PBS Frontline: "Abortion Clinic"

frontline.gifReader Sarah from the UK sent me a link to a 1983 PBS Frontline episode entitled, "Abortion Clinic." I was previously unaware of it (am I alone?) and viewed it Saturday, finding it deeply disturbing yet remarkable. It has not been far from the front of my mind since. I'm angry all over again. Abortion is so incredibly vile.

"Abortion Clinic"
won the Emmy in 1983 for Outstanding Background/Analysis of a Single Current Story.

Frontline made "Abortion Clinic" available online for its 20th anniversary in 2003, saying, "Two decades later, it remains one of the most powerful stories Frontline has ever told."

"Abortion Clinic"
was filmed in Chester, PA, a small industrial town south of Philadelphia that had a 30% unemployment rate at the time, according to Frontline.

The mill is the Reproductive Health and Counseling Center, located then in the former library of Crozer Seminary. (Crozer was an American Baptist Church school, a pro-abortion demonination, which explains the sale approval. Noteworthy is that Martin Luther King, Jr., graduated from Crozer.)

Made 24 years ago, "Abortion Clinic" is not something I think could be filmed today. Clincs have clammed up, as have pregnant mothers, as has the mainstream media.

There are six chapters to this episode, all which I recommend viewing.

What you will see in this segment is the abortion of Barbara - everything but the blood and guts. It was distressing to know I was watching a child being killed. It was distressing to juxtapose the mother's obvious emotional trauma with pro-aborts who deny abortion is psychologically damaging. The sound of the suction machine was even distressing.

Click on the photo below. Moderator Bethany has kindly created a link:

barbara.jpg

The next video clip is of Helen's abortion, this one complete with some blood and guts. Note the assistant keeps the suction cannister covered while in the room. Note the fleeting glimpse of complete little body parts.

barbara.jpg


Comments:

I am beyond terrified to even think about watching this.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at August 13, 2007 3:01 PM


It looks like a dark, degrading procedure. Woman #1 put on a happy face. I wonder how she was feeling underneath it all. The second one looked scared and uncertain. She said she was feeling emotional pain. I've heard about that one before. Yeesh. And let's not forget all of those "loony pro lifers" beating people off at the clinic door with their signs.

Posted by: Heather4life at August 13, 2007 3:13 PM


Heather4life is right about this being a dark degrading procedure. As a medical professional other aspects of this video jumped out at me. Did the abortionist wash his hands before or after the procedure? I saw no sink in the room. I find it very reassuring to see my doctor wash his hands upon entering the room and after he has examined me.
The abortionist doesn't meet or speak with the patient prior to the procedure? A patient is just set up on the table and a doctor she's never met and who knows nothing about her comes in and performs a surgical procedure on her. Under what other circumstances, other than an emergency, would this be considered acceptable medical practice? No vital signs are taken, and no IV set up for an emergency is visible. Who are the female clinic employees? What are their credentials? Why are they in street clothes? Where else is it acceptable for employees involved in surgical procedures to wear street clothes? Are these women properly trained to assist in an emergency situation? Is there any nursing personnel?

Barabra appears to be in physical and emotional agony. The staff seems just a little too cold and indifferent to Barbara who is in obvious physical and emotional pain. Was there any kind of counselling for either of these women, Barbara in particular?

Posted by: Mary at August 13, 2007 4:03 PM


Mary, excellent questions!! I too noticed all of the above.

Posted by: Heather4life at August 13, 2007 4:05 PM


Mary, I don't think she was even wearing gloves. I'll have to watch it again.

Posted by: Heather4life at August 13, 2007 4:09 PM


I couldn't finish watching it.

Posted by: Nathan Sheets at August 13, 2007 4:11 PM


Mary, great points. I thought of the hand-washing thing when viewing the videos but didn't think about the street clothes or missing IV access until you pointed them out.

A few other points, as long as we're on this:

In video one it appeared the assistant picked the suction tubing up off the floor. And I didn't like the afghan - unprofessional, and I doubt it was freshly washed.

In video two it appeared the assistant gave Helen a pillow off the floor. Also look closely and you'll the abortionist inserted the speculum with no gloves whatsoever - sterile or nonsterile.

Also, in video one the assistant held the suction tubing while the abortionist attached the catheter, trying to appear to follow some semblance of sterile technique, although that was ridiculous since the tubing was nonsterile and the abortionist touched it then anyway.

But in video two they gave up all pretenses of faking a sterile field when the assistant handed him the tubing and he attached it to the catheter himself.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at August 13, 2007 4:27 PM


Jill, she also walked in front of his "sterile field."

Posted by: Heather4life at August 13, 2007 4:31 PM


Jill and Heather4life,

Thank you both. I must admit you're both more observant than me.

As Heather points out, the female employees were not wearing gloves but were handling the patients and in the one video the suction tubing. I couldn't tell if she picked it up off the floor.

I caught the part about the speculum and no gloves, I even strained to see if I might be missing them. You're right Jill, no gloves. I doubt he bothers with such trivialities as wearing gloves or washing his hands with other patients either. Gag.

Good observation about the blanket and pillow. I didn't catch if the pillow came from the floor or under the table. I doubt the afghan was freshly washed either. Hospital blankets that were freshly laundered would have been far more appropriate. Good point Jill about the suction tubing, something else I didn't notice.

Heather, great point about walking in front of the "sterile" field, and in her street clothes yet. Our RNs and OR techs guard the sterile field like hawks. Heaven help you if you get too close, these folks are not shy about reaming you out! Several years ago I was firmly reprimanded by a surgeon for getting too close to his sterile field. He had every right to. It was embarassing and inexcusable, and not a mistake I ever repeated! Sterility is taken very seriously, well in some places anyway.

Correct me if I'm wrong but were there no vital signs being taken in the recovery room? I didn't see a blood pressure cuff on the patient or any kind of monitoring equipment.

Posted by: Mary at August 13, 2007 5:09 PM


Aren't they paid up front, what do they care?

Posted by: Rosie at August 13, 2007 5:12 PM


I can't bring myself to watch the clips, so let me ask -- was this undercover or did the abortionist and clinic staff make such basic mistakes so obviously when they *knew* they were being filmed?

Posted by: Michelle at August 13, 2007 5:20 PM


Come to think of it, when are the patients' vital signs ever checked? I saw no pre-operative ones done, and certainly no post operative vital signs in either the surgical room or recovery area.

Posted by: Mary at August 13, 2007 5:24 PM


Mary, an abortion clinic in my state closed a little over a year ago. One of the reasons for the closure was that VS were not being recorded. It doesn't look as though much has improved since 1983.

Posted by: Heather4life at August 13, 2007 5:29 PM


Michelle, the doctors knew they were being filmed..they even speak on camera a couple of times. It's amazing, the abortionist actually said something about abortion in the 2nd trimester possibly being emotionally distressing in the long run.

Jill, I noticed that about the street clothes but I wasn't sure what the procedures were back when this film was made. I'm glad to hear you and Mary confirm my suspicions that that isn't right. I also was noticing that afgan. That tube falling on the floor and then being used...disgusting.

And watching Barbara's face, so full of fear and emotion...it just hurt me so much. Because I know that with a little encouragement, a little love, a little support, she would have taken care of her baby. I wanted to hug her, to tell her she was strong and that she could handle this, and that I would help her. That she could have her baby. She would not have been holding back tears while waiting for her abortion if she had really wanted to make this choice. If you watch the video preceding this one, you'll find that she had a "felt" need to abort, because she felt afraid that her baby wouldn't have enough food, afraid that she wouldn't be able to do it alone. She needed support, love, and encouragement, not an abortion! Someone should have shown her ways that she could help herself. Ways that she could support herself better. Aborting her child didn't do anything to help her situation. They just sent her back into a situation where she sometimes didn't even get a bite to eat. Did anyone care about that? Did anyone offer her assistance in that area? I don't think so.
It really bothers me to see this woman treated so badly. The woman (the assistant) who is pretending to offer her compassion, that's all an act. If she really cares, why not do something to truly help this girl? This poor girl was sent back out to get hurt again, to go without food again, to be scared and not have any direction to turn. The very least anyone could do is at least point her in the right direction!

Posted by: Bethany at August 13, 2007 5:33 PM


Its my impression they knew they were being filmed. This was for PBS Frontline and they won an Emmy. Unless the crew and camera were invisible, they had to know and give their consent, the patients included.
About the mistakes, I can only conclude they maintain low standards and are indifferent to that fact. I have no idea if Pennsylvania had laws regulating abortion clinics. It certainly wasn't apparent if they did.

Posted by: Mary at August 13, 2007 5:34 PM


Let's not forget, some women return for this procedure 7,8,10,15 times. I couldn't imagine going through it once. Some post abortive women would like us to believe it to be such an empowering experience! What part of it? It's sickening and trashy!

Posted by: Heather4life at August 13, 2007 6:02 PM


..Satans work in action....

Posted by: jasper at August 13, 2007 6:46 PM


The videos don't seem to work but I must wonder at the sudden lack of acne from the top picture to the bottom. Please explain Jill and post links that work.

Posted by: Sally at August 13, 2007 8:34 PM


I don't know about the links, but the change in acne is because those are pictures of two different women. Jill identifies the first as Barbara, and the second as Helen. They do look similar, though, so I can see where you were confused.

Posted by: Michelle at August 13, 2007 8:53 PM


Sally, It is 2 different women.

Posted by: Heather4life at August 14, 2007 3:48 AM


Did the abortionist wash his hands before or after the procedure? I saw no sink in the room.

Good point. I missed that. I was too caught up on how degrading it must have been to be up in the stirrups, spead-eagled, exposed to whoever walks in that door. And on how they'd left her all alone there, cold and frightened with nobody but a film crew.

The abortionist doesn't meet or speak with the patient prior to the procedure? A patient is just set up on the table and a doctor she's never met and who knows nothing about her comes in and performs a surgical procedure on her.

That's pretty normal. We have (mostly) Edward "Fast Eddie" Allred to think for that. An admirer said that Allred "did for abortion what Ray Kroc did for hamburgers."

No vital signs are taken, and no IV set up for an emergency is visible.

Again, I missed that, I was so caught up with the emotional aspects.

Who are the female clinic employees? What are their credentials? Why are they in street clothes? Where else is it acceptable for employees involved in surgical procedures to wear street clothes? Are these women properly trained to assist in an emergency situation? Is there any nursing personnel?

Excellent questions.

Barabra appears to be in physical and emotional agony. The staff seems just a little too cold and indifferent to Barbara who is in obvious physical and emotional pain.

The woman in the sweater -- who I took for a nurse until your questions! -- seemed to care about Barbara. But she didn't seem to have a lot of time for her.

Was there any kind of counselling for either of these women, Barbara in particular?

Yeah. I hope the perfunctory "You're sure this is what you wanna do?" wasn't all the counseling she got beforehand, and the "It's normal to hurt. Something's been taken away from you" wasn't all she got afterward.

Though I fear it was.

Posted by: Christina at August 14, 2007 5:17 AM


Well, Chapter 5 answers some quesitons. It showed the conseling she got beforehand. And it clarified that the woman in the room wasn't a nurse. She was a counselor. What kind of training she had to deal with a medical emergency I leave for the imagination.

