Category: Articles

Either the fetus is a person, or not; and either we know what it is, or not. Thus there are four and only four possibilities:

1. that it is not a person and we know that,
2. that it is a person and we know that,
3. that it is a person but we do not know that, and
4. that it is not a person and we do not know that.
Now what is abortion in each of these four cases?

In case (1), abortion is perfectly permissible. We do no wrong if we kill what is not a person and we know it is not a person- e.g., if we fry a fish. But no one has ever proved with certainty that a fetus is not a person. If there exists anywhere such a proof, please show it to me and I shall convert to pro-choice on the spot if I cannot refute it.

If we do not have case (1) we have either (2) or (3) or (4). What is abortion in each of these cases? It is either murder, or manslaughter, or criminal negligence. In case (2), where the fetus is a person and we know that, abortion is murder. For killing an innocent person knowing it is an innocent person is murder.

In case (3), abortion is manslaughter, for it is killing an innocent person not knowing and intending the full, deliberate extent of murder. It is like driving over a man-shaped overcoat in the street, which may be a drunk or may only be an old coat. It is like shooting at a sudden movement in a bush which may be your hunting companion or may be only a pheasant. It is like fumigating an apartment building with a highly toxic chemical not knowing whether everyone is safely evacuated. If the victim is a person you have committed manslaughter. And if not?

Even in case (4), even if abortion kills what is not in fact a person, but the killer does not know for sure that it is not a person, we have criminal negligence, as in the above three cases if there happened to be no man in the coat, the bush, or the building but the driver, the hunter, or the fumigator did not know that, and nevertheless drove, shot or fumigated. Such negligence is instinctively and universally condemned by all reasonable individuals and societies as personally immoral and socially criminal; and cases (2) and (3), murder and manslaughter, are of course condemned even more strongly. We do not argue politely over whether such behavior is right or wrong. We wholeheartedly condemn it, even when we do not know whether there is a person there, because the killer did not know that a person was not there. Why do we not do the same with abortion?

See Kreeft’s complete article “Human Personhood Begins at Conception”

Share on Facebook

Author: Womancare Services, Inc.

Eager to please their boyfriends or spouses, women often choose abortion to keep the relationship steady. But that can’t be counted on, say researchers at Bowling Green State University in a recent study.

When a woman gets an abortion, the couple is more than twice as likely to argue when discussing future children, and nearly three times as likely to experience domestic violence, compared with women who carry the pregnancy to term and raise the child, according to the peer-reviewed journal Public Health published Mar. 24.

“Abortion may play a vital role in understanding the aetiology [cause] of relationship problems,” the journal stated. The study said that abortion within a current relationship causes 116% more arguing when discussing future children, and 196% more domestic violence.

The study was carried out by Dr. Priscilla Coleman, professor of Human Development and Family Studies at Bowling Green State University, KY; Vincent Rue of the Florida-based Institute for Pregnancy Loss; and post-abortion researcher Catherine Coyle. The researchers found that abortion affected future relationships as well.

‘For both men and women the experience of an abortion in a previous relationship was related to negative outcomes in the current relationship,’ they wrote.

Although neither the Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood, nor the sexuality website RH Reality Check commented on the study yet, the Planned Parenthood website states on its health topic answers that, “For some women, having an abortion can be a significant life event, like ending a relationship, starting or losing a job, or becoming a parent. It can be very stressful and difficult. Other women have an easier time after abortion.”

Article Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/womens-health-articles/abortions-often-linked-to-relationship-problems-study-says-1479934.html

About the Author

Women in Berwyn, Oak Park, Stickney, LaGrange, Cicero, Westchester, and nearby towns who want to learn more about such after-effects to better enable them to make an abortion decision should contact WomanCare Services in Berwyn, IL. WomanCare Services offers help to women facing unintended pregnancies in the near southwest Chicago area. Go to WomanCare Services. Or call 708-795-6000

Share on Facebook

There has been a great deal of talk recently about cutting off Federal funding to Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood receives Title X and Title XX funds from state, federal, and local governments to help the poor and needy get birth control. Or at least, that’s the story. Things are not necessarily what they seem at Planned Parenthood.

