The Latest News from Jill Stanek, R.N., columnist for the Illinois Leader
(News Alerts Newsletter, Thursday, September 23, 2004)
Pro-Life News
FORUM: Stanek vs. ACLU & Planned Parenthood on live birth abortion, Chicago Tribune
Eric Zorn
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ericzorn/chi-abortionforum.story
The original article contains multiple Hyperlinks.
A forum on the issue of "live-birth" abortion Moderated by Tribune columnist Eric Zorn September 23, 2004.
On Aug. 8, 2004 when conservative firebrand Alan Keyes formally accepted the invitation of Illinois Republicans to fill in on the ballot after primary-winner Jack Ryan withdrew, he told supporters that what finally persuaded him to say OK "was when I learned that [Democratic candidate Barack Obama] had actually in April 2002 apparently cast a vote that would continue to allow live-birth abortions in the state of Illinois. "Ever since, the term "live-birth abortion" and allusions to it have been central to Keyes' campaign. But what is a "live-birth abortion"?How common is the procedure? What are the alternatives and relevant laws? I myself wasn't clear on the answers, and it was obvious to me in talking to activists on both sides of the abortion debate that there is not much common understanding. Accordingly I invited anti-abortion activist Jill Stanek (JS), and a trio of pro-abortion rights activists from the Roger Baldwin Foundation of the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois and Illinois Planned Parenthood Council of Illinois (ACLU/PP) to participate in an online forum in September, 2004. Stanek, with whom I tangled online recently, is the Pro-life Coordinator for Concerned Women for America of Illinois and a columnist for the Illinois Leader and World Net Daily, and her use of the expression "live-birth abortion" during legislative testimony several years ago helped popularize it. To avoid back-and-forth debate throughout, I asked both sides first to provide relatively brief written answers to six questions, the wording of which was agreed to by all parties in advance. After this, they exchanged answers and then composed a conclusion/rebuttal statement to clarify any outstanding issues or answer implicit challenges. I have lightly edited those final statements down to a 1,100-word limit. The order in which the responses are presented below was determined using a clever, random method that involved the Illinois Lottery. _______________1. To which procedure or procedures do you think the term "live-birth abortion" applies or is meant to apply? ACLU/PP - Physicians do not use the term "live- birth abortion." It does not describe any medical procedure. Anti-choice activists created the term as part of their effort to restrict and then ban all abortions. The scope of proposed "Born-Alive Infant" legislation is very broad and puts physicians at risk when performing many medical procedures, including procedures used to complete a miscarriage or spontaneous abortion. When testifying in support of the proposals, proponents of the legislation have cited cases of abortions performed by induction, that is, inducing labor. However, the legislation itself could apply to other procedures as well. In fact, the legislation could apply to procedures used at the earliest stages of pregnancy--before a fetus has any chance of surviving. One of the most serious constitutional flaws of these bills is that they attempt to require physicians to take extraordinary medical steps to "save" fetuses that are not capable of survival. The bills do this by requiring physicians to attempt to "save" any fetus that has a heartbeat - a physical condition that occurs at 4-6 weeks of pregnancy and well before the fetus is viable, or capable of survival outside the womb. Imposing these futile burdens along with the risk of criminal liability on physicians performing even early abortions runs afoul of Supreme Court precedent. Such legislation is improperly designed to chill physicians who are attempting to provide the best care for their patients. JS - "Live-birth abortion" is the common name given in 1999 to an abortion/infanticide procedure. I revealed was being committed at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, where I worked as a labor and delivery nurse. Prior to that, the American public was unaware of LBA. But we now know LBA is committed in h ospitals around the U.S., including Chicago's Rush-Presbyterian St-Luke's Medical Center in Chicago, Lutheran General Hospital in Park Ridge and Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center. LBA is medically known as "prostaglandin abortion," "mid-trimester labor induction," or "early induction of labor. "LBA is committed during the second and third trimesters, usually between 18 and 23 weeks. I have heard of it being committed as late as 28 weeks. For this procedure, the physician inserts a medication into the birth canal up to the cervix, which is the opening at the bottom of the uterus that is supposed to stay closed until a mother is about 40 weeks pregnant, and she then goes into labor. Or the physician will force seaweed stickst about he size of matchsticks-- called laminaria -- into the cervix. These enlarge when moistened. The medication or laminaria force the cervix to open. This can take from several hours to several days. My experience is that hospitals do not kill the baby before LBA is initiated, but abortion clinics do. Planned Parenthood should elaborate on this. In hospitals, when the cervix opens far enough, the pre-term baby drops out of the uterus, sometimes alive. At Christ Hospital, when neither the parents nor medical personnel had the time or inclination to hold the dying baby, nurses took the baby to the Soiled Utility Room, where she or he was sometimes left there alone to die. My coworker Allison Baker testified before the U.S. House Judicial Subcommittee on the Constitution of walking into Christ Hospital's Soiled Utility Room on two separate occasions, once to find a live, aborted baby lying naked next to the sink, and once to find a live, aborted baby lying naked on a scale. As I testified a total of three times before the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee and Health & Human Services Committee (Barack Obama is a member of both): It is not uncommon for a live aborted babies to linger for an hour or two or even longer. At Christ Hospital one of these babies once lived for almost an entire eight-hour shift….One night, a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted Down Syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled Utility Room….I could not bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived. He was 21 to 22 weeks old, weighed about half a pound, and was about 10 inches long. He was too weak to move very much, expending any energy he had trying to breathe. Toward the end, he was so quiet that I couldn't tell if he was still alive unless I held him up to the light to see if his heart was still beating through his chest wall. After he was pronounced dead, we folded his little arms across his chest, wrapped him in a tiny shroud, and carried him to the hospital morgue where all of our dead patients are taken. _______________ 2. How common are such procedures and in what circumstances are they usually performed?JS -- I don't know how common LBA is in Illinois, nor does anyone else. I recently asked the Illinois Department of Health for the 2003 abortion breakdown by gestational age and procedure. The IDPH's Report of Induced Termination of Pregnancy form, which all aborting medical facilities must complete annually, offers the following "Termination Procedures" options: Suction Curettage Sharp Curettage Dilation and Evacuation (D&E) Intra-Uterine Saline Instillation Intra-Uterine Prostaglandin Instillation Hysterotomy Hysterectomy Other Unknown The LBA procedure is not listed as an option. Neither is D&X ("partial-birth abortion") or the RU486 abortion. The Dept. of Health options are not only antiquated but also lacking. Two of the aforementioned options, intra-uterine saline and prostaglandin instillations, are no longer commonly performed. According to an April 2004 report published in the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, "[I]n 1972, approximately 10% of abortions were performed by either saline or prostaglandin instillation procedures. Use of this higher-risk procedure declined through the 1970s to approximately 3% in 1980." So Illinois Dept. of Public Health statistics by no means give an accurate portrayal of what is really going on in Illinois in 2004. Abortions over 12 weeks can only be committed a few ways. The babies are bigger and their bones are calcified, so they can no longer be suctioned. The late-term abortion methods in common use today are: D&E, D&X, and mid-trimester labor induction, two of which are not options on the IDPH reporting form.Consequently, Illinois abortion statistics do not add up. Tom Schafer, spokesman for IDPH, told me that of 42,228 abortions committed in Illinois in 2003, 6,983 were of mothers carrying babies 12 weeks old and older, and 1,863 were of unknown gestational age. Of those, 3,709 were D&Es; "less than 51" were in each of the saline, prostaglandin, hysterotomy, and hystorectomy categories; 1,526 were "Other" and 221 were "Unknown." This means that several thousand late-term abortions in Illinois are unaccounted for but can only be one of these: D&E, D&X, or mid-trimester labor