In the February 16 issue of Newsweek, editor, columnist, and abortion proponent Anna Quindlen writes a pro-medical abortions column. About it my friend Colleen wrote...
There are too many things wrong with this to even begin, but then again it is written by Quindlen. Does Newsweek ever ID her and her association with NARAL as one of the leading abortion-rights advocates in the country?
Quindlen talks about medical abortions as if one is popping Tylenol with a few extra cramps and then poof, her worries are gone in the privacy of her own home. NO mention of deaths, complications, or sterilizations that occur as a result. NO mention of the horror stories of delivering the child in your toilet. And certainly NO mention of the regret countless women face after recognizing what they have done.
Quindlen did educate on a new point of concern:
And at Planned Parenthood facilities, fully half of those eligible now opt for it. But that's only part of the story. Family-practice doctors, gynecologists and other physicians are beginning to prescribe it to their patients rather than send them elsewhere....
[S]ome physicians who have never dreamed of performing a surgical abortion have no qualms about making the medication available.
An ulcer medication called Cytotec, which contains the drug used in the second part of the RU-486 process, has surfaced as the abortifacient of choice among immigrant women, who buy it bootleg at bodegas or get it from friends in Mexico. (You can also buy it online in less time than it takes to order a cardigan from J.Crew, which means that if Roe were to be overturned, the Internet would become the alternative to the back alley.)
The continual stream of new stories about slime abortionists and clinics reveals legalizing abortion has only moved it to the front alley, but I digress.
I really want to spotlight Cytotec. I mentioned in my column last week it is very cheap - 25¢ a pill to medical professionals. It is the drug of choice for late-term induced labor abortions that sometimes result in live births. Expect a swell in home late-term abortions.
A "swell in late term home abortions"? I doubt it.Posted by: Leah at February 12, 2009 9:40 AM
I certainly hope not, but working in the ER I have learned never to take people's stupidity and willingness to take huge risks for granted...
Having previously worked in labor and delivery (at a Catholic hospital) where we used Cytotec (sparingly) to induce labor for full term moms, I am horrified at the concept of someone using this medicine at home without medical monitoring. It can be very, very dangerous...Posted by: Elisabeth at February 12, 2009 9:57 AM
Gotta love the Catholic Anna Quindlen. In the book "Being Catholic Now: Prominent Americans Talk About Change in the Church and the Quest for Meaning", Quindlen goes through a nice little fantasy about all the changes she would bring about if she were Pope. At that point, it goes from beyond hilarious to just plain pathetic how poor her understanding of Catholicism is. But hey, if she were pope, we would most certainly see the lifting of the "ban" on condemns!Posted by: Bobby Bambino at February 12, 2009 10:17 AM
Of course "normal" doctors are ok with giving out the pills, they don't have to get their hands dirty.Posted by: lauren at February 12, 2009 10:29 AM
And the word "responsibility" in the subtitle really bothers me. Abortion is not a "responsibility." That makes it sound as if one has an obligation to abort. I just found the use of that particular word disturbing.Posted by: Kel at February 12, 2009 10:32 AM
Cytotec, taken after 8 weeks is downright dangerous.
As the uterine walls are going through prep for the growing embryo/fetus, the Cytotec creates an adverse reaction. The potential for a ruptured uterus is severe enough that Pfizer warns about it right on the product labels.
That 25c cost is a problem, because it's profitable like crazy and not enough wounded women have stepped forward, but Pfizer can't say it doesn't know the danger. Given the money, they'll just erect legal barriers, until enough lawyers gang up, like they did against the cigarette industry. ha!Posted by: Chris Arsenault at February 12, 2009 10:35 AM
Why is an ulcer medication used for abortion? Is that it's intended use? Why is this ok?
"In the safety of your own home" is going to create some pretty serious health issues.Posted by: Carla at February 12, 2009 10:55 AM
It's funny how much some anti-choice women want to disempower other women. It's kinda sad though too; don't they have lives of their own?Posted by: Yo La Tengo at February 12, 2009 11:21 AM
This particular subject brings up an unfortunate irony about prolife positions: the question of whether women should be subject to punishment when abortion is made illegal again. With the rise of such "DIY" methods of abortion, soon there may be more of them than those done by some other person. How will we address those legally?Posted by: Doyle Chadwick at February 12, 2009 11:27 AM
Every time you all stigmatize abortions or make them harder to get, incidences of things like this will increase, along with the inevitable accompanying septic shock deaths of women who did it without medical supervision.Posted by: Ray at February 12, 2009 11:40 AM
Abortion has a stigma all its own. Because it's abortion.
There will always be desperate women attempting dangerous and desperate things despite the law.Posted by: Carla at February 12, 2009 11:55 AM
YLT, yeah you're right I do want to "disempower" other women from killing their children. I don't believe that anyone, man or woman, should have the power to kill.
It sure is funny I don't have a life of my own to worry about!Posted by: lauren at February 12, 2009 11:58 AM
So Lauren - I've not seen you at an anti-war rally. Nor have I seen you at a capital punishment execution. Where were you when your buddy George was busy torturing people.
