From Boston in 1858 to Pittsburgh in 1989

Ugly Rumors in Boston, 1858

On Monday, August 16, 1858, Dr. David R. Brown went to an undertaker asking for the removal from is home of a body he said was that of his 37-year-old servant, Emily A. Thompson. He said that she had died from cholera. Somebody found this fishy to the District Attorney. The body was exhumed and examined. The dead woman didn't look any older than age 20. An autopsy also showed that the death had not been due do cholera but rather due to abortion complications.

“She was of good form, tall and slim, and appeared to be unused to labor. When the body was disinterred a gold ring was found on one finger and an ear-ring in one ear. She has light-brown hair and blue or hazel eyes, and is said to have been a very beautiful and intelligent girl.”

Her name was Susan Webster.

Rumors also swarmed that she had been sent to Boston the abortion by a "near relative" who had gotten her pregnant. The "near relative" turned out to be her uncle, Philip Ulmer.

Brown was arrested and charged with manslaughter on August 24, 1858, and Ulmer was charged as an accessory. A trial in March resulted in a hung jury, with 11 voting for conviction and one for acquittal after 44 hours of deliberation. In a subsequent trial in April, 1859, Brown was convicted and faced a sentence of seven to 21 years.

Chicago, 1899

On August 16, 1899, 35-year-old Antonie Vacicek, a married woman, died in her Chicago home from complications of an illegal abortion performed there that day. Mary Koupal was arrested and held by Coroner's Jury in the death, but was discharged in the September term. Koupal's profession is not listed.

Safe and Legal in California, 1969

Cheryl Vosseler was 17 years old when she was admitted to Fresno General Hospital on July 31, 1969, to undergo a legal abortion. California allowed abortions to be performed in hospitals at that time. After she was discharged, Cheryl suffered from complications, and was readmitted two weeks later. Surgery was performed August 14, 1969, to try to save her life. Cheryl's condition continued to deteriorate. She finally died August 16, 1969.

One of Three Deaths at a Chicago Clinic, 1974

Dorothy Brown, age 37, underwent a safe and legal abortion at Friendship Medical Clinic in Chicago on August 16, 1974. Within hours, she was dead at a nearby hospital. Her death was attributed to "shock related to hemorrhagic necrosis of uterus." That means that blood from her uterus was unable to get back into her circulatory system, overwhelming the tissues and causing them to die. Julia Rogers and Evelyn Dudley also died after abortions at Friendship Medical Center.

An Unwanted, Contraindicated, Obsolete Abortion, Pittsburgh, 1989

Deborah and Marla, shortly before the abortion

Deborah Cardamone has raised her grandson since he was one year old. She had to. The child's mother, Deborah's daughter Marla Anne, died at the age of 18. Pregnant after a date rape, Marla had planned to put her baby up for adoption, since she already had a toddler to take care of, but a medical-social worker at Magee Women's Hospital in Pittsburgh strongly urged Marla to have an abortion.

The social worker insisted that Marla had harmed her unborn baby because of Tegretal and Elavil she'd been taking for depression. No family would adopt a disabled baby, Marla was told. The social worker pointed out to Marla how difficult it would be to continue to assist in caring for her quadriplegic father if she also had to care for a disabled child that nobody would adopt. Statistics gave a 92% chance that the baby was fine, but Marla had a sonogram to be sure. After the sonogram, the social worker kept pressuring Marla. Finally, she gave in. She was admitted to the hospital for the abortion August 15, 1989.

Although the urea induction technique -- which involved injecting a chemical into the uterus -- was contraindicated due to Marla's medical history, Michael W. Weinberger injected urea into his patient's uterus anyway. Either an error during this injection or some other mishap caused the tissue of Marla's uterus to start dying. The laminaria used to dilate Marla's cervix had also been inserted by Weinberger in a manner resulting in massive infection. Her kidneys shut down.

Marla became obviously ill during the night, with nausea, vomiting, urinary incontinence, and dried blood on her teeth. Her pulse and temperature were severely elevated. At 6:30 AM the charge nurse contacted a the first of several doctors to treat Marla, but no were cultures taken.

By 7 AM Marla was "increasingly disoriented and speaking inappropriately." By 7:15, her blood pressure had fallen to 80/40, her pulse had shot up to 144, and she was "unresponsive, grunting loudly, and having seizures." At 10 AM, intravenous antibiotics were administered, but of course they would do nothing to address the kidney failure or rotting tissue. Marla was dead from septicemia at 12:15 PM.