induction. Regarding the second part of the question about circumstances, I most often hear of LBA being committed to abort handicapped babies. It could also be committed for "health of the mother" reasons like ruptured bag of waters, or to save the life of the mother. However, if a preborn baby is over 23 weeks old, and needs to be delivered for health or life of the mother issues, s/he should not be aborted at all but treated as a premature delivery. There is no reason to abort then. ACLU/PP -- It is impossible to answer this question accurately, given the broad yet ambiguous scope of the so-called "live-birth" legislation introduced in Illinois. "Live-birth abortion" is not a medical term. Statistics on abortions in Illinois are kept by the Illinois Dept. of Public Health. Physicians make reports using medically accepted terminology. Thus, IDPH does not have any statistics on so-called "live-birth abortions".Advocates of the term would have the public believe that these abortions are performed when the fetus can survive. Once again, anti-choice activists erroneously conflate certain signs of physical development -- e.g., a heartbeat -- with survival by the fetus.Realistically, very few abortions are performed after there is even a remote chance of fetal survival.Since 1973, states have been permitted to ban abortions after viability -- that point at which the fetus is "reasonably likely to survive outside the womb -- except when the procedure is necessary to save the life or health of the pregnant woman. Nationally, only an estimated 1 in 1,250 abortions (0.08% ) are performed after 24 weeks gestation. Proponents of "live-birth abortion" terminology often use the induction procedure as an example of situations in which the delivered fetus might be saved. However, the examples they use often overlook the serious medical problems in the woman or the fetus that led to the abortion in the first instance.Induction is usually performed in the second trimester and can be used to deal with cases of severe fetal anomalies or health problems of the pregnant woman. Unfortunately, tests do not usually detect severe problems with the fetus until after the first trimester. Even so, induction is used rarely. This is for several reasons.First it should be performed in a hospital setting.Second it carries greater risks to the women than other procedures. Third it can take many hours and be painful both physically and mentally for the women. And finally, it is not always available. _______________3. What are the medical alternatives to these procedures?JS -- Other late-term abortion alternatives are: D&E (Dilatation and Curettage): The cervix is dilated, and the baby is cut up and removed; or the physician enters the uterus with forceps, clamps down on any part of the baby s/he can grab, twists that part and removes it and others, piece by piece. During the latter D&E method, abortion proponents admit the baby is alive much of that time. D&X (Dilatation and Extraction, aka partial-birth abortion): Abortionist Dr. Martin Haskell first described this abortion procedure he invented in 1992. The physician reaches in to the uterus and turns the baby around to a feet-first (breech) delivery position. S/he pulls the baby out up to the head, and while the head is in the birth canal, s/he punctures the nape of the neck with a sharp instrument and suctions out the brains. The dead baby is then removed. Sometimes, according to abortionist LeRoy Carhart, when he testified in favor of PBA earlier this year, there is the complication of the "free floating head," or decapitated head that is difficult to grasp and remove. To view photos of babies aborted by this method, click here. (Moderator's warning---these photos are very graphic.) Less common:Intra-Uterine Saline Instillation: A strong salt solution is injected directly into the amniotic fluid. The baby breathes and swallows it, resulting in poisoning and internal burning. The salt solution also burns and strips away the outer layer of the baby's skin. Intra-Uterine Prostaglandin Instillation: According to Planned Parenthood, these abortions are "performed by injecting a prostaglandin hormone into the amniotic sac."(Regarding the aforementioned, in 2003, the World Health Organization reported them "invasive and less safe than the newer medical methods.")Hysterotomy: A Caesarean section where the baby is killed by clamping the cord and drowning her in amniotic fluid before delivering her.Hysterectomy: Removal of the killed baby in conjunction with removal of the uterus.ACLU/PP -- Again, because the legislation introduced in Illinois can apply to numerous procedures--including those performed at the earliest stages of pregnancy-- it is difficult to discuss alternatives. There are a few medical procedures used after the first trimester to terminate pregnancy: induction, D&E and D&X. A woman and her physician must determine the procedure that is best for her under her particular medical circumstances. For example, induction might be appropriate for one woman, but another woman may have a medical condition that rules it out. Access to the various medical options is a factor that cannot be ignored. Even if there is a medical alternative, if a woman cannot access that alternative, then it is meaningless. If the proposed so-called "Born-Alive Infant" legislation were to become law, for all practical purposes a woman may have no alternatives because she will be unable to find a physician who is willing to perform an abortion, no matter what the procedure, and risk criminal prosecution for failing to attempt to resuscitate a fetus that cannot be saved. Currently it is difficult for women in Illinois to find a provider of abortion services once she has past the first trimester in her pregnancy. We know cases of women in Illinois who have discovered severe problems with the fetus during the second trimester and have had to travel out of state (even as far as California) to find an abortion provider who is able to help them. In some instances the medical condition of the woman necessitates hospital care during the abortion procedure. Unfortunately, many Illinois hospitals decline to provide even life- or health-saving abortions, leaving many women without access to the medical care they desperately need. Laws such as the proposed "live-birth abortion bans" that increase penalties for physicians and hospitals are intended to, and would, drive more health care providers from providing this essential care. _______________4. What does the law currently state about these procedures and how is that law applied (or not applied) in practice?JS -- In 1999, after sending IDPH to investigate Christ Hospital's induced labor abortion practices, then-Atty. Gen. Jim Ryan determined the hospital was doing nothing illegal under current Illinois law. So there is clearly a breakdown in law regarding live aborted babies.Atty. Gen. Ryan submitted a letter of support for legislation state Sen. Patrick O'Malley (R-Palos Park) introduced called the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act.BAIPA states that live born babies, no matter what their gestational age or circumstances of birth, are legal "persons."On the federal level, BAIPA passed 98-0 in the U.S. Senate and overwhelmingly in the House and was signed by President Bush into law on August 5, 2002. The federal BAIPA impacts federal law; Illinois BAIPA would impact Illinois law.BAIPA would not stop doctors from committing LBA. Babies being aborted -- before they are born -- are not legal persons.But if a baby somehow survives the first attempt to kill him or her, the physician should not get a second chance. The physician should then do everything possible to save the baby, if the baby is viable.If the baby is not viable, then comfort measures should be provided until s/he dies, just as would be provided for nonviable wanted babies. All babies should be given equal protection to equal medical care in Illinois. This is a simple concept that abortion proponents try to blur.When the Illinois ACLU's Colleen Connell testified against BAIPA, she told senators that existing law already protected a baby I described who had been aborted alive at Christ Hospital.This surprised me, because I had previously informed both Ryan and Cook Co. State's Attorney Dick Devine about this healthy little girl, who was aborted at the age of 23 weeks, weighing one pound, and whose APGAR scores improved between one and five minutes. Neither Ryan nor Devine acted upon the information I gave them.The baby was never assessed by neonatal doctors but was kept in Christ Hospital's labor & delivery department for 2-1/2 hours until she died. After Connell testified, I wrote her twice, asking her to defend this baby's civil liberties posthumously.I never received a response. The other side quotes an Illinois law that states a second doctor must be present in the event an abortionist thinks s/he might abort a potentially viable baby alive. But the decision to call the second doctor is up to the abortionist.The House sponsor of that bill, former state Rep. Penny Pullen (R.