Late-term Abortions: Facts, Stories and Ways to Help

Originally posted on RHRealityCheck.org - News, commentary and community for reproductive health and justice.

In all the extensive coverage of the assassination in his church of Dr. George Tiller by a murderer affiliated with extremist right-wing groups, little has been said to shed light on what late-term abortions are, who has them and why.

Instead, much of the media and talking heads pontificating on this subject have constantly focused on Tiller's being "one of the very few doctors who perform late-term abortions," without providing any context as to why he did so and under what circumstances.

As a result, the dominant narrative is one which perpetuates an assumption that people are electing to have late-term abortions for the sake of convenience. This public perception is shaped by the constant intonement that Tiller was "killing babies" coming from irresponsible journalistic hacks like Bill O'Reilly, the suggestions by Chris Matthews that women are blithely electing to abort fetuses that are viable outside the womb, and the statements of inconsistent moralizers like Will Saletan that "there are cases where there's no real medical situation other than some teenager in denial and it went on for five months [where the argument is] you should make an exception because of the so-called mental health of the girl."

The narrative is one in which women are shamed for choosing abortion, no matter the circumstances, and in which Dr. Tiller is portrayed even indirectly as a despicable aide in their shame.

This narrative is so pervasive that even among those who consider themselves pro-choice, many people are left to wonder: Are these women just waking up one day, deciding over coffee they are tired of being pregnant, and opting for an abortion at 24 weeks? Are there a lot of third trimester abortions? Are they just, as Chris Matthews likes to call them, "elective procedures?"

In fact, in the past two days I have found the misunderstanding about late-term abortion to be widespread even among many of those in the public health advocacy community.

So here are some facts:

Late-term abortions are very rare. About one percent of all abortions performed in the United States occur after 21 weeks. The third trimester begins at 24 weeks.

Late-term abortions are severely restricted by law.

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the constitutional right to privacy extends to the decision of a woman, in consultation with her physician, to terminate a pregnancy.

The Court also determined, however, that this right is not absolute and it must be balanced against the state's legitimate interest in protecting both the health of the pregnant woman and the developing human life. Therefore, according to Roe, the state's interest in protecting potential life becomes compelling at the point of fetal viability (when the fetus has the capacity for sustained survival outside the uterus). States are allowed to, and indeed have, severely restricted access to abortion in the third-trimester, except, as the Supreme Court has ruled, when necessary to preserve the woman's life or health. In subsequent cases, the Court made clear that viability is a medical determination, which varies with each pregnancy, and that it is the responsibility of the attending physician to make that determination.

As the Guttmacher Institute points out in a brief on this issue, the Supreme Court has held that:

• even after fetal viability, states may not prohibit abortions "necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother;"
• "health" in this context includes both physical and mental health;
• only the physician, in the course of evaluating the specific circumstances of an individual case, can define what constitutes "health" and when a fetus is viable; and
• states cannot require additional physicians to confirm the physician's judgment that the woman's life or health is at risk.

What is viability?

Viability is a medical, not a legal definition.

As pointed out in another excellent brief by Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California:

A fetus is viable when it reaches an "anatomical threshold" when critical organs, such as the lungs and kidneys, can sustain independent life. Until the air sacs are mature enough to permit gases to pass into and out of the bloodstream, which is extremely unlikely until at least 23 weeks gestation (from last menstrual period), a fetus cannot be sustained even with a respirator, which can force air into the lungs but cannot pass gas from the lungs into the bloodstream.

The brief continues by underscoring that:

While medical advances have increased the survival of infants born between 24 and 28 weeks of gestation, the point of viability has moved little over the past decade; at the earliest, it remains at approximately 24 weeks, where it was when the Supreme Court decided Roe -- a fact acknowledged by the court in its recent decision in PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY. A study of infant survival by researchers at Case Western Reserve University Medical School found that the rate of survival for infants born before 25 weeks gestation has not improved appreciably in recent years.