Pro-life activist Robert H. Ruff picketed outside the third largest Planned Parenthood clinic in the United States. He noticed that the dumpster next to the building was stuffed with computer printouts. He examined the information and discovered that Planned Parenthood had thrown out over two years worth of records, including financial records of over 50,000 office visits.

Using several trips and several cars he took the bags of print-outs home.

In the records, they found some interesting things about Title X and XX funds.

Apparently, when funds are given to PP by the government, there are no rules or guidelines about criteria as to which patients these funds should be reserved for.

If a person receives Medicaid, for example, the government first had to determine that they were in fact poor or disabled. But no such rules govern what Planned Parenthood patients deserve government funding. That means, while a patient on Mediciad must actually be poor or disabled to qualify for medicaid funds, a patient whose visit to Planned Parenthood is paid for by Title X funds need not be. The government INTENDS that such funds be used for poor people, but there is no way to enforce this. According to Ruff and the records he found, he says that PP used the funds to finance birth control mostly for people who , in fact, were of the same demographic of those who paid in cash. Evidence, according to him, that the “free” birth control provided by PP is not only gong to those who cannot pay, but just as often to those who CAN pay.

In fact, in a Planned Parenthood memo to clinic directors, explaining how to qualify clients for Title XX (Government Funds) they gave the following example:

“Example 2: An 18 yer old patient states that she is a full-time college student. She is part-time employed with an average income of $50.00 per week. Her parents send her 150.00 per month for food. They also pay her tuition directly to the University. The student also uses her summer employment savings of $2,000.00 to contribute to her monthly expenses. The student calculates that she uses about 150.00 a month to meet her other expenses. The patient is wearing three gold necklaces, two rings with multiple stones, one has rubies and diamonds, and the other has a black onyx stone with diamonds. She also has a Gucci purse and an obviously new pair of leather shoes. She states that her father is a banker and earns $35,000.00 a year and her mother is part time employed with an income of $10,000.00 a year, the patient has two siblings.

Question: How is eligibility calculated and determined?

Answer: First and foremost, the patient is 18 years old, therefore she is a legal adult. Her parents and siblings are disregarded in determining eligibility….this person would be Title XX eligible and assessed a co-pay of 20%.”

So even a girl who has enough money for expensive jewelry and high fashion clothes is eligible for help from the government to pay for her birth control pills.

But surely, if funds are cut off from Planned Parenthood, some affiliates will go out of business, right?

Well, in the summer of 1986, Planned Parenthood ran out of Title XX funds in certain areas and went cold turkey off federal funds with only medicaid funds, nothing else. They had to charge virtually all their patients straight cash fees. Did the clinics close? Not at all.

The minutes of the PPHSET Board of Directors meeting of Sept 24, 1986: (directly quoted)

“Follow-up- If you recall at the Annual Meeting in May, I presented a pessimistic view of our financial condition going into the summer months. This was primarily due to our running out of Title XX funding in Regions Eleven and Six.

I am happy to report that the gloomy forecast did not come true, for a variety of reasons:

— Absent goverment funding, patients were willing to pay for their own care

…..

As I hope was mentioned in the Treasurer’s Report, we finished 85/86 in the black. This success was due to a number of facts:

The clinic staff successfully shifting patients to cash paying status vs government funding….”

The meeting also mentioned that donations from private organizations helped supplement their income.

So is it true that Planned Parenthood will not be able to survive without government funds?

As if all this isn’t enough, Ruff’s examination of the 50,000 office records revealed something else.

Ruff found that the Planned Parenthood records showed that the organization charged more money for services to clients whose visits were being covered by government funds.

For a pregnancy test Planned Parenthood charged 3 1/2 times more money to Title XX (federal) clients.