- Park Ridge) explained the loophole:The two-doctor rule depends on a pre-delivery assessment by the abortionist that the baby may be viable.The purpose of BAIPA is to require a post-delivery assessment, which is needed because viability is such a tricky question, and because abortionists will likely err on the side of being able to commit the abortion without inviting a second doctor to assist for the sake of the baby. It subjects him to second guessing by a second doctor.ACLU/PP -- Current law says nothing about so-called "live-birth abortion." That is probably because the term was only recently created by anti-choice activists in an attempt to scare physicians away from offering abortion services and to impose unnecessary burdens on women seeking reproductive health services. However, we do have Illinois laws that have been tested by the courts.Illinois law bans abortions after a fetus is viable (able to live outside the womb). This law only provides exceptions in order to protect the women's life or health. This law carries severe penalties for physicians who violate it. Moreover, under Illinois law, where a post-viability abortion is necessary to preserve the woman's life or health, the physician nevertheless must have a second physician present to provide treatment if a baby is born alive. The existence of the "second-physician" requirement under Illinois law makes clear that the so-called "live-birth" legislation is designed to deter physicians from performing pre-viability abortions where resuscitative efforts are futile. ______________5. If you feel the current laws are not sufficient, how would you amend it, and what would you say to those who say that broad amendments are actually aimed not at a particular procedure but at all abortions past the first tri-mester? If you feel the current laws are not sufficient, what is it in the proposed amendments that causes you to believe that they are actually aimed at curtailing all abortions past the first tri-mester?ACLU/PP -- Current laws are sufficient. There is no evidence of abuse. There is no evidence that abortions are being recklessly performed on healthy fetuses that are able to survive outside of the womb. A reading of the legislation makes it clear that it is aimed at impeding abortions throughout pregnancy.No one procedure is defined. In fact, it states that it would apply to several circumstances not just induction. No time period is outlined. It would apply to any time in pregnancy - first, second or third trimester, and as noted above, is directed at pre-viability procedures. JS -- BAIPA has been introduced in the Illinois General Assembly four times now. It has failed four times. Of course, I think the first step is passing that law.It simply states: Amends the Statute on Statutes. Defines the terms "person", "human being", "child", and "individual" to include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. Defines "born alive" to mean the complete expulsion or extraction from the mother of an infant, 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, cesarean section, or induced abortion. Provides that nothing in these definitions shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive. Section 2 of the Illinois Constitution's Bill of Rights would then apply: "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor be denied the equal protection of the laws. "It is not possible for BAIPA to be aimed at a particular abortion procedure. It is a law defining legal personhood. It could only have a chilling effect on infanticide.Beyond BAIPA, it seems to me the simplest solution is to mandate that a second physician, objective in nature (not a second abortionist), be present at all live births, no matter what gestational age. Some hospitals have already adopted this protocol. _______________6. To what degree, if any, is debate over the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act and related legislation also a debate over so-called "partial-birth" abortions? ACLU/PP --The anti-choice activists who are promoting the "Born-Alive Infant Protection Act" are using the same tactics they used in the so-called "partial-birth abortion" debate. They create a non-medical, emotionally charged term for abortion. They describe one type of abortion procedure when the legislation actually is broadly defined and would apply to multiple procedures. They mislead the public into thinking that they are only talking about healthy full-term infants when, in fact, their proposed legislation would apply to all stages of pregnancy. They mislead the public into thinking that late-term abortions are common. They craft their legislation with no exceptions to protect a women's health or life.Finally, they design their legislation to become the focus of litigation in an attempt to have the United States Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade and allow states to ban abortions. JS -- As I have explained, the two abortion procedures are completely different. But I note the Illinois media tends to mix them up, particularly of late when discussing Barack Obama's position on them. (Obama voted against the PBA ban and also voted against the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act.)Obama has not helped by tending to blur discussion regarding his votes on "late-term abortions." _______________CONCLUSION Closing statement of Jill Stanek --After reading the Planned Parenthood/ACLU team's responses to Eric's questions, I wished I were Sergeant Joe Friday so I could say, "Just the facts, ma'ams."Rather, they frittered a great opportunity to do their part to clarify the confusion surrounding live birth abortion by whining about terminology, fretting about hidden agendas, warning that the abortion sky would fall if a law safeguarding infants against infanticide were passed, and then regurgitating from the top.That is because they want what is confused to remain confused. Why?As our discussion about live birth abortion winds down, it is relevant to point out that Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the United States. Internationally, Planned Parenthood rakes in billions of dollars annually, much of it from abortion.If a tobacco company were the pro-smoking debater in a forum weighing the harms of smoking, the audience would rightly be skeptical of its "facts" and motives. The audience reading our debate should approach the other side's answers with the same degree of skepticism. Planned Parenthood's adamant defense of a gruesome abortion procedure that sometimes results in babies being aborted alive is to ensure its cash cow, abortion, is not impeded upon. That's also why Planned Parenthood and its tag-team buddy, the ACLU, tirelessly fight against reasonable boundaries on abortion in Illinois, for instance, a law requiring that parents be notified before their minor child aborts; a law requiring doctors to give women seeking abortions information about the proven harms of abortion; the formation of a task force to probe the relationship between abortion and breast cancer; or regulations that would bring Illinois abortion clinic standards up to the level of Illinois animal clinics.These have all been defeated many times in Illinois General Assemblies or in the courts, primarily by the Illinois Planned Parenthood and ACLU.That's because Planned Parenthood spends its abortion profits wisely. It pays a lobbyist to work full-time at the State Capitol to protect its primary business interest, abortion. ACLU does the same. And PP generously donates to politicians who turn around and vote to give it taxpayer money. It's a circular payback system that never ends. It isn't possible to go line-by-line through the misrepresentations and distortions PP/ACLU disgorged as they flitted around Eric's six questions, such as when they said a baby's heart starts beating "at 4-6 weeks of pregnancy" when it actually begins beating at 21 days. But there are a couple of whoppers I will address.The first and greatest is when they stated, "Illinois law bans abortions after a fetus is viable [except] in order to protect the women's life or health." They will also often say abortion is legal in the U.S. for the first three months of pregnancy. These are misleading and false statements. The same day the Supreme Court granted mothers the "right" to abort in its January 22, 1973, Roe v. Wade decision, it went farther to legalize abortion on demand throughout all nine months of pregnancy in its Doe v. Bolton decision. "But only for health reasons!" the other side will shriek. They don't say that abortion for "health" of the mother "may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the well-being of the patient," according to Supreme Court Justice Blackmun's Doe opinion. Thus, if a mother decides her pregnancy is causing emotional or psychological stress at any time before her baby is completely separated from her, she can abort, yes, even mid-delivery, which is actually what a "partial birth abortion" is. Indeed, it was the disclosures about partial birth abortion - a term abortion proponents hate --- that began changing American minds on abortion. We all believe in the cowboy spirit of freedom and independence, of live and let live, but that procedure is too grotesque to ignore. People who previously simply accepted abortion as a "woman's right to choose" began to think about the baby.That's why details about partial-birth abortion and live-birth abortion send abortion providers like Planned Parenthood through the roof. Because these revelations - truths - make Americans very uneasy. Polls indicate most people instinctively know abortion kills a baby. We are reasonable and intelligent and understand that humans begat humans. What to do with the quandary? For many years we went into denial… believed the lies without researching for ourselves… tried