There was no discussion whatsoever of how she might respond emotionally to the abortion, about risks. She seems to be choosing abortion because she feels so lost and alone. She needs a friend more than anything else. And all she gets is an abortion.

I feel so sorry for Barbara. She's so much like what I was when I got pregnant with my son. But I have my son. She has the memory of an abortion -- an abortion that was broadcast on TV and is now archived online.

Did they do any follow-up?

Posted by: Christina at August 14, 2007 5:33 AM


Contrast the short term, "wham-bam, thank-you ma'am" care Barbara got at the abortion facility with the ongoing personal care provided by the prolifers. I'm amazed that they included this!

Posted by: Christina at August 14, 2007 5:45 AM


Michelle, there was a camera operator clearly there. You can tell by the quality of the shots, and the way the camera is moved to get better views.

So they were doing all this while they knew they were being filmed. What that means they did when there was NO camera there we can imagine.

Posted by: Christina at August 14, 2007 6:03 AM


Bethany, I think the "counselor" really did think she was helping. A lot of abortion workers think of themselves as bravely doing a very distasteful job for the sake of the women.

Posted by: Christina at August 14, 2007 6:05 AM


Thus far the chatter has been mainly pro-life. Come, come, pro-choice, don't these episodes deserve honorable mention?

As an aside, the abortion facility I toured for research I was doing also had the suction cannister covered up. I mean, who would really want to see their son/daughter's limbs floating in there anyways?

Posted by: carder at August 14, 2007 6:33 AM


Christina,

You make such an excellent point of Barbara's emotional state. The woman with her was a counselor? It didn't take a rocket scientist to see that Barbara was so obviously distressed. Wouldn't it be the responsibility of the "counselor" to question if this abortion should even take place and discourage the woman from aborting until such time as she is absolutely certain of what she wants to do? Were any options or referrals offered to Barbara. If anything this distraught ambivalent, cold, frightened woman is left alone with her pants off and her legs up in stirrups by her "counselor" to supposedly think things over.
Now that's what I call giving women power and control!

Posted by: Mary at August 14, 2007 7:13 AM


Christina, you did make some excellent points! I wondered the same thing you did. What went on when cameras weren't rolling? I too missed most of the medical blunders the first time. I was really studying the face of someone who was going to have an abortion. I think more videos like these would be great teaching tools. As carder had mentioned, where are the pro choicers?

Posted by: Heather4life at August 14, 2007 7:35 AM


Christina, you did make some excellent points! I wondered the same thing you did. What went on when cameras weren't rolling? I too missed most of the medical blunders the first time. I was really studying the face of someone who was going to have an abortion. I think more videos like these would be great teaching tools. As carder had mentioned, where are the pro choicers?

Posted by: Heather4life at August 14, 2007 7:35 AM


That pro life piece was very good!

Posted by: Heather4life at August 14, 2007 9:20 AM


'Contrast the short term, "wham-bam, thank-you ma'am" care Barbara got at the abortion facility with the ongoing personal care provided by the prolifers. I'm amazed that they included this!"

yes, like the CPCs, who really want to help women...

Posted by: jasper at August 14, 2007 9:39 AM


EEEEWWWW, why wouldn't a doctor wear gloves to insert a speculum? That was just gross! It's a no brainer. What about STD's? EEK!

Posted by: Heather4life at August 14, 2007 9:47 AM


I'm quietly outraged by the points, that i didn't notice, concerning unsterile medical practice.

Videos such as these should be made widely available to men and women considering abortion.

Posted by: sarah at August 14, 2007 9:59 AM


Now that PBA ban is in effect, the sickos are going back to injecting babies with poison, to kill them first. You'd think they would get the hint...One of the hospitals in the story below is where my sons were born. (Mass General)


http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57117

Posted by: jasper at August 14, 2007 10:24 AM


Jasper, stay tuned for my column tomorrow.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at August 14, 2007 12:14 PM


Jasper: Now that PBA ban is in effect, the sickos are going back to injecting babies with poison, to kill them first.

There is no ban on elective abortions, per se, until viability or 24 weeks or 26 weeks in most states. If one procedure, often the best procedure, isn't allowed, another one will be used.

D & X is chosen for several factors. It may be the simplest procedure. No abdominal surgery is required. Less intrusion into the uterus; less risk of tearing the uterus. It's an outpatient deal - don't have to be admitted into the hospital. Other factors such as hydrocephalus in the fetus may make it the best procedure as well.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at August 14, 2007 12:51 PM


I just managed to pull up the chapters. That was Helen's second abortion.

Posted by: Heather4life at August 14, 2007 1:41 PM


Jill:

I saw this video in Catholic high school religion class in 84 and it is what made me become pro life. It was shocking and I never forgot the body parts.

Posted by: mar at August 14, 2007 2:24 PM


Heather4life,

I just pulled up the other chapters as well. Helen was impregnated by a man who said he had a vasectomy. Was he an older or married man I wonder. Someone who preys on vulnerable teenage girls and then walks away? I would seriously doubt he was Helen's age or even close to it.
Barbara is the most pathetic soul I've seen. She lived with an abusive controller, her life is a struggle, she is obviously depressed. I think these would be some very serious red flags for an observant counselor. To think of this pathetic soul left alone in an exam room with her legs in stirrups and her pants off to think about things by a so-called counselor. What will be done for her once she leaves the clinic? This is obviously a young woman in need of some serious professional help.
She'll return to her poverty and difficult life, very possibly get back into the clutches of an abusive controller, and will certainly be every bit as depressed. How has her life been bettered by abortion?
She and Helen were told of adoption but not the various options, such as open adoption.
Helen and Barbara, as well as Helen's mother, are victims of men who have walked away from their responsiblities. Abortion is not solving any problems for these women. Helen's mother seems to think abortion will spare her daughter the difficult life she has had. My experience working with young women like Helen from fatherless abusive homes is that they are the perfect marks for men looking to prey on vulnerable young girls. Something I suspect has happened to Helen already. In fact, based on my own experience working with young women like these, they will be pregnant again and again, until they decide to go to term. Sorry, but I've just seen it too many times.

I'm curious, is there no nursing staff in this clinic to properly monitor patients and observe them for complications during and after surgery?

Posted by: Mary at August 14, 2007 2:54 PM


Doug "There is no ban on elective abortions, per se, until viability or 24 weeks or 26 weeks in most states. If one procedure, often the best procedure, isn't allowed, another one will be used."

yes, I know Doug. I was thinking that maybe some of these clinics would get a conscience and stop doing abortions after viabilty but I realize that would be asking to much for souless monsters to consider.

Posted by: jasper at August 14, 2007 3:13 PM


Doug,

The really nice thing about D&X is that it guarantees a dead baby, the reason it was invented in the first place. Just imagine how embarassing, not to mention very bothersome it was, when the damned things were born alive and weren't supposed to be! That can happen in later term abortions. Now what do you do with them? Hopefully they'd die quickly but if not, well then its such a hassle.
Since most late term abortions were done on healthy normal babies and mothers, then the likelihood of a surviving fetus or one born with "signs of life" as one feminist publication put it, was good. D&X took care of that minor nuisance.

Posted by: Mary at August 14, 2007 3:27 PM


Mary, Hello. I hope you are having a great afternoon. I agree with you 100%. I also felt very sorry for Barbara. She looked as though she felt like she had no other choice, and the abortion just seemed to "finish her off" leaving her emotionally broken. Seeing the actual procedure left me with an unsettled feeling. I also agree that abortion solves nothing. I believe it to be very damaging to a woman's soul. The woman is used for sex, and then she is turned over to the abortionist to "fix the final problem." The end. I know a woman who has had 7 abortions. She sustained so much damage to her uterus, a result of these numerous abortions, that she had to have a hysterectomy. I just saw a pattern of self loathing and self destructiveness in her. I watched her life fall apart, and she almost drank herself to death, literally! If the 7 abortions were meant to free her, empower her or restore her "happy life," it definitely didn't

Posted by: Heather4life at August 14, 2007 3:46 PM


ACK, last word left off my post...... didn't work!

Posted by: Heather4life at August 14, 2007 3:49 PM


Mary, to answer your question about any nursing staff being present, I would have to reply "I doubt it." If they had RN's or LPN's employed @ this clinic, where in the heck were they? There appears to be a crash cart to the right and an o2 tank to the left..............The question is, would anyone know how to use either of them if an emergency situation were to arise?

Posted by: Heather4life at August 14, 2007 4:49 PM


Mary, they assume that the woman is that distressed because of the pregnancy itself, and that the abortion, like a root canal, is an unpleasant experience, but it will take the woman out of the bad situation.

It's a very short-sighted mindset. They tend to assume that getting her non-pregnant will somehow allow the rest of her life to sort itself out.

Posted by: Christina at August 14, 2007 4:57 PM


Doug, is there any abortion that you couldn't find a way to justify?

Posted by: Christina at August 14, 2007 4:59 PM


Speaking of the D&X abortion, several years ago in NRL News there was a picture of a gorgeous Hispanic girl, about 2 or 3 years. This child had survived a D&X abortion attempt. Obviously the abortion was not being done for fetal anamoly, the child was perfect. Well, she was perfect until the attempt was made to abort her by D&X. I don't recall the exact sequence of events, only that the mother delivered a living baby, one that had had her arm torn off at the shoulder. Obviously the abortionist should have crushed her skull first, routinely done in a D&X procedure along with pulling the fetus apart piece by piece, but maybe the abortionist was just a beginner.
The little girl survived and was otherwise developing normally. I believe the pro-life owner of a prosthesis manufacturer fitted her with an artificial limb.
Abortion does such wonderful things for women doesn't it?

Posted by: Mary at August 14, 2007 5:25 PM


Yes Mary.......and for children. God I shuddered while reading that!

Posted by: Heather4life at August 14, 2007 5:30 PM


Heather4life,

I wonder what NOW and NARAL would say to this little future woman after she has grown up. Perhaps Doug would like to discuss the virtues of the D&X procedure with her.

Posted by: Mary at August 14, 2007 5:47 PM


Mary, it really doesn't seem like they have much to say about anything that doesn't pertain to their political agenda. Where are NOW and NARAL when women are dying from legal abortions? Where are they while women are being raped, molested, and stalked by abortionists? Who is patrolling these raggedy clinics? Yes. I wonder what they would say. My best guess is NOTHING.

Posted by: Heather4life at August 14, 2007 6:10 PM


I had to blog on this myself.

Posted by: Christina at August 14, 2007 6:38 PM


Hi to everyone!
I have yet to watch the chapters on the brutal abortion procedures in their entirety. I am too afraid. It would be interesting to see a follow-up on these women and find out what and how they are doing today and how they feel about the decisions they made. I wonder if either of them ever watched their videos.

I did watch the "counselor" in operation. What a farce. She basically asked canned questions and I am sure got the same standard answers she hears over and over each day.

If this woman was really a counselor, she would be talking to the women about all options available to them and then tell them to go home and evaluate all options.

How can she be considered a counselor when she works for the clinic and preps these girls for the procedure. The only counseling she did was to make them more comfortable with their decision both prior to the procedure and during.

Marge, the gal on the phone basically makes the pro-life doctor out to be the evil one warning a woman on the phone about his presence on Saturday mornings. Again, if they are all about supporting choice, why be afraid of this man wanting to talk with women about another choice???

