Doctor recalls abortions before Roe v. Wade

[motivez]

Repairing the Damage, Before Roe
By WALDO L. FIELDING, M.D.

With the Supreme Court becoming more conservative, many people who support women’s right to choose an abortion fear that Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that gave them that right, is in danger of being swept aside.

When such fears arise, we often hear about the pre-Roe “bad old days.” Yet there are few physicians today who can relate to them from personal experience. I can.

I am a retired gynecologist, in my mid-80s. My early formal training in my specialty was spent in New York City, from 1948 to 1953, in two of the city’s large municipal hospitals.

There I saw and treated almost every complication of illegal abortion that one could conjure, done either by the patient herself or by an abortionist — often unknowing, unskilled and probably uncaring. Yet the patient never told us who did the work, or where and under what conditions it was performed. She was in dire need of our help to complete the process or, as frequently was the case, to correct what damage might have been done.

The patient also did not explain why she had attempted the abortion, and we did not ask. This was a decision she made for herself, and the reasons were hers alone. Yet this much was clear: The woman had put herself at total risk, and literally did not know whether she would live or die.

This, too, was clear: Her desperate need to terminate a pregnancy was the driving force behind the selection of any method available.

The familiar symbol of illegal abortion is the infamous “coat hanger” — which may be the symbol, but is in no way a myth. In my years in New York, several women arrived with a hanger still in place. Whoever put it in — perhaps the patient herself — found it trapped in the cervix and could not remove it.

We did not have ultrasound, CT scans or any of the now accepted radiology techniques. The woman was placed under anesthesia, and as we removed the metal piece we held our breath, because we could not tell whether the hanger had gone through the uterus into the abdominal cavity. Fortunately, in the cases I saw, it had not.

However, not simply coat hangers were used.

Almost any implement you can imagine had been and was used to start an abortion — darning needles, crochet hooks, cut-glass salt shakers, soda bottles, sometimes intact, sometimes with the top broken off.

Another method that I did not encounter, but heard about from colleagues in other hospitals, was a soap solution forced through the cervical canal with a syringe. This could cause almost immediate death if a bubble in the solution entered a blood vessel and was transported to the heart.

The worst case I saw, and one I hope no one else will ever have to face, was that of a nurse who was admitted with what looked like a partly delivered umbilical cord. Yet as soon as we examined her, we realized that what we thought was the cord was in fact part of her intestine, which had been hooked and torn by whatever implement had been used in the abortion. It took six hours of surgery to remove the infected uterus and ovaries and repair the part of the bowel that was still functional.

It is important to remember that Roe v. Wade did not mean that abortions could be performed. They have always been done, dating from ancient Greek days.

What Roe said was that ending a pregnancy could be carried out by medical personnel, in a medically accepted setting, thus conferring on women, finally, the full rights of first-class citizens — and freeing their doctors to treat them as such.

Waldo L. Fielding was an obstetrician and gynecologist in Boston for 38 years. He is the author of “Pregnancy: The Best State of the Union” (Thomas Y. Crowell, 1971).

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/he...in&oref=slogin

This is a great article, one I think every person who thinks abortion should be illegal should read..

Like the author points out, even when it was illegal, people still performed them.. only they were unsafe, and often put the person at risk needlessly..

While I have come to feel like Roe v Wade is an imperfect decision for many reasons, and in a high minded debate about the law and states rights, I could agree that it should probably be a states isuse, pragmatism wins out the debate in my mind.

If it were a states rights issue, people living in those states without the means to move or travel to one where it might be performed would have to suffer through the consequences of the pre-Roe mindset of those states, and it would no doubt hit the poor the hardest, those same poor who are more likely to be incapable of adequately caring for their unwanted children in the first place.

[kombayn]

Yeah, I'm completely against a Federal or State full-ban on Abortion, I think it should be a state issue on Partial-Ban Abortions but not full-bans, there would be such a dirty black market to spew out of that situation if they allowed that to happen and like you said perform weird procedures to get rid of the fetus. Nice article.

[kinggovernor]

that does nothing to changes the morals or values behind it.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

that does nothing to changes the morals or values behind it.

And the morals or values behind it has little to do with legislation.

EDIT: SHOULD have little to do with legislation

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

And the morals or values behind it has little to do with legislation.

EDIT: SHOULD have little to do with legislation

values have to do with every part of our legislation

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

values have to do with every part of our legislation

I think this deserves a new thread. It's a good discussion with, IMO, good arguments for several different outcomes.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

values have to do with every part of our legislation

Let's not be broad with the word "values" since that could apply to both ideological and moral values. What I'm saying is that moral values should NOT affect legislation. I do not agree with abortion at a moral level. However, ideologically I cannot prevent people from having them with legislation because of the very reasons described in this article. While I do not want people to have them, if I made a law forcing people to not have them, I have done more harm than good.

Morals have no place in legislation. Legislation based on morals adversely affect liberty most of the time (nothing comes to mind where that wouldn't be the case, but I'm leaving room for examples of this not happening)

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Phantom

I think this deserves a new thread. It's a good discussion with, IMO, good arguments for several different outcomes.

done, sir, done.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Let's not be broad with the word "values" since that could apply to both ideological and moral values. What I'm saying is that moral values should NOT affect legislation. I do not agree with abortion at a moral level. However, ideologically I cannot prevent people from having them with legislation because of the very reasons described in this article. While I do not want people to have them, if I made a law forcing people to not have them, I have done more harm than good.

Morals have no place in legislation. Legislation based on morals adversely affect liberty most of the time (nothing comes to mind where that wouldn't be the case, but I'm leaving room for examples of this not happening)

lettuce us discuss here: You can't have policy or laws without values being the foundation

[6SpeedTA95]

Good article but I question the logic. Just because something happened prior to Roe or any other case/law for that matter doesn't make it right to enact a law. People get murdered all the time, that doesn't mean we should legalize it.