Most states restrict late-term abortions.

The Guttmacher brief notes that:

• 37 states prohibit some abortions after a certain point in pregnancy.
• 24 states initiate prohibitions at fetal viability.
• 5 states initiate prohibitions in the third trimester.
• 8 states initiate prohibitions after a certain number of weeks, generally 24.

The circumstances under which procedures are permitted after that point vary from state to state. For example:

• 29 states permit abortions to preserve the life or health of the woman;
• 4 states permit abortions to save the life or health of the woman, but use a narrow definition of health;
• 4 states permit abortions only to save the life of the woman.

Some states require the involvement of a second physician when a later-term abortion is performed. Nine states require that a second physician attend in order to treat a fetus if it is born alive. Ten states require that a second physician certify that the abortion is medically necessary.

Kansas law is strict on the issue of late-term abortions.

Kansas law requires that such procedures can only be performed after viability if two independent doctors agree that not to do so would put the mother at risk of irreparable harm by giving birth.

A huge gap in the narrative.

There is a vast gap between the descriptions of Dr. Tiller by members of the extremist right -- who incite lunatics to violence by protraying Tiller as a mass murderer -- and the many women and men who have been served by Dr. Tiller, who refer to him as heroic, kind, compassionate, professional. This gap speaks to the fact that very few -- not least the mainstream media -- understand what he was doing and, and more to the point, why we are asking the wrong people to comment.

In the words of one of the hundreds of people writing messages on the memorial website to Dr. Tiller:

Dr. Tiller was a hero, plain and simple. I am thankful for his life and the gift of high quality health care he provided his patients. My thoughts are with his family, friends and community and my thanks to you for your support of Dr. Tiller despite the tough circumstances.

Dr. Tiller was one of the few doctors providing late-term abortions to people in need in part because he was a committed, ethical, moral medical professional who took seriously his oath to serve the best interests of his patients, and because he was dedicated to supporting women's rights even at the risk of his own life and even under unimaginable daily pressure and threat.

Another poster on his memorial site states:

I think this is an absolute outrage, George Tiller was the only one I had to turn too during an awful moment in my life. He gave my life back and the choice I had to make was painful, personal, and heartwrenching. God bless his family, the church, and everyone who is hurt by this violent act.

He also was one of the few because laws in many places restrict women's access, and because fewer and fewer doctors are trained in these life-saving operations, due to the actions of the far right. Many doctors from out of state referred patients to Dr. Tiller and many revered him.

If you listen to the voices of women served, you understand far more than what the media has told us about who chooses late-term abortion and why.

For these women and their partners, Tiller was not "an abortionist" but a life-saver. He was a man who put himself in jeopardy to ensure that a woman would not have to lose her life to infection or complications in an already-doomed pregnancy. He was a doctor who ensured that women carrying a fetus with fatal or catastrophic abnormalities could make the decision -- if they so chose -- to spare themselves and their families the agony of watching a newborn that could not live endure countless operations and medical procedures in futile attempts to keep it "alive."

A 2006 amicus brief prepared for Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, a case focused on the availability of second trimester abortions, contains a number of stories of women who had to seek out later-term abortions, such as that of Carrie, a 40-year-old woman from the Southwest who was happily married for nine years when she became pregnant. She described the timing of her genetic testing and decision to end her pregnancy:

On November 11, 2005, I elected to have [a] CVS test. . . . Then, the test results came in. . . . We knew chromosome 14 was incompatible with life, and chromosome 22 could mean Cat Eye Syndrome. Both my husband and I wanted the baby very much, and neither one of us was willing to terminate the pregnancy on a "maybe." . . .

