The real abortion issue: Safety
Legal abortion is safe and dangerous back-alley attempts are much rarer.
July 12, 2013|By John J. Sciarra


A group of 100 professors of obstetrics and gynecology issued a statement this year decrying "political regression" on the issue of legalized abortion. (Kenneth C. Zirkel, Getty Images)

Headlines on the abortion rights battle continue to feature lawsuits, political and ideological declarations and legislative hand grenades. The recent events in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Texas Legislature aimed at restricting abortions are just the latest example. Between these legal and political forays is a media wasteland that ought to be occupied by public health experts and health care professionals.

More than 40 years ago, I was one of 100 professors of obstetrics and gynecology who viewed termination of pregnancy as a public health issue. We signed a statement alerting our colleagues to prepare immediately for the effects of legalization of abortion, which we could see on the horizon. And in fact Roe v. Wade was decided just one year later.

“For the first time, doctors will be expected to do an operation simply because a patient asks that it be done,” we wrote in the April 1, 1972, issue of American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. “The best estimate for the first year (of legalized abortion) is 1 million, which amounts to one for every four births.”

This “increasingly liberal course of events,” we wrote, presented “an imminent problem of rather staggering proportions.” We were remarkably prescient about the number of abortion requests we would get. And we correctly predicted today’s abortion rate of one in four pregnancies.

But we were wrong about the resulting challenges. We thought it was going to be an issue of increasing capacity while keeping patients safe.

“Can we handle such a load?” we wrote then. “Yes, with careful planning, conscientious effort, and modern techniques.” If only half the nation’s 20,000 obstetricians did abortions, existing hospital facilities would be able to cope because “the requisite space will soon be freed by the lessened number of septic abortions and puerperal (post-abortion) cases.”

We had all seen the grim effects of criminalized, illegal abortion. As a young physician at Columbia Presbyterian Hospital in New York City, I had watched helplessly as a college woman died of infection after a botched abortion attempt. Her family was stunned; she had told no one she was pregnant. Soon after, a married woman in her early 30s was brought in hemorrhaging and died from a similar attempt. I could not comfort her three children or her husband, who felt complicit in her death. These experiences haunt me still.

In those days, 20 American women died for every 100,000 live births, many from unsafe abortions. We knew that legalizing abortion could save many of those lives, and we were right: Today’s maternal mortality rate is half what it was then, because legal abortion is safe and back-alley attempts are much rarer. We were optimistic that society would hail legalized abortion as a win for everyone.

We did not anticipate the backlash that has turned abortion into an ideological battleground. So I have again joined 99 of my fellow professors of obstetrics and gynecology in another statement on the issue, published earlier this year, in the very same American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

“We have had 40 years of medical progress but have witnessed political regression that the 100 professors did not anticipate,” we wrote. “Forty years later, the change is not liberal. Its effects will threaten, not improve, women’s health and already obstruct physicians’ evidence-based and patient-centered practices.”

As we recommended, doctors did learn to standardize outpatient procedures, use local rather than general anesthesia, and convert some treatment rooms into minor-surgery units. Sonograms, new contraceptives, antibiotics and blood replacement have also saved countless lives.

But waiting periods that can endanger women are now law in 26 states. In addition, “Laws in 27 states force physicians to provide deceptive counseling,” we wrote in 2013. “Many hospitals enforce fetal and maternal health restrictions that are not based in the law.” As one result, 90 percent of abortions are now done in private facilities, not hospitals. “In our view, hospitals have disregarded the responsibility that our academic predecessors expected them to assume.”

Rather than increasing contraceptive availability as we recommended in 1972, ideologues attack family planning and are making all reproductive health care less available to the poor.

Only two of us who signed the original statement are among the current 100; we are both retired and the others have mostly died. But none ever publicly repudiated that statement. And in the current one, 100 of us from medical schools in 39 states have reaffirmed the 1972 commitment to preserve women’s health: by teaching about all methods of contraception and abortion; providing evidence-based information to both patients and legislators; insisting that hospitals where we work admit abortion patients; and ensuring broad contraceptive availability to reduce the need for abortion.

