The Procedure
Part 2 ABORTION: Woman’s Choice or Modern Holocaust?
Back to By David C. Pack
Contents
The Procedure
Despite having sterile and clinical-sounding terms attached to it, such as “vacuum aspiration,” “D&C,” “D&E” and “D&X,” exactly what is involved in the abortion procedure? The following is a brief description of the most popular forms of first-trimester abortions. (Note: While the procedures are described in the least graphic manner, some explicit description is unavoidable.)
Mifepristone: Also known as RU 486 or the “morning-after pill,” mifepristone is a chemical that interferes with the woman’s hormones needed to maintain the womb lining—the baby’s source of nourishment and protection—which, in effect, causes the embryo to starve. A second drug is administered, causing the woman to expel the embryo—the unborn child! Mifepristone is relatively new and the exact long-term side effects are still unknown. However, one of its effects is heavy bleeding, for up to three weeks, after its use. (See “The ‘Morning-After Pill’” inset for more information on RU 486.)
Methotrexate: Though not FDA-approved for abortions, this chemical is also used as a treatment for arthritis and psoriasis—as well as a cancer treatment, when administered in higher doses. Injected five to nine weeks into the pregnancy, methotrexate creates a folic acid deficiency that stops cell division (the growth process), resulting in termination of the fetus. Suppositories are then administered to expel the unborn child. Possible side effects include severe bleeding, nausea, pain, diarrhea, bone marrow depression, severe anemia, liver damage and methotrexate-induced lung disease.
Vacuum Aspiration: This procedure takes place during weeks six to sixteen, and consists of a suction tube being inserted into the cervix and uterus, and sucking out the placenta and the fetus into a container. Often, because of the powerful suction, the unborn child is dismembered. To ensure that there are no pieces of the fetus remaining in the womb, body parts are accounted for (often by reassembling the unborn baby). The uterus can be punctured during this procedure, causing internal hemorrhaging. Severe infection is also common, as placenta often remains in the uterus.
Dilation and Curettage (D&C): Surgically expanding the cervix (the mouth of the womb), a loop-shaped steel knife is inserted into the womb and the abortionist slices the fetus into little pieces, as well as separating the placenta from the uterus wall. This procedure is administered between weeks six and sixteen of the pregnancy. Similar to vacuum aspiration, internal hemorrhaging and severe infections commonly occur after this procedure. (This procedure is not to be confused with the similarly named procedure to correct menstrual abnormalities.) The following are second (or third) trimester abortion procedures:
Dilation and Evacuation (D&E): This is a common procedure for pregnancies between weeks thirteen to twenty four, and is similar to D&C. The cervix is again forced open, and forceps grab the unborn child’s body parts and tear them out from the mother’s womb, piece by piece. Since the skull is hardened to bone by this time, the abortionist crushes the head inside the womb and extracts all the pieces. During such an operation, the fetus can be seen on an ultrasound recoiling from the abortionist’s forceps.
Describing the D&E procedure, Dr. William Hern, an abortionist from Colorado, stated in a 1978 report to the Association of Planned Parenthood, “We have produced an unusual dilemma. A procedure is rapidly becoming recognized as the procedure of choice in late abortion, but those capable of performing or assisting with the procedure are having strong personal reservations about participating in an operation which they view as destructive and violent…Some part of our cultural and perhaps even biological heritage recoils at a destructive operation on a form that is similar to our own, even while we may know that the act has a positive effect for a living person.
“No one who has not performed this procedure can know what it is like or what it means; but having performed it, we are bewildered by the possibilities of interpretation. We have reached a point in this particular technology where there is no possibility of denial of an act of destruction by the operator. It is before one’s eyes. The sensations of dismemberment flow through the forceps like an electric current…The more we seem to solve the problem, the more intractable it becomes” (“What About Us? Staff Reactions to the D&E Procedure,” Hern, Corrigan).
Saline Abortion: This abortion procedure is used after week sixteen of the pregnancy, and entails the insertion of a needle into the woman’s abdomen, which removes about eight ounces of amniotic fluid, replacing it with an equal amount of a concentrated salt solution. The baby then inhales the salt, causing its lungs and flesh to burn. Death occurs within the hour, and a dead, shriveled child is delivered within twenty-four hours. Side effects can include uncontrolled blood clotting throughout the body, severe hemorrhaging, seizures, coma, serious side effects on the central nervous system, or even death.
Digoxin Induction: This technique is used between weeks twenty and thirty-two, and involves the injecting of chemicals directly into the child’s heart. Once dead, suppositories allow the mother to expel the unborn child. Hysterotomy: Similar to the procedure followed when performing a c-section, the fetus and placenta are removed from the womb and simply “disposed of.” This procedure is used between weeks twenty-four and thirty-eight.
Partial-Birth Abortion (D&X): Also called “dilation and extraction,” partial-birth abortion was banned by Congress in June 2003. This procedure is used for twenty to thirty-two week pregnancies, and involves pulling out the unborn child through the birth canal, making sure that the head remains in the mother. If the unborn baby were completely pulled out at this point, it would be alive. (Ironically, in any other circumstance, the doctor would be required to make every heroic effort to save the child’s life.) However, the abortionist makes an incision on the back of the head, and removes the child’s brain with suction through a catheter. The head then collapses, allowing the child to be removed “intact.”
If abortionists could see face-to-face the countless millions of babies who have been aborted in the above procedures, would their opinion on the morality and legality of abortion still be the same? Would they still see them as nothing more than “fetal tissue”?