I had the amnio on 12/26/05, and the results came in on Jan. 13, 2006. It confirmed without doubt - she had Cat Eye Syndrome tetrasomy in every cell of her body. The last 3 sonograms showed . . . our baby's kidneys were beginning to malfunction. . . . We made this decision because we loved our daughter so much. We didn't want her to suffer the definite and the untold problems she was sure to endure, if she even made it. We made the best decision we could with the information we had. We fought for her. We wanted her. But we didn't want to condem[n] her to [a] life of agony.

Or that of Cara, a married Catholic woman with an almost-three-year-old son, who had "always dreamed of having a big family." She described the time it took to obtain information needed about her pregnancy:

I was about 17 weeks pregnant at the time. . . .[T]hey scheduled us for our Level II ultrasound a few weeks early so they could look in more detail at the baby. . . . A few days [after the ultrasound], we received the news that would change our lives forever. Our son was infected with CMV (cytomegalovirus). This was the worst possible scenario (of the possibilities we were given). . . . Although I have always been pro-choice, I had winced at the thought of late-term abortions or "partial birth" abortions, thinking that it was just inhumane or irresponsible. Now I know differently. In my case, we were not able to confirm our diagnosis until 19 or 20 weeks gestation. I terminated at 22 weeks. . . . I was completely heartbroken.

Numerous other such stories are contained in this brief.

Authors on RH Reality Check, such as Lynda Waddington and Susan Ito, have shared their stories about late-term abortion and the excruciatingly difficult decisions they had to make.

Others have written at length about their experiences of finding their wanted pregnancies were doomed to fail, of facing their own possible death in carrying to term, and leaving their children without a parent.

A collection of "Kansas Stories" can be found, for example, on the site, A Heartbreaking Choice, such as that by Nicholas' Mom, by K.M., and by several others...parents who looked forward to bringing a child into their family but were faced with fetal deformities so severe their child either would not survive pregnancy, would be born only to die, or in which carrying the pregnancy to term would threaten survival of the mother. Other stories are being collected here on RH Reality Check, Facebook, on a website memorial to Dr. Tiller and elsewhere.

None of these women made their choices lightly and it is profoundly disrespectful of them -- indeed it is dangerous to women -- to suggest otherwise for political gain, not to mention commit the horrific acts of violence against providers such as Dr. Tiller who help so many women and men through this agony.

What can you do?

Obviously in this climate, constant political vigilance is needed against the erosion of women's rights in law and in policy, and against the public narrative that shames women and providers, as well as against the actions of the extremist right that daily puts them at risk. This will be increasingly true in the coming months.

More immediately, in honor of Dr. Tiller and the patients he and other providers serve, we are also providing the following links to funds already set up to receive donations in his name. We urge you to consider giving as much as you can.

Two of the funds available in memory of Dr. Tiller include:

George Tiller Memorial Abortion Fund
c/o National Network of Abortion Funds
42 Seaverns Ave.
Boston, MA 02130

Or you may donate to the Tiller Memorial Fund at NNAF online.

The Women's Reproductive Rights Assistance Project is also accepting donations in Dr. Tiller's name.

Comments

[GJKBEAR]

Part II You talk about this as if it is a simple equation A+B=C. But often, this is not the case. Human beings do not fit into round holes or square pegs either. It is amazing how you, without knowing all these women can just condemn them because you are a physician (and not religious). It is a bit like Bill Frist watching a video and without knowing anything giving his assessment that someone was indeed, alive and not vegetative! Only you don't even have a video!

You don't know these women and yet you judge them and condemn them and a Dr. whom you probably didn't know either! I do know that there is no mouth you can create, and no lungs you can create in a human body. If the circulatory system or the digestive system or some other system is out of whack, medical science can do little to fix it., yet. Perhaps when medical science has caught up and can fix things that right now can't be fixed - you can make the argument that babies who can survive outside the womb should be left to live on its own (how it is going to be nourished - you didn't explain) - should do just that. Until then, perhaps the decision should be left to the people who are going to have to make that decision for themselves and their family to them - because it affects them and their lives - not yours.