If a client paid cash, they were charged 15.75 for a pregnancy test

If they were title XX patients, they were charged a it a whopping 57.93! Just for a simple pregnancy test! When a home pregnancy test can be purchased for several dollars, Planned Parenthood has the goverment paying 57.93 to provide pregnancy tests to patients, many of which aren’t even poor.

BTW, when Medicaid picked up the tab, the cost was 47.18.

The same kind of overbilling occurred with other Planned Parenthood services.

Average cash cost of initial birth control visit: 32.13
Title XX cost: 77.55
Medicaid cost: 63.81

Average cash cost of annual birth control visit: 40.61
Title XX: 85.83
Medicaid: 69.58

Average cost in cash for birth control repeat visit: 25.37
Title XX: 35.94
Medicaid: 25.16

Average cash cost for birth control supply visit: 10.29
Title XX: 35.62
Medicaid: 16.75

(Tables on PGS 24-27)

Should Planned Parenthood continue to receive millions of dollars in taxpayer funds with virtually no oversight as to how these funds are used? I would argue no.

————————————————

Source: Robert H. Ruff “Aborting Planned Parenthood: Documented Proof of Planned Parenthood’s Systematic Exploitation of Teenagers and Taxpayers” (Lewiston, NJ: Life Cycle Books, 1988)

 

Share on Facebook

In a recent article on Jezebel, a pro-choice author discusses the abortion she had after she visited a pro-life pregnancy resource center. Her grief and guilt after the abortion, and her willingness to blame the pro-lifer’s for her suffering, offers a window into the pro-choice mindset.

Here is a write up by Kelsey Hazzard, who is the president of Secular Pro-Life, which can be found here.

Today’s post is a review of an article on Jezebel, in which a pro-choicer describes visiting a pregnancy help center, viewing her unborn baby on a sonogram, and then having an abortion. The author now rails against pregnancy centers.

What I see above all in this story is a deep-seated grief that has been transformed into misdirected anger as a psychological defense mechanism. I cannot emphasize enough that I do not intend to demonize this woman. We all experience misdirected anger at times. But I think it’s important for us to examine this closely, to try to understand the whirlwind of emotion, so that we can serve women in crisis pregnancies better.

The author was a 21-year-old pro-choicer who thought that she was only a couple weeks pregnant, and planned to take an abortion pill. But she learned from the pregnancy center that she was actually three and a half months along. They provided her with a sonogram, which confronted her with the humanity of her unborn baby:

“Then she turned the monitor to me. I have so many little brothers and sisters. I was with my mother the first time she heard my younger siblings heartbeat. There was a heartbeat now, too.

. . .

I clutched my hand to my stomach and in the sonogram screen, an arm lifted. I took my arm away and the arm went back down. “Put your hand back up!” the older woman said. I did, and the tiny hand went up again. That’s the moment that I can’t get out of my head, to this day.”

After speaking with a counselor, she was considering the possibility that she “could be a good mother.” But she was ambivalent, and didn’t make a follow-up appointment. She returned home, to a boyfriend who was eager to “take care of it.” He took the sonogram printout and hid it from her– but it was too late to undo her knowledge.

“For me, the real anger didn’t come until later when I actually went through with the abortion. I’m not saying it’s ever easy for anyone, but all I could think about that day was the sonogram and that hand. There were tears streaming down my face when I was going under. I remember the anesthesiologist telling me, “Don’t worry, it won’t hurt,” and I remember thinking, That’s not what I’m crying about.”

Of course, she was crying about the fact that her child– whose movements she watched, whose heartbeat she heard– was about to die.

But this self-insight is fleeting. She apparently thinks that if only she had been able to maintain her ignorance of human development, everything would have been fine. She blames the pregnancy center for allowing her to see the situation for what it really was. And now, she wants to impose her wished-for ignorance on other women by fighting sonogram laws.