not to think about it… avoided the topic when it came up… got mad at those pro-life crazies who hold up graphic signs of aborted babies.But no more. The house of cards is falling, because not only has the abortion industry pushed the envelope too far, but also 30 years of studies have shown that abortion catastrophically impacts the health of women. We now know that 10 percent of aborting women suffer immediate complications, of which one-fifth are life-threatening: infection, embolism, ripping or perforation of the uterus, convulsions, cervical injury, fever, chronic abdominal pain, gastro-intestinal disturbances, excessive bleeding, cervical injury, anesthesia complications, hemorrhage, endotoxic shock, second degree burns, vomiting, and Rh sensitization. We now know that compared to women who carry to term, women who have abortions are: 3.5 times more likely to die in the following year; 1.6 times more likely to die of natural causes; 7 times more likely to die of suicide; 4 times more likely to die of injuries related to accidents; and 14 times more likely to die from homicide. We also now know that abortion hides incest. Abortion is a pedophile's best friend, because the sicko can take his little girl victim for an abortion, kill the evidence of his crime, and carry on with no one being any the wiser.To end where this all began, I want to address the second great whopper the ACLU/PP told.To muddy the waters, they lumped three bills together that tried to address the live-birth abortion issue. Two of the bills had to do with physician instructions and penalties for noncompliance.But the cornerstone bill was the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Each of these bills were separately numbered and voted on separately. The definition in Illinois' BAIPA was identical to the definition in the federal version. It passed the U.S. Senate unanimously and overwhelmingly in the House, and was signed into law by President Bush in 2002. Yet, in Illinois, it has failed three times and is currently being held up by Emil Jones in the Senate and Michael Madigan in the House. This is how pathetically amoral a majority of our elected officials in Illinois are, including yes, Democrat U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama. _______________Closing statement from The Roger Baldwin Foundation of the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois and Illinois Planned Parenthood Council of Illinois--Jill Stanek writes in support of the so-called "Born Alive Infant Protection" legislation that was introduced in 2002 in the Illinois General Assembly. This group of 3 bills was intended to limit abortions performed well before that stage of pregnancy at which a fetus can survive on its own and therefore well before there is any constitutionally recognized state interest in limiting access to reproductive healthcare. These bills would have had a particularly egregious impact on women forced to confront the untenable situation of having to terminate a much wanted pregnancy because of a maternal or fetal health crisis. The first bill in this package would have imposed civil liability, including punitive damages, on any health care provider who failed to provide "all medical care necessary to preserve and protect the life, health and safety" of a baby born alive after an abortion, regardless of the stage of development or the reasonable likelihood of survival even with extraordinary medical intervention. The second bill defined "born-alive infant" based on minimal physical signs of fetal development--a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord and movement of voluntary muscles. This definition would have applied not only in the context of induced abortion but also, for example, where a woman goes into premature labor in the mid-term.These developmental signs do not mean that if delivered, the baby could survive outside the uterus, a concept known as viability. Instead, these signs occur early in the course of fetal development, long before there is any chance of such survival.The fetal heartbeat starts at approximately 4-6 weeks gestation and voluntary muscle movements begin as early as 12-14 weeks. By contrast, a fetus is considered viable at approximately 24 weeks, depending on the reasonable medical judgment of the attending physician and the unique circumstances of each individual pregnancy. The third bill in the 2002 package would have amended the existing abortion law to require the presence of a second physician at any abortion where these early developmental signs exist, to attempt to resuscitate and sustain a live born baby--again without regard to any reasonable chance of survival. Doctors who didn't provide this futile medical care would have risked criminal prosecution, imprisonment and the loss of their medical licenses. This package of bills differs markedly from the federal legislation to which Stanek refers. Most notably, the federal law was definitional only; whereas the Illinois bills would have imposed affirmative obligations and civil and criminal consequences for any failure to meet those obligations. The practical effect of these types of legislative threats is to scare physicians away from offering abortion care, thus depriving women of access to an essential part of their reproductive healthcare.The Illinois legislation was defeated--with good cause. Illinois already bans abortions after a fetus is viable (able to live outside the womb). The only exceptions are in order to protect the pregnant woman's life or health. And, in those situations, Illinois already requires the presence of a second physician to provide treatment if a baby is born alive. Illinois imposes severe criminal penalties for failure to comply with these requirements. As the post-viability stage of pregnancy was already addressed by existing law, it's apparent that the Illinois "live-birth" legislation could only have been directed at the pre-viability stage of pregnancy where the resuscitative treatment required would have been futile and where the state cannot impose such unnecessary burdens on access to abortion care. Advocates for this type of legislation strive to make it seem that women are waiting until they are minutes from delivering a healthy full-term baby and then on a whim deciding they no longer want to be pregnant.They also would have the public believe that doctors are depriving viable, live-born babies of medical care that would lead to sustained survival. This is simply not so. According to the most recent data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), only 1.4-1.5% of all abortions are performed after 20 weeks gestation (still before viability).Women seek abortions after the first trimester of pregnancy for a variety of personal reasons, including because pregnancy is causing or exacerbating a serious medical condition. Some such conditions endanger the woman's life; others may endanger her health, but not necessarily her life. Other women decide to terminate their pregnancies after learning that the fetus suffers from a severe anomaly. Most such women are ending very much wanted pregnancies.The induction procedure on which Stanek focuses in her remarks is a long and painful process for the pregnant patient. It can take anywhere from 12 hours to multiple days and involves painful contractions to expel the fetus. (Contrary to Stanek's comments, the fetus does not simply "drop out.") It is also psychologically draining, as these procedures are performed on hospital labor and delivery floors; the patient, who is often terminating a wanted pregnancy, is surrounded by others who are delivering healthy babies. These are not procedures that women undergo on a whim.Stanek and other proponents of "live-birth" legislation attempt to disguise their opposition to all abortion by claiming to be seeking protection for infants they contend are being mistreated. In so doing, they demean the often painful choices women are forced to make to protect their own health and future fertility or because they learn that the fetus they carry will not survive birth or infancy or will be condemned to a long and painful death as a result of any of a number of genetic or developmental defects.Faced with the fact that medical ethical standards and Illinois statutes already address the concerns the "live-birth" legislation would purportedly have addressed, Stanek argues that abortion providers and physicians treating women suffering from premature labor (or, the "abortionist," to use Stanek's words) will declare viable fetuses to be non-viable--"err[ing] on the side of being able to commit the abortion. "There is simply no evidence for Stanek's contention that Illinois reproductive health care providers are flouting their ethical and legal responsibilities in order to avoid saving a baby that has the potential to survive. Finally, for the first time here, Stanek concedes that "the physician should do everything possible to save the baby, if the baby is viable," and if it is not viable, "then comfort care measures should be provided."This, however, is not what the "Born Alive Infant Protection" Act provided. It is, however, what already is occurring in Illinois hospitals.Stanek's efforts to limit access to all abortions through the "Born Alive Infant Protection" Act is clear and is in disregard of women's health and their personal reproductive tragedies. This concludes the forum. My thanks to all particpants and readers.