[David Torrisi]

Just because it is inside your body, a viable human being has rights just like you or me. If this Tiller performed a single late term abortion of a healthy fetus than he was a murderer. The mother had to go out of the way to have another human being perform a procedure to kill the person inside of them. At the same time the child could have been delivered and lived a full long life like you or me. Maybe even growing up to express opinions in a column such as yours.



I am tired of Americans claiming rights for this and rights for that. A woman has a "right" to control her own body but when that baby can survive on its own once released from a womans womb than it has a right to "its" own body. The late term rights proponents fight for their "rights" with the same ignorant fervor as the gun radicals and religious radicals in this country. Everyone has rights as far as they still exhibit respect for themselves and others. Thats is something many Americans have forgotten or are too selfish to acknowledge. It is also the reason this country is becoming a cesspit. Everyone thinks they have a right to do anything they want despite having no respect for themselves or others in the prossess.

[Channel4NewsTeam]

I believe I have NO right to use my mother's body when she objects to such use, even if it's to save my life. What's your belief? That you were entitled to her reproductive organs, blood, tears, pain, and suffering? Perhaps you should reflect on that and whether or not your sense of entitlement goes too far.

[elizabethcc]

You are the only one on this who has logic! Woman think that carring a baby is a '9 month burden' that makes a man's opinion worthless. It is not a man/ woman thing... It's a matter of life and death. Period.

These woman think that a baby diagnosed with a ' no or low chance of viability and guarenteed deformity' is a reason to end a life that deserve's the chance to live. Let that be nature's choice and not that of a man. Late term abortions are selfish conclusion's woman make when they realize that THEIR lives will be burdened by a handicapped child. It is so sad the our country condon's abortion, let alone a full-term abortion.

[JuliaRain]

You still don't have a right to my body. Too bad.

"Late term abortions are selfish conclusion's woman make when they realize that THEIR lives will be burdened by a handicapped child."

That's just being ignorant.

There is a difference between a handicapped child and a fetus born without a mouth to feed it or without the organs needed for survival like a pair of lungs. If you fail to acknowledge that, you are being ridiculous.

Vilifying women under such circumstances is cruel especially if she really did want the baby but found out it would die on delivery or suffer pain when leaving the womb.

Your righteousness and your moral superiority is based on ignorance.

[Channel4NewsTeam]

Care to explain how an anecephalic fetus is going to "live."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly

Now you have to realize that because no brain is developing, there will be no activity to naturally provoke labor, so it will have to be induced. Why wait until the fetus has grown larger and put the woman at even higher risk of harm, physical injury, pain, and suffering? Why induce labor when that can cause uterine rupture or other complications, when you can extract the fetus more humanely? So your ignorant feelings aren't hurt? I for one am not willing to concede women's health and lives to unfounded fears and childish whining.

[JuliaRain]

Did you read the article?

Your self-righteousness is ridiculous.

"A woman has a "right" to control her own body but when that baby can survive on its own once released from a womans womb than it has a right to "its" own body."

Exactly. Once delivered that baby has a right to its own body, but until then, the mother has a choice.

You are tired of 'rights' because you don't have to fight for yours.

I'm tired of the arrogant men who think they know what the he[[ they are talking about.

Still my body. Fetus is secondary.

You have no say and you should just get used to it.

My womb. Not the fetus's. And certainly not yours.

Coward.

[JuliaRain]

"Everyone thinks they have a right to do anything they want despite having no respect for themselves or others in the prossess."

Everyone does think they have a right to do anything they want. You are an example of that. You think you have a right to a woman's body. You think you are entitled to to control it.

Look at you telling us about 'respect' when you are incapable of giving it to women. Sh ame on you.

If you had any b a lls, you wouldn't be here demanding forced pregnancy onto others.

Yep, still a cow ard.