Two Important Questions
The mountain of evidence proving abortion’s impact on mortality rates in the U.S. is unmistakable. Thousands of pages would be needed to detail the numerous accounts of psychological trauma and life-threatening effects abortion has had on those involved in the procedure—not to mention the overall affects on a society that legalizes the termination of innocent life. In effect, we live in a world that relies on murder as a means of contraception and of dealing with social problems!
Misconceptions About Roe v. Wade
Abortion advocates firmly state that the Supreme Court’s ruling provides strict guidelines regulating second- and third-trimester abortions.
But what exactly are those guidelines? What reasons could allow the state to grant an abortion during the final three months of the child’s development?
Justice Blackmun, author of the Roe v. Wade decision, divided the full-term pregnancy into three trimesters. He ruled that states had no right to restrict abortions within the first six months (the first and second trimesters), and that a woman can abort her pregnancy during this time for whatever reason.
Concerning third-trimester abortions, the ruling continued that the state had a right—not an obligation—to restrict the procedure only to pregnancies that posed a health risk to the woman. However, this third-trimester ruling hinged on how the state defined exactly what poses a “health risk.”
In “Roe v. Wade: Abortion on Demand,” Dr. Frank Beckwith helps clarify the court’s definition of a “health risk,” by examining the ruling made in another abortion case, Doe v. Bolton: “In Bolton the court ruled that ‘health’ must be taken in its broadest possible medical context, and must be defined ‘in light of all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age—relevant to the well being of the patient. All these factors relate to health.’”
In effect, as long as the pregnant woman can convince her physician that the birth will be a “risk” to her physical, emotional, psychological or familial well-being, the state can grant her an abortion up until a few weeks prior to her due date!
Dr. Beckwith continues, “It is safe to say, therefore, that in the first six months of pregnancy a woman can have an abortion for no reason, but in the last three months she can have it for any reason. This is abortion on demand.”
With four simple words—“IT IS SO ORDERED”—the Supreme Court legalized the practice of abortion. While Norma McCorvey, otherwise known as “Jane Roe,” is now a staunch pro-life supporter, her lawsuit caused a decision that drastically changed multiple millions of lives.
No doubt, abortion has deeply affected today’s society. There are countless opinions on the legality and morality of ending unwanted pregnancies. If you ask 100 different people for the basis of their opinion, they will offer almost as many different reasons.
Yet, without adding one’s individual opinion, TWO simple questions slice through personal commentary and philosophies, once and for all settling this controversial issue. They answer the CRUX of the never-ending debate over legalized abortion:
WHEN does LIFE begin?—and—WHO has the RIGHT to give or take away life? Recall Justice Blackmun’s statement in Roe v. Wade, “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.”
But these questions can and MUST be resolved. Doing so removes all doubt of whether abortion is simply a woman’s CHOICE—or whether it is sanitized MURDER. Answering these questions also reveals the lasting effects abortion has had on the marriage and family institutions, and exposes the media bias around the world. We will analyze all these and more, in the second part of this two-article series.
The “Morning-After Pill”
There has been much written over the last few years about mifepristone (trade name mifeprex), also know as RU 486 outside the U.S. This is often referred to as the “morning-after pill,” because of the perception that this non-surgical “pill” is actually just an after-the-fact contraceptive.
In reality, the “pill” is a series of treatments and follow-up visits to the doctor. The initial visit involves the pregnant mother taking three pills—either in the doctor’s office or at home. This is followed a few days later by another drug dispensed by the doctor. A third visit is then required approximately fourteen days later to verify that this process has terminated the pregnancy. This procedure is successful in ending early pregnancies (49 days or less from last menstrual cycle) approximately 95% of the time. The other 5% still require a surgical abortion.
When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved this in September 2000, many felt it would be a much easier way to end a pregnancy, when compared to a surgical abortion. What has become clear is that this is anything but an easy way out. It requires more follow-up with the doctor, more pain over an extended period, the potential for serious side effects (scores of deaths have resulted from its use), and a significant psychological impact on the pregnant woman.
Some, willing to take the risks, have said it felt like a “more natural way to go” because they could feel changes in their body as it reacted to the powerful drugs, which block hormones and cause the woman to go into contractions. In essence, this forces a miscarriage. Women have said that they likened the pain and discomfort to a type of “penance.”
Though not as popular as anticipated, RU 486 is a way for women to avoid the stigma of a surgical abortion, and “running the gauntlet” of protesters outside clinics. No matter how medical science tries to sanitize the process of ending innocent life, numerous women have found that there is no avoiding the emotional scars inflicted by their actions.
The June 2, 2003 issue of TIME reported that the health center of the publicly funded James Madison University had prescribed the “morning-after pill” over 2,000 times. When discovered by a state legislator, a measure was proposed to the J.M.U. senate, which would end its distribution to university students. It was approved, and the health center stopped dispensing the pill.
The result?—2,714 university students signed a petition stating that the decision affected the health and safety of the student body, and that the center should continue prescribing the “pill.” The bill, however, was not overturned. (However, the president of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League [NARAL]: Pro-Choice America personally invited the two women who led the campaign to attend a five-day training course in the Gloria Steinem Leadership Institute.)
In effect, no matter how people may want to simplify it, the “morning-after pill” is merely an abortion in tablet form.
Part 2 ABORTION: Woman’s Choice or Modern Holocaust?
Back to By David C. Pack