![]() |
Central Massachusetts Planned Parenthood |
Both Planned Parenthood and Celina agree that she went to Planned Parenthood in Worcester on March 12, 2015 for the first part of a two-day abortion procedure.
Celina said that she was never warned that she might expel an intact, recognizable fetus.
The next day, March 13, Celina said that she called Planned Parenthood to report severe pain as if she was in labor. She said that she was told to take her prescribed pain medications but was not instructed to seek further care, nor was she warned that she was at risk of expelling a recognizable fetus.
That night, Celina delivered the 16-week fetus in her bathroom, and suffered "physical pain and severe emotional and mental trauma" as a result. (The suit does not specify if the baby came out alive or already dead.)
Dr. Kumaraswami agreed that she did indeed insert the dilators for Celina's abortion but denies any lack of informed consent, asserting that Celina signed a detailed informed consent form.
Likely Informed Consent According to Grok3
I've been unable to find any copies of a standard Planned Parenthood D&E consent form online, but I did ask Grok if expulsion of an intact, recognizable fetus is one of the risks covered and got the following answer:
For the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts (PPLM), the informed consent process for a dilation and evacuation (D&E) procedure does not explicitly warn patients that they might expel an intact, recognizable fetus as a standard part of the consent discussion. This aligns with the broader practices of Planned Parenthood affiliates, where the focus is on medical risks and procedural details rather than specific outcomes like the appearance of fetal tissue, unless directly relevant to a listed complication.
PPLM’s approach to informed consent for D&E, based on their general patient care model and available documentation, emphasizes:
Procedure Overview: Patients are told that cervical dilation (using osmotic dilators like laminaria or misoprostol) prepares the cervix for evacuation with suction and instruments, typically in the second trimester. The goal is to remove pregnancy tissue, not to deliver an intact fetus.
Complications: They inform patients about risks like bleeding, infection, cervical injury, uterine perforation, and incomplete abortion, as these are the most common and medically significant concerns. For example, excessive bleeding or incomplete dilation might require additional intervention, but spontaneous expulsion of an intact fetus isn’t framed as a typical risk.
Patient Experience: They cover what to expect (e.g., cramping, sedation options) and post-procedure care, but the consent process avoids graphic descriptions of fetal tissue unless a patient asks specific questions.
No public PPLM-specific consent form for D&E explicitly mentions the possibility of expelling an intact, recognizable fetus. This is consistent with the procedure’s design: D&E involves removing tissue in fragments, unlike induction abortions, where intact expulsion is more likely and might be discussed. However, in rare cases—such as if osmotic dilators or misoprostol trigger unexpected contractions before the evacuation step—an unintended expulsion could occur. PPLM doesn’t highlight this in standard consent materials, likely because it’s not a common outcome and isn’t a procedural goal.
Massachusetts law (MGL c. 112, § 12S) requires parental consent or judicial bypass for minors seeking abortions, but it doesn’t mandate specific warnings about fetal appearance. PPLM’s counseling, often paired with their judicial bypass navigation program, focuses on ensuring informed choice and emotional support rather than mandating such a disclosure. Their website and patient resources (e.g., abortion care pages) describe D&E as a safe, routine procedure without mentioning intact expulsion as a risk.
Thus I have a hard time believing that Celina was warned that she might see her dead baby.
Kumaraswami's Description of Unfolding Events
![]() |
Dr. Tara Kumaraswami |
There is no mention that the baby was injected with digoxin -- which would be almost unheard of at 16 weeks anyway -- which increases the likelihood that the baby was still alive when Celina delivered it at home.
According to Kumaraswami, Celina called at around 4:25 that evening to report "10/10 pelvic pain, reduced to 6-7/10 with the one tab of percocet. Records indicate that she was advised by nursing staff to take another tab of percocet, to rest at home, to call the on-call nurse if symptoms worsened overnight, and to go to the emergency room if necessary before her scheduled appointment the next morning."
Kumaraswami went on to say that she got a call from the hospital at around 9:30 the following morning that Celina had "passed the pregnancy at home" and was receiving treatment for a retained placenta.
Again, Was the Informed Consent Adequate?
She again asserts that Celina was given adequate informed consent by saying "The thirteen-page consent form adequately describes the risks of the procedure, including potential injuries and complications, such as bleeding and leaking of fluid. The consent form is regularly reviewed and updated by the national Planned Parenthood organization. The proper Massachusetts state required mid-trimester abortion consent was also signed by the patient prior to her procedure."
![]() |
Would you describe this as "leaked fluid"? |
It seems that if the consent form included the possibility of expelling an intact, recognizable fetus, Kumaraswami would have mentioned it in the letter defending herself. There is also nothing in Massachusetts law requiring warning an abortion patient about the possibility of expelling an intact, recognizable fetus.
Her letter defending herself includes her entire nine-page curriculum vitae but does not include any of the consent forms Celina signed that supposedly warned her that she might end up giving birth to a dead baby.
What are your thoughts?
Sources: