Author: Tech

Abortionists Are Not Held Accountable for Mistakes

Abortion is one of the most frequently performed surgical procedures in the United States–yet it is the least regulated. It is the only elective surgical procedure that I know of in which the doctor performing the procedure is not responsible for follow-up care, nor does he or she take an active role in dealing with the complications.

Not only this, but the very nature of abortion clinics, which practice in isolation from the rest of the medical community, keeps the abortion provider free from accountability for these complications.

Those who support abortion on demand will claim that the reported complication rate for abortions is low. They may be right. Not necessarily because there are few complications, but because the complications are underreported. They are underreported because there is no accurate process in place today to quantify the harmful repercussions of abortion. The abortion industry has successfully kept abortion and abortionists free from the type of review, regulation, and accountability that is an integral part of the rest of the medical profession. Let me give you some real life examples.

I recently took care of a woman who almost died because she’d had an abortion. A few days before I saw her, she’d had an abortion because of a positive pregnancy test. Now, after an abortion, the clinic will examine the remains which have been scraped from the uterus to take inventory of fetal parts in order to ensure that the entire pregnancy was totally eliminated. This clinic noted that there were no fetal parts, which meant that the pregnancy had not been in the uterus.

This situation is known as an ectopic pregnancy, where the pregnancy is not in the womb, but in the fallopian tube. An ectopic pregnancy is a life-threatening condition; the ectopic must be removed or it will grow to a size that will rupture the fallopian tube and result in massive internal bleeding that can kill the mother.

In any legitimate medical facility, a woman with an ectopic pregnancy would have an immediate ultrasound to assess the ectopic, be admitted to the hospital, and have surgery before it could rupture and potentially take her life. In this abortion facility, the woman was sent home and told to call her doctor. Unfortunately, time was not on her side — before she ever had the chance, her ectopic pregnancy ruptured, she was rushed to the ER by ambulance, and taken immediately to the operating room.

Had this quality of care been provided by any other medical provider–family physician, obstetrician, or emergency physician–it would be considered grossly negligent. By an abortion provider, it does not even cause a stir. In fact it goes unnoted and unreported.

A few years ago, a young woman about twenty years old came to the ER because she was feeling very sick. She’d become increasingly ill ever since the abortion she’d had about a week earlier. I had her admitted to the hospital from the ER with a severe pneumonia. The following days revealed that the pneumonia was just a part of the problem–she had overwhelming sepsis, which is infection throughout her entire body which had, at its source, the abortion.

This woman died. The admitting physician never reported the incident as abortion-related, nor did she inform the abortion provider of the results of his “care.” He was still practicing, without the slightest idea that his intervention had led to his patient’s death.

The medical diagnosis reads “severe pain”–the real cause is abortion. The record reads “vaginal bleeding”–the real cause is abortion. The operative note says “ruptured ectopic pregnancy and internal hemorrhage”–the real cause is abortion. The autopsy states “cause of death–overwhelming sepsis”–the real cause is abortion.

There is no other practice of medicine where people can suffer and die from complications of your intervention without your being in some way professionally accountable, involved in their care, and at the very least, made aware of it–except abortion.

Abortion is a horrible abuse of the practice of medicine, ending one and a half million lives every year, yet our nation has made it legal. It is an invasive medical procedure, which in my own singular experience as ONE DOCTOR, has led to the death of one woman and the near death of another, yet its practitioners are not held to the same standards of care as the rest of the medical community.

Abortion is bad medicine. It is bad because it pushes sloppy medical care upon women who have been led to believe that their only choice is to abort their babies. It will always be bad medicine because it takes away an innocent human life. Our nation, our community, our mothers, sisters, daughters deserve better.

Dr. Lenora W. Berning, M.D. is a physician with Lancaster Emergency Associates LTD., at Lancaster General Hospital in Pennsylvania. This article is excerpted from a press statement made by Dr. Berning. Reprinted with permission.

Originally published in The Post-Abortion Review, 8(2), April-June 2000. Copyright 2000, Elliot Institute. (Used with permission)

Elliot Institute, PO Box 7348, Springfield, IL 62791-73480.afterabortion.org

Additional material is posted at www.afterabortion.org

Share on Facebook

Abortion and Childbirth: the Risks

Abortion advocates, relying on inaccurate maternal death data in the United States, routinely claim that a woman’s risk of dying from childbirth is six, ten, or even twelve times higher than the risk of death from abortion.

In contrast, abortion critics have long contended that the statistics relied upon for maternal mortality calculations have been distorted and that the broader claim that “abortion is many times safer than childbirth” completely ignores high rates of other physical and psychological complications associated with abortion. Now a recent, unimpeachable study of pregnancy-associated deaths in Finland has shown that the risk of dying within a year after an abortion is several times higher than the risk of dying after miscarriage or childbirth.(1)

This well-designed record-based study is from STAKES, the statistical analysis unit of Finland’s National Research and Development Center for Welfare and Health. In an effort to evaluate the accuracy of maternal death reports, STAKES researchers pulled the death certificate records for all the women of reproductive age (15-49) who died between 1987 and 1994–a total of 9,192 women. They then culled through the national health care data base to identify any pregnancy-related events for each of these women in the 12 months prior to their deaths.

Since Finland has socialized medical care, these records are very accurate and complete. In this fashion, the STAKES researchers identified 281 women who had died within a year of their last pregnancy. The unadjusted mortality rate per 100,000 cases was 27 for women who had given birth, 48 for women who had miscarriages or ectopic pregnancies, and 101 for women who had abortions

The researchers then calculated the age-adjusted odds ratio of death, using the death rate of women who had not been pregnant as the standard equal to one. Table 1 shows that the age-adjusted odds ratio of women dying in the year they give birth as being half that of women who are not pregnant, whereas women who have abortions are 76 percent more likely to die in the year following abortion compared to non-pregnant women. Compared to women who carry to term, women who abort are 3.5 times more likely to die within a year.

Such figures are always subject to statistical variation from year to year, country to country, study to study. For this reason, the researchers also reported what is known as “95 percent confidence intervals.” This means that the available data indicates that 95 percent of all similar studies would report a finding within a specified range around the actual reported figure.

For example, the .50 odds ratio for childbirth has a confidence interval of .32 to .78. In other words, it is probable that 95 percent of the time, the odds ratio of death following childbirth will be found to be between 32 percent and 78 percent of the non-pregnant woman rate. The 95 percent confidence interval for the odds ratio of death following abortion was reported to be 1.27 to 2.42 of the annual rate for non-pregnant women.