As far as Barbara's mother in the scene, what a nightmare. She supports the killing of her unborn grandchild so her daughter "can catch a man." She basically blames her own four children for not being able to meet the man of her dreams and marry. How pathetic.


Posted by: Sandy at August 14, 2007 6:39 PM


Sandy,

You are so right about the "canned" questions. I would think a credentialled counselor would recognize a severely depressed woman such as Barbara. I would also think she would send this woman to a social service agency to get the assistance she desperately needs instead of sending her back to the potentially dangerous and desperate situation she was living in. Barbara just broke my heart Sandy and the more I think about her the angrier I get. Leaving this woman alone in the exam room, without even the slightest shred of dignity, was absolutely heartless. It was obvious she wasn't even adequately anesthetized, though this was of little concern to the abortionist. The "counselor" did little more than give her a box of kleenex and hold her hand.

I'm curious as to what this woman's credentials are to qualify her as a counselor. I understand that some "counselors" are just women who themselves had abortions. I've had surgery. That doesn't qualify me to counsel people as to whether or not they should have the same surgery.

Posted by: Mary at August 14, 2007 7:09 PM


It also looks like a very violating procedure. I have never met an gyn who greeted me while up in stirrups. That's a no no. I don't think he ever saw Helen or Barbara's faces. How insulting! The only thing he even asked about was for verification of both women's LMP. My gyn allows me to sit in a chair to answer such questions. It should have been on the chart. Oh what bad medicine.

Posted by: Heather4life at August 14, 2007 8:00 PM


Heather4life,

I also noticed the abortionist who did Helen's abortion also didn't wash his hands either prior to or after the procedure. You're right about meeting the patients while in stirrups. How degrading. I wonder if they treat patients in their office practice in such a degading manner and with such lack of basic cleanliness or if they just consider women at the abortion clinic to be second class human beings.

Posted by: Mary at August 14, 2007 8:14 PM


Okay, pro-choice, we're still waiting...gotta be a reason why you're not as vocal.

Tell us how that was all a setup and they were all lousy actors. Or how this is just all anti-choice propaganda. Or that was then, this is now kind of justification. Doug, you're one of the more level-headed PC posters here. How do you feel watching this?

Not wanting to be antagonistic, but there's proof in this pudding!

Posted by: carder at August 14, 2007 9:12 PM


Mary, while going through my last pregnancy, my doctor was the one who talked to me about everything. Don't you also find it unusual that the abortionist himself never talked to the girls? I would think that if I were he, I would want to review her options with her myself before even touching her. This was clearly left up to the "professional counselor" who was probably just a woman who'd also had an abortion at some point. Perhaps that's the only prerequisite required. Why was the counselor the one telling the patient about what the doctor was doing? My doctor always told me about what he was going to do to me, before he did ANYTHING. Very unprofessional! The abortionist acted rushed too. He probably had 5 other women waiting.

Posted by: Heather4life at August 15, 2007 5:47 AM


Mary, it seems that the abortionist should definitely repeat "hand washing 101."

Posted by: Heather4life at August 15, 2007 6:20 AM


Okay, pro-choice, we're still waiting...gotta be a reason why you're not as vocal.

Tell us how that was all a setup and they were all lousy actors. Or how this is just all anti-choice propaganda. Or that was then, this is now kind of justification. Doug, you're one of the more level-headed PC posters here. How do you feel watching this?

Not wanting to be antagonistic, but there's proof in this pudding!

Hi Carder, I'm at work and don't have sound on this computer, but will try and watch the video this evening on my laptop. From the descriptions it sounds pretty nasty. I don't think there's any necessary faking going on - it may well be just as "bad" as what most people think. For any surgical procedure to go like that sounds unfortunate to me.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at August 15, 2007 8:03 AM


"There is no ban on elective abortions, per se, until viability or 24 weeks or 26 weeks in most states. If one procedure, often the best procedure, isn't allowed, another one will be used."

Jasper: yes, I know Doug. I was thinking that maybe some of these clinics would get a conscience and stop doing abortions after viabilty but I realize that would be asking to much for souless monsters to consider.

The existence of a soul or not isn't provable. I'm fine with the restrictions we have on abortion after viability, although I realize the exact week of gestation to be picked can be argued.

Posted by: Doug at August 15, 2007 8:47 AM


Mary: The really nice thing about D&X is that it guarantees a dead baby, the reason it was invented in the first place.

Well, that's what abortion does. I realize the specific procedure matters to some people, but if the fetus is not suffering and is going to die anyway then it does not bother me. At that point it comes down to the desire of the woman who is pregnant against the desire of pro-lifers, and I don't see the pro-lifers' wishes trumping that of the woman.

Just imagine how embarassing, not to mention very bothersome it was, when the damned things were born alive and weren't supposed to be! That can happen in later term abortions. Now what do you do with them? Hopefully they'd die quickly but if not, well then its such a hassle.

No argument that that's a bad situation.

Since most late term abortions were done on healthy normal babies and mothers, then the likelihood of a surviving fetus or one born with "signs of life" as one feminist publication put it, was good. D&X took care of that minor nuisance.

Mary, what proof of that do you really have? Why do you think most late-term abortions were (or are) done on healthy fetuses? I guess it also matters what you consider "late-term." 21 weeks could be said to be "late" since it's past the halfway point but usually we're talking about after viability or the third trimester.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at August 15, 2007 8:54 AM


Christina: Doug, is there any abortion that you couldn't find a way to justify?

"justified" or not is in the eye of the beholder. For truly "elective" abortions where the reason is just that the woman does not want to be pregnant, I'm fine with limiting them to before 26 weeks or before 24 weeks, as most states do.

After that most fetuses are becoming sentient, sensate, etc. They are tending toward the consciousness that a full-term born baby has, and it can be said that some personality is there. So I would not justify purely elective abortions after that.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at August 15, 2007 9:00 AM


Heather: Where are NOW and NARAL when women are dying from legal abortions? Where are they while women are being raped, molested, and stalked by abortionists? Who is patrolling these raggedy clinics? Yes. I wonder what they would say. My best guess is NOTHING.

I think it's silly to think that NOW and NARAL in any way 'want" women to die. Yes, some very few women do die from legal abortions, but vastly less than die from carrying to term and giving birth. If one objects to abortion on the grounds that it's "dangerous" for women, then one can only logically be even more opposed to continuing pregnancies and giving birth.

Childbirth presents roughly 12 times the risk of death for women that abortion does. (Grimes DA, Estimation of prgnancy-related mortality risk by pregnancy outcome, United States, 1991 to 1999, American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2006, 194(1):92ľ94.)

Rape, molestation and stalking are against the law, aren't they? Do you actually see anybody trying to justify them?

If there are "raggedy clinics" then something ought to be done to impove them, same as for any medical facility. The video is from some decades past, and I hope that things have improved and feel that even in the past most clinics were not as bad.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at August 15, 2007 9:13 AM


Mary, 2:54p: I noted the mothers of Barbara and Helen, too. Couldn't fathom how they'd promote aborting their own grandchildren. I would die first. Couldn't fathom how their daughters must have felt knowing their moms would have apparently aborted them if they could do it over again.

Christina, 6:38p: excellent post!

Sandy, 6:39p: I thought the same thing, too. 24 years later, I'd love to see a Frontline follow-up on these women. My bet is the abortion didn't change their life status one iota. And it likely messed up their heads considerably. But I doubt PBS wants to know.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at August 15, 2007 9:27 AM


On another note. I realize ultrasounds were probably not available at this time. However,
how do these quacks even know the pregnancy is viable???

They could have put these girls through all of this trama for nothing. With the miscarriage rate as high as it is, who knows????

I often wonder about that today. Are all mills required to perform an utrasound prior to the procedure???

Posted by: Sandy at August 15, 2007 9:40 AM


Doug,

D&X involves tearing the fetus apart piece by piece and crushing the skull. This was invented since other abortion methods didn't always guarantee a dead late term baby. How do you know the fetus doesn't suffer? Do you agree a living late term aborted baby can be quite embarassing and a nuisance?

An abortionist at a clinic specializing in late term abortions in New Jersey acknowledged that the vast majority of later term fetuses they abort are the perfectly healthy babies of perfectly healthy mothers. At Tiller's clinic late term abortions were taking place so that women could attend rock concerts or go on vacations. The teenage girl on the O'Reilly Factor who was aborted by Tiller when she was 5 months pregnant did not carry a defective fetus. She also acknowledged that carrying her baby to term would have been far better than what she went through with the abortion itself and the psychological aftermath. It hardly sounds to me Doug like these abortions are rare and limited only to fetal anomolies and maternal health problems.

By the way Doug, you didn't mention what you would say to that little Hispanic girl, now a young woman, you know, the one who had her arm ripped off(8/14 5:25PM), concerning the virtues of D&X abortion.

No Doug clinics have not vastly improved. There have been a number of closures, many of them recent, for a variety of violations. Some of the places closed made the clinic in these videos looking top notch by comparison.

Posted by: Mary at August 15, 2007 2:26 PM


Doug, all I can tell you is that a hell of a lot of abortionists have gotten away with sex crimes for years upon years. Brian Finkel was raping his abortion patients for years! How did he get away with it for so long? Beats me. He received a 35 year sentence for 80 counts of sexual abuse. Joining him are Dr.Reich, Dr. Namihas, and Dr. Ghali.

Posted by: Heather4life at August 15, 2007 2:44 PM


Jill,

Shame on you and me! As medical professionals, how could we miss the most obvious? The patients were never prepped! No wash or scrub was ever done in the area of surgery. You and I are well aware that a patient's personal care can be anything from excellent to non-existent. Yet these women are taken right from the waiting room, put into stirrups and operated on without the benefit of any kind of wash or prep. Combine this with abortionists or don't wash their hands before or after surgery, or wear gloves when inserting speculums, and "counselors" who don't wear gloves when positioning patients in stirrups and on the table or appear to wash their hands either. By the way a sink should be in the room and that is where handwashing should take place to prevent germs from leaving the area and spreading.

Posted by: Mary at August 15, 2007 2:46 PM


Doug, abortion patients are easy prey, and these abortionists know it. Minors and teens are especially vulnerable. Why? Experts say that the abortionist knows that the women want privacy. If you don't ever want anyone to know about your abortion, you will be less likely to report a sexual assalt.

Posted by: Heather4life at August 15, 2007 2:49 PM


Mary, you are so right! I missed that also!

Posted by: Heather4life at August 15, 2007 2:54 PM


Mary,

D & X has one primary advantage that I know of. It doesn't require as much dilation of the cervix. Yes - I agree that a living late term baby that was supposed to be aborted is a bad thing. It begs the question, though - are women really having abortions so late in gestation just because they don't want to be pregnant? I know the fetus does not suffer prior to being mentally aware, able to consciously perceive pain, etc. Around viability some fetuses can suffer - no argument there. But for all but a miniscule portion of abortions there is no capacity for suffering on the part of the embryo or fetus.

..........


An abortionist at a clinic specializing in late term abortions in New Jersey acknowledged that the vast majority of later term fetuses they abort are the perfectly healthy babies of perfectly healthy mothers.

What, exactly, does "late term" mean there?

.........

At Tiller's clinic late term abortions were taking place so that women could attend rock concerts or go on vacations.