Copyright © 2004, Chicago Tribune
(News Alerts Newsletter, Thursday, September 23, 2004)
Pro-Life News
FORUM: Stanek vs. ACLU & Planned Parenthood on live birth abortion, Chicago Tribune
Eric Zorn
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ericzorn/chi-abortionforum.story
The original article contains multiple Hyperlinks.
A forum on the issue of "live-birth" abortion Moderated by Tribune columnist Eric Zorn September 23, 2004.
On Aug. 8, 2004 when conservative firebrand Alan Keyes formally accepted the invitation of Illinois Republicans to fill in on the ballot after primary-winner Jack Ryan withdrew, he told supporters that what finally persuaded him to say OK "was when I learned that [Democratic candidate Barack Obama] had actually in April 2002 apparently cast a vote that would continue to allow live-birth abortions in the state of Illinois. "Ever since, the term "live-birth abortion" and allusions to it have been central to Keyes' campaign. But what is a "live-birth abortion"?How common is the procedure? What are the alternatives and relevant laws? I myself wasn't clear on the answers, and it was obvious to me in talking to activists on both sides of the abortion debate that there is not much common understanding. Accordingly I invited anti-abortion activist Jill Stanek (JS), and a trio of pro-abortion rights activists from the Roger Baldwin Foundation of the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois and Illinois Planned Parenthood Council of Illinois (ACLU/PP) to participate in an online forum in September, 2004. Stanek, with whom I tangled online recently, is the Pro-life Coordinator for Concerned Women for America of Illinois and a columnist for the Illinois Leader and World Net Daily, and her use of the expression "live-birth abortion" during legislative testimony several years ago helped popularize it. To avoid back-and-forth debate throughout, I asked both sides first to provide relatively brief written answers to six questions, the wording of which was agreed to by all parties in advance. After this, they exchanged answers and then composed a conclusion/rebuttal statement to clarify any outstanding issues or answer implicit challenges. I have lightly edited those final statements down to a 1,100-word limit. The order in which the responses are presented below was determined using a clever, random method that involved the Illinois Lottery. _______________1. To which procedure or procedures do you think the term "live-birth abortion" applies or is meant to apply? ACLU/PP - Physicians do not use the term "live- birth abortion." It does not describe any medical procedure. Anti-choice activists created the term as part of their effort to restrict and then ban all abortions. The scope of proposed "Born-Alive Infant" legislation is very broad and puts physicians at risk when performing many medical procedures, including procedures used to complete a miscarriage or spontaneous abortion. When testifying in support of the proposals, proponents of the legislation have cited cases of abortions performed by induction, that is, inducing labor. However, the legislation itself could apply to other procedures as well. In fact, the legislation could apply to procedures used at the earliest stages of pregnancy--before a fetus has any chance of surviving. One of the most serious constitutional flaws of these bills is that they attempt to require physicians to take extraordinary medical steps to "save" fetuses that are not capable of survival. The bills do this by requiring physicians to attempt to "save" any fetus that has a heartbeat - a physical condition that occurs at 4-6 weeks of pregnancy and well before the fetus is viable, or capable of survival outside the womb. Imposing these futile burdens along with the risk of criminal liability on physicians performing even early abortions runs afoul of Supreme Court precedent. Such legislation is improperly designed to chill physicians who are attempting to provide the best care for their patients. JS - "Live-birth abortion" is the common name given in 1999 to an abortion/infanticide procedure. I revealed was being committed at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, where I worked as a labor and delivery nurse. Prior to that, the American public was unaware of LBA. But we now know LBA is committed in h ospitals around the U.S., including Chicago's Rush-Presbyterian St-Luke's Medical Center in Chicago, Lutheran General Hospital in Park Ridge and Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center. LBA is medically known as "prostaglandin abortion," "mid-trimester labor induction," or "early induction of labor. "LBA is committed during the second and third trimesters, usually between 18 and 23 weeks. I have heard of it being committed as late as 28 weeks. For this procedure, the physician inserts a medication into the birth canal up to the cervix, which is the opening at the bottom of the uterus that is supposed to stay closed until a mother is about 40 weeks pregnant, and she then goes into labor. Or the physician will force seaweed stickst about he size of matchsticks-- called laminaria -- into the cervix. These enlarge when moistened. The medication or laminaria force the cervix to open. This can take from several hours to several days. My experience is that hospitals do not kill the baby before LBA is initiated, but abortion clinics do. Planned Parenthood should elaborate on this. In hospitals, when the cervix opens far enough, the pre-term baby drops out of the uterus, sometimes alive. At Christ Hospital, when neither the parents nor medical personnel had the time or inclination to hold the dying baby, nurses took the baby to the Soiled Utility Room, where she or he was sometimes left there alone to die. My coworker Allison Baker testified before the U.S. House Judicial Subcommittee on the Constitution of walking into Christ Hospital's Soiled Utility Room on two separate occasions, once to find a live, aborted baby lying naked next to the sink, and once to find a live, aborted baby lying naked on a scale. As I testified a total of three times before the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee and Health & Human Services Committee (Barack Obama is a member of both): It is not uncommon for a live aborted babies to linger for an hour or two or even longer. At Christ Hospital one of these babies once lived for almost an entire eight-hour shift….One night, a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted Down Syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled Utility Room….I could not bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived. He was 21 to 22 weeks old, weighed about half a pound, and was about 10 inches long. He was too weak to move very much, expending any energy he had trying to breathe. Toward the end, he was so quiet that I couldn't tell if he was still alive unless I held him up to the light to see if his heart was still beating through his chest wall. After he was pronounced dead, we folded his little arms across his chest, wrapped him in a tiny shroud, and carried him to the hospital morgue where all of our dead patients are taken. _______________ 2. How common are such procedures and in what circumstances are they usually performed?JS -- I don't know how common LBA is in Illinois, nor does anyone else. I recently asked the Illinois Department of Health for the 2003 abortion breakdown by gestational age and procedure. The IDPH's Report of Induced Termination of Pregnancy form, which all aborting medical facilities must complete annually, offers the following "Termination Procedures" options: Suction Curettage Sharp Curettage Dilation and Evacuation (D&E) Intra-Uterine Saline Instillation Intra-Uterine Prostaglandin Instillation Hysterotomy Hysterectomy Other Unknown The LBA procedure is not listed as an option. Neither is D&X ("partial-birth abortion") or the RU486 abortion. The Dept. of Health options are not only antiquated but also lacking. Two of the aforementioned options, intra-uterine saline and prostaglandin instillations, are no longer commonly performed. According to an April 2004 report published in the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, "[I]n 1972, approximately 10% of abortions were performed by either saline or prostaglandin instillation procedures. Use of this higher-risk procedure declined through the 1970s to approximately 3% in 1980." So Illinois Dept. of Public Health statistics by no means give an accurate portrayal of what is really going on in Illinois in 2004. Abortions over 12 weeks can only be committed a few ways. The babies are bigger and their bones are calcified, so they can no longer be suctioned. The late-term abortion methods in common use today are: D&E, D&X, and mid-trimester labor induction, two of which are not options on the IDPH reporting form.Consequently, Illinois abortion statistics do not add up. Tom Schafer, spokesman for IDPH, told me that of 42,228 abortions committed in Illinois in 2003, 6,983 were of mothers carrying babies 12 weeks old and older, and 1,863 were of unknown gestational age. Of those, 3,709 were D&Es; "less than 51" were in each of the saline, prostaglandin, hysterotomy, and hystorectomy categories; 1,526 were "Other" and 221 were "Unknown." This means that several thousand late-term abortions in Illinois are unaccounted for but can only be one of these: D&E, D&X, or mid-trimester labor induction. Regarding the second part of the question about circumstances, I