Have you called your congress person to support full funding for special education?
You see, being pro-life, if thats what you call it is nothing if not shallow if you force a fetus to live a life of utter depravity and marginalization. The lack of a wider systemic compassion on the part of the prolife movement (really, the fetuses and children are mere pawns in your "culture war" dillusion) all but nullifies any arguement you have, and spits in the face of whatever God you claim to be serving.
Furthermore, all that is beside the point really ;the fact that you would force someone else to carry a fetus to term is the most brutal form of slavery.Posted by: Yo La Tengo at February 12, 2009 12:16 PM
abortion isn't like a [i]necessary[/i] surgery like Open Heart Surgery or removing an appendix before it bursts.Posted by: LizFromNebraska at February 12, 2009 12:17 PM
Um, YLT, you're making some huge assumptions there buddy.
Believe it or not, I don't alert you to my every charitable activity. I'm not Oprah.
However, my pro-life activities do extend beyond my oppostion to abortion. From your hyperbolic post I get the impresison that you see me as some sort of nefarious character stroking a cat and plotting to inslave the women of the world in order to...do...something...well that part isn't really all that well thought out, just that I want to inslave them!
Seriously? I believe that every human life has dignity and worth. The fact that some human beings happen to live within others doesn't make them any less human or any less deserving of protection from being killed. You are attaching insane motives to me that I don't hold.Posted by: lauren at February 12, 2009 12:30 PM
I find it interesting that the Quindlen Newsweek article's subtitle is "American women have found a new way to keep abortion a personal and private responsibility ..." Near the end of the article, she writes, "If we could travel back in time, before government was invited into the practice of gynecology, we might choose precisely this sort of private ritual."
Wakie, wakie! Her notion of "reclaiming privacy and control" is moot in light of the "stimulus" bill's provisions on health care. The feds now intend to track and monitor the health care of every citizen. The government wants to decide what is most appropriate and cost efficient. And they want to penalize physicians who deviate from government-determined protocols.
Quindlen writes that "too many American women have come to feel that their pelvis is public property." Yeah, well, their pro-choice president just laid a pretty big claim on more than their pelvis in the "stimulus," didn't he?Posted by: Fed Up at February 12, 2009 1:00 PM
" (You can also buy it online in less time than it takes to order a cardigan from J.Crew, which means that if Roe were to be overturned, the Internet would become the alternative to the back alley.)"
Hate to say it, but she's right. The new frontier of "illegal abortions" would be almost completely medical. And from what I hear, medical abortions supervised under a health care provider generally tend to be pretty safe.
Also, I generally enjoy Quindlan's articles in Newsweek--she talks about a lot more than abortion :PPosted by: prettyinpink at February 12, 2009 1:09 PM
It's funny how much some anti-choice women want to disempower other women. It's kinda sad though too; don't they have lives of their own?
Posted by: Yo La Tengo at February 12, 2009 11:21 AM
Gosh, I wonder how the founding Feminist Foremothers ever accomplished ANYTHING without killing their own preborn children?? I mean, obviously, Elizabeth Cady Stanton wanted to disempower other women by speaking out against abortion and by proudly flying a flag at her home for the births of each of her seven children!
Obviously Susan B. Anthony wanted to disempower women by speaking out against abortion as well!
I mean, it's so EMPOWERING to know that you can take the life of your innocent unborn child so that you may live as you wish! Killing a defenseless preborn person is probably the most empowering thing I can even imagine a woman could do with her life! Golly gee.Posted by: Kel at February 12, 2009 1:14 PM
de-empowering woman, funny! I am a single mother of 5 children. The last three were unplanned the thing is that I was never given support for carrying my children but there was huge pressure to abort not just from the "father" but from people around me as if carrying my children instead of killing them was in some way irresponsible. As a mother who went through a late term "bad" diagnosis in my first pregnancy I can tell you that the brevity of life or so called quality of life is not what matters but rather the amount of love that can be communicated within just a few short minutes between a mother and her child. I held my son as he died and while the pain of parting was devestating the time I did have with him gives me comfurt and I treasure it every day.Posted by: Angel at February 12, 2009 1:15 PM
Furthermore, all that is beside the point really ;the fact that you would force someone else to carry a fetus to term is the most brutal form of slavery.
Posted by: Yo La Tengo at February 12, 2009 12:16 PM
What the H*LL?? Excuse me, but are you SERIOUS??Posted by: Kel at February 12, 2009 1:17 PM
slavery? ahem.....but with the exception of rape and incest, most women are choosing to have sex........
Oh wait......that's right....they don't CHOOSE to become pregnant.
Posted by: LizFromNebraska
at February 12, 2009 1:36 PM
Well no baby CHOOSES to die by being cut up into little pieces before taking his/her first breath, speaking his/her first words or taking his/her first steps......
I held my son as he died and while the pain of parting was devestating the time I did have with him gives me comfurt and I treasure it every day.
