ClinicQuotes

Jury member shocked by tales of babies aborted into toilets

On July 21, 2011, a jury of six found that the notorious late-term abortionist James Scott Pendergraft IV was liable for injuries sustained by a pre-born baby during a failed abortion ten years ago.

From a member of the Jury

“One of the things that kept me up at night was hearing the routine practice was for the women to void the fetus’ into the toilet of the facility, often by themselves. The MA testified on occasion movement was seen, yet no vitals were checked or resuscitation was performed. All of these protocols were put into place long ago by Pendergraft. He preys on poor, scared women in their time of desperation…

Tanya [Severance] testified squirming was observed “a couple times” which to me translated to numerous times. All the clinic workers said most of the infants were evacuated into the toilet as well. Pendergraft even testified it was no big deal and that “Most countries squat to give birth”. Needless to say his testimony did him no favors in our eyes.”

The abortionist in this case had his medical license suspended four times as of 2011

Cheryl Sullenger “Babies Born Alive in Toilets at Abortion Center, Left to Die” LifeNews 7/27/11

Share on Facebook

Saving baby girls targeted for abortion leads to “oppression of women”

Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada’s (ARCC) Facebook page, posting an article, on their support of sex selection abortion:

“Lessons from India: Here’s an excellent article that explains in detail how the war against sex selection abortion in India contributes to the further oppression of women in many ways. ….

The right of women to do what they feel is best for them in the circumstances they find themselves is sacrificed at the altar of making empty ‘pro-girl’ gestures. …If you are pro-choice, then you cannot start limiting someone else’s choice because it makes you feel uncomfortable.”

So it is perfectly okay for a woman to have an abortion, often an abortion she is pressured into, solely because her baby is a girl. In fact, preventing baby girls for being aborted because they are girls is “oppression of women.” This is like bizarro world, where everything is backwards – where preventing sex discrimination is a form of sex discrimination in itself, and killing girls for being girls is somehow pro-woman.

You can read the article that cited this quote here.

Share on Facebook

Proabortion attorney complains about ultrasound law

A proabortion attorney said the following about a law requiring a sonogram to be performed before abortions. The law would also allow a woman to see the sonogram image if she chose

“It’s really about chipping away at the various ways in which abortion care can happen in an effort to make it impossible for women to obtain it.”

Michelle Movahed attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights, which sued to block the state’s ultrasound law

Robin Marty, Jessica Mason Pieklo Crow After Roe (Brooklyn, New York: ig Publishing, 2013) 91

This completely ignores the fact that ultrasounds are already a routine part of abortion care.

The only way to truly, accurately date a pregnancy is through ultrasound; ultrasound is also needed because an ectopic pregnancy must be ruled out before an abortion is performed. Even if ultrasounds were not a part of routine abortion care, how would requiring one “make it impossible” for women to have an abortion?

The only consequences this law would have would be to make abortion safer and to offer women a chance to get more information about the baby they are about to destroy.

The goal of the law is to change minds and hearts by giving the woman more information about her own body.

Is it better for her to be exposed to ultrasound pictures (from a friend/family member’s pregnancy or her own future pregnancy) after she has the abortion, when it is too late for her to change her mind?

Share on Facebook

Clinic worker has no sympathy for suffering postabortion woman, tells her to stay away from pro-life support group

A woman named Maria had an abortion and suffered emotionally afterwards. A year after her abortion, she was so distraught that she called the clinic and set up a follow up appointment. The clinic worker she met with was cold and unkind, and even tried to steer her away from a pro-life group that helps postabortion women, putting political ideology ahead of her patient’s healing.:

“I resent not being told that having an abortion had aftereffects. Late last year I went back to the abortion clinic for counseling. The lady I spoke to made me feel like an idiot when I cried and said I wanted to die. I asked her about [the pro-life group] Women Hurt by Abortion. She said not to contact them. She was not impressed that I rang for counseling so long after my abortion. It was like, “What do you want?” They don’t want to see us again, once we have an abortion.”

Melinda Tankard Reist Giving Sorrow Words: Women’s Stories of Grief after Abortion (Springfield, IL: Acorn Books, 2007) 120

Share on Facebook

Pictures of unborn babies at different stages of development in the first trimester

Here are some pictures of unborn babies at different stages of development. I am also going to link to pictures of what these babies look like after an abortion takes their lives.