[GJKBEAR]

A Doctor tells you that your baby whom you are carrying and have wanted will certainly die either before they are born or shortly after. That the child has less than a 10% chance of surviving until their 2nd birthday and that this baby whom you have planned and wanted might be subjected to mumerous surgeries that they might not survive and that even if they do, they will be in constant pain - not ever be able to walk, talk, move or will be a 'vegetable'. Knowing this, you would subject this child to the torture of life or non-life? Would just pray and it would be OK 'cause God creates miracles?

Well, God does create miracles, and medical science is getting better every day - but God also gave man brains. He encourages us to use them to think and reason. You would bring this child into the world and have them live in torture, in pain and through numerous surgeries until they died a painful lingering death? For whom do you do this? You or the Child? I suspect that you did not even read this article at all or you would have seen the facts. These babies that were aborted, would never have grown up to be like you and me.

[David Torrisi]

Jodi, I don't think this article revealed any whole "truth". I am a physician and am not religious. All the quotes in your article elude to some medical need for the abortions. I don't know if he did late term abortions solely for medical reasons but from the responses to your column I gather this is not the case.

A woman does not have a right to kill another human being if it can live on its own. That is assinine. If a women is 30 weeks pregnant and decides she does not want to be a mother than just as she is willing to have a procedure to blend the childs brains into mush she should be jsut as willing to have it delivered to live in this world as it pleases. There are plenty of people out there ready to adopt. It is actually hard to find babies to adopt in the USA and that child would surely find a good home.

[Channel4NewsTeam]

Pulled from discussion downthread:

ALL of the abortions performed after 22 weeks gestation were done for one of two reasons: the fetus was already known to be not viable, or the termination was done to "prevent substantial and irreversable impairment of a major bodily function."

http://www.kdheks.gov/hci/abortion_sum/01itop1.pdf

[alsm9]

"A woman does not have a right to kill another human being if it can live on its own. That is assinine. If a women is 30 weeks pregnant and decides she does not want to be a mother than just as she is willing to have a procedure to blend the childs brains into mush she should be jsut as willing to have it delivered to live in this world as it pleases."

What is assinine is your posts, and this comment in particular. Clearly you are a man, and have no idea what it's like to own a uterus or carry a child. There are very few, if ANY women who would decide "on a whim" as you seem to imply, at 30 weeks to suddenly not have the child. This is why I keep saying men need to stay out of this conversation and mind their own business. You have no idea what you are talking about.

[JuliaRain]

"A woman does not have a right to kill another human being if it can live on its own."

Did you read the article???!?!? These fetuses are not ABLE to live on their own due to missing organs or undeveloped brains and will probably die within hours of delivery.

How about the dead fetus in a woman? Would you force her to carry the dead fetus for the whole term? Or how about if the fetus kills a woman? Would the fetus be liable for that?

Hard to adopt children in America? Then become a foster parent but I don't see many men doing that.

Displaying such arrogance is ignorant.

Since men don't have to face the consequences of pregnancy it's really ridiculous to force your opinion or force a pregnancy on a woman.

Sorry, still my body. Still my choice. MY RIGHTS.

[Psyche78]

If you are truly a physician, then you should be familiar with the following conditions: anencephaly, trisomy 13, trisomy 18. These are not conditions from which one recovers. These are not conditions in which the child will be able to live on his/her own.

If you are truly a physician, you should know about maternal conditions such as pre-eclampsia, hyperemesis gravidarum, and the risks associated with waiting for a decaying fetus to expel naturally. You should know that procedures such as dilatation and extraction (also referred to as partial-birth abortion) are safer for the mother than induction of labor and delivery of a dead or highly compromised fetus.

If you are truly a physician, you should be aware of the numbers of children who do not have "a good home" and how hard it is to "surely find a good home" for a severely handicapped child.

If you are truly a physician, I do not know how you could have such a poor understanding of the issues at hand.