So sorry for your loss, Angel! God bless you for loving your son and cherishing the gift of his brief but precious life.Posted by: Fed Up at February 12, 2009 1:46 PM
I too am sorry for your loss. Losing a child is such a terrible experience (a neighbor of mine lost her child some years back when she was something like 8 months pregnant. She couldn't feel the baby moving and asked my mom to use a stethoscope (my mom is a retired nurse) and it turned out the baby had gotten the cord around her neck somehow. It was really very very sad.Posted by: LizFromNebraska at February 12, 2009 1:49 PM
It's my understanding that RU-486 basically causes a miscarriage. I know women who have had miscarriages and it's a painful, bloody procedure, not something that I wish on anybody.
BTW, I am a social worker and an adoptive mom. I would like to adopt another child, but it's hard for women in my demographic group (single, in her fifties) children. I am sooo tired of hearing that prolifers don't care about children after they're born because it's just not true!Posted by: Phillymiss at February 12, 2009 2:00 PM
"And from what I hear, medical abortions supervised under a health care provider generally tend to be pretty safe. -PIP"
Yeah...they're pretty safe specially from "health-care providers" like Hodari and Tiller...
I am so sorry for the pain of losing your son but grateful for the time you held him. Thank you for sharing. I also applaud you as a single mother raising children!! Not an easy task I am sure but I am so glad you didn't choose to end their lives through abortion. God bless you!
NO mention of the horror stories of delivering the child in your toilet.
LOL. Oh please, a 7 week embryo is nothing like a child, and "delivering" one in the toilet is a happy occasion when a woman doesn't want to be pregnant.
Anna's right: abortion will never, ever, ever go away. Laws can not stop it. Technology has made it too easy. If you don't like the fact that women have abortions, you should support greater access to birth control, because women who don't get pregnant in the first place never have abortions.Posted by: reality at February 12, 2009 4:46 PM
It seems to me like a shift towards medical abortion might actually help make abortion something that is actually between a woman and her doctor, which it sometimes isn't. I mean, if doctors are prescribing the medication because they have no moral objection to it and see no reason to send a long-time patient to a clinic -- then at least that's an established, trusting relationship between a woman and her doctor.
On the downside, it might be harder for women to open up about concerns to someone who has known them for a while, someone they'll have to see again in the future. If a woman is conflicted she might not want to discuss it with a doctor she knows well, for fear of having her reasons judged or her emotions held against her in the future (if she miscarries, has difficulty conceiving, doesn't want to go on birth control, etc).
I know that I've often had an easier time opening up to strangers than to people I know well, about certain things. There's a quality of "Nothing I say will shock this person, because they do this all day every day" to situations like that, that can be absent when you're dealing with someone who knows you well.
I don't know. It's interesting to think about how medical abortion will change the abortion industry. I never really gave it much thought before.
That seems to be a common complaint among pro-lifers, though -- that the decision is too often not between a woman and her doctor, because there is no doctor involved in any of it until late in the game. Would increased access to abortion via RU-486 be worth it if it resulted in more discussion, more personal interaction, over the decision?Posted by: Alexandra at February 12, 2009 5:03 PM
Ok, reality, do we really need to show you Bethany's picture of Blessing again? A child at 7 weeks development is easily recognizable as a human being.
As for the pain, the miscarriage I had at 8 wks was by far the most physically painful experience of my life. This includes both of my labors and c-sections with living children.
It's hardly something to brush aside.Posted by: lauren at February 12, 2009 5:04 PM
Greater access to birth control? Is this a very rare commodity? Women can't take the responsibility of getting prescriptions?
Birth control pills were on the scene 13 years before Roe v Wade. Yet after Roe v Wade women suddenly became clueless where birth control was concerned? There's also something called tubal ligation. We actually had a woman pee and moan in our local newpaper how she became pregnant twice after deciding she wanted no more children. Of course this was the fault of pro-lifers. Hey lady, did it ever occur to you to get your tubes tied once you decided on no more children?
Did it ever occur to you Reality that women might use legal abortion for birth control?Posted by: Mary at February 12, 2009 7:15 PM
Medicines are used for "off-label" purposes all the time. Usually this is done under the supervision of a physician who is aware that one of the side-effects of a particular drug happens to be something his or her patient requires.
In the case of Cytotec, it was discovered that one of its side-effects was to induce labor. I have no idea how often Cytotec is used for ulcers, but it is used on a relatively regular basis in labor and delivery wards for labor induction.
All that is happening is that instead of a monitored baby and mom using it in a safe manner to induce labor of a healthy term infant, it is now being used sooner and without that watchful eye for DIY abortions. Unless women know about the potential side effects (which can be life threatening to the mother, and are certainly life threatening to a baby not ready to survive without medical assistance outside the womb) we will begin hearing truly horrific stories of death and near-death incidents.
This is NOT safe.Posted by: Elisabeth at February 12, 2009 8:22 PM
No one is forcing you to have an abortion. But forcing someone not to have one is a control you just don't deserve. What does anyone owe you that you get to determine what happens to their body? Nothing . And for that reason you should never - NEVER have a say over someone's reproduction.Posted by: Yo La Tengo at February 15, 2009 1:53 AM