Below, Five weeks after conception:

5 1/2 to 6 weeks after conception

6 1/2 to 7 weeks after conception

See a picture of what a six-week-old baby looks like after an abortion

Seven weeks after conception

Seven-week-old unborn baby – most abortions are done at this time or later

See what a seven-week-old baby looks like after abortion

Eight weeks after conception

See what a baby looks like at eight weeks when he or she has been aborted

Nine weeks after conception

See what a baby at nine weeks looks like after abortion

9-10 weeks after conception

10 weeks after conception

See what a baby at 10 weeks looks like after an abortion

Feet of a baby at 11 weeks

See abortions at 11 weeks

Unborn baby at 12 weeks

Pictures of babies aborted at 12 weeks

Share on Facebook

“Grieving counselors” have women take pictures of their aborted babies as keepsakes

Abortionist Amos Grunebaum Said the following under oath at the partial-birth abortion ban trial in New York:

“We have been told by grieving counselors to take pictures of all dead fetuses and babies – specifically babies, but also fetuses – so there is a memory of the baby by the mother.”

Testimony of abortionist Dr Amos Grunebaum, National Abortion Federation, et. al. v. Ashcroft, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, March 30, 2004.

He is referring to the practice of late-term abortionists’ giving “keepsakes” to women who have abortions. These women are offered the chance to hold their babies and “say goodbye” as if it were a natural death or miscarriage. Some of them take photographs with their dead child. Other abortionists have also spoken of this and Dr. George Tiller offered such services in his late term abortion clinic.

The women or couples that do this are usually ones that aborted their babies because the babies would’ve been disabled – in some cases, these children had such severe problems if they would have been stillborn or may have died soon after birth, but in many more cases, the disability was one that the child could’ve lived with.Below is one such picture. It was taken of a woman who now regrets her abortion. Her identity has been obscured, but you can see the body of the baby and her features (the child was a girl). The baby had been diagnosed with cystic fibrosis, a serious illness, But one that can be managed. The average life expectancy for someone with cystic fibrosis is in the early 40s. Perhaps 40 years of life were taken from this baby.

Share on Facebook

Researcher discusses the technology that allows women to abort disabled babies

Former abortion clinic worker Rayna Rapp, who herself had aborted a disabled baby, wrote a book where she interviewed men and women going through the process of amniocentesis to detect abnormalities in their babies. She has many quotes from these men and women, some of whom aborted, some of whom did not, in her book, but I would like to present two quotes from the author herself. In these, she talks about the conflicting values between supporting the disabled and aborting them before they are born.

“Over the years of this study, I learned a great deal about two related and tension fraught issues. The first is the need to champion the reproductive rights of women to carry or refuse to carry to term a pregnancy that would result in a baby with a serious disability. The second is the need to support adequate, non-stigmatizing, integrative services for all the children, including disabled children, that women bear. The intersection of disability rights and reproductive rights as paradoxically linked feminist issues has emerged as central to my political and intellectual work.”

In the second quote, she discusses how the technology that is aimed that destroying disabled unborn babies cannot be “neutral”,:

“It is hard to argue for the neutrality of a technology explicitly developed to identify and hence eliminate fetuses with problem-causing chromosomes (and, increasingly, genes): the biomedical and public health interests behind the development and routinization of the technology itself evaluate such fetuses as expendable. Ethicists and counselors are surely right to respond that parents of such potentially atypical fetuses have a right to know as well as not to know about the chromosomal status of their fetus, and to use the information however they may wish, whether that means preparing for the birth of a child with special needs or ending the pregnancy. But the very existence and routinization of the technology implies anything but neutrality. It assumes that scientific and medical resources should be placed in the service of prenatal diagnosis and potential elimination of fetuses bearing chromosome problems.”

Rayna Rapp Testing Women, Testing the Fetus: the Social Impact of Amniocentesis in America (New York: Routledge, 1999) 8, 59

Share on Facebook

My husband gave me an ultimatum Have the abortion, or he’d leave

A woman describes being coerced into abortion:

“My husband gave me an ultimatum: go and get an abortion or he would leave. As the sole parent’s pension was an absolute pittance in those days, I felt that I had no choice… Inside myself I was thinking, “Oh, please don’t let this happen – I want to keep this child; I think it will be a boy, a little brother for my daughter. I wish my husband would accept this child too and not make me have it aborted.” Each night when my husband came home from work, I begged him, “Please don’t make me have an abortion. Please don’t make me kill our child. Please, why can’t I just have this baby?”

Their marriage later broke up anyway.

Melinda Tankard Reist Giving Sorrow Words: Women’s Stories of Grief after Abortion (Springfield, IL: Acorn Books, 2007) 25-26

Women being pressured to abort by their partners is very common. In fact, one study shows that 64% of women going in for an abortion had been coerced and were not making the choice completely by their own free will. This is not “choice” like the feminists say. Read more about coerced abortion here.

Share on Facebook