[GJKBEAR]

Part I -Actually, Dr Torrisi, the adoptions system as well as the foster care system in America is pretty damn screwed up. So, it is your contention that women should just have these babies - lump it as it were, and then put them up for adoption? What if they are born severely retarded, down's syndrome? How likely are people to adopt these precious babies? What about those born with hydrocephalus or those who have no functioning brain stem - they are alive; but they will require lots of medical care and in some cases will never develop past infancy. Will they be adoptable?

[Teadye]

We very seldom hear these same arguments applied to the idea of passing laws requiring the sacrifice of one person's life for another. If you take away the highly charged emotional content, there is little difference in requiring a mother to carry a life-threatening pregnancy to term than requiring a healthy, living parent to donate their heart to a child who needs a transplant, or forcing a sibling to donate a kidney and so on. They might make such a choice or wish to, but they are not required by law to do so.

[arthuride]

Abortion is a private matter, and belongs only to the woman carrying the fetus. No other person (either gender) no institution (religious or political) has the right to tell the woman carrying the fetus, what she can do with it. It is not a "baby" until it can live independently outside of the womb. Until then it is a choice--not a child.

[JuliaRain]

To all the anti-choice men here:

Who gave you the right to control a woman's body? Who?

Why do you think your split sperm is equivalent to the mother's contributions over 9 months?

And if you care so much about babies, why aren't you in line to adopt them?

[JuliaRain]

Where did all the anti-choice men go? What, all of a sudden they have nothing to say? Or are they just cowards?

I'm still waiting for them to answer and explain the entitlement they seem to enjoy so much.

Hello?

[AntsyAmerican]

"Kansas law requires that such procedures can only be performed after viability if two independent doctors agree that not to do so would put the mother at risk of irreparable harm by giving birth."

I believe in fetal abnormality as a justification, but it doesn't seem to be covered in this law except by a very loose interpretation of the "risk of ierrparable harm" language.

[JuliaRain]

Why do some men think they are entitled to or have the right to control a woman's body?

[notconfindtweenhatnboots]

It's another form of rape. And rape is always about power.

[JuliaRain]

:'(

[LeftRight]

Sadly true....

[PartyPartyParty]

Gimme that old time religion,
gimme that old time religion,
gimme that old time religion, it's good enough for me!

[JuliaRain]

Why won't some anti-choice men answer the question?

Is it because they don't have the b.alls to do so?

Cowards.

[mydwyf]

Historically, this is how men ensured that the children they were supporting were actually theirs.
Not saying it's right or wrong, just that there is a biological imperative functioning here, at a fundamental level beneath conscious awareness.

[notconfindtweenhatnboots]

Historically, the most dangerous time for a woman to be murdered by her spouse is when she is pregnant. Homicide by a spouse or partner is one of the top causes for death among pregnant women. If men - as a whole- were really biologically programed to be concerned for the well being of their unborn offspring, homicide during pregnancy would go down, not up.

[PartyPartyParty]

Like I said: it's all about control.

[naschkatze]

Firedoglake has a video clip of a man whose wife had a late term abortion (6 months) at Tiller's clinic because she was carrying twin boys who had a shared circulatory system and who would have had no chance of survival. It is heart-rendering. The man believed his sons were already suffering and that his wife's health was in danger. I don't believe that late term abortion is very common, and when it is performed, it is not for flippant reasons. The anti-abortion side has completely distorted the issue on emotional grounds.

[LeftRight]

You don't believe that because abortions past the first trimester account for around 1% of total abortions, coupled with the fact that in the third trimester most states have laws FORBIDDING abortions unless it's for medically justifiable reasons!!

[kitkatborn]

Great article. One question That I think everyone needs to consider on all types of abortions: Do we want to go back to "back street" abortions? I don't think so.

