Finding “Common Ground” on Abortion is Not Likely

With a single bullet, the killing of Dr. George Tiller, an abortion provider in Wichita, Kansas, made the process of finding “common ground” in the abortion debate much more difficult.

As much as President Obama has been talking up conciliation, the rhetoric and ideology espoused by some abortion foes makes it almost impossible to work toward a national reconciliation on abortion and freedom of choice. So far, seven abortion clinic workers and doctors have been murdered by right-to-life extremists since 1994. More than a dozen clinics have been bombed over the last fifteen years and many others have suffered vandalism and near-constant threats of violence. These acts of violence are condemned by traditional right-to-life groups and conservatives, but the level of rancor coming from many of these groups serves to incite the acts nonetheless.

In my previous post I mention that there is a severe shortage of doctors who will provide abortions. This killing will make that shortage even direr—a goal that abortion foes have actively pursued.

One important issue that is raised by Tiller’s shooting death is that of late-term abortions. Tiller was long considered “controversial” because his clinic performed these kinds of abortions; defined as taking place either in the third trimester—or alternately, after fetal viability which occurs at 22 weeks.

But, writing in RHRealityCheck today Lynn Paltrow of the National Advocates for Pregnant Women describes the reality of who Tiller was and the way he helped women:

“Many of the women who traveled to Dr. Tiller's clinic were not women who wanted to have abortions, or who even support the right to choose to have an abortion. Many were women with wanted pregnancies who learned that their baby had no brain, or kidneys growing on the outside of their bodies or things their doctors described to them as "severe fetal cardiac malformations." They were women who could not face two or three more months of pregnancy with people patting their bellies and saying, "Oh honey you must be excited. When are you due?" Some women deal with such crises by continuing to term even knowing the baby cannot survive. Others find that their dignity depends on being able to end the pregnancy.”

Confusion over the definition of “late-term abortions” and under what circumstances they can take place is rampant, although some 40 states currently have some kind of ban on the procedure. The majority of these bans include exceptions to protect a woman's physical and emotional health.

In Roe v. Wade, a woman’s right to access abortion is loosely tied to a trimester framework. The Guttmacher Institute offers a summary of the law and its built-in subjectivity:

“[T]he Court declared that a woman has a constitutionally protected right, in consultation with her physician, to terminate a pregnancy free of state interference or intrusion, at least in the early stages of pregnancy (defined loosely as the first trimester of gestation). In the second trimester—or more specifically, prior to the viability of the fetus—the Court ruled that states could impose only those regulations that were reasonably related to the protection of the woman's health.

The Court acknowledged that after fetal viability, the state has acquired a ‘compelling’ interest in ‘potential life’ and could prohibit abortion altogether ‘except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother."

Why do women seek out second and third-trimester abortions? Some of these procedures are performed when a mother’s life is at risk or her health is severely compromised. But more of these pregnancies are terminated after diagnostic tests have revealed profound deformities and other serious health issues in the fetus that are either life-threatening or would lead to a lifetime of pain and suffering for the child. These fetal problems might compromise a woman’s physical health. But many of these procedures are performed because the birth of a severely affected infant will cause mental anguish and distress to the mother.

In her 2004 piece for the Boston Globe, Gretchen Voss offers a poignant account of her choice to have a late-term abortion after her much-wanted baby was diagnosed at 18 weeks with profound defects:

“What they knew -- that the baby would certainly be paralyzed and incontinent, that the baby's brain was being tugged against the opening in the base of the skull and the cranium was full of fluid -- was awful. What they didn't know -- whether the baby would live at all, and if so, with what sort of mental and developmental defects -- was devastating. Countless surgeries would be required if the baby did live. None of them would repair the damage that was already done.”

Where does Obama stand on late-term abortions?  In 2008 he told Relevant Magazine, a Christian publication:

“I have repeatedly said that I think it's entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don't think that ‘mental distress" qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions."

Obama suggests that the mother’s “mental distress” is not enough. In that view, which is described here;  women would not be able to end pregnancies in which the fetus is found to have severe abnormalities and is unlikely to survive outside the womb

In other words, medical technology can give parents a clear view of their baby’s devastating abnormalities and even tell them that the fetus is likely to die either before delivery or immediately afterward, but they have no right to seek an abortion. The “mental distress” option for a late-term abortion is, admittedly, a bulky loophole that rightly allows women to abort severely afflicted fetuses. But what’s the alternative?

Here is the story of one woman who found herself in exactly that situation and was denied access to an abortion in her state. Lydia Waddington’s obstetrician (and eventually five others) told her that ultrasound scans revealed that the child she was carrying was afflicted with multiple anomalies and would never live outside the womb. They also told her that she could have a spontaneous abortion which would increase her risk of contracting an infection. But, Waddington says, there were “only potential and no immediate threats to my physical health.”

“Although we had made the decision to terminate the pregnancy, we first had to deal with state law requirements in relation to late term abortions. When our waiver was denied, our doctor referred us to another physician in a nearby state. An ultrasound the morning of the two-day procedure showed that our child had already died. Further tests concluded that I had already developed an infection.”

Writing further about how Obama’s restrictive view of late-term abortions will affect women seeking termination in the case of “mental distress,” Waddington adds:

“Obama's policy clarification states that he would require a ‘strict’ health exception. It's doubtful that the possibility of early fetal demise resulting in an infection would fit the requirements. Most likely, under his policy, I would not have had an option to terminate. I would have continued the pregnancy and, given the known outcome, would have received minimal prenatal care. As a result, instead of the fetal demise going undetected for an estimated two days, it could have gone undetected until I began to experience the full-blown affects of infection.”