STAKES had previously reported that the risk of death from suicide within the year of an abortion was more than seven times higher than the risk of suicide within a year of childbirth.(2) Two of these suicides were also connected with infanticide. Examples of post-abortion suicide/infanticide attempts have also been documented in the United States.(3)

The same finding was reported in STAKES’ more recent study. Among the 281 women who died within a year of their last pregnancy, 77 (27 percent) had committed suicide. Figure 2 shows the age-adjusted odds ratio for suicide for the three pregnancy groups compared to the “no pregnancy” control group.

Notably, the risk of suicide following a birth was about half that of the general population of women. This finding is consistent with previous studies that have shown that an undisturbed pregnancy actually reduces the risk of suicide.(4)

Abortion, on the other hand, is clearly linked to a dramatic increase in suicide risk. This statistical finding is corroborated by interview-based studies which have consistently shown extraordinarily high levels of suicidal ideation (30-55 percent) and reports of suicide attempts (7-30 percent) among women who have had an abortion.(5) In many of these studies, the women interviewed have explicitly described the abortion as the cause of their suicidal impulses.

The original publication of the STAKES suicide data prompted researchers at the South Glamorgan (population 408,000) Health Authority in Great Britain to examine their own data on admissions for suicide attempts both before and after pregnancy events. They found that among those who aborted, there was a shift from a roughly “normal” suicide attempt rate before the abortion to a significantly higher suicide attempt rate after the abortion. After their pregnancies, there were 8.1 suicide attempts per thousand women among those who had abortions, compared to only 1.9 suicide attempts among those who gave birth. The higher rate of suicide attempts subsequent to abortion was particularly evident among women under 30 years of age.

As in the STAKES sample, birth was associated with a significantly lower risk of suicide attempts. The South Glamorgan researchers concluded that their data did not support the view that suicide after an abortion was predicated on prior poor mental health, at least as measured by prior suicide attempts. Instead, “the increased risk of suicide after an induced abortion may therefore be a consequence of the procedure itself.”(6)

Interpretation of these statistical studies is aided by numerous publications describing individual cases of completed suicide following abortion.(7) In many cases, the attempted or completed suicides have been intentionally or subconsciously timed to coincide with the anniversary date of the abortion or the expected due date of the aborted child.(8) Suicide attempts among male partners following abortion have also been reported.(9)

Teens are generally at higher risk for both suicide and abortion. In a survey of teenaged girls, researchers at the University of Minnesota found that the rate of attempted suicide in the six months prior to the study increased ten fold–from 0.4 percent for girls who had not aborted during that time period to 4 percent for teens who had aborted in the previous six months.(10) Other studies also suggest that the risk of suicide after an abortion may be higher for women with a prior history of psychological disturbances or suicidal tendencies.(11)

It is also worth noting the suicide rate among women in China is the highest in the world. Indeed, 56 percent of all female suicides occur in China, mostly among young rural women.(12) It is also the only country where more women die from suicide than men. For women under 45, the suicide rate is twice as high as that of Chinese men. Government officials are reported to be at a loss for an explanation.
Traditionally, Chinese families placed a high value on large families, especially in rural communities. But after the death of Mao Tse-Tung, who also valued large families, China instituted its brutal one child policy. This population control effort, encouraged by governments and family planning organizations from the West, has required the widespread use of abortion–including forced abortion–and infanticide, especially of female babies. Given the known link between abortion and suicide, can there be any doubt that maternally-oriented Chinese women who are coerced by their families and communities to participate in these atrocities are more likely to commit suicide?

Deaths from Risk-Taking Behavior

In this most recent study from Finland, the STAKES researchers also reported that the risk of death from accidents was over four times higher for women who had aborted in the year prior to their deaths than for women who had carried to term. Of the 281 women who died within a year of their last pregnancy, 57 (20 percent) died from injuries attributed to accidents

In a study of government-funded medical programs in Canada, researchers found that women who had undergone an abortion in the previous year were treated for mental disorders 41 percent more often than postpartum women, and 25 percent more often for injuries or conditions resulting from violence.(13)

Similarly, a study of Medicaid payments in Virginia found that women who had state-funded abortions had 62 percent more subsequent mental health claims (resulting in 43 percent higher costs) and 12 percent more claims for treatments related to accidents (resulting in 52 percent higher costs) compared to a case matched sample of women covered by Medicaid who had not had a state-funded abortion.(14)

It is quite likely that some of these deaths which were classified as accidental may have in fact been suicides. Reports of post-abortive women deliberately crashing their automobiles, often in a drunken state, in an attempt to kill themselves have been reported by both post-abortion counselors and in the published literature.(15)

It is also likely that many of these deaths are simply related to heightened risk-taking behavior among post-abortive women. This may occur simply because some women care less whether they live or die after an abortion. Other women may seek to “self-medicate” a sense of depression with the adrenalin rush that often comes with taking risks. In addition, heavier drinking and substance abuse are well-documented aftereffects of abortion, both of which increase a person’s risk of fatal accidents.(16)

The STAKES study of pregnancy-associated deaths is beyond reproach. It is a record-based study in a country with centralized medical records. While a small number of women who died during the period investigated may have had births or abortions outside of Finland which would not have been identified in the records, there is no reason to believe these few cases would have altered these dramatic findings.

Clearly, the odds of a woman dying within a year of having an abortion are significantly higher than for women who carry to term or have a natural miscarriage. This holds true both for deaths from natural causes and deaths from suicide, accidents, or homicide. In addition, the study underscores the difficulty in reliably defining and identifying maternal deaths. Only 22 percent of the death certificates examined had any mention of the woman’s recent pregnancy.

Unfortunately, there is often no clear way of determining when there is any causal connection between a death and a previous pregnancy, birth, miscarriage, or abortion. According to the lead author of the STAKES study, Mika Gissler, in maternal health reports throughout the world, “[t]here is no consensus concerning which cases should be included as maternal deaths. Problematic are, for example, some cancers, stroke, asthma, liver cirrhosis, pneumonia with influenza, anorexia nervosa, and many violent deaths, such as suicide, homicide, and accidents.”(21)

By stepping back from a predefined notion of what constitutes a pregnancy-related death, the STAKES team has shown that deaths among women following a pregnancy cannot easily be tracked when a study is based purely on short-term post-operative recovery. This is particularly true following an abortion. Maternal deaths after an abortion are seldom identified as such unless the death occurs on the operating table, if even then (see accompanying article on page 5). By examining all death certificates and all pregnancy events in the prior year, the STAKES team avoided the basic problem of pre-defining what deaths will be included or excluded in maternal mortality reports.

