So Much for “Safe and Legal”
— Posted by John (May 22, 2006 at 4:47 pm)
Most supporters of legalized abortion tout a familiar refrain.
Abortion, they, say, should be “safe, legal, and rare.” (I’ll leave discussion of the incongruity between the notion that legal abortion is a relatively safe and amoral act and the belief that it should be “rare” for another time.)
There are plenty of examples that give the lie to the idea that because abortion is legal, it is therefore safe. The latest is that of Summit Medical Center in Birmingham, AL, which was closed by the State of Alabama following an investigation into a horribly botched abortion:
The State Board of Health took six weeks to investigate the incident and suspend the abortion mill’s license. After calling the incident “egregious,” health department agent Dr. Donald Williamson indicated that the clinic might not reopen.
The woman went to the Summit Medical Center on February 20, and was given an ultrasound by a non-physician in violation of Alabama law. She was told that she was six weeks pregnant when in fact she was 8 months along. Non-physicians then administered the abortion pill, RU 486, a drug approved for use only in early pregnancy and is responsible for at least 7 deaths since it hit the US market in late 2000.
Six days later, the woman delivered a six pound, four ounce dead baby at the hospital emergency room.
Diagnosing a woman as six weeks pregnant when she was in fact eight months pregnant requires a staggering amount of either (a) incompetence; or (b) deceit.
Yet this is the reality of the abortion industry.
I find it interesting that as of this writing, the websites of Planned Parenthood, NOW, NARAL Pro-Choice America, and the National Abortion Federation contain nary a word on Summit’s closing–nor on the suspension of Summit abortionist Deborah Lyn Levich’s license.
Even the Associated Press is covering this story, yet the major pro-abortion groups do not see fit to issue so much as a statement.
And we’re supposed to believe that they really care about keeping abortion “safe”?
Related Coverage
- RealChoice: More on the Closing of Summit
This entry is filed under Abortion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Christina says:
Thanks for the link!
Comment posted May 22nd, 2006 at 6:55 pm
rosie says:
Definately deceitful, not many people would mistake 8 months pregnant for 6 weeks pregnant, just by looking at the woman. It would be pretty scarey if it were just incompetence.
Comment posted May 23rd, 2006 at 1:02 am
Pansy Moss says:
Abortion, they, say, should be “safe, legal, and rare.”
If abortion is a good thing that needs to be kept safe and legal, then why should it be rare as well?
The rest of the story is fruits of the spirit.
Comment posted May 23rd, 2006 at 3:38 am
Michael says:
One puzzling point that I don’t see referenced in the links: How did the woman believe she was only 6 weeks along? Was she a young teen with irregular periods, naive, or what? Didn’t she feel her child moving within her for well over six weeks?
My wife is almost to eight months pregnant with our second, and I just can’t see how she could ever think she was only six weeks along. I don’t mean to harp on the woman, but there must be some other issues for her to have “believed” she was still in the first trimester when she was carrying a 6 pound plus child.
If someone has more information that might provide some insight, I would greatly appreciate it.
Comment posted May 23rd, 2006 at 11:51 am
Lauren says:
“Non-physicians then administered the abortion pill, RU 486, a drug approved for use only in early pregnancy and is responsible for at least 7 deaths since it hit the US market in late 2000.”
Don’t have time to write much… but i take issue with this statement. Back it up.
Comment posted May 23rd, 2006 at 3:52 pm
Michael says:
Lauren,
What part of the statement do you disagree with? The 7 deaths, or “non-physicians,” or what?
Comment posted May 23rd, 2006 at 3:57 pm
Tom Shakely says:
Another great post exploring the deceit of the abortion industry. I really enjoy this site.
Comment posted May 23rd, 2006 at 7:29 pm
Lauren says:
7 deaths.
Comment posted May 24th, 2006 at 1:50 am
John says:
Michael said: “One puzzling point that I don’t see referenced in the links: How did the woman believe she was only 6 weeks along?”
None of the news reports I’ve read indicates that the woman believed she was only 6 weeks pregnant; only that this is what Summit told her.
Comment posted May 24th, 2006 at 9:48 am
Michael says:
“2 more women die after taking abortion pill ; FDA issues alert; rare infection is suspected” Chicago Tribune, March 18, 2006 (Subscription is required to search and view archives, otherwise I would post the link)
The article states (using reports from Planned Parenthood) that 4 women previously died from RU-486 in California, these two women (though the FDA later concluded that the connection between RU-486 and one of the two new fatalities could not be absolutely proven), and one case in Canada in 2001. That’s a total of seven deaths since 2000, though only six are in the United States.
Comment posted May 24th, 2006 at 10:14 am
John says:
Lauren said: “Don’t have time to write much… but i take issue with this statement [RU 486, a drug approved for use only in early pregnancy and is responsible for at least 7 deaths since it hit the US market in late 2000]. Back it up.”
From LifeNews, 4/10/06:
And, from LifeNews, 4/11/06:
Apparently Operation Rescue, from which the block quotation cited above was taken, was citing the FDA’s preliminary figures.