No law that has ever been passed and no law that ever will be passed can prevent a determined woman from trying to end an unwanted pregnancy. Society and hospitals must accept their role in keeping women safe in that process.

Dr. John J. Sciarra is professor emeritus of obstetrics and gynecology at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-07-12/opinion/chi-perspec-abortion-20130711_1_abortion-rate-abortion-rights-battle-legalized-abortion

Ideologues don't care.

No law that has ever been passed and no law that ever will be passed can prevent a determined woman from trying to end an unwanted pregnancy. Society and hospitals must accept their role in keeping women safe in that process.

Amen.

To me, the most significant line in the article is this;



This is where so many of the anti-abortion crowd lose credibility.

This is where so many of the anti-abortion crowd lose credibility.

But they don't care what you think. In their view, you are non-existent.

John59 wrote:

To me, the most significant line in the article is this;

Rather than increasing contraceptive availability as we recommended in 1972,
ideologues attack family planning and are making all reproductive health care less available to the poor.

This is where so many of the anti-abortion crowd lose credibility.

Not just there, John, but also in their neverending quest to strip the social safety net of it's funding. Their only concern is the abortion itself. Once that baby is born they have no trouble whatsoever with throwing it on the trash heap.

I understand the previous 2 points, but the point I was making is that they undermine their own stated goal.

That's assuming that their primary goal is really to reduce or eliminate abortions.

If that were true, then they would be all for efforts that reduce unwanted pregnancy. Most of them are against these things.

They would be for providing birth control - at least most forms of it. They would be for sex education. They would support places like Planned Parenthood, even if they worked for laws that said any funding could not be used for abortion. Instead, the try to totally defund PP.

But they take an ideological, religious approach to the issue. This is why so many of them won't even say that an abortion is permissible to save the life of the woman - or even a girl in some cases.

Their goal really isn't to eliminate abortions, it's to "follow God's word". And they have gotten it into their heads that abortions - all abortions - are against the will of God.

They don't want to pay form those things. That's government interference.
Your last statement makes the point. They, and only they, know the will of a mythical, non-existant being and all human laws, rules, regulations etc. should conform to the will of that non-existane being.
IMO, they're insane.

Gee, well life wouldn't be interesting if we all agreed with one another and shared the same pov... we'd just be patting one another on the back and in different wording saying the same thing, right? So here we go...

First of all, up front, I will not condemn or judge any woman who seeks an abortion out of desperation: as far as she is concerned, the law gives her the right to seek an abortion...unfortunately for her, if I had my way, the law would be changed and abortion would only be performed within certain parameters and I realize that would indeed condemn many women to the hands of barbaric butchers if they would be so determined/desperate as to subject themselves (and their babies) to such torture. I know that sounds heartless, but read on....

All of this safety talk centers around the woman, the adult...is an abortion safe for a baby? Hardly..........the news is leaking out about so called "legal" abortions: the scissoring of spinal chords, the leaving of babies to die post birth, etc.

There are thousands of young couples wanting/willing to adopt--and not enough babies to go around....many women do not even realize they are pregnant until 8 to 12 wks along: by then it is clear the tissue within their womb is going to be a baby, not a potato, or a dog, or a flower, but a baby...and any way you slice it, the termination of the pregnancy at that time is the termination (killing) of a baby...9 mos of pregnancy to give life? Is that really such a terrible price to pay?

Of course there are cases where abortion is warranted, but there are many many cases where it is not: so schooling is derailed for a few months, so a marriage falls apart (it wasn't very sound in the first place if an unwanted pregnancy causes its dissolution) etc.
But just because someone, anyone, causes us pain, heartache, inconvenience, etc. or might cause us such suffering is no reason to kill them...its against the law to do such against any other human being--why is it not against the law to preemptively take the life from an unborn innocent?

yes, I used to be "for" a woman's reproductive rights per se, but I'm a little older, have lived a little more, and stand on my woman's right to change my mind: perhaps the love and joy I have over the birth of my two great grandsons has something to do with it...the thought of one of them being scissored in an abortion causes me to cringe in horror.....

going to be a baby
Maybe, and maybe not.

termination of the pregnancy at that time is the termination (killing) of a baby.
You can't have it both ways.

