Abortion – Abortion Clinics, Abortion Pill, Abortion Information

In the very near future, the fate of President Obama’s healthcare bill will be determined by the U.S. Congress.  And the issue of abortion could determine whether or not the bill passes.

In November, Congressman Bart Stupak got an amendment added to the House healthcare bill that barred federal funds from being used for abortion.  In response to this action, 64 pro-life Democrats voted for the final bill who, without that language, otherwise would have voted against the overall measure.  Then, the Senate followed suit and inserted language that, while not exactly the same as Stupak’s, was acceptable to a number of pro-life Democratic Senators.  

On the Sunday talk shows, however, both sides of the issue were debating whether the final healthcare bill contains language that would allow people receiving government subsidized healthcare to obtain an abortion. 

For example, this morning, Rep. Jason Altmire said that there is a block of Democrats who voted for the Stupak amendment who now say they will not vote for the final bill unless they tighten the abortion language that’s in the Senate bill.  Meanwhile, the Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.) said that the Democrats were continuing to work on Stupak.

This one is going to come down to the wire…

A short while ago, a woman filmed herself having a non-surgical abortion (the abortion pill, mifepristone or RU486) and placed her experience on YouTube, Twitter, and other Social Media, etc.   It has gained national exposure.

Her reasoning was to show the public that there is no shame in having an abortion.  Unfortunately, while abortion has been legal since 1973 and over one million women a year have an abortion, there is still a stigma attached to the procedure and even to the medical term abortion.   While there are many national pro-choice groups, one organization, the Abortion Care Network (ACN), has focused most of its resources on encouraging women to speak up about their abortion experience in the hopes that the more women speak, the more “acceptable” the procedure will become.  They are to be applauded.

Thousands of people a day read this blog.  Thousands of you have had abortions.

I’d like to use this forum to encourage women to reply to this post and talk about their abortion experience.   And, yes, if you had a bad experience (see my previous postings on “Bad Doctors”), please let us know.

The more you talk, and experiences are shared, the more people will understand.

For the last week or so, I’ve had a running debate on another Facebook page with a woman who suggests that if women had an ultrasound, then they would never consider having an abortion.   In some states, there are bills pending that would require ultrasounds in every clinic before an abortion. 

Years ago, I visited a clinic and, with the permission of the women, followed several of them through the abortion process.   The vast majority of the women were in their first trimester but, at one point, I was accompanying a woman who was 20 weeks pregnant. 

Before seeing the doctor, we entered a small room with a ultrasound machine.  My pulse started to quicken when I realized that a sonogram was going to be performed.  The nurse turned on the machine, lifted the woman’s blouse up, put on the gel and placed the instrument on the woman’s stomach.  I looked at the sonogram and clearly saw the baby.  I am using the term “baby” because if it were wanted, that’s what it would be called and, well, to me it looked like a baby. 

There ensued a discussion about what they were seeing on the monitor.  At one point, the woman asked if it was a boy or a girl and she was told a boy.  It was an almost surreal moment for me and I waited for the woman to say that she would not have the abortion.  

Then, the nurse asked her if she was okay and wanted to proceed and, without hesitation, the woman calmly said “yes.” 

A reputable clinic will have ultrasound machines and when women are asked if they want to have a sonogram, some say yes and some say no.  Some look at the ultrasound and express surprise that the fetus is not as developed as they thought, ironically making them feel even better about their decision.   And I have no doubt that some women ultimately decide to not have the abortion.  

The providers of abortion services have absolutely nothing to hide.  That is because they trust women to be able to make an intelligent, personal decision.

Let’s talk for a moment about laws that require parents to give their consent before a minor has an abortion.

Proponents of these laws argue that, to foster relations between the parents and the girl, the parents should be involved in this important decision.  Personally, I believe the purpose is to discourage the young girl from talking to her parents about an abortion and to force her to ultimately have the baby.       

But let’s say that a minor becomes pregnant, she tells her parents – and the parents want the girl to have an abortion.  If the pro-life movement insists on the parents being part of this decision process, what do they say if the parents want the abortion and convince the girl that it’s the right decision?      

Hmmm….

I’ve talked to a lot of clinic staff over the years and I’m told that it is not an unusual occurrence for the parents to try to force their daughter into having an abortion.  The reasons are many, but the main one seems to be that they know their daughter is not ready to have a child and they do not want to become the de facto parents of the grandchild. 

A few years ago in Florida, a mother forced her daughter, at gunpoint, to go to a clinic for an abortion.  Fortunately, clinic staff discovered what was happening when they counseled the girl and they refused to perform the abortion.   The mother was ultimately arrested.

So, if the purpose of these parental consent laws is to foster parent-child communications, what does the pro-life movement say when the parents want the abortion and ultimately convince their daughter to have one?

I recently read about an abortion doctor in Philadelphia who apparently is going to be shut down by the state because he is practicing bad medicine.    

We all know there are bad apples in any profession.  There are bad politicians, police, teachers, and priests.  The same goes for physicians, including physicians who provide abortion services.

Of course, one’s definition of “bad” is subjective but we do know that there are abortion doctors who prey on minorities, whose clinic does not provide adequate counseling, who will quote a fee but forget to inform you that there are “add-ons” once you get into the clinic.  There are some doctors who have had deaths in their facility, although even the best doctors can make a mistake or have something go wrong that it totally out of their power. 

The message here is if you are considering an abortion, do some homework.  Find out the name of the doctor and Google him or her.  You may find out something about them.   See if the clinic is a member of the National Abortion Federation (which has standards for its members) or the Abortion Care Network. 

If price is a consideration for you, be careful:   cheap is not always the best.  Indeed, if there is a clinic in your area that is charging $50 less than their competitor for a similar procedure, you might be a little careful.  They may be cutting corners somewhere, like not paying for malpractice insurance or having inexperienced staff people. 

If you discover that the physician has been the subject of a malpractice lawsuit, don’t take that at face value.  For years, an anti-abortion group brought a number of frivolous lawsuits designed to harass abortion doctors that ultimately were dismissed. 

The bottom line is be smart, shop carefully.  Like any other medical procedure, you want to make sure you are getting the best care possible.

I want to take a moment to pay tribute to the doctors who perform abortions in this country and their dedicated staff. 

They go to their clinics every day, not knowing if a bomb has been planted under the shrubbery or if there is an assassin waiting in the parking lot.   They are subjected to verbal abuse when they enter their facility.  They have had to deal with midnight phone calls to their homes and anonymous threatening letters.

Most of them could be working in a less intense and safer environment, but they have decided to put their own lives on the line for women in need.     Since 1973, when abortion became legal in this country, they have seen millions of women who not only needed abortion services but other reproductive health services as well.   They have spent hours upon hours counseling women, making sure that they have thought through their decision.  They have advised them on their birth control options, the goal being that they do not want to see them again.  Most of the time they are successful, sometimes they are not. 

To make these services accessible, they have artificially kept the price of this medical procedure as low as possible to the point where the fee in some clinics is what is was in 1973.  Some clinics will offer free services in special circumstances.

These are amazing men and women who have saved thousands and thousands of lives.   

I applaud their efforts.

A recent report indicates that the number of abortions have risen slightly in the last few years.  Immediately, there was the usual hue and cry from the anti-abortion movement.  The pro-choice movement chimed in as well, expressing concern.

This reminded me of a statement years ago by Kate Michelman, the President of the National Abortion Rights Action League, who said that abortion was a “bad thing.”    Then there was the time when Hillary Clinton said abortion was a “tragedy.”   

When a woman is faced with an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy, there are three possible outcomes:   give birth to the unwanted child, give the child up for adoption and abortion.  All three options are not perfect.    With adoption, the mother will carry a child for nine months and give it up and possibly never see it again.   Think of the guilt, the second guessing.   With childbirth, it goes without saying that the life of an unwanted child might be fraught with problems.  Then, there is abortion where it is possible that a woman might ultimately “regret” that decision later on as her life became more stable.

Then why is it that even the pro-choice movement feeds into the stigma of abortion by saying things like it is a “bad thing?”   Could not childbirth or adoption ultimately be a “bad thing” as well?    

Abortion is not the tragedy.  Indeed, the availability of abortion services has actually saved hundreds and thousands of lives since abortion was legalized in this country.   If anything is a “tragedy,” it is the when a woman is faced with an unwanted pregnancy.  And, instead of stigmatizing the abortion procedure (and, by reference, the abortion doctors), the pro-choice movement should focus on doing whatever it can to insure that every child is a wanted child and will come into this world under the best circumstances possible.