The suit filed by Marla's family noted failure to notify them of her deteriorating condition. They never got to come and see her one last time before she died. Marla's parents adopted her orphaned son. To add further insult to injury, the coroner's office lost the body of Marla's baby, Christopher Michael. (To see the coroner's photos of Marla and her baby, click here.)

Marla's family faulted the doctor and hospital with performance of an abortion that they should have known would only make Marla's existing depression worse, failure to remove the dead fetus, administering an overdose of Pitocin, and failure to consult qualified doctors.

Marla's mother adds bitterly:

I had to file a lawsuit to get any answers. Marla had died of septicemia--a massive infection from the abortion. I also learned that the social worker had never seen Marla's sonogram or discussed the results with her. Marla never saw the words on the sonogram report that would have changed everything: No abnormalities detected. My daughter was pressured to have an abortion, and there had been no reason for it, no reason at all.

I've often wondered why pro-choice women's groups have never expressed any sympathy or concern over Marla's death. Why aren't they demanding justice? Why aren't they concerned that Marla was lied to about the condition of her baby and wasn't shown the sonogram results? Why aren't they concerned that proper treatment was delayed because Marla was misdiagnosed by a resident who was only two months out of medical school? Why are they so quiet?

I believe it's because pro-choice groups don't want women to read or hear about abortion injuries and deaths. Bad publicity hurts their cause. That's why they prefer that Marla and her baby remain hidden statistics.

"The last two weeks of her life, all she did was cry," Deborah Cardamone told me.

Deborah still cries.

The Wendy Davis Abortion

I've delayed writing about Wendy Davis' truly heart-rending story about how, after receiving a devastating prenatal diagnosis, was presented by doctors with two options: let her unborn daughter suffer a wretched existence and early death, or ease the anguish of waiting for the inevitable tragedy via a late-term abortion.

It's difficult to write about this tragedy in a way that respects Wendy Davis' grief while still asserting that what she went through does not justify the decision to abort her little girl.

When a family is told that their unborn child will soon die, there is never going to be a happy resolution. Hopes and dreams are destroyed and replaced by anguish. What is bewildering is how anybody could actually believe that the death of a child will somehow hurt less if the child's death is hastened by an abortion.
Doctors are by nature people who are driven to take action against suffering. But whose suffering is lessened when a woman aborts after a prenatal diagnosis like the one the Davis family received? It does not seem that Wendy Davis suffered any less:

An indescribable blackness followed. It was a deep, dark despair and grief, a heavy wave that crushed me, that made me wonder if I would ever surface. It would take me the better part of a year to ultimately make my way up and out of it. And when I finally did come through it, I emerged a different person. Changed. Forever changed.

The suffering is reduced not for the family, but for the doctor, who, after the abortion, no longer needs to go through the ordeal of prenatal visits that can only bring bad news: that the inevitable has happened and the baby has died. If the woman aborts, the doctor's suffering is certainly lessened. But it is the patient who pays the price.

As I said before, when the baby has a condition so serious that she might not survive until birth, and surely will not live long afterward, there is no happy ending. But that does not mean that there can only be the anguish of a treasured life cut cruelly short. Parents who have access to perinatal hospice report finding joy in the tragedy -- the joy of treasuring every single moment of their child's short life.

Perinatal hospice is not nearly as easy for the physician as an abortion referral. The patient and her family are provided with ongoing support in every way: medical, emotional, spiritual, and practical. This is far more time-intensive and resource-intensive than an abortion referral.


Unlike an abortion, perinatal hospice recognizes and respects that grief and anguish are inevitable, regardless of how soon or late the pregnancy and the child's life end. The woman will be a grieving mother for the rest of her life. Abortion can not in any way change that. The woman is allowed to walk through that grief without relinquishing the child a moment sooner. It spares the woman from the needless additional agony of signing her child's death warrant in the form of an abortion consent form, and of helplessly enduring a procedure that kills her child in the one place she should be safest, in her mother's womb. The regret can be devastating, as "Janice" told Troy Newman:

I will never however forget the day I was given the digoxin shot through my stomach into the heart of my baby. It took me 45 minutes to calm down enough so that Dr. Tiller and one of his nurses could come in to do this. I was hysterical because after this there was no turning back. By telling them I was ready for them to come in and do it, I was telling them that it was ok to kill my daughter. They sedated me and then did it. 

....

I am no longer grateful for Dr. Tiller “helping me.” He didn’t help me at all. I wish now I would [have] had the courage to deliver my little girl and let her get even just one breath of air before she passed, to let her see my face just once before she passed. I will never have that chance now and I will always have to live with the decision I made and the nightmares of what happened to me in Kansas.