I don't need them to miss concerts or vacations. I don't need one more person on earth, per se. I don't need those women to do anything but what they choose to do in this respect. The unborn don't care, and this is your desire versus that of the pregnant women. I don't need or want your opinion forced over theirs.

..........


The teenage girl on the O'Reilly Factor who was aborted by Tiller when she was 5 months pregnant did not carry a defective fetus.

Five months is 20 or 21 weeks. That's before viability and before the fetus is sensate. Most states have restrictions at 24 or 26 weeks, but five months is before that.

.........


She also acknowledged that carrying her baby to term would have been far better than what she went through with the abortion itself and the psychological aftermath. It hardly sounds to me Doug like these abortions are rare and limited only to fetal anomolies and maternal health problems.

What does the one thing have to do with the other? I realize that some girls/women really do regret having abortions. Same as women who give birth sometimes really end up regretting it. Ain't no guarantees in life, but that's still no reason to take away the freedom that women have in this matter. Abortions after 24 weeks and especially after 26 weeks really *are* very rare. We can dig into the actual numbers if you want.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at August 15, 2007 3:04 PM


Doug,

I quote Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of National Coalition of Abortion Providers called the rare use of Partial Birth Abortion the "party line" and admitted he had "lied through his teeth" about PBA being rarely used and only for fetal anomolies or maternal health. He stated that "in a vast majority of the cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus 20 weeks or more."
In 2003 Fitzsimmons was asked if he wanted to recant this statement or if the situation had changed. He adamantly refused to recant. As for the notion that the majority of PBAs are done for reasons of fetal anomoly or maternal health he replied "its amazing that a lot of people still think that despite evidence to the contrary."
There you have it Doug, straight from the horse's mouth.

Posted by: Mary at August 15, 2007 3:25 PM


Mary, you're right - shame on us! I'm grossed out anew!

Posted by: Jill Stanek at August 15, 2007 3:28 PM


Doug,

The primary advantage of D&X is to prevent the live birth of a late term fetus. Like it or not Doug, that's why it was invented. A living late term baby that was supposed to be dead is a bad thing? Whatever Doug, I really don't know how to handle that one. According to a psychiatrist who reviewed Tiller's charts, yes, women were having late term abortions because they didn't want to be pregnant. About the teenage girl, her abortion at 5 months was to be rid of the baby, not because of any fetal anomoly or threat to her.
Exactly how do you know how aware a fetus is and at what point? How do you know for certain what fetal pain perception is and at what point? Face it Doug, there is so much we don't know and continue to learn. Did you know that preemies used to be operated on without anesthesia because it was thought they had no pain perception? Sound barbaric? It was. Babies who screamed during circumcisions just didn't like being restrained! Thankfully we've made some advancements since those days, but I remember them well. It was "known" that preemies and newborns just didn't perceive pain. Just like you "know" a fetus doesn't feel pain.
Oh, and we also "knew" comatose patients weren't "sensate" either. Patients emerging from comas told us otherwise.
Your point about the rock concerts and vacations is... what??
Oh another thing Doug, about the little Hispanic girl with the ripped off arm who is now a young woman, you would tell her what about the virtues of D&X abortion? The perfectly normal little girl who wasn't "viable".

Posted by: Mary at August 15, 2007 3:53 PM


I wonder if Barbara or Helen ever developed infections.

Posted by: Heather4life at August 15, 2007 4:00 PM


Doug,
I posted this a couple times, but since I haven't addressed this with you, here goes my story.

Back in the late 90's when the PBA ban was up for discussion, a local reporter in teh city where I lived who was pro-choice decided to spend some time in a local abortuary. She was there to gather evidence and personal stories from women who decided to go through late term abortions using the PBA method.
She wanted to prove the case that this type of abortion was necessary and was only being done on women in danger of losing their lives or on babies who had been diagnosed with fetal fatal anomolies.

To her utter shock, she found out a much different story. Women were basically aborting late term because the felt like it. No health issues, no fetal fatal anomolies. They just waited to long to get their tired butts in the clinic earlier in the pregnancy.

The reporter changed her story and became anti PBA. I have tried to locate the story through several sources in that area, but have failed. I will keep trying to locate it.

She proved the falacy that this method is rare and only used in situations where the mother's live is in peril or the baby has no chance of survival.

Another website I visited also had stories from abortion clinic workers that stated the same story as the reporter.

Posted by: Sandy at August 15, 2007 4:41 PM


Sandy, that is pathetic!

Posted by: Heather4life at August 15, 2007 5:17 PM


Is this it, Sandy? Or part of it?


So today´┐Ż let's see, your last period was February 10th. That's right?

NARRATOR: Many of the women White sees come to her with unplanned pregnancies.

PATRICIA WHITE: Let's look at this wheel here and see how far along you should be, using this gestational wheel. February 10th, and this is July 30th. Are your periods regular?

MELANIE: Uh-huh.

PATRICIA WHITE: This would make you be six months pregnant.

MELANIE: Really?

PATRICIA WHITE: Is that true? Are you feeling movement?

MELANIE: Yeah, I can feel a little movement.

PATRICIA WHITE: Oh. So you're starting yourself late. Why from February´┐Ż

A lot of these women do not want to be pregnant.

Was this a planned pregnancy?

MELANIE: No.

PATRICIA WHITE: Was it planned? It was not planned.

MELANIE: No, it was not planned, but´┐Ż

PATRICIA WHITE: And if you don't want to be pregnant, and you're in denial´┐Ż

Why'd it take you from February to´┐Ż

MELANIE: To be honest´┐Ż

PATRICIA WHITE: ´┐ŻJuly to come in?

MELANIE: ´┐ŻI really don't´┐Ż

PATRICIA WHITE: You didn't think you were?

MELANIE: I didn't really think it for, like, I'd say, the first three months. I never did really pay attention. And then, after I start paying more attention´┐Ż see, because I was working more.

PATRICIA WHITE: Uh-huh.

Posted by: Bethany at August 15, 2007 5:34 PM


Heather4life,

In response to your earlier post. Having the abortion "counselor" advise the women on a surgical procedure and doing what pre-operative interview there was, is like your doctor having his/her receptionist or file clerks discuss your procedure with you and interview you pre-operatively. In both cases these are people totally unqualified for this kind of responsibility. This is the sole responsibility of the doctor. I found it very degrading that the abortionists never met the patients ahead of time, just walked into the room with the patient up in stirrups, never shook the patient's hand, which in my opinion is professional and courteous, and accepted a "pre-operative interview" from someone who isn't even a medical professional! My doctor always greets me as Ms.---- and shakes my hand when he enters the room, and I'm sitting in a chair just like him when he's interviewing me.
I trained at a hospital that did occasional abortions. Many staff and anesthesia providers refused to do them, so the same small group of people had them assigned to them again and again, much to their resentment. However, all requirements for surgical patients had to be met. A history and physical filled out by the physician, lab work, a pre-operative interview by a medical professional, credentialled personnel in the OR suite, a surgical scrub of the vagina, strict sterile technique, and a full surgical scrub, gown, mask, and sterile gloves for the abortionist. The patient was anesthetized by a credentialled anesthesia provider, her VS were monitored and afterward she was transported to the recovery room where credentialled staff continued to closely monitor her vital signs and observe for bleeding.
Why are the strict standards practiced in hospitals not viewed as at all necessary in the clinics?

Posted by: Mary at August 15, 2007 8:20 PM


Mary, My dentist and his staff show me more dignity and respect. These girls were treated like 2 dogs. I did see the abortionist insert the speculum without gloves. YUK! You can't get much more unsanitary than that. I wonder if they even sterilized any of the equipment. I doubt it sincerely. Thank you for the post about abortions in the hospital. It's really nice to see that a lot of medical professionals won't perform them.

Posted by: Heather4life at August 15, 2007 8:35 PM


These girls were treated like 2 dogs. They didn't get as much respect as dogs would get from the veterinarian!

Posted by: Mary at August 15, 2007 8:41 PM


Sandy: Back in the late 90's when the PBA ban was up for discussion, a local reporter in teh city where I lived who was pro-choice decided to spend some time in a local abortuary. She was there to gather evidence and personal stories from women who decided to go through late term abortions using the PBA method.
She wanted to prove the case that this type of abortion was necessary and was only being done on women in danger of losing their lives or on babies who had been diagnosed with fetal fatal anomolies.

What, really does "late-term" mean, as you are using it there? Fatal fetal anomalies are not the only considerations. There are some conditions where the body of the fetus will live, and the born baby's body will live, but few people indeed will think that prolonging the life is a good thing.

..........

To her utter shock, she found out a much different story. Women were basically aborting late term because the felt like it. No health issues, no fetal fatal anomolies. They just waited to long to get their tired butts in the clinic earlier in the pregnancy.

Again, what does "late term" mean, there? If you have evidence of women having abortions in the third trimester just because they didn't want to be pregnant, that would be one thing, but I don't think you do.

..........

The reporter changed her story and became anti PBA. I have tried to locate the story through several sources in that area, but have failed. I will keep trying to locate it. She proved the fallacy that this method is rare and only used in situations where the mother's live is in peril or the baby has no chance of survival. Another website I visited also had stories from abortion clinic workers that stated the same story as the reporter.

Tell you what - I wouldn't say that D & X or D & E is "rare" except in relation to the numbers of abortions as a whole. Heck, D & X is (or was) done as early as 14 or 15 weeks, simply because it's often the best procedure, presenting less danger to the woman, less cervical dilation is necessary, less time is taken, bringing less probability of blood loss, etc. "The mother's life in peril" is not necessarily the deal. Less risk is less risk, even if the probability of danger to the mother is lower than a given figure, etc.

Doug

Posted by: PorkLoin at August 15, 2007 8:44 PM


Heather: Experts say that the abortionist knows that the women want privacy. If you don't ever want anyone to know about your abortion, you will be less likely to report a sexual assalt.

You could say the same thing about gynocologists. No necessary argument against abortion there.

Doug

Posted by: PorkLoin at August 15, 2007 8:50 PM


Mary: The primary advantage of D&X is to prevent the live birth of a late term fetus. Like it or not Doug, that's why it was invented.

Any abortion has the aim of ending the life of the embryo or fetus. D & X is just one procedure among many.

..........


A living late term baby that was supposed to be dead is a bad thing? Whatever Doug, I really don't know how to handle that one.

Well, I was agreeing.

..........

According to a psychiatrist who reviewed Tiller's charts, yes, women were having late term abortions because they didn't want to be pregnant. About the teenage girl, her abortion at 5 months was to be rid of the baby, not because of any fetal anomoly or threat to her.

5 months = 20 or 21 weeks. It's before viability and before the restrictions that most states have. What of it?

..........

Exactly how do you know how aware a fetus is and at what point? How do you know for certain what fetal pain perception is and at what point? Face it Doug, there is so much we don't know and continue to learn.

We know that the cerebral cortex has to be sufficiently developed, connected, and operational before conscious pain perception is possible. Might be true at 30 weeks. Might be true at 26. Might be at 24 - there is a gray area there because not all fetuses are the same. But not at 20 weeks and below.

..........

Did you know that preemies used to be operated on without anesthesia because it was thought they had no pain perception? Sound barbaric? It was. Babies who screamed during circumcisions just didn't like being restrained! Thankfully we've made some advancements since those days, but I remember them well. It was "known" that preemies and newborns just didn't perceive pain. Just like you "know" a fetus doesn't feel pain.