Some things are just too much for the human heart to handle, and the knowledge that you’re responsible for the death of a real live human being is one of them. She initially felt that the pregnancy center volunteers were honest and kind. But she can no longer feel that way, not after making the decision she made. And so, she demonizes the pregnancy center movement in an effort to avoid her grief. It isn’t working, though: she says that “It’s taken me the two years since [the abortion] not to break down every time I think about it.”

This is the pain that thousands of women experience each year. This is why pro-lifers must be proactive in reaching out to women hurt by abortion, and it is why we must continue helping women choose life. Willful ignorance is not the answer.

Share on Facebook

The March for Women’s Lives is a yearly (usually) pro-choice demonstration held in Washington D.C. Here are some accounts of the 2006 March from pro-life counter-protestors and observers.

One pro-choicer, whose photo-essay can be found in the INDC Journal, did not skimp on his criticism of pro-lifers.

However, he was forced to admit:

“The speeches contained the typical hyperbolic rhetoric, marshalling this crowd of hundreds of thousands….One harangue in particular caught my attention, delivered by a fiery, square-built woman with close-cropped blonde hair. It was a screaming, apoplectic treatise on the virtues of “cunt power,” that demanded that the nation bow to the authority of the “cunt” and pledge allegiance to the the United “Cunts” of America. “My Cunt ‘Tis of Thee,” etc., etc….At this point, I became a bit disturbed, for the crowd wasn’t awkwardly tolerating this obscene and immature rant, rather raising their arms and screaming throaty acceptance of a woman performing second rate porno-schlock, ostensibly as a legitimate representative of one side of a highly divisive and important public issue. I consider myself pro-choice, but this wasn’t my crowd, and these orators didn’t speak for me.”(2)

He then goes on to discuss how the crowd reacted to a line of Episcopal priests standing with the pro-life counter-demonstrators. The priests were standing quietly.

“For the most part, the priests prayed or calmly attempted to speak to protesters that drew near enough to engage them. I had little idea how badly many in the crowd would react to the mere sight of the religious garb. Mere seconds passed before I witnessed the first bout of rage. Thousands upon thousands of people walked by, and I would say that perhaps a fifth of the individuals within sight and shouting distance had a highly aggressive reaction to the presence the priests. They yelled, spit and uttered shocking profanities. A smattering of the worst:

“F-ck you!”

“Die, you f–king murderers!”

“Why don’t you go screw some kids!”

“How many little boys did you f-ck in the ass today?”

“You just want more wayward children around so you can f-ck them!”

“Shouldn’t you be off molesting altar boys?”

“You want to kill women? F-ck you!”

It was simply stunning. The second these people…saw the priests, they simply lost their minds. It was like watching a live-action scene from the Exorcist repeated ad infinitum. No exaggeration, no joke.

This was a fine example of hateful mob mentality. The belligerents that screamed the most vile profanities were egged on by the people that they were with, which made for a nice collusion of nasty emotions: violent anger and malicious, hysterical laughter…”(3)

The post showed a number of pictures of pro-choicers hurling abuse at the priests.

At one point a red liquid was thrown, splattering both the priests and a nearby cop.(4)

Accounts from pro-lifers who were there are similar.

Pro-Lifer John Lomperis says this of the speakers:

“They … resorted to name-calling, denouncing pro-life people as ‘cowards’, ‘peckerwood anti-choice fanatics’ and people ‘who have no shame’ among many other epithets.”(5)

He also makes mention of the reaction of the pro-choice crowd to the pro-life presence at the March.

“During the course of the march, hundreds of peaceful pro-life counter-protesters endured a steady stream of hurled curses, hateful shouts, and even an occasional projectile (including black ink, spit, Planned Parenthood condoms with crude jokes on them, an egg, and a flier picturing Jesus and reading: “Save Lives / Abort Christ” The main pro-life groups represented were American Collegians for Life; Silent No More (a Christian ministry of and for post-abortive women); Feminists for Life; an African-American evangelical group called the Life, Education and Resource Network (LEARN), and Operation Witness. The pro-choice marchers reserved some of their most energetic shouts and confrontations for the Silent No More women quietly holding signs that said, simply, “I Regret My Abortion.”(6)

Karen A. Torres was at the March with her two daughters, attending with the counter-demonstrations. She witnessed a priest mobbed by pro-choice demonstrators.