An egg isn't a chicken.

9 mos of pregnancy to give life? Is that really such a terrible price to pay?

For a lot of women, that's not an easy thing. Not like just sitting around for 9 months...laa dee da and out pops a healthy baby.

Those medical bills for care and delivery need to be paid. Not to mention any other bills that need to be paid, and pregnant women can and are still fired for pregnancy-related reasons.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/1 ... 66922.html

Heather Myers was fired over a bottle of water.

Myers was seven months pregnant back in 2007, working as a floor associate at a Walmart in Kansas, which meant she stocked shelves and cleaned aisles for minimum wage.

Told she could no longer carry anything to drink in the cart she pushed around all day, she brought two separate letters from her doctor, saying that she was at risk for urinary tract infections and needed to keep hydrated. Her request was twice denied, she said. “I decided to listen to my doctor rather than my manager,” Myers recalled in a phone interview, and she was then told, “either the water bottle has to go or you have to go.”

She went -- making her one of the many workers who are routinely fired or forced to take unpaid leave in the U.S. after asking for basic accommodations during their pregnancy.

As to the claim that there's a shortage of infants to adopt....that may be true for *healthy infants* but there are far, FAR too many children who aren't infants and who have nobody. What about them?
And even under the best of circumstances and with the best medical care money can buy, there is a risk of maternal death that can't be anticipated or eliminated.

Of course there are cases where abortion is warranted, but there are many many cases where it is not

So you would have women forced to gestate and deliver against their will because you don't think their reasons for wanting to terminate are "good enough" cannaleee? How? Jail? Strapped down and force-fed?
You would be content with women in the "hands of barbaric butchers" because you think they deserve "torture"?

Not mentioned are the thousands and thousands of babies that are (or would be) born very ill, addicted and/or physically diabled. Of all of those fairy tale parents waiting for adoption, most want perfect babies. Many want only girls or boys. Other's go further and want babies that "match" their physical attributes. White, blonde, blue-eyed etc.

On the other side of the adoption coin are the draconian adoption laws, the red tape and expense. I'm sure only a small percentage of those wanting to adopt can afford it through traditional methods.

It's not just abortion laws that prevent babies from being adopted. Besides, there are hundreds of thousands of orphans who spend their entire life in the system because they aren't adorable newborns when they enter the system. As much as babies are desirable, if people really, really want to be parents, they should look to the orphanages and foster care.

Here are the numbers. Of the children in foster care, only about half are reunited with their birth family:

How many orphans in the U.S.?

According to the latest available figures from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), there are about 123,000 orphans in America. These are typically kids who've entered the foster care system because they were abused, neglected, or abandoned and are available for adoption into new homes.

However, that doesn't mean there are only 123,000 children in foster care, not by a long shot. The foster care population is nearly four times larger — about 463,000, according to current data from the HHS's Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS).

The average age for foster children in the U.S. is 10, though half are younger. Forty percent are white, 34% are black, and 18% are Hispanic.

http://www.orphancoalition.org/new/foster-care.php

Some already know my view on when the unborn becomes a life. Just as I believe life ends when the brain stops functioning, I believe life begins when the brain starts functioning. Just the thought of an abortion after the brain is functioning makes me sick, literally. Before that it is a potential life, not a life. My wish would be that women were able to make the choice before that point.

However, that is my view and others don't have to agree. No matter how strongly I feel it, I can not force other women to live by my views. I see no way to make women carry unwanted babies. I see no way that I can tell them what to do with their own bodies. I can work on and do work on making better support for them if they do carry to term and better support for them and the baby after it's born. But, the choice is theirs alone because the body carrying the fetus/baby is theirs alone. We can make laws that make it more difficult or impossible for the abortion providers. That simply makes it harder for the poorer people and leaves them with alternatives that are not acceptable. The laws such as those passed in my state, Texas, don't save the lives of the unborn, they take more lives of desperate women who can not afford the cost increase caused by the changes.