Even this study, however, has shortcomings. The most obvious limitation is that the researchers examined only a single year of the reproductive history of women who had died during the study period. Since suicide attempts are often associated with the anniversary date of the abortion, some portion of deaths from suicide or accidents that occurred slightly over one year after a prior abortion were probably missed.

As seen in Figure 6, the distribution of suicides by month following the pregnancy event indicate an increased level of suicides at seven to ten months following an abortion. This may correspond to a negative anniversary reaction related to the expected due date of the aborted child. A similar spike is seen among women who had miscarriages, though it peaks a couple of months earlier, perhaps because the miscarriages generally occurred further along in gestation than the abortions.

Another disadvantage of the one-year limit on the STAKES data set is that it does not reveal how long the protective effect of birth extends, or conversely, how long the odds ratio of death for those who abort remains elevated. A study spanning a longer period of time would be needed to identify these longer term effects.

Finally, the STAKES study does not shed any light on whether or not women who died from suicide or risk-taking behavior after an abortion were already self-destructive before their abortions. It is probable that many were. Women with a propensity for risk-taking would be more likely to become pregnant and perhaps more likely to choose abortion. In such cases, while abortion may not be the underlying cause of their problems, it probably contributed to their psychological deterioration and was a contributing cause of their death.

On the other hand, it is also clear from other studies that many women who were not previously self-destructive become so as a direct result of their traumatic abortion experience. Whether this latter group represents a major or minor portion of those who died in the STAKES sample is unknown.

Additional insights could be gained by looking back over several more years of the women’s medical records. It is likely that prior suicide attempts, a high incidence of treatment for accidents, prior psychological treatments, and other prior pregnancy losses would all be associated with an increased risk of subsequent death by suicide, homicide, or accident.

Abortion advocates will naturally argue that abortion did not “cause” any of these deaths, but rather that these women were simply self-destructive or ill beforehand and would have died anyway. This is a flimsy argument, since clearly this same data shows that giving birth has a protective effect. Even women who committed suicide after giving birth waited until after their children were born to take their own lives.

It is quite probable that the best way to help a self-destructive woman to change her life, and value her own life, is to encourage her to cherish the life of her unborn child. Conversely, it is clear that aiding and encouraging a self-destructive woman to undergo an abortion is likely to aggravate her self-destructive tendencies.

These findings underscore the importance of holding abortion clinics liable for screening women who are seeking an abortion for a history of suicide, self-destructive behavior, and psychological instability. The failure to screen for these risk factors is clearly gross negligence. In addition, when abortion clinic counselors falsely reassure women that abortion is safer than childbirth, they should be held accountable for false and deceptive business practices.

________________________________________

Originally printed in The Post-Abortion Review, 8(2), April-June 2000. Copyright 2000, Elliot Institute.

Notes

1. Gissler, M., et. al., “Pregnancy-associated deaths in Finland 1987-1994 — definition problems and benefits of record linkage,” Acta Obsetricia et Gynecolgica Scandinavica 76:651-657 (1997).
2. Mika Gissler, Elina Hemminki, Jouko Lonnqvist, “Suicides after pregnancy in Finland: 1987-94: register linkage study” British Medical Journal 313:1431-4, 1996.
3. McFadden, A., “The Link Between Abortion and Child Abuse,” Family Resources Center News (January 1998) 20.
4. S. J. Drower, & E. S. Nash, “Therapeutic Abortion on Psychiatric Grounds,” South African Medical Journal 54:604-608, Oct. 7, 1978; B. Jansson, Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavia 41:87, 1965.
5. David Reardon, “Psychological Reactions Reported After Abortion,” The Post-Abortion Review, 2(3):4-8, Fall 1994; Anne C. Speckhard, The Psychological Aspects of Stress Following Abortion (Kansas City: Sheed & Ward, 1987); Vincent Rue, “Traumagenic Aspects of Elective Abortion: Preliminary Findings from an International Study” Healing Visions Conference, June 22, 1996
6. Christopher L. Morgan, et. al., “Mental health may deteriorate as a direct effect of induced abortion,” letters section, BMJ 314:902, 22 March, 1997.
7. E. Joanne Angelo, Psychiatric Sequelae of Abortion: The Many Faces of Post-Abortion Grief,” Linacre Quarterly 59:69-80, May 1992; David Grimes, “Second-Trimester Abortions in the United States, Family Planning Perspectives 16(6):260; Myre Sim and Robert Neisser, “Post-Abortive Psychoses,” The Psychological Aspects of Abortion, ed. D. Mall and W.F. Watts, (Washington D.C.: University Publications of America, 1979).
8. Carl Tischler, “Adolescent Suicide Attempts Following Elective Abortion,” Pediatrics 68(5):670, 1981.
9. “Psychopathological Effects of Voluntary Termination of Pregnancy on the Father Called Up for Military Service,” Psychologie Medicale 14(8):1187-1189, June 1982; Angelo, op. cit.
10. B. Garfinkle, H. Hoberman, J. Parsons and J. Walker, “Stress, Depression and Suicide: A Study of Adolescents in Minnesota” (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Extension Service, 1986)
11. Esther R. Greenglass, “Therapeutic Abortion and Psychiatric Disturbance in Canadian Women,” Canadian Psychiatric Association Journal, 21(7):453-460, 1976; Helen Houston & Lionel Jacobson, “Overdose and Termination of Pregnancy: An Important Association?” British Journal of General Practice, 46:737-738, 1996.
12. Elizabeth Rosenthal, “Women’s Suicides Reveal China’s Bitter Roots: Nation Starts to Confront World’s Highest Rate,” The New York Times, Sunday January 24, 1999, p. 1, 8.
13. R.F. Badgley, D.F. Caron, M.G. Powell, Report of the Committee on the Abortion Law, Minister of Supply and Services, Ottawa, 1977:313-319.
14. Jeff Nelson,”Data Request from Delegate Marshall” Interagency Memorandum, Virginia Department of Medical Assistance Services, Mar. 21, 1997.
15. Carl Tischler, “Adolescent Suicide Attempts Following Elective Abortion,” Pediatrics 68(5):670, 1981; E. Joanne Angelo, Psychiatric Sequelae of Abortion: The Many Faces of Post-Abortion Grief,” Linacre Quarterly 59:69-80, May 1992.
16. D.C. Reardon and P.G. Ney, “Abortion and Subsequent Substance Abuse” Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 26(1):61-75.
17. David Reardon, “Psychological Reactions Reported After Abortion,” The Post-Abortion Review, 2(3):4-8, Fall 1994
18. Personal communication with Mika Gissler, March 8, 2000.
19. D. Berkeley, P.L. Humphreys, and D. Davidson, “Demands Made on General Practice by Women Before and After an Abortion,” J. R. Coll. Gen. Pract. 34:310-315, 1984.
20. Philip G. Ney, Tak Fung, Adele Rose Wickett and Carol Beaman-Dodd, “The Effects of Pregnancy Loss on Women’s Health,” Soc. Sci. Med. 48(9):1193-1200, 1994.
21. Gissler, et.al. (1997) 652.