most often hear of LBA being committed to abort handicapped babies. It could also be committed for "health of the mother" reasons like ruptured bag of waters, or to save the life of the mother. However, if a preborn baby is over 23 weeks old, and needs to be delivered for health or life of the mother issues, s/he should not be aborted at all but treated as a premature delivery. There is no reason to abort then. ACLU/PP -- It is impossible to answer this question accurately, given the broad yet ambiguous scope of the so-called "live-birth" legislation introduced in Illinois. "Live-birth abortion" is not a medical term. Statistics on abortions in Illinois are kept by the Illinois Dept. of Public Health. Physicians make reports using medically accepted terminology. Thus, IDPH does not have any statistics on so-called "live-birth abortions".Advocates of the term would have the public believe that these abortions are performed when the fetus can survive. Once again, anti-choice activists erroneously conflate certain signs of physical development -- e.g., a heartbeat -- with survival by the fetus.Realistically, very few abortions are performed after there is even a remote chance of fetal survival.Since 1973, states have been permitted to ban abortions after viability -- that point at which the fetus is "reasonably likely to survive outside the womb -- except when the procedure is necessary to save the life or health of the pregnant woman. Nationally, only an estimated 1 in 1,250 abortions (0.08% ) are performed after 24 weeks gestation. Proponents of "live-birth abortion" terminology often use the induction procedure as an example of situations in which the delivered fetus might be saved. However, the examples they use often overlook the serious medical problems in the woman or the fetus that led to the abortion in the first instance.Induction is usually performed in the second trimester and can be used to deal with cases of severe fetal anomalies or health problems of the pregnant woman. Unfortunately, tests do not usually detect severe problems with the fetus until after the first trimester. Even so, induction is used rarely. This is for several reasons.First it should be performed in a hospital setting.Second it carries greater risks to the women than other procedures. Third it can take many hours and be painful both physically and mentally for the women. And finally, it is not always available. _______________3. What are the medical alternatives to these procedures?JS -- Other late-term abortion alternatives are: D&E (Dilatation and Curettage): The cervix is dilated, and the baby is cut up and removed; or the physician enters the uterus with forceps, clamps down on any part of the baby s/he can grab, twists that part and removes it and others, piece by piece. During the latter D&E method, abortion proponents admit the baby is alive much of that time. D&X (Dilatation and Extraction, aka partial-birth abortion): Abortionist Dr. Martin Haskell first described this abortion procedure he invented in 1992. The physician reaches in to the uterus and turns the baby around to a feet-first (breech) delivery position. S/he pulls the baby out up to the head, and while the head is in the birth canal, s/he punctures the nape of the neck with a sharp instrument and suctions out the brains. The dead baby is then removed. Sometimes, according to abortionist LeRoy Carhart, when he testified in favor of PBA earlier this year, there is the complication of the "free floating head," or decapitated head that is difficult to grasp and remove. To view photos of babies aborted by this method, click here. (Moderator's warning---these photos are very graphic.) Less common:Intra-Uterine Saline Instillation: A strong salt solution is injected directly into the amniotic fluid. The baby breathes and swallows it, resulting in poisoning and internal burning. The salt solution also burns and strips away the outer layer of the baby's skin. Intra-Uterine Prostaglandin Instillation: According to Planned Parenthood, these abortions are "performed by injecting a prostaglandin hormone into the amniotic sac."(Regarding the aforementioned, in 2003, the World Health Organization reported them "invasive and less safe than the newer medical methods.")Hysterotomy: A Caesarean section where the baby is killed by clamping the cord and drowning her in amniotic fluid before delivering her.Hysterectomy: Removal of the killed baby in conjunction with removal of the uterus.ACLU/PP -- Again, because the legislation introduced in Illinois can apply to numerous procedures--including those performed at the earliest stages of pregnancy-- it is difficult to discuss alternatives. There are a few medical procedures used after the first trimester to terminate pregnancy: induction, D&E and D&X. A woman and her physician must determine the procedure that is best for her under her particular medical circumstances. For example, induction might be appropriate for one woman, but another woman may have a medical condition that rules it out. Access to the various medical options is a factor that cannot be ignored. Even if there is a medical alternative, if a woman cannot access that alternative, then it is meaningless. If the proposed so-called "Born-Alive Infant" legislation were to become law, for all practical purposes a woman may have no alternatives because she will be unable to find a physician who is willing to perform an abortion, no matter what the procedure, and risk criminal prosecution for failing to attempt to resuscitate a fetus that cannot be saved. Currently it is difficult for women in Illinois to find a provider of abortion services once she has past the first trimester in her pregnancy. We know cases of women in Illinois who have discovered severe problems with the fetus during the second trimester and have had to travel out of state (even as far as California) to find an abortion provider who is able to help them. In some instances the medical condition of the woman necessitates hospital care during the abortion procedure. Unfortunately, many Illinois hospitals decline to provide even life- or health-saving abortions, leaving many women without access to the medical care they desperately need. Laws such as the proposed "live-birth abortion bans" that increase penalties for physicians and hospitals are intended to, and would, drive more health care providers from providing this essential care. _______________4. What does the law currently state about these procedures and how is that law applied (or not applied) in practice?JS -- In 1999, after sending IDPH to investigate Christ Hospital's induced labor abortion practices, then-Atty. Gen. Jim Ryan determined the hospital was doing nothing illegal under current Illinois law. So there is clearly a breakdown in law regarding live aborted babies.Atty. Gen. Ryan submitted a letter of support for legislation state Sen. Patrick O'Malley (R-Palos Park) introduced called the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act.BAIPA states that live born babies, no matter what their gestational age or circumstances of birth, are legal "persons."On the federal level, BAIPA passed 98-0 in the U.S. Senate and overwhelmingly in the House and was signed by President Bush into law on August 5, 2002. The federal BAIPA impacts federal law; Illinois BAIPA would impact Illinois law.BAIPA would not stop doctors from committing LBA. Babies being aborted -- before they are born -- are not legal persons.But if a baby somehow survives the first attempt to kill him or her, the physician should not get a second chance. The physician should then do everything possible to save the baby, if the baby is viable.If the baby is not viable, then comfort measures should be provided until s/he dies, just as would be provided for nonviable wanted babies. All babies should be given equal protection to equal medical care in Illinois. This is a simple concept that abortion proponents try to blur.When the Illinois ACLU's Colleen Connell testified against BAIPA, she told senators that existing law already protected a baby I described who had been aborted alive at Christ Hospital.This surprised me, because I had previously informed both Ryan and Cook Co. State's Attorney Dick Devine about this healthy little girl, who was aborted at the age of 23 weeks, weighing one pound, and whose APGAR scores improved between one and five minutes. Neither Ryan nor Devine acted upon the information I gave them.The baby was never assessed by neonatal doctors but was kept in Christ Hospital's labor & delivery department for 2-1/2 hours until she died. After Connell testified, I wrote her twice, asking her to defend this baby's civil liberties posthumously.I never received a response. The other side quotes an Illinois law that states a second doctor must be present in the event an abortionist thinks s/he might abort a potentially viable baby alive. But the decision to call the second doctor is up to the abortionist.The House sponsor of that bill, former state Rep. Penny Pullen (R.