Torres said the crowd in the street “went crazy” at the sight of a crucifix and roman collar, coupled with the recitation of the rosary. “It was too much for them,” she said. “Women naked from the waist up (except for NARAL stickers) came as close as possible to the priest to scream obscenities and block sight of the crucifix with their signs promoting sex-ed….One enraged man began banging his sign hard against an oversized poster of a baby in the womb, attempting to topple it and possibly its holder.

One man who appeared to be quite serious told us repeatedly that he worshipped Satan and was putting a curse on us. Over and over again we were told that Jesus hated us, God was pro-choice and we were bad Christians who were going to hell.

But the most hated and attacked target was the priest. For major portions of the march, we could not hear the rosary over the microphone, even though we were only five feet away. At the sight of the priest and his crucifix, people cursed, taunted and chanted slogans, but mostly they just screamed and shrieked incoherently. Between the decibel level and the hate, that sustained screaming was unnervingly like a tidal wave coming at you.”

Torres said that the priest never lost his temper. She said he exhibited “patient compassion” in the face of “unremitting hate.”

“In my 47 years I have never witnessed a better example of grace under pressure (better known as courage) and I would like to write and tell him so.”(7)

A pro-life demonstrator named Dr. Messe gave the following account of the March:

“To get into our position on 7th St, we had to cross through the Mall, right through the pro-abortion crowd. I was naive coming down to Washington, I did not think they would have that many. But they did have a large crowd. Our group of one hundred or so walked silently, single file. The barrage of insults and screaming in our faces was hard to take….

A group of one hundred young pro-abortion supporters decided to leave the rally on the Mall and march in front of us and scream…They played drums and chanted in our face. They were heavily tattooed and dressed in scanty black clothing. They rubbed their genitals and made pelvic gestures upon each other. ‘Masturbation, Procreation’, they shouted over and over again. The police held them back and after twenty minutes finally made them continue down the street.

When the marchers came by, we were assailed by the usual comments, to which our group did not respond. They said:

If men could get an abortion, it would be a sacrament!

Shove that crucifix up your A__!

Jesus was Pro-choice!

How many babies have you adopted?

F – – – You – while they pointed the middle finger at the crucifix.”(8)

Many of the pro-life counter-demonstrators had no connection with organized religion. However, they fared no better. A group of women held up “I Regret My Abortion” signs. One discusses her experience:

“The March, in three words: “viciously, mercilessly abusive.” The amount of verbal aggression and abuse hurled at me personally, by women and men, of all ages, for carrying the I REGRET MY ABORTION sign, well, I thought that I was ready for it.

I wasn’t. Not even close.

I consider myself fairly far along on the “healing” and “public-appearances” scales. We stood, all 500 of us in the Silent No More Awareness groups, in total silence as planned, for over five hours, not replying or saying one word to anything that was said or done to us, and I do mean anything.

But nothing prepared me for literally mobs of livid people screaming the most hateful vicious snide things at me personally. We were spit on, and had an egg hurled at us from the marchers. There were two groups of Satanists. And the signs. Like the guy who held a handmade sign, “BABY KILLER” with an arrow pointed downward at himself. If not for the riot police, we would have been mobbed. There was that much viciousness. People broke through the riot police’s invisible line just to come up in my face and hurl insulting words. There were not enough police to form a complete line, so they would run up to me, shout out their abuse, and run back before the policeman or woman got to stop him/her. And I said nothing to anyone, just held my sign.”(9)

She goes on to tell more about the counter-protest.