Remarkably, perinatal hospice also offers something that the parents never could have expected when that world-shattering diagnosis comes. It offers them a chance to find joy even in the grief. The woman is still supported in nurturing her baby, keeping her safe in the womb. And she and her family may have the opportunity to meet the child, to build memories of having held and treasured a living child who was afforded the opportunity to know a mother's caresses and kisses, her scent, the feel of her skin against her own.

The greatest tragedy of these situations is that so few women are given this support. Too few are even told that even if perintal hospice isn't available in their area, there is still support from other parents who have faced the same ordeal, the same choice, and found their joy.

Many abortion supporters argue that it should still be the woman's choice about how she deals with the dreadful news that her unborn baby is dying. But how much is it a real choice, when doctors and other medical professionals are urging an abortion, are assuring her that it will be for the best, and are pressing her to make a decision quickly, while she's still reeling from such a blow? It's difficult to believe that given the choice between not having even a moment of joy and possibly having the chance to meet and cherish her baby any woman would say she'd rather have only anguish and no joy whatsoever, thank you very much. And given how much pressure is often put on the woman, how much of a choice is the woman really making at all? Read Renee's story.

We were only told that he would be very sick and would have a difficult life. The doctors kept reminding us that it wasn’t too late to terminate the pregnancy. One doctor even called me on the telephone and told me he’d like for me to reconsider my decision not to terminate. He said my son may always have to live in a children’s hospital and his life may be miserable and full of pain. He said that if I don’t terminate the pregnancy, I may feel guilty later on because I could have spared my son such a miserable life.

Abortion supporters will argue that it's condescending and cruel to insist that the woman go through with the pregnancy when all the pregnancy is bringing is continued heartbreak. But again, the heartbreak is inevitable. The choice isn't between heartbreak and peace. It's between having only dark memories and having some joyful memories as well. You can read Jessica's story about her stillborn daughter, or Tam's story about her daughter's four days of being lavished with love. Or Sarah's story about the few precious moments she had with her baby girl:

I have loved Beatrix since the day I was born, it seems like. I was made for loving my beautiful baby girl. My arms were made to hold her until she breathed her last. My lips to cover her face with kisses. I wonder if she knew I was the one who had carried her all that time, safe in her quiet place? I would like to think she did- that when I kissed her and whispered in her ear, so many times, that I loved her, she recognized my voice, and felt loved.

Abortion also closes off the real, if tiny, possibility that the doctors are wrong. How much greater will the woman's anguish be if after the abortion she learns that she'd signed away the life of a child who had a much brighter prognosis, or who was not in any way ailing at all?

Listen to actress Lynn Ferguson, sister of late-night host Craig Ferguson, talk about the pressure brought upon her to abort a child who in the end was born perfectly healthy: Before Fergus.

It's understandable that, given the trauma she's been through, Wendy Davis would cling to the idea that abortion was the only compassionate option available to women like her. No doubt it will be painful to confront the fact that she could have had the chance for precious time with her child. But her own personal tragedy must not let us lose sight of what we owe to other women like her, and their unborn children. Every woman deserves the utmost support in loving her baby, and every baby deserves the chance to every moment of life.

Big Abortion Omits Crucial Fact: Beatriz Went Into Spontaneous Labor!

I'd already blogged about the deceitfulness of the international abortion lobby referring to Beatriz's life-saving baby-sparing c-section as an "abortion."

Their argument was that since Beatriz's baby was "not viable" due to anencephaly, the c-section was actually a hysterotomy abortion, performed to deliver a  baby and then just let it die of prematurity.

Thanks to Melissa for providing links to this Spanish-language article, and this one, which certainly add an interesting big of information: Beatriz had already gone into labor when doctors elected to switch from a vaginal delivery to a c-section to preserve her health.  (Read the first one and the second one through Google Translate.)

Beatriz's pregnancy terminated -- the way pregnancies typically do -- when she went into labor. Doctors then chose the means of delivery -- vaginal or c-section -- most appropriate for the patient.

There not only was no abortion, there was no "pregnancy termination" that could be fatuously construed into an abortion.

What's the Spanish equivalent of "Liar, liar, pants on fire!"?