People in Iraq are in large part glad we're there, but that doesn't mean the war was the right thing to do. You could extrapolate this logic into a variety of issues.

But I personally thought it was a good article and I do not think a full ban on abortions would be a good thing because it would lead to desperate measures to get an abortion. Which would in my opinion make society worse off.

However, I am ok with the ban on partial birth and 3rd trimester abortions. That's just disturbing stuff.

[motivez]

I don't think saying "People get murdered all the time, that doesn't mean we should legalize it." is really a valid comparison, nor is Iraq.

The point was, it's a medical procedure people were performing because they have always performed them, but were forced into unsafe and often life threatening situations because medical professionals weren't legally allowed to help

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by motivez

The point was, it's a medical procedure people were performing because they have always performed them, but were forced into unsafe and often life threatening situations because medical professionals weren't legally allowed to murder the unborn

fixed to represent your opposition's viewpoint and demonstrate why this is really pointless to argue on the internet, as the fundamental disagreement on abortion will never be resolved between individuals until we have a 'human life detector' that can define the point where a human life begins.

[lew]

Abortions should be illegal. That article doesn't justify legal abortions at all. Despite what you say motivez, I think the same logic that you are trying to say could be used for murder. "Murder is much more safe for everyone involved if it was legalized." The whole argument is silly.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by thewise1

fixed to represent your opposition's viewpoint and demonstrate why this is really pointless to argue on the internet, as the fundamental disagreement on abortion will never be resolved between individuals until we have a 'human life detector' that can define the point where a human life begins.

Arguing about whether or not it's morally right isn't the point of the thread, it's that by making it legal, you've allowed medical professionals do perform it in a safe, sterile environment.

Making it illegal wont stop abortions, they have been performed throughout history regardless of the legality.. by outlawing them, you simply force them underground and put thousands of women at risk for the horrible complications this doctor has described seeing..

Maybe some right wingers will say "Great!" .. but I think that's a pretty idiotic position to take.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by lew

Abortions should be illegal. That article doesn't justify legal abortions at all. Despite what you say motivez, I think the same logic that you are trying to say could be used for murder. "Murder is much more safe for everyone involved if it was legalized." The whole argument is silly.

Sorry, it's not a valid comparison, because there's still a debate that's not settled about whether a fetus is alive and deserving of rights that supercede the mother's.

edit:

Also, why do you feel like it's acceptable for you to force other people to ascribe to your morality / religious beliefs?

[Smull]

I hate the whole abortion debate, is so different than any other political issue, because as its core its NOT a political issue. You can't really cite evidence or persuade the other side because the disagreement is over such a basic concept.

I hate it, whenever one side starts to convince me, the other just pulls me back. And theres just no way to figure it out. Iraq War, Healthcare, Taxes, Economics, we can figure out. There may not be a definitive right and wrong, but there are at the very least good and bad ways to approach the problems, and we can learn what works and what doesn't, and theres always room to improve on any approach we have now. With Abortion you just don't have that, there are two views on it either its just basically wrong or its not.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Smull

I hate the whole abortion debate, is so different than any other political issue, because as its core its NOT a political issue. You can't really cite evidence or persuade the other side because the disagreement is over such a basic concept.

I hate it, whenever one side starts to convince me, the other just pulls me back. And theres just no way to figure it out. Iraq War, Healthcare, Taxes, Economics, we can figure out. There may not be a definitive right and wrong, but there are at the very least good and bad ways to approach the problems, and we can learn what works and what doesn't, and theres always room to improve on any approach we have now. With Abortion you just don't have that, there are two views on it either its just basically wrong or its not.

Exactly why it should be a personal decision between a woman and her doctor, with no one else's involvement.

Personally, I like the phrase "Pro-Choice, Anti-Abortion"

I don't like the procedure and I think it's horrible, but there's absolutely no reason for me to have any sort of control over another person's reproductive systems without their consent, and by forcing someone to carry a pregnancy to term, that's exactly what's happening.

But again, my point was that by making it legal, it didn't suddenly allow people to have abortions -- they've been having them forever, in this country and throughout history. They were just very unsafe and this guy used his personal experience to show how horrible it was when you had to resort to shady characters to get a medical procedure done.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by motivez

Sorry, it's not a valid comparison, because there's still a debate that's not settled about whether a fetus is alive and deserving of rights that supercede the mother's.

edit:

Also, why do you feel like it's acceptable for you to force other people to ascribe to your morality / religious beliefs?

But if you're pro choice you're doing the exact same thing. You're arguing that a fetus isn't life and therefore isn't protected under the constitution and doesn't have a natural right to life.

If you feel a fetus does then your trampling the rights of the mother in favor of an unborn being/child...which is why quite frankly I dont even find this debate worth having. We'll be arguing about abortion until the end of time there's far better shit for me to spend my time on...

[motivez]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

But if you're pro choice you're doing the exact same thing. You're arguing that a fetus isn't life and therefore isn't protected under the constitution and doesn't have a natural right to life.

No, it's not the exact same thing at all. It's the exact opposite. Pro-Choice is exactly that, you are allowed to make up your own mind on what is right for you (and your family) with such a personal and tough decision.

I'm not saying you have to like anyone else's decision, I'm saying you should be free to make yours, and other people should be free to make theirs.

Saying it should be illegal is forcing other people to live by your moral standards and your personal beliefs.

You're exerting control over someone else's body.. as tyranny and oppression goes, I'm not sure there's much worse than that. The idea is certainly antithetical to personal freedom.