- Park Ridge) explained the loophole:The two-doctor rule depends on a pre-delivery assessment by the abortionist that the baby may be viable.The purpose of BAIPA is to require a post-delivery assessment, which is needed because viability is such a tricky question, and because abortionists will likely err on the side of being able to commit the abortion without inviting a second doctor to assist for the sake of the baby. It subjects him to second guessing by a second doctor.ACLU/PP -- Current law says nothing about so-called "live-birth abortion." That is probably because the term was only recently created by anti-choice activists in an attempt to scare physicians away from offering abortion services and to impose unnecessary burdens on women seeking reproductive health services. However, we do have Illinois laws that have been tested by the courts.Illinois law bans abortions after a fetus is viable (able to live outside the womb). This law only provides exceptions in order to protect the women's life or health. This law carries severe penalties for physicians who violate it. Moreover, under Illinois law, where a post-viability abortion is necessary to preserve the woman's life or health, the physician nevertheless must have a second physician present to provide treatment if a baby is born alive. The existence of the "second-physician" requirement under Illinois law makes clear that the so-called "live-birth" legislation is designed to deter physicians from performing pre-viability abortions where resuscitative efforts are futile. ______________5. If you feel the current laws are not sufficient, how would you amend it, and what would you say to those who say that broad amendments are actually aimed not at a particular procedure but at all abortions past the first tri-mester? If you feel the current laws are not sufficient, what is it in the proposed amendments that causes you to believe that they are actually aimed at curtailing all abortions past the first tri-mester?ACLU/PP -- Current laws are sufficient. There is no evidence of abuse. There is no evidence that abortions are being recklessly performed on healthy fetuses that are able to survive outside of the womb. A reading of the legislation makes it clear that it is aimed at impeding abortions throughout pregnancy.No one procedure is defined. In fact, it states that it would apply to several circumstances not just induction. No time period is outlined. It would apply to any time in pregnancy - first, second or third trimester, and as noted above, is directed at pre-viability procedures. JS -- BAIPA has been introduced in the Illinois General Assembly four times now. It has failed four times. Of course, I think the first step is passing that law.It simply states: Amends the Statute on Statutes. Defines the terms "person", "human being", "child", and "individual" to include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. Defines "born alive" to mean the complete expulsion or extraction from the mother of an infant, 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, cesarean section, or induced abortion. Provides that nothing in these definitions shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive. Section 2 of the Illinois Constitution's Bill of Rights would then apply: "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor be denied the equal protection of the laws. "It is not possible for BAIPA to be aimed at a particular abortion procedure. It is a law defining legal personhood. It could only have a chilling effect on infanticide.Beyond BAIPA, it seems to me the simplest solution is to mandate that a second physician, objective in nature (not a second abortionist), be present at all live births, no matter what gestational age. Some hospitals have already adopted this protocol. _______________6. To what degree, if any, is debate over the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act and related legislation also a debate over so-called "partial-birth" abortions? ACLU/PP --The anti-choice activists who are promoting the "Born-Alive Infant Protection Act" are using the same tactics they used in the so-called "partial-birth abortion" debate. They create a non-medical, emotionally charged term for abortion. They describe one type of abortion procedure when the legislation actually is broadly defined and would apply to multiple procedures. They mislead the public into thinking that they are only talking about healthy full-term infants when, in fact, their proposed legislation would apply to all stages of pregnancy. They mislead the public into thinking that late-term abortions are common. They craft their legislation with no exceptions to protect a women's health or life.Finally, they design their legislation to become the focus of litigation in an attempt to have the United States Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade and allow states to ban abortions. JS -- As I have explained, the two abortion procedures are completely different. But I note the Illinois media tends to mix them up, particularly of late when discussing Barack Obama's position on them. (Obama voted against the PBA ban and also voted against the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act.)Obama has not helped by tending to blur discussion regarding his votes on "late-term abortions." _______________CONCLUSION Closing statement of Jill Stanek --After reading the Planned Parenthood/ACLU team's responses to Eric's questions, I wished I were Sergeant Joe Friday so I could say, "Just the facts, ma'ams."Rather, they frittered a great opportunity to do their part to clarify the confusion surrounding live birth abortion by whining about terminology, fretting about hidden agendas, warning that the abortion sky would fall if a law safeguarding infants against infanticide were passed, and then regurgitating from the top.That is because they want what is confused to remain confused. Why?As our discussion about live birth abortion winds down, it is relevant to point out that Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the United States. Internationally, Planned Parenthood rakes in billions of dollars annually, much of it from abortion.If a tobacco company were the pro-smoking debater in a forum weighing the harms of smoking, the audience would rightly be skeptical of its "facts" and motives. The audience reading our debate should approach the other side's answers with the same degree of skepticism. Planned Parenthood's adamant defense of a gruesome abortion procedure that sometimes results in babies being aborted alive is to ensure its cash cow, abortion, is not impeded upon. That's also why Planned Parenthood and its tag-team buddy, the ACLU, tirelessly fight against reasonable boundaries on abortion in Illinois, for instance, a law requiring that parents be notified before their minor child aborts; a law requiring doctors to give women seeking abortions information about the proven harms of abortion; the formation of a task force to probe the relationship between abortion and breast cancer; or regulations that would bring Illinois abortion clinic standards up to the level of Illinois animal clinics.These have all been defeated many times in Illinois General Assemblies or in the courts, primarily by the Illinois Planned Parenthood and ACLU.That's because Planned Parenthood spends its abortion profits wisely. It pays a lobbyist to work full-time at the State Capitol to protect its primary business interest, abortion. ACLU does the same. And PP generously donates to politicians who turn around and vote to give it taxpayer money. It's a circular payback system that never ends. It isn't possible to go line-by-line through the misrepresentations and distortions PP/ACLU disgorged as they flitted around Eric's six questions, such as when they said a baby's heart starts beating "at 4-6 weeks of pregnancy" when it actually begins beating at 21 days. But there are a couple of whoppers I will address.The first and greatest is when they stated, "Illinois law bans abortions after a fetus is viable [except] in order to protect the women's life or health." They will also often say abortion is legal in the U.S. for the first three months of pregnancy. These are misleading and false statements. The same day the Supreme Court granted mothers the "right" to abort in its January 22, 1973, Roe v. Wade decision, it went farther to legalize abortion on demand throughout all nine months of pregnancy in its Doe v. Bolton decision. "But only for health reasons!" the other side will shriek. They don't say that abortion for "health" of the mother "may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the well-being of the patient," according to Supreme Court Justice Blackmun's Doe opinion. Thus, if a mother decides her pregnancy is causing emotional or psychological stress at any time before her baby is completely separated from her, she can abort, yes, even mid-delivery, which is actually what a "partial birth abortion" is. Indeed, it was the disclosures about partial birth abortion - a term abortion proponents hate --- that began changing American minds on abortion. We all believe in the cowboy spirit of freedom and independence, of live and let live, but that procedure is too grotesque to ignore. People who previously simply accepted abortion as a "woman's right to choose" began to think about the baby.That's why details about partial-birth abortion and live-birth abortion send abortion providers like Planned Parenthood through the roof. Because these revelations - truths - make Americans very uneasy. Polls indicate most people instinctively know abortion kills a baby. We are reasonable and intelligent and understand that humans begat humans. What to do with the quandary? For many years we went into denial… believed the lies without researching for ourselves… tried not to think about it… avoided the topic when it came up… got mad at those pro-life crazies who hold up graphic