What weeks are you talking about with "preemies." May not be any argument there.

..........

Oh, and we also "knew" comatose patients weren't "sensate" either. Patients emerging from comas told us otherwise.

I didn't say that. A comatose patient really 'felt" pain? Where's the proof? I'm not saying it's impossible, but would like to see confirmation.

.........

Your point about the rock concerts and vacations is... what??

That the woman's reason really does not matter. You don't need a given woman to forego an abortion. You almost never know of it, though you obviously dislike the idea of abortion. Do you really need one more person on earth, to the extent that we would take away the freedom that woman now has in this matter? I say heck no.

..........


Oh another thing Doug, about the little Hispanic girl with the ripped off arm who is now a young woman, you would tell her what about the virtues of D&X abortion? The perfectly normal little girl who wasn't "viable".

Who told you she was not viable? Not me. I don't think anyone told you that. I think you're making it up. It's a very sad story but that doesn't change the truth about the advantages of D & X.

Doug

Posted by: PorkLoin at August 15, 2007 9:04 PM


Hi Bethany!

I can't remember if what you posted was part of the story or not, but it sure seems to fit what the reporter found out. I remember it being a pretty big story in the paper. Since it was published prior to the internet etc... it is difficult to track down. I have gone to the paper in which it was published and they had sooooo mannnny listings with the term "abortion", they refused to do the homework to find what I am looking for because I can't give them the exact date and year of the article.

The library was no help either. I will continue to try and find it because it really is a very compelling story. Thanks for your input. Where did you find this?
Sandy

Posted by: Sandy at August 15, 2007 9:05 PM


Mary: I quote Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of National Coalition of Abortion Providers called the rare use of Partial Birth Abortion the "party line" and admitted he had "lied through his teeth" about PBA being rarely used and only for fetal anomolies or maternal health. He stated that "in a vast majority of the cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus 20 weeks or more."
In 2003 Fitzsimmons was asked if he wanted to recant this statement or if the situation had changed. He adamantly refused to recant. As for the notion that the majority of PBAs are done for reasons of fetal anomoly or maternal health he replied "its amazing that a lot of people still think that despite evidence to the contrary."
There you have it Doug, straight from the horse's mouth.

This sounds like a straw man argument to me. Maybe he lied, I don't know. I do know that D & X or D & E abortions are done quite a bit earlier than 20 weeks as well. "Healthy fetus at 20 weeks or more"? So what? We're not talking after viability there, necessarily.

I would not have said that the majority of D & X abortions are done for fetal anomaly. Most usual situation is just that the head of the fetus is big enough that D & X is the best procedure, regardless of the reason abortion is chosen.

He may have been untruthful at one point, but it doesn't affect the abortion debate, even if we discard any or all of what he said.

Doug

Posted by: PorkLoin at August 15, 2007 9:13 PM


Doug,

Please refer back to my post concerning Ron Fitzsimmons where he acknowledges that PBAs are done on women 20 weeks and more, he gives no limits in the 3rd trimester, and that its a fallacy that most of these are done for fetal anomoly or maternal health. If you have an argument with this, please take it up with him. The little Hispanic girl I mentioned must have been into the third trimester or darn close to it to survive as she did, and she obviously was not being aborted because of any anomolies.

Concerning Heather's post about sexual abuse. No you cannot say the same about gynecologists.
If my doctor behaves inappropriately, I won't hesitate to report him. Why should I be embarassed?
The frightened woman who goes to the abortion clinic hoping no one sees her, desperate to keep her pregnancy and abortion a secret, is another situation altogether. She's the perfect prey for someone who knows this is not a woman likely to report him to authorities and risk exposing her identity and abortion to the public. She's just someone who wants to leave and never look back. That Doug is why the abortionists Heather mentioned could prey on these women for so long.

Posted by: Mary at August 15, 2007 9:22 PM


Doug,

Please, be realistic. Give me one good reason why Fitzsimmons would make this up. The man is admitting he lied to promote the "party line". You certainly don't think abortion supporters were thrilled about this do you? It was a great shock and embarassment if anything, especially for those in the media and elsewhere who had so obediently spouted the "party line". Even columnist Ellen Goodman, ever a cheerleader for abortion, squirmed a little over this one.
And yes Doug you may well be talking viability when you get into 24 plus weeks. The purpose of D&X and PBA is to guarantee a fetus that's good and dead on delivery, not one that may end up being sent to the newborn intensive care unit.

Posted by: Mary at August 15, 2007 9:47 PM


Okay, pro-choice, we're still waiting...gotta be a reason why you're not as vocal.

Tell us how that was all a setup and they were all lousy actors. Or how this is just all anti-choice propaganda. Or that was then, this is now kind of justification. Doug, you're one of the more level-headed PC posters here. How do you feel watching this?

Not wanting to be antagonistic, but there's proof in this pudding!

Okay, Carder, I watched both of them. The girls were awake during a surgical procedure, and it doesn't look like fun. I have no reason to think anything was faked. Seems to me that Barbara had a rougher time than Helen, though at one point she said she wasn't hurting physically. Evidently she was hurting emotionally. I don't doubt it, and it was said that she had had a hard and sad life (text accompanying the video segment or the preceding or following one).

I don't see anything specifically condemning abortion in either video.

Doug

Posted by: PorkLoin at August 15, 2007 9:50 PM


Mary: Please refer back to my post concerning Ron Fitzsimmons where he acknowledges that PBAs are done on women 20 weeks and more, he gives no limits in the 3rd trimester, and that its a fallacy that most of these are done for fetal anomoly or maternal health. If you have an argument with this, please take it up with him.

"20 weeks and more" could be weeks 20 and 21. If you have proof of third-trimester abortions being done for purely elective reasons, let's see it. I don't think that most of those abortions are done for fetal anomaly or maternal health. Just exactly where do you see that being part of my argument or the pro-choice position as a whole?

..........


The little Hispanic girl I mentioned must have been into the third trimester or darn close to it to survive as she did, and she obviously was not being aborted because of any anomolies.

Who knows?

..........

Concerning Heather's post about sexual abuse. No you cannot say the same about gynecologists. If my doctor behaves inappropriately, I won't hesitate to report him. Why should I be embarassed?

Because of your desire for privacy, same as that theorized on the part of women wanting abortions.

..........



The frightened woman who goes to the abortion clinic hoping no one sees her, desperate to keep her pregnancy and abortion a secret, is another situation altogether. She's the perfect prey for someone who knows this is not a woman likely to report him to authorities and risk exposing her identity and abortion to the public. She's just someone who wants to leave and never look back. That Doug is why the abortionists Heather mentioned could prey on these women for so long.

Okay, that's not unreasonable and some of that may apply. There are some bad doctors out there if they're doing such unethical and unlawful things. The law is already against it, and there's nothing against abortion, per se, there.

Doug

Posted by: PorkLoin at August 15, 2007 10:01 PM


Mary: Please, be realistic. Give me one good reason why Fitzsimmons would make this up. The man is admitting he lied to promote the "party line". You certainly don't think abortion supporters were thrilled about this do you? It was a great shock and embarassment if anything, especially for those in the media and elsewhere who had so obediently spouted the "party line". Even columnist Ellen Goodman, ever a cheerleader for abortion, squirmed a little over this one.

I don't see it as part of the "party line." What is the big deal with it? It's the best procedure in some situations. He may well have lied, but in no way is anything he said essential to the pro-choice movement. Good grief, were we to visit all the falsehoods presented by pro-lifers, it'd take one heck of a long time, and it really does not matter.

The physical reality of abortion and the unborn is really not the issue. The argument is over valuation.

..........

And yes Doug you may well be talking viability when you get into 24 plus weeks. The purpose of D&X and PBA is to guarantee a fetus that's good and dead on delivery, not one that may end up being sent to the newborn intensive care unit.

Same for any abortion.

Posted by: PorkLoin at August 15, 2007 10:06 PM


Doug,

Well that's strange, my post didn't go through last nite.

About the little Hispanic girl. Who knows? She's either early third trimester or second trimester babies are viable.

Yes Fitzsimmons could have meant 20 and 21. He could also have meant 20 and 31.

Concerning sexual abuse, I'm glad you realize how vulnerable aborting women can be to the sexual predators Heather mentioned, who I am sure find the steady stream of vulnerable women a dream come true and the abortion clinic the perfect set up.

You seem to have an issue about abortions being done in the 3rd trimester. What difference does it make if they are?

Please pardon my ignorance, but what is valuation?

I'm off to work, have a great day Doug and everyone.

Posted by: Mary at August 16, 2007 5:22 AM


Doug, regarding sexual abuse of abortion patients. Please Google Brian L. Finkel and see all of the disturbing things that he was able to get away with. He was a monster! Here are just a few of the things that came out in court from his victims on the witness stand. He propositioned a teen for oral sex stating "If you give me a [ slang for oral sex] I'll pay to have your teeth fixed. Finkel to a 39 year old patient who had brought her boyfriend to her abortion appointment with her; "Is that BOZO in the waiting room ever going to marry you." Finkel also claimed that abortion patients are "tramps." and that "those women" will do ANYTHING for an abortion." Finkel was actually able to get some of the women to engage in consensual sex.

Posted by: Heather4life at August 16, 2007 5:44 AM


Doug, abortion is a different animal. A routine visit to a regular gyn would include a history and physical, breast exam, pelvic exam, urine sample and a pap test. An abortion isn't a routine part of a regular exam. To many women, it's shameful. Some women may be hiding the abortion from her parents. Some may be hiding it from their husbands. It's a big secret for many. Abortionists know this. Therefore, the vulnerable, desperate abortion patient is easy prey. Get it? Mary, have a great day!

Posted by: Heather4life at August 16, 2007 6:56 AM


Thanks for posting, Doug. It seems you're the only pro-choicer that is standing up for your position regardless of the emotional black hole that these gals were being sucked into. Where's the rest of the gang?

I agree with you that there wasn't anything specifically condemning abortion. It's left up to the viewer. My opinion, but it seems that all philosphy, all rhetoric, all politicizing falls mute before these pathetic scenes of pain. One might be cold enough to say, "Oh well, it's their choice to go through with it and thank the gods for that", but this goes way beyond choice. It pierces the soul...

Perhaps that's why the catechism refers to abortion as an "unspeakable crime".


To all: regarding the counselor. I dwelled on that one. I'm not fluent in counseling competency, but if a girl says she's in emotional pain and looks as forlorn as Barbara did, would it have been out of place to say, "Look, it seems you're having a hard time with this. How about we delay this and you think about whether this is truly what you want to do." or ""Terminating might not be the answer for you. How about we get some counseling so we can dig through the issues that are weighing in on you?"

I then remembered how abortion is first and foremost an industry, a lucrative one, so sending out poor souls like Barbara to a place where she could get help would be like escorting your bread and butter to the door.

An abortion clinic director I interviewed years ago had a degree in social work and women's issues. I wonder if the counselor in the video could boast that same.

Posted by: carder at August 16, 2007 7:07 AM


Mary: You seem to have an issue about abortions being done in the 3rd trimester. What difference does it make if they are?