This is in answer to Chaos and Roseanne's posts (I tend to like AuntJeanne's post in that it at least offers a definition as to when life starts and ends, said definition definitely being needed in these debates):

Medical costs can and are usually covered by Medicaid if the mother is unmarried.. IMO marital status should not affect this coverage but rather income level...yes, pregnancy carries risks, just like other medical conditions....

And I deplore the back alley butcher abortions: that was the biggest reason I used to support abortion. But we have got to offer women another choice other than killing their babies...for starters, the Draconian adoption laws that are in place now need to be completely overhauled--gays, older folks, single people, all need to be allowed to enter into adoptions...and for sure the costs need to be reduced for all parties involved.

I don't know all the answers: a crack baby would for sure be hard to care for, as would a severely disabled baby....I tend to waver on the abortion issue if it is known ahead of time that the baby would suffer its entire life if allowed to go full term--but my wavering on that point is in regards to the baby's quality of life: a normal healthy pregnancy should be afforded the chance for life.

One edit: Walmart's has some deplorable practices when it comes to employee management, depending on the manager--some stores are pretty decent, some are horrible...in this area, "Walmartsville" the stores for the most part are awful in their management: low wages, sadistic managers, etc.

Walmart?? huh? I think you have the wrong thread dear.

Anyway, what about the hundreds of thousands of already born orphans? You didn't address that.

I tend to waver on the abortion issue if it is known ahead of time that the baby would suffer its entire life if allowed to go full term

Ahh, there's the rub. Many children born healthy are abused, neglected and abandoned which causes suffering their entire life, whether they stay with their parent(s) or is shoved into the system, and if they don't die.

Here is my belief: If a baby is not wanted before it is born, it won't be wanted after and is at a much higher risk of the above.

A couple of weeks ago a 24 yo woman at the hospital decided on Saturday night she wanted to put her baby up for adoption and was discharged Sunday. She said she was Catholic and maybe would like the baby raised Catholic. That was all she said to me.

Catholic Charities doesn't do adoptions any more so I contacted the Adoption ARC in Philadelphia who seemed thrilled about the referral. They went and met with the birth mom at her home, paperwork was signed, and I think the baby was discharged to Adoption ARC shortly afterwards. The whole process seemed surreal to me.

We adopted two little girls, ages 5 and 6--the cost of the adoption proceedings was $300 for both...

However on the other side of the coin, rarely a weekend goes by that I don't have to call the Department of Child Protection and Permanence (DCPP) (new name for DYFS).

The mother's are drug addicted and the babies are born with Neonatal Abstinence System. It's not fair to the child. The 24 year old from this weekend has four children. The first she gave away and she has a 2 yo and a 1 yo at home. She is going to Harris Business School to learn to be a Pharmacy Technician. I don't know that I think addicts should have three children under 3.

Sounds un social worky, but it's how I feel.

i don't think it sounds un-socialworky at all==I try to have compassion when it is needed, but I have trouble in the patience dept with addicts and alcoholic pts.--there's something about their "needy" personality that after awhile grates on my nerves!
The words "how selfish!" pop in my mind frequently when my patience has worn thin...

And I will agree that women who have abortions are entitled to the best medical care available, and should not suffer at the hands of a butcher....my problem is when the abortion numbers are in the millions I find it hard to believe that all those abortions were really necessary

My late husband was staunchly pro-choice and shared Roseanne's opinion that an unwanted baby was better off in heaven than on this earth: we had many a bitter fight back in the day--I eventually capitulated and agreed with him. Now that I am older, I have reverted to my original pro-life stance, for many reasons...no doubt we'll have a word or two about it in Heaven!

I didn't say heaven, Cannalee. I don't believe in it.

Let's admit something about this issue;

There is a huge difference between this...

Fertilized egg

...and this...

9 months

http://www.webmd.com/baby/ss/slideshow- ... evelopment

Slideshow of fetal development for anyone interested....

I have to agree with that.

I also agree with roseanne on the heaven thing. No such place. Cannalee, if these aborted fetuses are in heaven, in what form would they be? undeveloped? full babies? (Just curious about the belief).

Cannalee, in your opinion, when does life begin? If at conception, are you opposed to birth control and the morning after pill? What about abortion for victims of rape and incest?