 

Share on Facebook

One Woman’s Story of a Medical Abortion

In June of 2002 I discovered I was pregnant. The day I found out I was scared, excited and sad. You see, I knew that my boyfriend was unemployed and I was looking for a new place to live. While I have a good job, I also go to college full-time and have a lot of commitments in my life. I also knew that without a stable partner, there was no way I could raise a child in any fashion that would provide a loving and secure future for my baby. I realized that I could not keep this child, no matter how much I wanted to.

When I told my boyfriend of one year at that time, he immediately said that he wanted an abortion, but supported my choice either way. Once your boyfriend says he wants an abortion, nothing he says after that really matters, you know if you have the baby, he’ll hate you for it. We decided to make an appointment to go to a clinic.

It was a week later before my appointment. When I arrived I was scared and wanted to run out of there without looking back. The facility was not all that clean, and the people weren’t very knowledgeable. There was only one doctor, he was old and had arthritis in his hands so bad he could barely move his fingers. They took me back to an exam room for the sonogram. The technician was incompetent to put it nicely. They couldn’t get an external picture, so they had to use an attachment that went inside via the vagina. This was uncomfortable and painful as she prodded and poked around my cervix. The tech than informed me that I was 6 and one-half weeks pregnant. I was later informed that I was a candidate for RU-486, being less than 9 weeks pregnant. I breathed a sigh of relief as I did not have to endure the surgical abortion. I would later be VERY SORRY.

The initial injection made me very ill, I thought I was going to “get sick” all night, and that was just the beginning of the hellish torture I was about to endure over the next three weeks. There are several pills you need to take on different days to finish aborting the pregnancy. After the injection the doctor tells you that if you don’t finish your baby will be born without arms and legs. He also says the last set of pills is designed to make you actually “pass” the “tissue”. Or in a mother’s English miscarry the baby. In order to miscarry you must experience contractions. The doctor gives you 2 days of pills that will make you go into contraction. The doctor gave me 6 Percoset to help ease the pain. Sounds easy enough, right? WRONG!!!! I was in agony for 6 hours for 2 consecutive nights. The pain made me scream in tortuous wails. I lay on my boyfriend’s couch, the first night alone, and writhed, twisted and contorted my body praying that either I would die or the pain would stop. I called the emergency number they gave me and told them that the pain killers were not working. They said very callously that there was nothing more they could do for me, informing me that this is normal and to just wait it out. After two nights of what I thought would end this nightmare I began to bleed, a little. On the third day after the contractions I passed the first “tissue” mass. I thought, that’s it, it’s over, now I can begin to heal, right? WRONG!!!!!!

About one and a half weeks later while watching TV I began to feel very ill, and began to cramp up again. Thinking this must be normal (yeah right), at first I thought nothing of it. Within two hours I began to bleed very heavily. The bleeding became increasing worse; eventually I couldn’t get off the toilet. I began to pass blood clots the size of golf balls, and yet another fleshy mass. The cramps became contraction and the bleeding became uncontrollable, I went through a pack of maximum strength maxi pads inside of 12 hours. While sleeping the first night I ruined three pairs of P.J. pants. I again called the emergency number the clinic provided me with and they said it was normal and to just wait it out.

The next day the bleeding was still relentless and the pain only bearable because I was still breathing. I called the clinic, again, and they told me that the doctor said it was a “delayed abortion”. There was still nothing they could do and it was normal. I lay all day bleeding, crying and thinking I must be crazy. As the day progressed it became increasingly hard for me to get up and walk to the bathroom. I began to pass out if I stood up. It finally got to the point that my boyfriend had to carry me to the bathroom, because I could no longer stand. Again we called the emergency number and they said if it was that bad I needed to come in. I asked them how they propose I do that since I cannot be more than 5 minutes away from a bathroom, and when I stand up I pass out. At this point I was distressed and angry that I had to endure such suffering, but at the same time I thought maybe I deserved it. After all, it was my fault and my choice not to keep this baby. I knew it was God punishing me for killing one of his children. Even though my boyfriend, Tom, didn’t want the baby, it was my body, my choice, my suffering, and my consequences.

I called my regular GYN and described the situation to him, he said I needed to go to the emergency room immediately. Upon arrival at the ER they put me in a wheel chair and I waited no more than 10 minutes before I was blood-soaked from the waist down. They rushed me through triage, where they discovered my blood pressure was roughly 60 over 52. The doctors met me in my room where they immediately put me on I.V. fluids and drew blood. I described what was happening over the last 24 hours and the events that had led up to my visit in the ER. The next 12 hours were degrading, humiliating, painful, stressful, and virtually unbearable. The doctor said he needed to examine me, internally. While cramping and bleeding he inserted a speculum and began to pull out blood clots from inside. He then said I need a sonogram to determined what was left and what was causing the profuse bleeding. He also informed me that I had lost more than 2 pints of blood in the last 24 hours. During his exam I was screaming in pain. He called to the nurse and put me on a heart monitor. I was sent for a sonogram and again the tech needed to go internally, yet more embarrassment and pain. As I met different nurses and doctors I could tell who thought I was an awful person for having an abortion and those who were sorry for my situation. I felt the eyes of judgement and the hands of compassion.

When I returned to my room, I was informed there was a specialist called in to finish my “case”. The doctor was a female, which I found comforting. She was thoughtful and compassionate. Somehow the compassion of other people only made me feel worse, like I didn’t deserve it. There was a third painful internal exam and finally a conclusion. My cervix wouldn’t close back up, it was still dilated and wouldn’t close. The doctor asked me how far along I was and if it was a single pregnancy. I told her about the clinic and said about 6 and 1/2 weeks, and they didn’t tell me anything more. I had to ask the tech at the clinic to even see the sonogram. They discussed nothing with me and I had no idea whether it was twins or not. I told her that I thought it was because thinking back, twins run in my family and it was my generations turn. My oldest brother didn’t have twins so it was a good possibility. Realizing for the first time that it could have been twins made me feel even worse. The doctor told me that at this point it doesn’t matter, they could fix the situation but it would involved a type of “surgical abortion” that I would be sedated for. Before the surgery I received my two pints of blood and antibiotics. I don’t remember much thereafter, I woke up and the pain was finally gone and the bleeding had stopped.