Late-term abortions are a flashpoint for conflict in the debate over reproductive choice. Yet in reality, they are performed infrequently: Only 1.1% of abortions are performed after 20 weeks and just 3.5% are performed between 16 and 20 weeks. In contrast, almost 90% of all abortions are performed before 10 weeks.

The debate continues because abortion opponents see it as an issue that can unite extremists and moderates into a single coalition working toward banning abortion outright. In 2003 Congress passed the federal legislation known as the “Partial Birth Abortion Ban” that outlawed a specific medical procedure that is sometimes performed as early as in the second trimester. This procedure, more accurately known as dilation and evacuation, was not used very frequently, but sometimes offered the safest approach for terminating a difficult, even life-threatening pregnancy. After several challenges, the Supreme Court upheld the federal abortion ban, even without an exemption for when a woman’s life is at stake.

This ban is considered just the first step by opponents working toward increased federal restrictions. We can imagine bans on other, specific, techniques used to terminate pregnancy that the courts decide cause moral distress for women. President Obama’s statement about removing the “mental distress” exemption from late term abortion bans feeds into the opponent’s strategy, especially as new technology pushes fetal viability back to 20 weeks or less.

With the death of George Tiller, the nation will have to confront, once again, the forces that continue to keep us from achieving common ground on the abortion issue. And we also will have to face losing one more provider who strongly adhered to a woman’s right to choose.

Comments

[Joseph]

I demand to see an investigation. I have a hard time believing that this Tiller person terminated all 60,000 pregnancies because they were deformities and/or were a threat to the mother.

Pro-choice articles paint Tiller as a "provider who strongly adhered to a woman’s right to choose." But how much of it this statement is really so? Should I give Tiller the benefit of the doubt and ignore the obvious conflict of interest? That outside the "womens' rights" banner he would be nothing but an entrepreneur seeking to continue his business? That he would have had reason to write down late-term pregnancies as being "non-viable" to justify his work? That he would have been in the business of killing full-term babies? I this were the case, though I agree that he was murdered, I couldn't feel any sympathy for the man.

I support a woman's right to choose an abortion, as long as it is in the first trimester. If the baby will be deformed, or if it will be a hazard for the mother, IE an ectopic pregnancy, etc. I would agree to it too. No person should be denied needed medical care.

I am against late-term abortion because I believe that it is wrong to kill a perfectly healthy child as its being born. This cannot be a woman's "choice" to kill a child as it exits her body, when the child can survive intact. This cannot be a "private" matter between a doctor and a woman, because there is a third, unacknowledged person there. The laws differ on what constitutes a "person." Laws that say a third-term baby is not a person yet because it hasn't left its mother's womb are wrong. Such laws only exist to legitimize abortion by preserving the fiction that the child isn't "born" or a real "person" yet.

I am against late-term abortion because I am against killing a child that might as well be being held in a loving person's arms.

Outside of that, I believe a woman should choose abortion in the first stages. There should be laws that regulate this. No, a woman can't just decide to kill her 3rd term baby and euphemise it under "terminating her pregnancy" or "dialation and extraction." This is wrong! It's murder! Doctors should not be allowed to get away with murder! If Tiller was killing perfectly viable unborn children, then he was in the business of infanticide, and I cannot feel sorry that someone finally took his life. I cannot feel he was finally dealt his own justice; a very, very, very late-term abortion.

Sorry if I offend any feminazis out there. A healthy baby ready to be born can't be killed at your behest simply because you are a woman and its living in your body. At that point it should be allowed to live. That's all I'm afraid of; that a child that could be allowed to live isn't. I will support the proliferation of condoms and education in contraceptives. I will support abortion in its first starges. But I will not, cannot support a woman's "right to choose" if it means killing a healthy baby that would be as good as born. I simply see no difference between taking a newborn and killing it outside its mothers womb, and killing it before it comes out of it minutes beforehand. I do not subscribe to any religion, but I don't think you must subscribe to a religion to have morals, and this is a deeply held conviction that I have. If that makes me a terrorist, then so be it.

[Naomi Freundlich]

Joseph,
It seems that you are getting most of your information about Dr. Tiller from Bill O'Reilly and talking points from Operation Rescue. Kansas State law outlaws abortion after viability without a referral from an independent physician that an abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman or that continuation of the pregnancy will cause substantial and irreversible impairment to a major physical or mental function. The provider also must document the condition of the fetus and whether or not it is viable and report this to the State Department of Health.
Dr. Tiller was hounded by the last Attorney General in Kansas--facing charges that he illegally performed late-term abortions--and was found to be innocent both times.
Your charge that Tiller was aborting "perfectly viable unborn children" is completely off-base and your statement that the doctor was dealt his own justice; "a very, very, very late-term abortion," is a further sign that you are one of the people we should be worried about when we talk about violent extremists. To me, your "pro-life" comment is the ultimate hypocrisy.

[Kent]

Joseph-See, this is what kicks my butt. Abortion has been around as long as people have. Not saying its right or wrong, it simply is. Choice versus outlawing it is a debate about keeping it a medical procedure or moving it back into alleys. But that said, here is the thing. The Pro-life movement. Wow. Typically made up of political right, right? So, killing doctors providing legal procedures, killing 4000+ US soldiers for oil, killing 100,000+ Iragi civilians, pro-death penalty, don't take care of the poor or needy, just feed the rich... Pro-life is not pro-life, its pro-crastination. Don't kill in the womb, wait til they are born THEN kill them. Explain how pro-life reconciles the difference: State giving doctors sanction to perform abortion is wrong, but state giving sanction to execute its citizens is RIGHT???