Well, here’s a new one…

It seems that a bill has been introduced in the Georgia legislature that would make it a crime “to solicit a woman to have an abortion based on the race or sex of the unborn child.”   And, to promote the legislation, the Georgia Right to Life Committee has posted billboards throughout the state with a picture of a black baby and a caption reading “Black children are an endangered species.”  It then mentions a website entitled www.toomanyaborted.com.

So, when I read this, then read it again, I sat back, looked out the window and started to think…. 

Do women really abort because of race?  In fact, when an ultrasound is performed, can you even tell the race of the baby?    If that were even possible, would a white woman who has had sex with a black man ask about the race and abort it if she did not want a black baby?  Or visa versa with a black woman and a white man?   Is that what happens in the real world?   

What about an abortion based on sex?   Now that is one that I presume might happen as there are some cultures that prefer one sex over the other.   Do abortion doctors even ask the woman why she is aborting?  

And, the more I look at the language of the bill, it says it is illegal “to solicit a woman…..”    Are there abortion doctors out there who are “soliciting” women to have abortions based on race or sex?     

I am not sure what Georgia Right to Life is trying to do here.  Do they really care that the majority of abortions in their state are performed on minorities?    Or are they trying to promote some kind of race war?  It’s all very strange to me.   Still, I would rather have them waste their time on silliness like this than some legislation that would truly harm the pro-choice movement.   And I would love to hear from a supporter of the bill to give me more details.

I just read an article about the current make-up of the U.S. Supreme Court and how President Obama might get a few more appointments.    The article noted that supporters of legal abortion are encouraged by the prospect.

Not so fast.  

At this time, there appears to be 6 votes in favor of Roe v. Wade and three for reversal, although some would argue that Justice Anthony Kenney is a wild card and should he vote to repeal Roe, the tally would be only  5-4 in favor of Roe.   So, worst case scenario is opponents of Roe only need one more vote.

Whatever legal analysis you wish to believe, the fact is that an Obama appointment will not guarantee anything.  Indeed, we could lose ground. 

Let’s say that one of the pro-choice justices retires or dies.   Make it Justice John Stevens, currently a solid pro-choice vote.  Obama then gets to nominate someone.  As we have seen in the past, there is no guarantee that the President is going to get exactly what he wants.  When the President meets the prospective nominee, he does not ask him or her about their position on abortion.  Instead, they talk in vague generalities.   Then the nominee goes to the Senate where they duck and dodge the tough questions for a few days.  If the nominee has no track record from previous decisions, it could very well be a crap shoot. 

History is ripe with examples of Presidents getting someone different than what they expected.    President John F Kennedy got Byron White, a personal friend who turned out to be a conservative.   President George H.W. Bush nominated Justice David Souter, who ultimately supported abortion rights and was considered a liberal jurist.    

So, pro-choice groups should not be so comfortable.   If a pro-choice Justice suddenly left the bench, there is absolutely no guarantee that his replacement would be the same.

So what was the hullabaloo all about? 

 I mean, did anyone even see that “pro-life” commercial that aired during the Super Bowl?  

For weeks, the condemnations were flying, CBS was attacked, there were accusations of unfair treatment, national editorials, etc., etc.    For what?   For that dumb little commercial that aired once in the first quarter?  

It happened all so fast.  I was getting a bowl of (non-buttered) popcorn when I saw Tim Tebow, the University of Florida quarterback who had caused all the commotion.  As far as I could tell, the commercial didn’t even mention abortion!   All I could see was Tebow and his lovely mom.  I thought I heard him (or her) say something about “life.” 

This whole controversy started when the national pro-choice groups cried “foul” without even seeing the commercial.  I gotta be honest – I grow weary of the national groups that represent both sides of the abortion issue.  They have absolutely nothing to do except to sling arrows at each other through the media.  The scream and yell and, when they are inevitably “attacked,” they send out a fundraising letter asking their supporters to help “defend us from these pernicious attacks”   Then the money rolls in and they put probably 80 percent of what they raised back into the fundraising machine. 

For me, I “choose” to admire those in the trenches.  That means the doctors and clinic staff who help thousands of women every day.  And, yes, it means those true pro-lifers who put their money where their mouth is, i.e., those who actually adopt children or help a woman who has decided to have their baby.  There are well intentioned people on both sides of this contentious issue.  They are the ones to be congratulated.    

As for the national groups, put a sock in it.