Most of the time the unborn are mentally aware then, to some extent. They can suffer. They have emotions. They are becoming similar in that respect to full-term born babies. And most of the time that's after viability. If the fetus is healthy and there's no significant danger to the woman, the pregnancy can then be ended by inducing delivery, versus an abortion.

..........


Please pardon my ignorance, but what is valuation?

Valuation is what the debate here is about. It's peoples' feelings of all the good/bad/right/wrong about a thing. It goes straight to their desire. If you primarily want the unborn lives to continue, then you will think abortion is "wrong." If I primarily want the women to be able to choose, then for me it's not going to be "wrong." Moral valuation is us saying good/right for stuff that goes toward what we desire, and bad/wrong for stuff that goes toward what we do not want.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at August 16, 2007 8:01 AM


Heather: Doug, regarding sexual abuse of abortion patients. Please Google Brian L. Finkel and see all of the disturbing things that he was able to get away with. He was a monster! Here are just a few of the things that came out in court from his victims on the witness stand. He propositioned a teen for oral sex stating "If you give me a [ slang for oral sex] I'll pay to have your teeth fixed. Finkel to a 39 year old patient who had brought her boyfriend to her abortion appointment with her; "Is that BOZO in the waiting room ever going to marry you." Finkel also claimed that abortion patients are "tramps." and that "those women" will do ANYTHING for an abortion." Finkel was actually able to get some of the women to engage in consensual sex.

Okay, a bad guy indeed. And I understand that a person's desire for secrecy may make them vulnerable. I don't see this as really weighing on abortion, however. There have been doctors not involved with abortion doing bad stuff when they had occasion to put people under anesthesia, for example.

Posted by: Doug at August 16, 2007 8:07 AM


Carder: I agree with you that there wasn't anything specifically condemning abortion. It's left up to the viewer. My opinion, but it seems that all philosphy, all rhetoric, all politicizing falls mute before these pathetic scenes of pain. One might be cold enough to say, "Oh well, it's their choice to go through with it and thank the gods for that", but this goes way beyond choice. It pierces the soul...

I don't see it as "soul-piercing" at all. It's a surgical procedure, and it's not going to be "fun." Helen was smiling at the end, perhaps from relief, but in no way did she suffer much, IMO. Even Barbara, who had harder time, didn't go through anything like what I've seen with people coming in for treatment for emphysema, cancer, MS, etc.

"Pathetic scenes of pain" seems an exaggeration to me. I am guessing that Barbara was conflicted about it, to some extent. She said it didn't hurt physically, at one point, so sounds to me like she was upset emotionally.

Others have mentioned interviewing the two women today, and I'd be very, very interested to hear what they have to say now.


Best,

Doug

Posted by: Doug at August 16, 2007 8:17 AM


TO Pro-choicers, "Doug" and everyone else here:


We're talking about HUMAN LIFE here. It is always wrong to take another innocent human life, whether or not that human being can feel pain, or has consciousness or can sense anything. That is called MURDER, SLAUGHTER, GENOCIDE, INFANTICIDE, MAN'S INHUMANITY TO MAN.

Whether or not you think the fetus growing in a woman's womb is a person or not is not the issue. It is a complete, unique, unrepeatable individual HUMAN BEING. Whether or not a human embryo or fetus can "sense" or "feel" or "think" or "talk" is not what makes killing it justifiable. It is a HUMAN INDIVIDUAL. All human life must be respected with the dignity due to all human beings, regardless of their race, size, intelligence, etc., etc., because human life is not animal life. Human life is sacred in a manner far beyond any plant or animal life. Why? Why? Yes indeed, "Why?"

Don't bother arguing with "Doug". He is a nihilist. Knows some philosophy, argumentation terminology "straw man". I pray for you and your salvation. Don't ask me not to pray for you, I'll still do it.

Doug, you need to humble yourself before Almighty God and admit that you are not the arbitrator of life and death, when a baby is what you like to call "viable" or "sentient". These little babies are God's precious little ones. HE created them. How DARE you say what you do, believe what you do, think what you think about God's precious little children. You were once one just like the ones you say don't have "viability" or "sentience". Your mother conceived you and carried you to term, brought you into the world, wiped you little butt, fed you, cared for you. What would you know what being a mother is like? STOP -- I am not going to argue with you. Don't bother to answer me. I won't come back with a post.

Don't bother arguing with him, it will not change his mind. Only prayer, fasting and an extraordinary grace from God will do that. It is a waste of time to argue with these people. They and we are just trying to prove our points to ourselves, not to convince them of our position. It doesn't work. Just let these nihilists, Darwinists, communists, Marxists keep on believing what they want. We will keep doing what we do: offering help in many ways to women and girls in crisis pregancies and doing all the other successful pro-life work we do. We have to work on educating the general public about abortion and revealing the truth of the evils of the abortion industry to others, like showing graphic images of the poor aborted babies to hundreds and thousands in "Face the Truth Tours" and on internet sites, etc. And we must pray and offer sacrifices for an end to the slaughter of the innocents.

We, the people of the U.S.A., are worse than the Nazis who slaughtered so many millions of Christians and Jews, Muslims, mentally ill, homosexuals, priests, ministers, rabbis, Gypsys, blacks, and all types of people. We here in the U.S.A. continue to slaughter tiny, innocent BABIES by the millions and millions every year, NOT ONLY through surgical abortions, but through abortifacient pills as well. And so, so many of us just don't care, and do nothing about it. We are worse than the German people who didn't say or do anything about what they knew was happening to the people in the deathcamps.

Nihilism.

May God have mercy on us all.

On a positive note:

Here are some awesome, very short, 4-D ultrasound videos:

createhealth.org/images/11weeks.swf


createhealth.org/images/25weeks.swf


createhealth.org/images/27weeks.swf


createhealth.org/images/33weeks.swf


And finally a 5-minute video of fetal scans from 8 weeks to 32 weeks. Pictures are worth a thousand words.


createhealth.org/babyfinal.wmv


(requires Windows media player)

May God have mercy on us all.


And Doug, don't bother to answer this post. Just get off the computer and pray to God, ask Him for mercy, for the grace to see the truth.

Posted by: Paul at August 16, 2007 11:19 AM


We're talking about HUMAN LIFE here. It is always wrong to take another innocent human life, whether or not that human being can feel pain, or has consciousness or can sense anything. That is called MURDER

Sorry, Paul, gotta do it. Yes, "human life." And yes, "innocent," though that's not the issue - there's no capacity for guilt and the unborn are not being "blamed" in the first place. It's a matter of being wanted or unwanted.

It is not necessarily wrong to take human life. I know you don't like abortion, but your opinion is not what determines murder, nor does your opinion about abortion necessarily have meaning or weight to another given person, nor need it do so.

If everybody agreed with you, there wouldn't be the debate in the first place. However, not everybody makes the unprovable assumptions you do.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at August 16, 2007 12:02 PM


(Doug) is a nihilist.

No, Paul, that's wrong. Nihilists are correct about some things, but they generally say that secular ethics are impossible. Well, secular ethics most certainly exist, as opposed to religious ethics and dogma.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at August 16, 2007 12:14 PM


Correction - didn't mean to sound like religious ethics and dogma don't exist (of course they do). I mean that there are secular ethics, as differentiated from religious ethics/dogma.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at August 16, 2007 12:19 PM


Doug, did you ever think about becoming pro life? I think you ought to rethink your position.

Posted by: Heather4life at August 16, 2007 12:30 PM


Heather, the more I thought about the issue, the more pro-choice I became.

Why is it that you feel I should rethink my position? What need do I have for abortion to be banned or further restricted?

Why should I want the continuance of unwanted unborn lives, where there is no suffering when they end, rather than for women to be able to make their best choice, where there most certainly may be suffering if the woman is not allowed to have an abortion.

I am not putting any certain valuation on the unborn. I leave it up to the woman. Then there is your opinion, and there is the opinion of the woman. If she wants to end the pregnancy, and you don't want her to, why should I vote for your desire being forced on her?

Doug

Posted by: Doug at August 16, 2007 1:10 PM


Doug, this comment is going to be abrasive. If the woman doesn't want a baby, she ought to keep her panties on and her legs closed!

Posted by: Heather4life at August 16, 2007 1:30 PM


Doug,

How do you know for certain the fetus has no awareness, emotions, or ability to suffer prior to the third trimester. You have yet to answer that question for me. Also, who are you to say a woman can't destroy a third trimester fetus if she just decides she doesn't want it and has no desire to see it live.

Posted by: Mary at August 16, 2007 3:59 PM


Heh - that's okay, Heather. You know, I originally felt more toward that myself. Yet the more I thought about it, I realized that I didn't need a given woman to continue a pregnancy if she did not want to. Whatever her reasons are, it's not hurting me.

So, I'm not suffering, and the unborn don't suffer - at least we can agree that it's true to a point in gestation. The people who are suffering over this are pro-lifers, and why should their opinion outweigh that of the woman who is actually pregnant?

I don't think it should. I don't think any demonstrable reason exists why we should enforce their will over hers. If there was a persuasive argument to the contrary, I'd have heard it by now, but there's not. On what grounds do we tell the woman that no, you cannot have an abortion?

So, I'm pro-choice.


Doug

Posted by: Doug at August 16, 2007 4:07 PM


Mary, the main reasons Jim McMahon developed D&X (which he dubbed "intrauterine cranial decompression) were:

1. He was just fascinated with dilating the cervix as much as possible. "Like a lotus in the moonlight." (I'm serious. You can't make this stuff up. He went on in a National Abortion Federation meeting about how "beautiful" it is. I think he might have found it (this is icky) erotic.

2. A lot of his patients were "fetal indications" abortions and they wanted to see the fetus afterward. He had to come up with a way to produce a fetus that was thoroughly dead but still presentable. A D&X provides an entact fetus with a collapsed skull. Pad the skull out with cotton balls or gauze and you have a very presentable dead baby for the parents.

3. Medical conerns. After about 20 weeks, the fetus is pretty tough and hard to dismember. The choices were to just use force (leading to tears and perforations and all the risks therof) or to kill the fetus the day before and let it soften up (read: rot) overnight so that it's easier to dismember. Imagine cooking a chicken in a crock pot and you've got the idea. But that risks infection. So a massive amount of dilation gets the fetus out in one piece, and stopping to suck its brains out makes sure it's dead.

Posted by: Christina at August 17, 2007 7:13 AM


Bethany, do you have a link?

Posted by: Christina at August 17, 2007 7:16 AM


Doug, Ana Rodriguez' mother thought she was 12 weeks pregnant. She reported no medical concerns that were leading her to seek abortion. She'd probably not seen any doctor before Hayat or she'd have known she was more than 12 weeks pregnant. Hayat certainly knew, since he was doing a 2-day procedure on her, with a fetocidal injection on the first day and a second visit to dismember and remove the fetus. And the fee was consistent with a late 2nd tri, not a late 1st tri or early 2nd tri.

Only he didn't do the injection the way he'd intended to, the baby survived. When he reached in, thinking he'd be dismembering a dead fetus, he found that the fetus wasn't dead. He was probably assuming that it would bleed to death from the wound where the arm had been ripped off. He was wrong.

So the mother thought this was late 1st tri, early 2nd tri. Hayat chose not to enlighten her.

So much for informed consent. Don't bother telling the patient she's at least 30 weeks pregnant when she thinks it's only 12. Just take the money and do the deed.