It took me about a week to recover. The doctor told me if I had not come into the hospital I would have bled to death within an additional 24 hours. I was relieved to have survived my ordeal, but the mental ramifications since that day had a large impact on my life. I have regretted my decision, hated myself for ending a life, felt selfish and detached from my boyfriend, friends and everyday life. I have lost my desire to be intimate with my boyfriend; I have zero sex drive. There isn’t a day I wake up and don’t beat myself up about what a horrible person I am. Pro-life activists say this is the “easy way out”. Let me assure you there is nothing easy about what I went through. The statistics say only 3 in every 100,000 experience such drastic side-effects. When you are one of those three it doesn’t matter what the statistics say. I am a healthy 24 year-old without any indications that I would have been a high-risk candidate. I do not use drugs and rarely drink, I am not bulimic, anorexic, or over-weight, I do not engage in high-risk sex or have multiple partners, and I have never been pregnant or had an abortion before this. Please take my story and be warned but most importantly please know that you are not alone. I have shared this story with you because I feel alone, and that no one could possibly understand. I know that is not true. I hope I help someone to make an informed decision. Please actively seek out counseling before you make a decision that cannot be reversed. Don’t feel pressured by your boyfriend or what society thinks is “right”. Do only what you think is right.

Share on Facebook

“Medically Necessary” Abortions

This article by Christina Dunigan discusses abortions that are said to be needed because of health issues.

“Don’t like abortions? Don’t have one.” It makes a great bumper sticker slogan. If only it were that simple in real life. Abortion advocates would have us believe that all legalization did was allow those women who would have had dangerous “back alley” abortions to have “safe and legal” abortions instead. It’s all supposed to be about each woman making her own choices based on her own religion, her own ethics, her own plans, her own wants. But that’s not the way it has turned out in practice.

David Reardon’s research of post-abortion women showed that over 60% of them felt “forced” into unwanted abortions by people or circumstances. Nowhere is this more apparent — or more dastardly — than in the realm of “medically indicated” abortions.

This is not to cast aspersions on those rare women whose lives are endangered by a pregnancy. Sometimes the death of the unborn child is the unwanted but tragically necessary side effect of treatment necessary to save the mother’s life. A conscientious doctor will struggle with such cases, and will make all reasonable efforts to preserve the child’s life if possible. The trouble lies in the fact that abortion advocacy efforts have created a climate in which many doctors feel safest recommending abortion at the first sign of trouble.

We’ve all seen how often a small group of troublemakers can cause grief to others. Abortion proponents have painted abortion as a “right,” rather than an evil to be avoided. They have filed suit against conscientious doctors, doctors adhering to the Hippocratic Oath, for failing to advise them to abort in the face of a possible problem with the baby or with the woman’s health. Because these folks are loud and expensive to deal with, they have gotten what they want at the expense of other women and the lives of wanted children.

Over a decade before widespread legalization of abortion, even Planned Parenthood’s Medical Director, Mary Calderone, recognized that “it is hardly ever necessary today to consider the life of a mother as threatened by a pregnancy.”(1) But thanks to the efforts of abortion advocates, pregnancy is perceived as dangerous, and women are being steered by litigation-shy doctors into needless, unwanted abortions, ostensibly for maternal or fetal indications.

Nobody knows how often women are channeled into such abortions. The fact that an abortion was prescribed unnecessarily is usually only discovered if the woman persists in her resolve not to abort, or if someone investigates the situation after the abortion. The very fact that such cases happen proves the lie behind the slogans about women choosing abortions freely. We can also hazard a guess about how frequently women are sold needless, unwanted abortions on medical grounds by looking at the experiences of doctors who take the mother’s desire to preserve her child’s life more seriously.

Dr. Thomas Murphy Goodwin is affiliated with an obstetrical service specializing in high-risk cases. His reflections on cases he has seen in his practice are described by him in The Silent Subject.2 In Goodwin’s cachement area, there are approximately 30,000 births a year. The Centers for Disease Control estimate that there are slightly over 330 abortions for every 1,000 live births. That would mean that there are about 9,900 abortions per year in the area served by Goodwin and his colleagues. The Alan Guttmacher Institute estimates that 3% of abortions are for maternal health indications and another 3% are because of fear of fetal problems. So if we look at only half the problem — maternal indication abortions — there are approximately 300 abortions done for maternal indications in Goodwin’s cachement area every year. Goodwin indicates that in his practice, he and his colleagues will see one or two women a year with health problems that mean they have a greater than 20% risk of death from carrying the pregnancy to term.
That’s one or two abortions that are actually medically indicated for every 300 women who abort because they believe their lives are in danger. This is, to say the least, overkill — in the ugliest sense of the word.

Goodwin tells poignant stories of women who had been sent to his practice for unnecessary abortions. One 21-year-old woman was referred for “immediate abortion” of her 19-week pregnancy because she had been diagnosed with a congenital heart lesion. She was so distressed at the idea of aborting that a physician referred her to Goodwin and his associates for a second opinion. An evaluation that could have been done by the woman’s referring physician showed that her heart abnormality was not endangering her life. She continued the pregnancy, with unremarkable labor induced, and a healthy baby delivered, at 38 weeks.

Another woman, 32 years old, had a test at 7 weeks gestation that was positive for cytomegalovirus. She was advised to abort lest her baby be born with mental retardation and multiple organ problems. Her doctor even told her that he had confirmed this grim prognosis with a “high risk pregnancy specialist.” With great regret, the woman scheduled an abortion. A physician neighbor learned of her plight and referred her to Goodwin’s practice. A review of her test results showed that there was a 4 in 100 chance that her baby had been affected by the virus, and that even if the child was affected, there was a 50% chance that the consequence would just be some hearing impairment. “She was stunned and relieved,” Goodwin wrote, “to learn that the risk was no greater than that.” More precise tests were done which showed that there had been no infection at all. Thanks to the kindly advise of a neighbor, this woman was spared the tragedy of an abortion, and gave birth to a healthy baby boy.

Yet another woman was diagnosed with breast cancer. She was told that she needed immediate chemotherapy, that the chemotherapy would certainly harm her baby, and that trying to continue her pregnancy would worsen her prognosis. She was instructed to abort her 11 week pregnancy so that chemotherapy could be initiated. She scheduled an abortion, but was referred to Goodwin’s practice by her pastor. There she learned that breast cancer did not require abortion for treatment, and that the fetus was likely to tolerate the chemotherapy well. The woman was able to have her chemotherapy, and delivered an apparently healthy baby boy. “That many chemotherapy regimens can be continued without apparent ill-effect in pregnancy is information readily available to any interested physician,” Goodwin notes. “Why was the patient not informed?”