“The riot police, perhaps fifty in our area, in full battle gear, lined up on the march-side of the barricades, facing us, about 10-15 feet apart. Before the march, I said to the few of them standing right in front of me, “Thank you for being here. I know it’s your job so you have to be here, but thank you anyway. You won’t be getting any trouble from us.” One of the policemen nodded his head respectfully at me in silent acknowledgment and thanks….

I saw men look me right in the eye after reading the sign as they shouted out the chants that are the 30-year-old standards of the pro-abortion movement, like “Pro-Life? That’s a lie! YOU don’t care if women die” …Little did they know, how much we do care and do help women to survive and have a better alternative to abortion.

Later, after reading my sign, one woman started a chant that about a hundred marchers began screaming at me, “THAT WAS YOUR *CHOICE*!” essentially telling me I had no right to be upset or to regret. They stopped marching and stood right in front of me, all one-hundred of them glaring directly at me, some not more than 2-3 feet away, jabbing fingers at me in the air, their faces twisted and contorted with contempt. I just looked from face to face, amazed at what I was seeing. It was starting to get frightening. Not for my personal safety, but their hatred was feeling as though it was reaching a fever pitch and becoming toxic.

Can any of you pro-choicers stop for just a moment, and imagine nothing but a flimsy piece of fence standing between you and 100 frenzied people, not safely away on some wired blog, but there live and in person, who are screaming their disgust and hatred for you?…

I said [to the other pro-lifers] “It always turns out that the ones who are the most upset at us, the angriest ones, the ones who are so hateful, have so much to cover up, and this is how they do it. They are the post-abortive ones, even if they don’t say so. And they’re the ones who hit the wall the hardest when they do. I know, because I denied it for over 20 years…I know what happens when it all comes out.”

Overwhelmed by emotion, she began to cry:

“You know how it all rushes through you at once when you start weeping? Everything comes out. I cried because, here were these thousands of people fighting for a right I wish they’d never allowed me to have, instead of fighting for the daughters and sons I and millions of others will never have. I felt they were fighting for the death of my daughter, to deny me the right to grieve her…

Then I realized I wasn’t crying so much for me as I was for them. I felt they were fighting to hide their loss because to come to grips with it, after being so fervently pro-choice, would bring upon them the same kind of abuse I was getting. I felt so crushingly sad for them. The cold, angry hearts, the screaming remorselessness, the relentless cruelty they seemed capable of, toward me and toward another living human being, their own flesh and blood. I realized that they don’t see those living human beings as the gift they are, because if they did, the facade could no longer justify their ‘choice.’ Just as it one day stopped hiding the truth of my choice. I just wanted to reach out and hold them all…”

The pro-life counter-protesters seemed to feel that if they had only reached one person, it was worth it. Perhaps despite the anger evident in the pro-choicers, some seeds were planted that day.

Here are some photos of the event.

Footnotes

1. Jo Freeman http://www.jofreeman.com/photos/MFWL.html#photos
2. “Bill” INDC Protests March for Women’s Lives Part 2. May3, 2004. http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/000361.php
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. John Lomperis “Oldline Churches Participate in Abortion March” May 20, 2004.
6. Ibid.
7. Michael F. Flach. “Editor’s Deck: Descent into Hell” Catholic Herald 5/13/04
8. Blog “After Abortion” http://afterabortion.blogspot.com/2004_04_25_afterabortion_archive.html#108304137944458162
9. Ibid.
10.Ibid.

Share on Facebook

In an International Aids Society study titled: “HIV-related discrimination in abortion clinics, New York City, USA: 1988-1992,” that was released at the International Conference AIDS 1993 Jun 6-11.

Calls were placed to all the abortion clinics in New York, the caller told the clinic she had HIV/AIDS. The report revealed that:

In 1988:

— 42% of the abortion clinics refused to provide services when they discovered that the client was HIV positive.

In 1990:

— 31% of the providers either refused an appointment or increased the fee for an abortion on learning that the caller was HIV positive.