And he was a member in good standing of the National Abortion Federation.

Posted by: Christina at August 17, 2007 7:23 AM


Doug, consider these words by Dr. Alec Bourne, the doctor who successfully challenged the UK's anti-abortion law:

"Those who plead for an extensive relaxation of the law [against abortion] have no idea of the very many cases where a woman who, during the first three months, makes a most impassioned appeal for her pregnancy to be 'finished,' later, when the baby is born, is thankful indeed that it was not killed while still an embryo. During my long years in practice I have had many a letter of the deepest gratitude for refusing to accede to an early appeal."

Thinking, "I can't cope with this. I need to bail out of this situation." is normal in early pregnancy. What usually transitions the woman out of rejecting the pregnancy is when the fetus becomes real to her. This used to be around quickening, when she felt the fetus move, but experience has shown that ultrasounds do the same thing.

The abortion lobby knows this, which is why they are so dead set against showing women ultrasounds before they consent to an abortion. Having the opportunity to visualize the fetus gives the woman the opportunity to confront the reality of her fetus can move her out of the ambivalence/rejection stage (a normal psychological stage of pregnancy) and into the bonding stage. Which as you can imagine severely curtails abortion sales.

Who in their right mind, running a business of any sort, wants to present the customers with something that leads 80% to reject the product or service?

Posted by: Christina at August 17, 2007 7:32 AM


I realized that I didn't need a given woman to continue a pregnancy if she did not want to. Whatever her reasons are, it's not hurting me.

Ask not, Doug, for whom the bell tolls.

It's no skin off your nose if the Taliban kills the remaining 19 South Korean hostages. Does that make it okay for them to do so?

Posted by: Christina at August 17, 2007 7:33 AM


The people who are suffering over this are pro-lifers, and why should their opinion outweigh that of the woman who is actually pregnant?

Listen sometime to the anguish of a woman who is griving after an abortion and tell me that she's not hurting.

Why should the preferences of the women who have no qualms about killing their unborn trump the needs of those who would prefer to avoid abortion but feel trapped? Who are wracked with anguish afterward, when it's too late?

I think that by and large the prolife/prochoice dividing line isn't between those who care about fetuses and those who care about women. It's between those who empahsize with the woman who loves her baby and those who emphasize with the woman who views it as an intruder and wants it dead.

Posted by: Christina at August 17, 2007 7:37 AM


Mary: How do you know for certain the fetus has no awareness, emotions, or ability to suffer prior to the third trimester. You have yet to answer that question for me. Also, who are you to say a woman can't destroy a third trimester fetus if she just decides she doesn't want it and has no desire to see it live.

Mary, I don't think I've said that there can be none of those prior to the third trimester. I think there is good evidence that during the end of the second trimester some fetuses may get some of those capabilities. This is because during that time some fetuses get the cerebral cortex, where conscious perception comes from, developed enough and connected and operational enough for it to be true.

Jill said her grandson was born at 25 weeks and could feel pain. I believe that. That's before the 3rd trimester. I can believe that some fetuses could do it at 24, even 23. But not at 20 or before - the development, connections and function is not there yet.

Who am I to say a woman can't destroy a third trimester fetus? Nobody, really, but I do have an opinion and as I've said I'm okay with some states having the restrictions they do, per the Roe decision. At that point a healthy fetus can be delivered, to end the pregnancy, which is not an option having the baby live, earlier in pregnancy.

Your old buddy Doug

Posted by: Doug at August 17, 2007 2:55 PM


Doug, Ana Rodriguez' mother thought she was 12 weeks pregnant. She reported no medical concerns that were leading her to seek abortion. She'd probably not seen any doctor before Hayat or she'd have known she was more than 12 weeks pregnant. Hayat certainly knew, since he was doing a 2-day procedure on her, with a fetocidal injection on the first day and a second visit to dismember and remove the fetus. And the fee was consistent with a late 2nd tri, not a late 1st tri or early 2nd tri.

Only he didn't do the injection the way he'd intended to, the baby survived. When he reached in, thinking he'd be dismembering a dead fetus, he found that the fetus wasn't dead. He was probably assuming that it would bleed to death from the wound where the arm had been ripped off. He was wrong.

So the mother thought this was late 1st tri, early 2nd tri. Hayat chose not to enlighten her.

So much for informed consent. Don't bother telling the patient she's at least 30 weeks pregnant when she thinks it's only 12. Just take the money and do the deed.

And he was a member in good standing of the National Abortion Federation.

Christina, if true I think that's too bad and hope that such does not happen again. I think that not telling her what stage of gestation she actually was in was unethical. I see no good reason for that to occur.

Posted by: Doug at August 17, 2007 2:59 PM


Christina: Doug, consider these words by Dr. Alec Bourne, the doctor who successfully challenged the UK's anti-abortion law:

"Those who plead for an extensive relaxation of the law [against abortion] have no idea of the very many cases where a woman who, during the first three months, makes a most impassioned appeal for her pregnancy to be 'finished,' later, when the baby is born, is thankful indeed that it was not killed while still an embryo. During my long years in practice I have had many a letter of the deepest gratitude for refusing to accede to an early appeal."

Thinking, "I can't cope with this. I need to bail out of this situation." is normal in early pregnancy. What usually transitions the woman out of rejecting the pregnancy is when the fetus becomes real to her. This used to be around quickening, when she felt the fetus move, but experience has shown that ultrasounds do the same thing.

I question what "many" actually means, above. I have no problem with ultrasounds.

.........

The abortion lobby knows this, which is why they are so dead set against showing women ultrasounds before they consent to an abortion. Having the opportunity to visualize the fetus gives the woman the opportunity to confront the reality of her fetus can move her out of the ambivalence/rejection stage (a normal psychological stage of pregnancy) and into the bonding stage. Which as you can imagine severely curtails abortion sales.

If the woman wants to see an ultrasound, I say go for it.

..........

Who in their right mind, running a business of any sort, wants to present the customers with something that leads 80% to reject the product or service?

Propaganda.

Posted by: Doug at August 17, 2007 3:30 PM


"I realized that I didn't need a given woman to continue a pregnancy if she did not want to. Whatever her reasons are, it's not hurting me."

Christina: Ask not, Doug, for whom the bell tolls. It's no skin off your nose if the Taliban kills the remaining 19 South Korean hostages. Does that make it okay for them to do so?

You are wrong. Who says it's no skin off my nose? Those are born, independent, sentient people, with emotions, relationships, memories, experiences, desires, and the right-to-life already attributed to them. Do I think the desire of the Taliban trumps that of the Koreans? No I do not.

..........


"The people who are suffering over this are pro-lifers, and why should their opinion outweigh that of the woman who is actually pregnant?"

Listen sometime to the anguish of a woman who is griving after an abortion and tell me that she's not hurting.

Not the argument - has nothing to do with it. Women sometimes hurt after carrying to term and giving birth (post-partum depression) but that's no reason for forcing women to have abortions when the pregnancy is wanted. Likewise, there are no guarantees in life about this stuff, and while a woman may regret having an abortion, it's no reason to take away the freedom that women have in this matter.

..........


Why should the preferences of the women who have no qualms about killing their unborn trump the needs of those who would prefer to avoid abortion but feel trapped? Who are wracked with anguish afterward, when it's too late?

Who do you see saying they should? If a given woman regrets an abortion, what does that have to do with another woman who wasn't conflicted about having an abortion?

..........


I think that by and large the prolife/prochoice dividing line isn't between those who care about fetuses and those who care about women. It's between those who empahsize with the woman who loves her baby and those who emphasize with the woman who views it as an intruder and wants it dead.

I disagree. Pro-Choicers may care about the unborn or not, but what is operative is that their primary desire is for the woman to have the choice that she now does. Pro-Lifers may care about the woman or not, and for them what is operative is that their primary desire is for the unborn to live.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at August 17, 2007 3:45 PM


Christina,

Thank you for the info. That McMahon sounds like a sicko. I think you're describing PBA and not D&X though. D&X will not leave an intact fetus. D&X was on the scene before PBA if I recall correctly. You may not recall but years ago babies surviving later term abortions were viewed as quite a problem. At a university hospital in my state this happened a few times and made the paper. It really was a problem as to what to do with such surviving babies, do you let them die, save them, what? One feminist publication bemoaned aborted fetuses with "signs of life" and the cost passed on to the woman if the fetus just wouldn't die. D&X guaranteed this did not happen and was used on later term pregnancies.
PBAs left the intact fetus that you desribe with the crushed skull that can be padded. Also, as you say, they are easier to perform on later term pregnancies and are not quite as messy.
Ana Rodriguez was the little girl's name and for her to have survived such trauma, she must have been at least in early third trimester or very late second.
Hayat most likely attempted to D&X little Ana to make sure she was good and dead. You can't ever be too cautious.

Doug,

You still haven't told me how you know for absolute certain that a fetus has no awareness, pain sensation, or emotions prior to, what is it now, the late second trimester?

You think there should be laws restricting third trimester abortions. Why? Up until this time you fully support a woman aborting for any reason she sees fit. If a woman decides at 7 or 8 months she simply does not want the baby and she just cannot bring herself to place it for adoption, why shouldn't she just have it killed by PBA? In your opinion the baby is aware, etc. but maybe in her opinion its not.
Speaking of awareness Doug, how much of your infancy and early childhood do you remember?

Posted by: Mary at August 17, 2007 4:34 PM


Mary, I think that D&X abortions are what are sometimes referred to as "PBAs." Once in a while I have to look up what exactly are the procedures for D&X and D&E but if anything D&X is done later in pregnancy, on average, and...I hope I'm not messing this up.

.........

You still haven't told me how you know for absolute certain that a fetus has no awareness, pain sensation, or emotions prior to, what is it now, the late second trimester?

The part of the brain that deals with conscious emotions and mental awareness of pain is not sufficiently connected to the sensory nerves nor developed enough nor operational enough at 20 weeks and before.

..........

You think there should be laws restricting third trimester abortions. Why?

Because I am not "for abortion," on its own. In the third trimester delivery can be induced, and somebody else can take care of the baby if need be. The choices then are not so restricted as earlier, i.e. the pregnancy can be ended without an abortion taking place. During the third trimester the fetus is getting more and more like what most full-term, born babies are like, usually.

..........

Up until this time you fully support a woman aborting for any reason she sees fit.

Not what I said. What I have stated is that the restrictions are okay with me - be they at 26 weeks, or at 24 weeks as some states have them. There is a zone where I'm going to be 50/50 on elective abortions. At 24 weeks I say okay to restrictions. Not at 20 weeks. Probably 22 or 23 is where I'd say I'm 50/50. I'd draw the line at 24, if I had to, I guess.

..........

If a woman decides at 7 or 8 months she simply does not want the baby and she just cannot bring herself to place it for adoption, why shouldn't she just have it killed by PBA? In your opinion the baby is aware, etc. but maybe in her opinion its not.

At 7 or 8 months, it'd be relatively rare for the fetus to have to die, to end the pregnancy. Delivery can be induced. If she is going to refuse to have the baby be adopted, then she's gonna be stuck with a baby, unless she simply abandons it. I say that because I know of no places that will do such an "elective" abortion at 7 or 8 months. I think Tiller advertized doing them to 26 weeks. Not all states (there are 10 without, I think) have restrictions in the third trimester - mostly because of badly-written laws by dorky legislators which were struck down by the courts, but in practice I say that 7 or 8 month abortions are not done just because the woman doesn't want to be pregnant any longer. If there is proof otherwise, let's see it. I realize that somewhere in the US, at some time in the past, such an abortion may have been done after 26 weeks, but I am saying they are not done now.