Although these women were put through needless anguish, they were spared the trauma of abortion. Other women have not been so fortunate.

This is the end to Dunigan’s article. I would like to add a few more thoughts.

To further show how rare the need is for abortion to protect a woman’s health, see this quote from abortion provider Don Sloan. Dr. Sloan has been performing abortions for over thirty years and was very active in campaigning against abortion laws before Roe Vs. Wade. He has written two books which discuss his opinion on the need for legalized abortion.

However, he is quoted saying:

“Abortionist Don Sloan is quoted saying the following:

“…if a woman with a serious illness- heart disease, say, or diabetes- gets pregnant, the abortion procedure may be as dangerous for her as going through pregnancy – with diseases like lupus, multiple sclerosis, even breast cancer, the chance that pregnancy will make the disease worse is no greater that the chance that the disease will either stay the same or improve. And medical technology has advanced to a point where even women with diabetes and kidney disease can be seen through a pregnancy safely by a doctor who knows what he’s doing. We’ve come a long way since my mother’s time – The idea of abortion to save the mothers’ life is something that people cling to because it sounds noble and pure- but medically speaking, it probably doesn’t exist. It’s a real stretch of our thinking.”(3)

This is not anti-abortion propaganda!

While no woman should be forced to give up her life for her child in principle, the instances where this is truly a reality are rare. The “need” for abortion to preserve the woman’s life should not be a wedge for legalizing abortion.

1. Calderone, Mary; “Illegal Abortion as a Public Health Problem;” AJPH v. 50 n. 7. pp. 948-9, July 1960
2. Stetson, Brad (ed); The Silent Subject: Reflections on the Unborn in American Culture; Praeger Publishers, CT, 1996
3. Don Sloan, M.D. and Paula Hartz “Choice: A Doctor’s Experience with the Abortion Dilemma” New York: International Publishers. 2002 pgs 45-46

 

Share on Facebook

Christian Singer Speaks To Pregnant Rape Victims

Christian singer Tata Vega, who has released twelve albums and performed with artists such as Stevie Wonder and Michael Jackson, had two abortions, one after a rape as a teenager. She maintains that her abortions led to substance abuse and a life-long depression that required hospitalization, and says that she regrets her abortions- both of them. She is quoted saying:

“Now, if somebody gets pregnant, I tell her to have the baby; I’ll take it. God has a plan for these children– even if they’re conceived in rape.”

Vega is not just spewing religious rhetoric- she’s lived through it.

“Amazing Grace” by Ginger E. McFarland “Today’s Christian Woman” Jul/Aug 2000 vol. 22 Issue 4, p20

Share on Facebook

Letter To A Baby Aborted After Rape

In a program for those who regretted having an abortion, one exercise was to write a letter to the aborted baby. One woman made her letter public. This is what she wrote:

“Dear Jennifer,

I knew the moment you were conceived, although I tried hard to ignore it. Since you were the result of rape, I felt so lonely and confused. In the beginning I wanted only to destroy you. However, when I began to experience your movements within, I found myself accepting your existence. You were 22 weeks old by the time permission for my legal abortion was granted, and I had decided to keep you. I had grown to love you, but under pressure from those around me, I went ahead with the abortion. For years afterwards your cries echoed in endless dreams until healing finally took place. Then I named you and allowed myself to grieve over your death. I also was a victim as a result of making my decision based on a few scraps of misinformation. Part of me died with you. As you look down from Heaven, I know you forgive me as even I have learned to forgive myself. Now, I press on to help others not to make the mistake I did.”

“Raped and Pregnant: Three Women Tell Their Stories” 1986

Share on Facebook

The Born Alive Infants Protection Act

The Born Alive Infants Protections Act was signed into law by President Bush.

The Act stated that any baby born alive after an abortion must receive appropriate medical care. If signs of life are present, such an infant would have to be cared for. The practice of simply discarding these children is forbidden (though not always stopped) by this Act.

The Act defines the terms “person” and “born alive” in the following ways:

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” should include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, caesarian section, or induced abortion.

Public Law 107-207

U.S. Code

Title 1, Chapter 1: Rules of Construction

Section 8.

As simple as this may be, Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) opposed the Act because it was not specific enough. He also requested that the court not “proceed so quickly” and that the bill might “require medical professionals to provide treatment that is not mandated under existing and future applicable standards of care.”

Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH), testified before the Subcommittee that providing legal personhood to premature infants who survive abortions:

“is an attempt to do what the U.S. Supreme Court has strictly forbidden over and over–it unduly restricts a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy.”

From “Senate Passes Born-Alive Infants Protection Act,” National Right to Life, at: http://www.nrlc.org/  NARAL. Pro-Choice America issued a press release denouncing the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Here is the text:

“ROE V WADE FACES RENEWED ASSAULT IN HOUSE”

Anti-Choice Lawmakers Hold Hearing on So-Called “Born Alive Infants Protection Act”

WASHINGTON, DC- The basic tenants of Roe v Wade were the subject of yet another anti-choice assault today, as the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution held a hearing on H.R. 492, the so-called “Born-Alive Infants Protection Act.” The Act would effectively grant legal personhood to a pre-viable fetus- in direct conflict with Roe- and would inappropriately inject prosecutors and lawmakers into the medical decision-making process. The bill was was introduced by well-known abortion opponent Rep. Charles Canady (R – FL) and has been endorsed by the National Right to Life Committee.

Roe V. Wade clearly states that women have a right to choose prior to fetal viability. After viability, Roe allows states to prohibit or restrict abortion as long as exceptions are made to protect the life and health of the woman. In proposing this bill, anti-choice lawmakers are seeking to ascribe rights to fetuses “at any stage of development,” thereby directly contradicting one of Roe’s basic tenants.

The bill also attempts to inject Congress in what should be personal and private decisions about medical treatment in difficult and painful situations where a fetus has no chance for survival. It could also interfere with the sound practice of medicine by spurring physicians to take extraordinary steps in situations where their efforts may be futile and when their medical judgment may indicate otherwise.

This is not the first time we’ve seen Rep. Canady and his anti-choice colleagues attempt to chip away at the foundation of Roe v Wade in just this manner. Last year, the same subcommittee held a hearing on the so-called “Unborn Victim of Violence Act” … With all these bills, anti-choice lawmakers purposefully set America on a path that they believe will ultimately lead to the overturn of Roe V Wade. In keeping with this goal, the subcommittee has put the “Born-Alive Infants Protection Act” on the fast track and has scheduled a markup for Friday, July 21, 2000.”

NOW later flip-flopped and claimed to no longer oppose the law.