Share on Facebook

The Associated Press Reported in the article, “Abortionists Shun AIDS-Infected Women, Survey Finds” March 21 1990:

In a survey, conducted in November 1988 through February 1989, callers from the New York City human rights commission made appointments with 30 abortion clinics and physicians that advertised in the Yellow Pages.

• Twenty abortion clinics canceled the appointment after the caller said she was infected with HIV but had no symptoms of AIDS. Twelve of the 20 said they did not have adequate infection control.

• Others said abortion on an HIV-infected woman was too complicated a procedure for them to handle and referred the caller to a hospital.

Many of the responses “were very hostile,” said a committee lawyer. “Some just hung up or said, We can’t treat your kind.”

Abortionist Lewis Koplik was asked to respond to the story and told reporters that he has an “undocumented gut feeling” that the discrimination might be happening elsewhere. “If you have one woman who has HIV infection or AIDS and can’t get service, that’s a real problem. It’s just something that should not happen,” he said.

Los Angeles obstetrician-gynecologist David Grimes, chairman of Planned Parenthood’s medical advisory committee, told the reporters that he does not believe the problem is widespread, although it may be more apparent on the East Coast where more women are infected with HIV.

Share on Facebook

The National Academy Of Sciences, HIV Screening of Pregnant Women and Newborns (1991) Reported:

HIV-infected pregnant women who elect to terminate their pregnancies may discover that their access to abortion services is restricted. Some areas report outright exclusion of HIV-infected women by abortion clinics. In an attempt to document the degree to which HIV-infected women were discriminated against in gaining access to abortions revealed that two-thirds of the abortion facilities contacted in the study:

• Canceled appointments made by allegedly HIV-infected women once their infection status was disclosed.

• Some of the facilities attempted a plausible response, such as their inability to handle that type of procedure.

Others:

• Changed the vacation schedules of the physicians or quoted inflated prices for abortion services to discourage those seeking care.

• Openly reported that their staff refused to care for HIV-infected patients.

This information was compiled by Life Dynamics at their website www.deathroe.com

Share on Facebook

Pro-choice author Janet Hadley tells the following story:

A 38-year-old Haitian woman in New York City learned that she was HIV-positive during her antenatal care in a hospital with an excellent record for high risk pregnancy care. She was advised not to tell anyone her HIV status, that her chances of having a baby with AIDS were extremely high and that she should abort the fetus. She was also told to go home and write her will, because she was going to die. She was asymptomatic.

She chose to continue her pregnancy. When she went for her next routine checkup, she was taken to another building for a meeting with several high-ranking medical personnel. They told her that having a child with AIDS was worse than having a child with spina bifida, which her older daughter has. They said such a child would be a burden to society, and that she would be wrong not to abort. She insisted that she wanted to have the baby and pleaded that they continue her care. They refused, stating that the hospital was not equipped to treat her.

She was referred to another hospital for a second trimester abortion. This was performed without counseling or obtaining her signed consent. She was placed in a room marked “isolation” during her induced labor and left alone screaming for help for 15 minutes after the fetus was expelled. When she hemorrhaged because the abortion was incomplete, she was made to walk down the hall to the operating room. In both hospitals as soon as they knew that she was HIV-positive, she felt they wanted to get rid of her.

The Center for Constitutional rights in New York filed a case against both hospitals for discrimination, inflicting emotional distress, negligence and failure to obtain consent for abortion in the second hospital.”

 

Story was from M. Berer, with S. Ray “Women and HIV/AIDS an International Resource Book” (London: Pandora) page 94, 1993

Quoted in Janet Hadley “Abortion: between Freedom and Necessity” (Great Britain: Virago Press) 1996

Hadley reveals that according to studies, 6 to 8 out of 10 babies born to AIDS infected mothers do not develop AIDS.

One third of abortion clinics in the US do not operate an HIV-positive patients or they raise their fees (page 130)

Share on Facebook