[notconfindtweenhatnboots]

With the internet, the availablity of information on "How to" do anything is much more easy to come by than when abotion was outlawed years ago. Do you think that there won't be websites that show how-to videos? Or that people won't sell DIY herbal kits that will help things along? Google "herbal abortion" sometime. The information is already out there. The responsible thing to do is to keep this in the hands of medical professional who have the ability to properly council, advise and care for the women making these decisions.

[crowepps]

Sure they want to go back to backstreet abortions. First, the doctor is committing a crime and so he can be punished. Secondly, the mother has a much higher risk of dying or having an infection render her sterile and so she will be punished. And third, it jacks up the price!! You know how conservatives are all for helping 'bizness'.

[Aristophanes Smith]

Great article and many great comments! There's no doubt that Dr. Tiller helped many woman by providing valuable services at a desperate time. But as a scientist, I always want to see both sides, so I searched around the web. Ignoring obviously biased sites, I did come upon this disturbing document:

www.telladf.org/UserDocs/ArmestoAffidavit.pdf

Is there anyone here who is familiar with this person or who has additional information about her claims? If she's correct, then it would appear that Dr. Tiller, in at lease one case, was in violation of Kansas law. I hope this was not the case.

[faucetman]

Don't click on the link you get PAGE NOT FOUND. Cut & paste into your browser and download the court filing against Tiller. In her own words.
www.telladf.org/UserDocs/ArmestoAffidavit.pdf

[fusionfan]

A-
Interesting link. When posting a link, you should always precede with http://

Otherwise it will not be posted properly

http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/ArmestoAffidavit.pdf

So I suspect that indeed, Tiller did many late-term abortions where there were heart-rending issues of fetal malformations, some of which are being cited here. And in some cases, maybe those patients were not able to get abortions elsewhere, and he was providing a very needed service.

But then there appear to have been this other, maybe larger, group of cases, like the one described in this affidavit, where the fetus was clearly healthy, and the reasons for the abortion were more like those in the survey described in the wikipedia article. I suspect that such cases were the great majority.

[grooveygrover]

there should be an answering affidavit as well, do you have a link to that?

[notconfindtweenhatnboots]

Has any of this person's claims in this affidavit ever been verified. It doesn't quite add up to me. She states that her boyfriend proposed to her months before the abortion, but apparently never told her parents that they had planned to get married. Why would he delay proposing to her for 3 months after she told him she was pregnant? Why would she only begin showing at 24+ weeks? Most women show long before that- in their first trimester.

A claim is just that, a claim. She is claiming to have had an late-term abortion. She CLAIMED to be that far along. But did she have any verification of being pregnant and that far along?

Sounds to me like she had a 1st term abortion, that she regrets, and blames her parents and Tiller for. So in the interest of her anti-abortion stance and in getting retribution at her parents and Tiller, she moved the date of her pregnancy back a few months.

[Aristophanes Smith]

I don't know if her claims have been proved or disproved. I was hoping someone here might know. Maybe somebody in Kansas who followed the case at the time.

Your points are good ones and I agree that her story doesn't completely seem to add up. Yet there is an official affidavit that looks like a legal document. If the claims were false, I presume the woman could be charged with perjury, but I found no indication that that had occurred.

If what the woman says is true but if this is an exception, then I don't think it would offset all the good done by Dr. Tiller. However he would have some culpability for not following Kansas law in this one case.

Thanks to fusionfan for explaining how to properly post a link here.

[notconfindtweenhatnboots]

Furthermore, she claimed that this happened in May of '03. The affidavit was signed in August of 05 (27 months later). In the affidavit she states, that she and Pedro are married and now have 2 children. She also claims that she has had 2 additional miscarriages that she believes are the result of having had a supposedly late-term abortion. I can buy that she might have 2 children in just over 2 years, but I can't buy that she would also have 2 miscarriages on top of that, and these miscarriages are the result of a previous abortion. This just doesn't make sense.