An article on Planned Parenthood’s website, “PP Profiles of 15 Anti-Choice Organizations” cites National Right to Life as one of the “anti-choice” groups threatening women’s rights. Supporting the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act is included in a list of Right to Life’s crimes. Not only that, but Planned Parenthood’s voter guide includes information on every congressman who voted on ‘anti-choice’ legislation, including the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act.

And the Feminist Majority Foundation published an article on their newswire in September of 2000 entitled “Anti-Choice Bill Passes House.” Here are some excerpts from that article:

“On Sept. 25, the House of Representatives passed the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, a measure that would treat as a person under the law a fetus that is breathing when it leaves the womb, even if during an abortion procedure….Pro-choice activists call the bill an attempt to chip away at the rights women gained in the 1972 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion. Rosemary Dempsey, Washington DC Director of the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy called the bill “deceptive, extreme and unconstitutional.” She noted that “The bill proposes a definitional change to the entire United States Code, clouded in a deceptive scheme to denounce the principles guaranteed in Roe v. Wade and confirmed by the recent Stenberg v. Carhart Supreme Court decision.” The Association of Reproductive Health Professionals also opposed this act. From the article “Bush signs Born-Alive Infants Protection Act” in ARHP Update September 2002: “On August 5th, President Bush signed the so-called “Born-Alive Infants Protection Act” (HR2175) in a ceremony in Pittsburgh, PA, which will ensure federal rights for all human fetuses that are born alive, including live births that occur during an abortion procedure…The bill will amend the legal definition of “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” to include “any human being who is born alive” and will consider a fetus to be born alive if its “completely outside the mother’s body and has a beating heart or shows other signs of life.” Although the bill’s language states that it is not meant to “affirm or deny” the legal rights and status of fetuses, abortion-rights activists feel that this, and similarly proposed bills, try to give the fetus personhood.”

These pro-choice groups would allow the killing of born babies by neglect or direct action rather than let the impression be given that a “fetus” is a person. Not even the baby below would be considered a “person” if he were born alive after an abortion procedure if these organizations had their way.

Even more strident is an article in the Pro-Choice Press, a publication of BC’s Pro-Choice Action Network.

Here is an excerpt from this article.

Autumn / Winter 2002 Issue

“Right Wing Extremists Lead the Free World”

Women Drowning in a Flood of Anti-Choice Measures

“But even the Democratic Senate enacted an unnecessary anti-choice law in July, called the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. The law supposedly will protect the lives of infants who may be born alive after an abortion – President Bush signed the law in August with a strong anti-abortion speech, thereby exposing the anti-choice sentiment behind the bill.”

It’s clear that certain pro-choice organizations will not let a living, breathing baby stand between them and their support for abortion on demand at any time for any reason.

Share on Facebook

“This Baby Won’t Stop Breathing” Abortion Doctor Strangles Inconvenient Child

Mary W., a high school student, was examined by an ob/gyn and found to be 28 weeks pregnant. This ob/gyn counseled that Mary’s pregnancy was too advanced for an abortion, and advised Mary to consider an adoption plan. Somehow, Mary learned that Dr. William Baxter Waddill would be willing to do an abortion, which he initiated by saline injection on March 2 at Westminster Community Hospital in California.

Mary’s baby, a 2 lb, 8 oz infant girl, was expelled that evening and discovered by a nurse who was attending Mary.

The nurse clamped the cord and was about to put the baby in a bucket for transport to the pathology lab, when she noticed that the baby was moving and crying. Another nurse suggested putting the baby in the bucket anyway. Yet another nurse testified that she had seen the infant move but said nothing about this to avoid distressing Mary. The first nurse summoned the nursing supervisor, who noted that the baby was pink and making sucking motions. She sent the baby to the nursery and summoned Waddill.

A nurse at the nursery cleared the infant’s throat, placed her in an isolette, and charted a heartrate of 88. A neonatal ICU nurse began providing respiratory assistance on the little girl, and asked for help performing an intubation, which is routine NICU care.

Waddill arrived and dismissed all the others from room. Several witnesses heard Waddill instruct staff “not to do a goddam thing for the baby.”

…..

A tape was entered into evidence of a call from Waddill to a pediatrician, Dr. Ronald Cornelsen. The tape had Waddill telling Dr. Cornelsen to come to the hospital, because the law required a pediatrician to assist when a newborn was in distress. Waddill said, “If we all tell the same story, there will be no trouble. … So long as we stand together, no one anywhere can make any accusations anywhere. … Do not get squirrely. Just tell them exactly as we’ve discussed. Just say you went in, there was no heartbeat and you left.”

Dr. Cornelsen testified that when he arrived at the hospital the infant, a baby of about 31 weeks gestation, was breathing and had a heart rate of 60-70. There were bruises on her neck. Dr. Cornelson said that Waddill told him, “Sorry to get you in this mess. We had a baby that came out live from a saline abortion, and it can’t live!” Dr. Cornelsen testified that he saw Waddill press on the infant’s neck, saying, “I can’t find the goddam trachea,” and “This baby won’t stop breathing.” Dr. Cornelsen testified, “I said, ‘Why not just leave the baby alone?’ He said, ‘This baby can’t live or it will be a big mess.'” Waddill requested potssium choloride, for an injection to stop the baby’s heart, but Dr. Cornelsen wouldn’t let the nurse get it. Dr. Cornelsen said Waddill also asked for a bucket to drown the baby in.

Waddill claimed that he hadn’t strangled the baby, that she had died of natural causes before he even arrived at the hospital to deal with the delivery. He also said that all of his actions were done in the best interests of the mother and the baby.

A pathologist examined the baby’s lungs and concluded that she’d been alive for at least 30 minutes. The neck trauma was “consistent with manual pressure, and inconsistent with saline.” This pathologist also testified that only the infant’s placenta and small bowel seemed to have been “significantly affected by the saline,” meaning that the baby had not suffered fatal injury from exposure to the saline in-utero. The autopsy found the cause of the baby’s death to have been “manual strangulation.” The baby’s gestational age was determined to have been 29 to 31 weeks at autopsy.

All told, over 13 weeks of testimony, the witnesses described three unsuccessful attempts by Waddill to strangle Mary’s baby, and the fourth, successful, attempt. But during deliberations, the jury asked for clarification of a procedural point. A few phone calls to clarify the point led to the discovery by the attorneys and judge that there was a definition of “death” in the California health and safety code that the jury had not been informed of. Because the testimony hadn’t directly addressed this particular definition of “death,” the jurors became hopelessly deadlocked over whether Waddill’s actions, though clearly causing what laymen would consider the “death” of the baby, had caused what the law would call the “death” of the baby. The judge had to delcare a mistrial. A second jury was also deadlocked, and the charges against Waddill were eventually dismissed.