The second LifeNews article linked to above explains why many pro-lifers believe RU-486 is probably more dangerous than the FDA would have us believe.
And, even more interestingly, some abortionists have also expressed serious concerns about the safety of RU-486.
The link above is to RealChoice, a pro-life blog, which cites a New York Times article titled “Some Doctors Voice Worry Over Abortion Pills’ Safety”. I would have linked directly to that article, but it’s only accessible to those who want to jump through hoops to become nytimes.com subscribers.
Comment posted May 24th, 2006 at 10:26 am
John says:
Tom said: “I really enjoy this site.”
Thanks!
Comment posted May 24th, 2006 at 10:32 am
lauren says:
I’ve read otherwise on many different sites that in fact the link between RU-486 and a few of the deaths is not proven and has happened to women who have gotten a simliar infection without the taking of the drug. And btw, you can’t prove anything to me by using lifesite news… find me an unbiased source please.
Thanks.
Comment posted May 24th, 2006 at 4:41 pm
Michael says:
Lauren,
I gave you the Chicago Tribune date and title. If you cannot go to a library to look it up, I will try to go in and post excerpts. However, before I go through the trouble, I want to ask you: What do you consider to be an unbiased source?
And Lauren, I’ll make a deal with you. I will never use a lifesite-esque news source for any of my claims or arguments if you refrain from using any Planned Parenthood-esque sites for yours. Deal? If so, please list an unbiased source that contends that some of the deaths are not linked to RU-486.
Please do not read any hostility into this request. I just desire for the ground rules for debate to be established before engaging too deeply.
Comment posted May 24th, 2006 at 5:12 pm
Lauren says:
OK.. grrr.. i wasnt looking forward to go digging, but if I must I will….
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/news/local/14619906.htm?source=rss&channel=newssentinel_local
In this article, it seems more like ideological posturing than real fact as other women have died from the rare bacteria after giving birth.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/16/AR2006051601607.html?nav=rss_health
But research into those lethal infections has unearthed new information that makes it less clear that complications from the abortion pill, sold as Mifeprex, caused the deaths.
The FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have implicated the clostridium bacterium in the deaths of more than a dozen other women after childbirth or miscarriage — making it unclear whether there is a cause-and-effect relationship between the abortion pill and the infections.
“We think it’s premature to say there is any direct relationship between [RU-486] and these clostridium deaths,” said Sandra Kweder, deputy director of the FDA’s Office of New Drugs. “The situation is far more complicated than we originally imagined, and far more broad than anything limited to this drug.”
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003001840_pill18.html?syndication=rss
All three article I have mentioned reference the fact that there is no smoking gun here. I think it’s premature and hazardous to say the abortion pill caused these deaths, when scientific evidence contradicts this theory.
I’m all for safe drugs, but it seems that this is merely an attack on abortion, and not for the health and safety of women.
Comment posted May 24th, 2006 at 11:48 pm
Young Christian Woman says:
Would you take it, Lauren?
Comment posted May 30th, 2006 at 7:51 am
Lucy says:
Abortion clinics that are proving themselves incompetent should be investigated. I don’t understand how this could possibly be disputed. This would hold true for any medical facility…or for what its worth a tattoo parlor, so I don’t understand the aha nature of this. The goal is that abortions be safe and legal. Rare is a relative term, obviously your opinion of what rare should mean will be distinctly different than what I might mean by it. I believe they should be available to women who wish to obtain them, thus making the rarity a variable difficult to define. I don’t know that there should be a cut off point because at number y the pursuit of rarity has been lost. That just seems sill to me, I’m relatively sure that the cries for rarity reak of attempts of appeasement.
I question the validity of a story that tells of a woman who is 8 months pregnant believing she could possibly be only 6 weeks along. Where are the behind the scene details on that one, like when she emerged for the first time ever from her cave she was notified she was 6 weeks pregnant and not 8 months.
While I don’t doubt that there are clinics operating under less than ideal circumstances, nor do I doubt that there are some behaving in a manner which ensures harm I find that this smells of Urban Legend. If this is true I would like to offer it as exhibit A for why we need to have actual sex ed in school.
Comment posted June 3rd, 2006 at 10:17 am
Lucy says:
I am seeking for someone to define life. Not to explain when they believe life begins, but to define what they understand it to be. For people that define themselves as Pro-life this should be a simple task. After all, what are you Pro.
What is life.
Comment posted June 3rd, 2006 at 4:58 pm
Young Christian Woman says:
Abortion clinics are poorly regulated, Lucy, and groups like Planned Parenthood have repeatedly opposed legislation that would have held them to the same levels as a veterinary clinic.
Comment posted June 4th, 2006 at 2:01 pm
Lucy says:
Young Christian Woman,
The abortion clinic I was in was about like a hospital. The outside wasn’t, but it isn’t generally cost effective to keep them in areas with beautiful exteriors. I think that I would also object to legislation that used terminology that likened them to a veterninary clinic. The opponents are more than likely not looking out for the best interest of the patients or the clinic. While I am not positive, I am immediately suspicious of motivation.
Comment posted June 6th, 2006 at 9:43 pm