pregnancies (and subsequent abortions) than you have.

I am not going to go over this argument about outpatient surgical clinics again--explaining these things to you is clearly a waste of time. If you want to understand the question, you should go back and read my previous posts more carefully.

hi SOMG,

you are correct in that assertion being put forward by numerous people ... however, there were also a number of 'alternate' approaches to this line. Guess these were not sufficient, eh?

I can see why you seem entrenched in 'science'. The logic appears superb, however it tends to be selective. That's one of the reasons that I posted about zinc ... 'Zinc and Copper in Medicine' eds Sarper & Karcioglu give a very subtle but much different view of the human biochemical functioning. The following of such a rationale eliminates the need for the death of humans while expanding their possibilities.

Many decades ago we pro-lifers talked endlessly to women who claimed dominion over 'my body' by saying there was not 1 but 2 people. And now you say that there is 2 living beings, but one must die. Why?

Retention of an autonomous position does not fit together very well for immigrants forced by death from starvation or politics claiming you are their last refuge!

We have a bit of a science that-suits problem here: for most pregnant women and with babies up until about 2 yrs they are psychologically one being (most very young children do not even understand that their mothers and them are separate beings). The bio-sciences tell us these are two physically-independent beings but for a while one of them is highly dependent on the other. This state does not make them 'kill-able', because they too are human. Pregnancy does an incredible job in altering a woman's physiology to support her pregnancy. Evacuating her womb does not make her un-pregnant ... right away ... chemically speaking, she is still pregnant.

SOMG,

expel him/her at your pleasure.

At your pleasure.
Well, that about sums you up.
Nothing much too say about finding pleasure in expelling a him or a her.

Again girls,
pay attention.
MK

SOMG,It wouldn't matter to me if it was 66 people,66%,or 6666 billion people that supported abortion.That doesn't make it right!!You posted that the people in the health professions don't take rtls seriously.Really? Not the people that work with you at Planned Barenhood like you and your staff.I know tons of MD's RN's and LPN/LVN's that would never take you seriously.They actually went into healthcare to make others well.They work hard,they get paid and they deserve to get paid.MK-very well put!

I don't agree with "at your pleasure" either, MK, and I'm a pro-choicer. Abortion isn't a decision rashly-made, as I stated before. It's serious, as is the decision to maintain a pregnancy. It's not pleasurable, much like labor and delivery are not pleasurable (not to mention the myriad of other things that can affect a woman during pregnancy...like the hell my mom went through). Nothing pleasurable about that at all.

You have very interesting site!
Respect you!
http://louisellipsehandbag.iespana.es