Mary later sued Waddill, saying that he’d never told her that her baby might been born alive, and that she never would have consented to the abortion had she known this was possible. She said that Waddill “willfully and unlawfully used force and violence upon the person of the baby [W.] … causing the decedent baby [W.] to die.”

Waddill continued to perform abortions in California, and as of 2000 was working for National Abortion Federation member Family Planning Associates Medical Group, a chain where the following women and girls suffered fatal abortions: Deanna Bell, Chanelle Bryant, Patricia Chacon, Laniece Dorsey, Josefina Garcia, Denise Holmes, Susan Levy, Christine Mora, Kimberly Neil, Joyce Ortenzio, Mary Pena, and Tami Suematsu.

It should be noted that Waddill was on trial for only one of the three saline abortions he committed that morning at the same hospital. The other two apparently did the job effectively,

(Sources: Omaha World-Herald 10-19-79; LA Times Magazine 1-7-80; Philadelphia Inquirer 8-2-81; Orange County Superior Court Case No. C-37815, and Case No. 28-84-14; “The Ordeal of a Divided Jury,” Time, May 22, 1978)

Credit: Christina Dunigan

Here is a picture of a child in the womb at 28 weeks.

Share on Facebook

The Abortion Baby That Lived

Nurse Joan S. Smith tells the following story:

“It was a night I’ll never forget. It was 11 pm and my colleague Karen and I “scrubbed in” at the beginning of our shift in the Special Care Nursery of a large teaching hospital….Without warning, a harried nurse rushed into the doorway.

Her white uniform seemed out of place in the area of the hospital where only surgical scrubs are worn. “Here, take this,” she said, thrusting into my hands a small silver specimen pan covered with a paper towel.

“What is it?” I asked, realizing by the look on her face that something was very wrong.

“It’s an abortion at 22 weeks gestation, delivered on our floor. But it’s alive,” she explained, then turned on her heel and was gone. I removed the paper towel to see the perfectly formed body of a baby boy curled up in the cold metal pan….Karen came over to help. “This happens every so often,” she explained sadly. She had trained at the hospital and worked there for over 15 years.

[After a doctor Joan called simply told her to do nothing but fill in the time of death for the baby] Stoking his tiny arm, I tried to sort out my jumble of emotions. I felt powerless, angy, and overwhelmed by sadness. How could our medical system be so full of ironies? Here I was surrounded by medical technology, which was of no avail to this tiny child. I wondered if the parents even were told that their son had been admitted to the hospital as a live birth with footprints taken, and identification number and band given, a physician notified of his birth- yet all of this merely an unpredicted complication of a routine abortion. It took nearly four hours until that tiny heart slowed to a stop. With tears in my eyes, I wrapped his body for the morgue. This was all of a life this child would ever know. He would never know the warmth of a mother’s embrace. No one would ever celebrate his birth. He would never even be given a name.

This child, named Kelly, was born at 21 weeks and survived. She is pictured here at one week younger than the baby Joan held.

Source: Joan E. Smith “To Live or Let Die” Easton Publishing Company, 1991

Share on Facebook

My Hardest Night: A Nurse’s Story

There have been many difficult nights in my 12 years as a registered nurse. Deaths happen in medicine. Sometimes they are anticipated, sometimes they come unexpectedly.

As I think back over the years, I remember the woman, in her 80s, who was suffering from congestive heart failure. Her family sat by her bedside, holding her hand as she gasped her last few breaths. I also remember the man, only in his 30s, who was hit by a drunk driver while on the way home from work. I arrived at the scene of the accident and saw the blank stare of someone in severe shock. On the way to the hospital, despite all our attempts to resuscitate him, this young man died in the back of the ambulance. It would have been hard for me to believe that night, but my most difficult night was yet to come.

One night last August the intensive care nursery was especially busy. As I began my shift that evening, I noticed right away that there was an extra amount of tension in the room. There have been emergency calls from other hospitals that day, and our transport team had been busy bringing in three infants requiring special care which our nursery could provide. Two of the babies were very critical. I could see that it would be difficult night.

What I was not prepared for was our next admission, which I was to be responsible for, since I was the least busy at the time. The nurse from Labor and Delivery walked into our unit carrying a blanket and stating “This is a prostaglandin abortion. He has a heartbeat so we brought him over.” The baby was placed under a radiant warmer and I was told the rest of the facts. The gestational age of the baby was given to be 23 weeks by ultrasound. The mother had cancer and had received chemotherapy treatments before discovering that she was pregnant. The parents had been told that their baby would be horribly deformed because of the chemotherapy.

I looked at the baby boy lying before me, and saw that from all appearances he was perfect. He had a good strong heartbeat. I could tell this without using a stethoscope because I could see his chest moving in sync with his heart rate. With a stethoscope I heard a heart pumping strongly. I look at his size and his skin — he definitely looked more mature than 23 weeks. He was weighed and I discovered that he was 900 grams, almost two pounds. This was almost twice the weight of some babies we have been able to save. A doctor was summoned. When she arrived the baby started moving his tiny arms and legs flailing. He started trying to gasp, but was unable to get air into his lungs. His whole body shuddered with his efforts to breathe. We were joined by a neonatalist and I pleaded with both doctors saying, “The baby is viable — look at his size, look at his skin — he looks much older than 23 weeks.”

it was a horrible moment as each of us wrestled with our own ethical standards. I argued that we should make an attempt to resuscitate him, to get him breathing. The resident doctor told me, “This is an abortion. We have no right to interfere.” The specialist, who had the responsibility for the decision, was wringing his hands and quietly saying, “This is so hard. Oh, God, it’s so hard when it’s this close.” In the end, I lost. We were not going to try to resuscitate this baby. So, I did the only thing I could do. Dipping my index finger into sterile water and placing it on his head, I baptize the child. Then I wrapped him in blankets to keep him warm, and held him. These were the only measures I could take comfort the baby under the circumstances, no matter how much I wanted to do more. I held this little boy, who was still gasping for breath, trying to stay alive on his own. As the tears flowed down my face, I pray to God that he would take this child into his care, and that he would forgive me for my own part in his death. After a while, he stopped gasping. His heart continued to be, but the beating became slower and weaker until it finally stopped. He was gone.

It seems so ironic. No more than 5 feet from where I was watching this baby die, a team of doctors and nurses were gathered around a severely ill infant. They were trying every treatment they could to save this baby, while I stood alone with an infant who had a good chance to survive. But we did nothing for him. As it turned out, we lost both of them.

By Barbara. From Vital Signs: the Journal of the Friendship Pregnancy Center fall 1991

Share on Facebook