1. The court specifically said that the baby's life was to be spared, and that the living baby was to be delivered at the moment that was best for both mother and child.
2. The entire point of a hysterotomy is a dead baby. That is what distinguishes it from a c-section.
3. Both scheduled and emergency c-sections have been routine means of delivering babies whose mothers health or life is at risk for nearly a century, and that includes delivering babies with fatal conditions.
4. Even if the baby dies, be it from complications prematurity or from a terminal condition, that doesn't change the fact that a c-section performed for the mother's physical health is still a c-section performed for the mother's physical health. 
5. When a woman spontaneously goes into labor after 24 weeks, as Beatriz did, there's no way you can construe it as an abortion, even were the baby to be stillborn. 

I've also learned that  Beatriz and her mother did go to the nursery and see the baby. I hope that they held her and gave her some love to make up for how long and how hard people were fighting to kill her.

Beatriz now can go on with her life knowing that in spite of all the ugliness, her daughter was treated with respect and dignity, and nobody put that child's life to a violent end.

More About "Pregnancy [That] Goes Horribly Wrong"

The Congressional debate regarding a possible nationwide ban on abortions past 20 weeks has the abortion lobby going into paroxysms of rage. The focus of their public talking points is that these abortions are supposedly necessary "when a pregnancy goes horribly wrong."

Let's revisit this, shall we?

William Robert Johnson has done a spectacular job of compiling studies on why women in the United States undergo abortions. He compiled this chart showing the results of numerous studies of what percent of women reported that they were seeking abortions because of fetal indications. The oldest number, from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, was 3%. More recent data from states that track abortions and the reasons women cite indicate that fetal indications account for .1% (one-tenth of one percent) to 1.54% of abortions. So fetal indications are a rare reason for abortion to begin with.

What about if it's broken down for later abortions? The Alan Guttmacher Institute released a survey of why abortions are done after 16 weeks, with only 2% being done because of possible fetal indications. The Centers for Disease Control numbers indicate that of abortions done past 16 weeks, 24% are done past 21 weeks. That means for every 100 abortions done past 16 weeks, 2 are for fetal indications and 24 are past 21 weeks. If we assume that the 2 fetal indications abortions are done past 21 weeks, that means that 2/24 (8%) of late abortions are done "when a pregnancy goes terribly wrong" and the remaining 22/24 (92%) are elective.

This blog quotes an article in the New York Times noting that some "fetal indications" are a far cry from anencephaly or even from Down Syndrome:

Dr. Jonathan Lanzkowsky, an obstetrician affiliated with Mount Sinai Hospital in Manhattan, described one woman who had been born with an extra finger, which was surgically removed when she was a child. Her children have a 50-50 chance of inheriting the condition, but she is determined not to let that happen. Detecting the extra digit through early ultrasounds, she has terminated two pregnancies so far, despite doctors' efforts to persuade her to do otherwise, Dr. Lanzkowsky said.

Then, of course, we have the issue of women who are seeking abortions for fetal indications that don't really exist. These women were either misdiagnosed, given false information, or flat-out lied to. A percentage of the "fetal indications" abortions are these women, who wouldn't be undergoing abortions at all if they were being given accurate information.

How common is this problem? To my knowledge, nobody is collecting data. "Pro-choice" organizations are far too busy fretting that that women might go into prolife centers thinking they do abortions to worry about how many women are aborting loved and wanted babies that are healthy after all. One way to gather the data would be to require examination of the fetus after a "fetal indications" abortion to find out if there actually was anything wrong with the baby. But I'm not holding my breath. Regardless of how the women in question feel about it, NARAL et al. seem to believe that an unwanted abortion, even of a loved, planned for, and desperately wanted baby is better than no abortion at all.

And several women have died after seeking abortions for fetal indications, including mothers who were lied to in order to convince them to abort. Here are some of them:

• - Marla Cardamone, healthy baby; mother lied to
• - Michelle Madden, doctor referred without diagnostics or verification
• - Margaret Smith, self-referred; possible but unverified indication
• - Linda Boom, diagnosed but no autopsy to verify
• - Allegra Roseberry, healthy baby; mother lied to

Fetal indications are repeatedly cited as a reason to keep abortion readily available, but clearly they account for a miniscule number of abortions in the first place. And even in many of these cases, there's either nothing wrong with the baby, or his condition is either perfectly consistent with living a fulfilling life (such as Down Syndrome), or her condition is treatable.

Should we really be maintaining unfettered abortion on the grounds that some tiny percentage of the tiny portion that are for fetal indications might spare some gravely ill or deformed baby suffering -- especially now that perinatal hospice is coming of age for families who face grave fetal diagnoses? Or are abortion advocates just using the rare and moving stories of a few stricken women to further an agenda that has nothing to do with the real needs of these women and their families?