signs of aborted babies.But no more. The house of cards is falling, because not only has the abortion industry pushed the envelope too far, but also 30 years of studies have shown that abortion catastrophically impacts the health of women. We now know that 10 percent of aborting women suffer immediate complications, of which one-fifth are life-threatening: infection, embolism, ripping or perforation of the uterus, convulsions, cervical injury, fever, chronic abdominal pain, gastro-intestinal disturbances, excessive bleeding, cervical injury, anesthesia complications, hemorrhage, endotoxic shock, second degree burns, vomiting, and Rh sensitization. We now know that compared to women who carry to term, women who have abortions are: 3.5 times more likely to die in the following year; 1.6 times more likely to die of natural causes; 7 times more likely to die of suicide; 4 times more likely to die of injuries related to accidents; and 14 times more likely to die from homicide. We also now know that abortion hides incest. Abortion is a pedophile's best friend, because the sicko can take his little girl victim for an abortion, kill the evidence of his crime, and carry on with no one being any the wiser.To end where this all began, I want to address the second great whopper the ACLU/PP told.To muddy the waters, they lumped three bills together that tried to address the live-birth abortion issue. Two of the bills had to do with physician instructions and penalties for noncompliance.But the cornerstone bill was the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Each of these bills were separately numbered and voted on separately. The definition in Illinois' BAIPA was identical to the definition in the federal version. It passed the U.S. Senate unanimously and overwhelmingly in the House, and was signed into law by President Bush in 2002. Yet, in Illinois, it has failed three times and is currently being held up by Emil Jones in the Senate and Michael Madigan in the House. This is how pathetically amoral a majority of our elected officials in Illinois are, including yes, Democrat U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama. _______________Closing statement from The Roger Baldwin Foundation of the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois and Illinois Planned Parenthood Council of Illinois--Jill Stanek writes in support of the so-called "Born Alive Infant Protection" legislation that was introduced in 2002 in the Illinois General Assembly. This group of 3 bills was intended to limit abortions performed well before that stage of pregnancy at which a fetus can survive on its own and therefore well before there is any constitutionally recognized state interest in limiting access to reproductive healthcare. These bills would have had a particularly egregious impact on women forced to confront the untenable situation of having to terminate a much wanted pregnancy because of a maternal or fetal health crisis. The first bill in this package would have imposed civil liability, including punitive damages, on any health care provider who failed to provide "all medical care necessary to preserve and protect the life, health and safety" of a baby born alive after an abortion, regardless of the stage of development or the reasonable likelihood of survival even with extraordinary medical intervention. The second bill defined "born-alive infant" based on minimal physical signs of fetal development--a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord and movement of voluntary muscles. This definition would have applied not only in the context of induced abortion but also, for example, where a woman goes into premature labor in the mid-term.These developmental signs do not mean that if delivered, the baby could survive outside the uterus, a concept known as viability. Instead, these signs occur early in the course of fetal development, long before there is any chance of such survival.The fetal heartbeat starts at approximately 4-6 weeks gestation and voluntary muscle movements begin as early as 12-14 weeks. By contrast, a fetus is considered viable at approximately 24 weeks, depending on the reasonable medical judgment of the attending physician and the unique circumstances of each individual pregnancy. The third bill in the 2002 package would have amended the existing abortion law to require the presence of a second physician at any abortion where these early developmental signs exist, to attempt to resuscitate and sustain a live born baby--again without regard to any reasonable chance of survival. Doctors who didn't provide this futile medical care would have risked criminal prosecution, imprisonment and the loss of their medical licenses. This package of bills differs markedly from the federal legislation to which Stanek refers. Most notably, the federal law was definitional only; whereas the Illinois bills would have imposed affirmative obligations and civil and criminal consequences for any failure to meet those obligations. The practical effect of these types of legislative threats is to scare physicians away from offering abortion care, thus depriving women of access to an essential part of their reproductive healthcare.The Illinois legislation was defeated--with good cause. Illinois already bans abortions after a fetus is viable (able to live outside the womb). The only exceptions are in order to protect the pregnant woman's life or health. And, in those situations, Illinois already requires the presence of a second physician to provide treatment if a baby is born alive. Illinois imposes severe criminal penalties for failure to comply with these requirements. As the post-viability stage of pregnancy was already addressed by existing law, it's apparent that the Illinois "live-birth" legislation could only have been directed at the pre-viability stage of pregnancy where the resuscitative treatment required would have been futile and where the state cannot impose such unnecessary burdens on access to abortion care. Advocates for this type of legislation strive to make it seem that women are waiting until they are minutes from delivering a healthy full-term baby and then on a whim deciding they no longer want to be pregnant.They also would have the public believe that doctors are depriving viable, live-born babies of medical care that would lead to sustained survival. This is simply not so. According to the most recent data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), only 1.4-1.5% of all abortions are performed after 20 weeks gestation (still before viability).Women seek abortions after the first trimester of pregnancy for a variety of personal reasons, including because pregnancy is causing or exacerbating a serious medical condition. Some such conditions endanger the woman's life; others may endanger her health, but not necessarily her life. Other women decide to terminate their pregnancies after learning that the fetus suffers from a severe anomaly. Most such women are ending very much wanted pregnancies.The induction procedure on which Stanek focuses in her remarks is a long and painful process for the pregnant patient. It can take anywhere from 12 hours to multiple days and involves painful contractions to expel the fetus. (Contrary to Stanek's comments, the fetus does not simply "drop out.") It is also psychologically draining, as these procedures are performed on hospital labor and delivery floors; the patient, who is often terminating a wanted pregnancy, is surrounded by others who are delivering healthy babies. These are not procedures that women undergo on a whim.Stanek and other proponents of "live-birth" legislation attempt to disguise their opposition to all abortion by claiming to be seeking protection for infants they contend are being mistreated. In so doing, they demean the often painful choices women are forced to make to protect their own health and future fertility or because they learn that the fetus they carry will not survive birth or infancy or will be condemned to a long and painful death as a result of any of a number of genetic or developmental defects.Faced with the fact that medical ethical standards and Illinois statutes already address the concerns the "live-birth" legislation would purportedly have addressed, Stanek argues that abortion providers and physicians treating women suffering from premature labor (or, the "abortionist," to use Stanek's words) will declare viable fetuses to be non-viable--"err[ing] on the side of being able to commit the abortion. "There is simply no evidence for Stanek's contention that Illinois reproductive health care providers are flouting their ethical and legal responsibilities in order to avoid saving a baby that has the potential to survive. Finally, for the first time here, Stanek concedes that "the physician should do everything possible to save the baby, if the baby is viable," and if it is not viable, "then comfort care measures should be provided."This, however, is not what the "Born Alive Infant Protection" Act provided. It is, however, what already is occurring in Illinois hospitals.Stanek's efforts to limit access to all abortions through the "Born Alive Infant Protection" Act is clear and is in disregard of women's health and their personal reproductive tragedies. This concludes the forum. My thanks to all particpants and readers.
Copyright © 2004, Chicago Tribune
Comments
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated and are published at the blogger's discretion.