..........


Speaking of awareness Doug, how much of your infancy and early childhood do you remember?

Nothing of infancy. Interesting question, though, Mary. Born on Friday the 13th, March 1959. Age 4 is the earliest I can surely remember - dated by a known time when I reached up on a stove and burned my hand. I pulled my hand back and there were three circular rings on it, which hurt considerably.

Also, later that age 4 year there was my tall, tall mom getting a phone call as I watched from my far lesser height standing on the floor near the telephone. She started crying fast. I knew something was wrong. November 22, 1963. John Kennedy had been killed.

Doug

Posted by: Anonymous at August 17, 2007 6:55 PM


Doug,

The two procedures seem to be frequently confused. D&X(Dilatation and Extraction) involves pulling the fetus apart piece by piece. As I said I can well remember babies delivered alive during late term abortions, sometimes as early as 20 weeks and less, and that D&X became a more utilized method to be certain this didn't happen. PBA(Partial Birth Abortion) involves partially delivering the fetus and jabbing a scissors into the back of the skull and sucking out the brains, thus flattening the head and making it easier to pull through the dilatated cervix, as well as keeping the body intact. So long as the head is in the uterus, its not a full birth and is still technically an abortion.
Christina is correct in stating PBA was done on more advanced pregnancies and for the reasons she stated.
D&E (Dilatation and Evacuation) I believe refers to 1st trimester abortion.

Concerning awareness in the fetus, we simply do not know enough about the brain and nervous system to be certain of much of anything. Women in their second trimester were laughed at by male obstetricians when they insisted their 16+ week fetus jumped to the sound of alarm clocks. Good Heavens, what do we women know about anything like this? It since been determined that we women were right. I've cared for comatose patients Doug that I could not honestly tell you if they were aware, feeling pain, emotion, or anything else. I also couldn't tell you if they weren't. What about the non-sensate child who's severely retarded, withdrawn, non-responsive, who can suddently play a piano concerto. How do we explain savants?
Also did you hear about the man in France who was discovered to have very little brain matter and a lot of fluid? No one can understand how he functioned so normally his entire life.

Abortions past 26 weeks aren't done now? Doug, I've read accounts of babies aborted in Tiller's clinic past that age of gestation. Again, so what?

The reason I bring up awareness in infancy is, who had it? Since none of us recall our infancy were we aware?

About your birthdate, let's just say you were in diapers when I was.., well never mind. Anyway I do recall sitting in a high chair and the view of the room my sister and I shared from my crib. Obviously I was aware earlier than you.
Interesting you remember JFK, I think we all remember where we were when he died.
Oh, about Friday the 13th. My very superstitious German American grandmother, who was often ridiculed for her supersititions, died on that day. She would have said "See, I told you!"

Posted by: Mary at August 17, 2007 10:03 PM


Mary: The two procedures seem to be frequently confused. D&X(Dilatation and Extraction) involves pulling the fetus apart piece by piece. As I said I can well remember babies delivered alive during late term abortions, sometimes as early as 20 weeks and less, and that D&X became a more utilized method to be certain this didn't happen. PBA(Partial Birth Abortion) involves partially delivering the fetus and jabbing a scissors into the back of the skull and sucking out the brains, thus flattening the head and making it easier to pull through the dilatated cervix, as well as keeping the body intact. So long as the head is in the uterus, its not a full birth and is still technically an abortion.

D&E is where the fetus is pulled into pieces inside the uterus. D&X is what some people would call "PBA."

..........

Christina is correct in stating PBA was done on more advanced pregnancies and for the reasons she stated. D&E (Dilatation and Evacuation) I believe refers to 1st trimester abortion.

D&E is in general done earlier than D&X, yet D&X is done as early as 14 or 15 weeks, especially when the fetus's head is extra-big. D&Es are also done well into the 2nd trimester. Toward the end of the 2nd trimester the fetus gets a lot tougher, so D&X is often chosen then.

..........

Concerning awareness in the fetus, we simply do not know enough about the brain and nervous system to be certain of much of anything.

Well, yeah we do. The area of the brain involved with conscious mental response has to be "up and running," and connected.

............

Women in their second trimester were laughed at by male obstetricians when they insisted their 16+ week fetus jumped to the sound of alarm clocks. Good Heavens, what do we women know about anything like this? It since been determined that we women were right. I've cared for comatose patients Doug that I could not honestly tell you if they were aware, feeling pain, emotion, or anything else. I also couldn't tell you if they weren't.

Nothing there really applicable to conscious response in the unborn.

..........


What about the non-sensate child who's severely retarded, withdrawn, non-responsive, who can suddently play a piano concerto.

Playing the piano proves that "non-sensate" does not apply.

..........


How do we explain savants?

Several theories, and a fascinating area. Nothing to do with unborn consciousness, though.

..........


Also did you hear about the man in France who was discovered to have very little brain matter and a lot of fluid? No one can understand how he functioned so normally his entire life.

Nope, didn't hear about it. "Very little brain matter" may be enough, as long as it's connected, developed, and operational enough.

..........


Abortions past 26 weeks aren't done now? Doug, I've read accounts of babies aborted in Tiller's clinic past that age of gestation. Again, so what?

So you're misstating what I said.

..........

The reason I bring up awareness in infancy is, who had it? Since none of us recall our infancy were we aware?

Were we conscious? Did we feel sensations? Almost all babies were and do. So heck yes we were aware.

Doug

Posted by: PorkLoin at August 18, 2007 12:31 AM


Doug,

D&X and PBA are two different procedures both of which are used in later term pregnancies. I even desribe them for you. Yes they may be confused as is apparent from your posts. D&E may well be used to describe D&X but I've only seen D&E used to describe 1st trimester procedures. PBA is the one used 20+weeks. D&X can be used up until that time and was to guarantee a dead result. Saline abortions weren't always doing the job.

When I mention the man from France I'm pointing out we can't judge brain function from appearance alone. If we saw this brain in a science lab, our first response would be that there is no way this person could have had any normal function. Where are the "right" connections. This person "had" to have been a hydrocephalic vegetable. After all, parts of this brain are obviously not "up and running" and connected.

The retarded, unresponsive people who have been thought to be insensate are discovered to be savants. My point exactly Doug. We "knew" these people were insensate, didn't have the appropriate brain development,its obvious parts of their brain were not "up and running" and connected. I mean, look at them, they never speak or respond in any way, they respond only to pain and noise. Where's the evidence of anything going on in their brain? Suddenly they're playing piano concertoes. Yes there are several theories, but nothing we know for absolute certain, and plenty we don't know.

About the post 26 weeks abortions in Tiller's clinic, I mean why would you or anyone care if they are being performed?

As I said Doug, at one time preemies were believed to be insensate. Newborns at one time were thought to have only the most primitive of nervous systems and were not thought to be in any way aware or truly responsive to pain or stimulation such as a mother's voice or smile. I remember my sister telling me her newborn son really wouldn't be able to see accurately for several weeks. Back then this was "known".

All great examples of the point I make. What we "know" constantly changes. What we are learning of fetal development constantly changes and we can no longer say with any absolute certainty what is or isn't going on in the brain and nervous system of the unborn at any stage.

Posted by: Mary at August 18, 2007 8:48 AM


Mary, D&E stands for dilatation and evacuation.

D&X stands for dilatation and extraction. D&X is PBA.

That said, lately pro-aborts have been trying to confuse matters by calling the former a nonintact D&E and the latter an intact D&E. That's how they described them during the PBA Supreme Court hearing, obviously to cast doubt on what constituted a PBA.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at August 18, 2007 12:17 PM


Hello everyone! This is my first time coming in here and commenting and I got your blog from Christina at Real Choice. My name is Ruth.

My question is, sorry this probably has nothing to do with the last posts but it does have to do with the original blog post is, did they ever do a follow up with any of the girls in the frontline episode? I tried doing a search on google but had no luck! Does anyone know?

Posted by: Ruth at August 18, 2007 12:27 PM


Hi Jill,

PBA could certainly be called a dilatation and extractin(D&X), but I do recall the procedure D&X coming into use some time before PBA and involving the use of forceps to pull a fetus apart piece by piece. This was mainly utilized in second trimester abortions because saline abortion often failed to produce a dead baby. This way there could be no such possibility. It was a considerable number of years ago that I recall this method first ccoming into use. In fact, I took a prominent magazine to task for not accurately describing the D&X as tearing a fetus apart piece by piece when they were discussing the abortion of a 20 week fetus, which they of course wanted to santitize as much as possible.
PBA involves the delivery of a fully intact body, often still alive, with the head still inside so the baby is not technically born as of yet. Scissors are then used to puncture the skull and suction the brain, leaving the body intact but the baby also definitely dead. Also, PBA can be used on more advanced pregnancies where D&X may be more difficult.
D&E, D&X, and PBA are often used intechangably which can generate confusion, and are technically the same. Where I trained, D&E was the term used for 1st trimester abortion, though as you say D&E is also used to describe both a non-intact and intact later term abortion.
Its easy to see where all the confusion comes from as every person and institution has their own terminology.

Do you noticed how the media refers to "so called partial birth abortion" and specifies this is what pro-lifers have named it. They seem to prefer the term D&E.

Posted by: Mary at August 18, 2007 1:02 PM


Ruth,

Sorry but I'm afraid I can't help you there. Welcome to the blog though and I hope to see you posting often.

Posted by: Mary at August 18, 2007 2:39 PM


I couldn't read all the comments-- so many interesting ones! I was about to suggest that someone should do a follow-up about these women and ask how they feel about their abortions almost 25 years later, when I caught a glimpse of Ruth's comment.

Posted by: SUZANNE at August 20, 2007 9:19 AM


Regarding the counselor holding the patient's hand. A woman called in to Jay Sekulow and said that they stand at your head and hold your hand so that you cannot see what is going into the suction container. She was a post-abortive woman who had come to Christ and wanted others to know that there was no compassion, only pragmatism.

I did not view the movies. Years ago, I went through the site that shows all the pictures of aborted babies and I don't want to see that again. it was necessary then but not a repeat choice.

Posted by: darski at August 20, 2007 12:00 PM


Well that's too bad. I want to see what they think of it now looking back.

What that so called "couselor" said to Barbara at the end of her abortiion made no sense! I don't think it would even make Barbara feel ANY better!

"It's gone. Yes. And that hurts. Okay? You chose to have this done but something's stil been taken away from you. And it doesn't feel good. It's even tougher when you already have one child and you love it a lot and you take care of it and do the best you can, to have to go through something like this. Okay? (strokes Barbara's face) So be upset because of that. Okay?"

Well of course it doesn't feel good to have your child ripped from your womb! And refering to her son as an "it"?

This so called "counselor" does not know what she is doing, you can tell because she didn't know what to say to Barbara when she said that it wasn't hurting her physically.

She thinks counseling them is making sure "this is what you want." From my knowledge that is just reassuring someone. Not "counseling" and letting them know in depth what her other options are.

Posted by: Ruth at August 20, 2007 4:48 PM