[grooveygrover]

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org

check out this link, it is the homepage where the "affidavit" can be found
a religious right site
shocker

[rosiebond007]

This is a great article with all of the facts that pro-lifers and media jocks need to understand.
But why would they read it?
It would disallow them to shoot off more poison and stop the MEN stampeding into an area WHICH IS NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS.

I am tired of men trying to make decisions for us, I am tired of them insinutating that we are not as smart as they are and cannot understand what the implications might be.
Decision such as abortion are highly personal and should be off the "sensational" radar.

[Modular-Libertarian]

So at what point does the father's rights begin, the day the child is born?

[JuliaRain]

Yup.

[Channel4NewsTeam]

Men don't have the right to use women's bodies when women object to such use.

[GJKBEAR]

I know this is a sore subject with some men. Some would claim that if the woman just told them, they would take the child and raise it. Perhaps they would and perhaps they would not. The fact still remains that the woman will have to carry it for 9 months and go through labor - for babies can not gestate in a box.

Dr. Phil had an interesting show the other day. There was a man who had a relationship with a woman - she became pregnant - even though they had taken all precautions and he had stated that he did not want children (they weren't married). He did not want to have anything to do with the child and certainly did not want to support it. Then there was the woman who had a casual sexual thing with a guy, had the child and then 6 years later decided to let the guy know and that she wanted him to pay child support. The wife of the man was not really pleased about this $350 a month that was coming out of their planned family life. They had made a choice to get married and to have 2 children and then boom here comes this woman. It was his child - he had no realtionship with the child and did not even know about the child until she asked for support. What does this say for father's rights? Do they now have the right to be hassled???

[grooveygrover]

maybe not even then

[shellb518]

It's sad and disturbing to read through the comments here and see that many actually believe that these 'late' term abortions are done on healthy VIABLE pregnancies, to women who were too lazy to make a decision sooner, by a doctor who got 'paid enough'. The misinformation floating around is amazing!
Roe v Wade deemed that the right to privacy included a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy pre-viability. PRE-VIABILITY. It is NOT LEGAL, as in illegal, in all states I'm aware of, to terminate a healthy FETUS (note, not baby) for no reason other than its 'unwanted'. Dr Tiller was allowed by the law to go beyond the traditional cut-off for abortions (usualy 24 wks, but in many states it is earlier) for extreme cases such as deformities or threat to the mothers health (as in a real threat, not 'mental'). To any of you who think you know more about what is going on in the minds and hearts of these women AND their doctors when having to make this decision, come back when you've actually EXPERIENCED it. Come back when you've seen women carry unhealthy pregnancies to term because they couldn't get it terminated sooner; deliver these malformed, dying-at-birth infants. It is devastating, both physically and mentally.
And to fusionfan who keps quoting WIKIPEDIA... Wikipedia? Really? As your SOURCE? I have practiced Ob/GYN, LIVED and breathed this field, and trust me, I've got the facts over Wikipedia.

[fusionfan]

Shell,
The Wikipedia article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-term_abortion
was simply quoting an article in the scientific literature:
Torres, Aida and Forrest, Jacqueline Darroch. (1988). Why Do Women Have Abortions. Family Planning Perspectives, 20 (4), 169-176.

There are problems with this study. (1) It was done a long time ago, in 1988. (2) They asked 400 women who had abortions after 16 weeks why they were having them done. It was not 21 weeks, or 24 weeks. But the rate of abortions due to concern about fetal malformations was only 2%. For the other reasons for late-term abortion, please see the above link. There are no more recent papers that I could find on this topic, unfortunately.

Then there is also the tape of Tiller at an abortion conference saying, (again, way back in 1995) that he had done about 10,000 abortions at 24-36 weeks, of which 800 (so 8%) had fetal malformations. I have no idea if this tape is genuine; the source is a pro-life website:

http://www.dr-tiller.com/elective.htm

Maybe the percentages have since changed.

I respect your experience as an OB/GYN, but one person's practice experience may be different than others, and esp. that of clinics like Dr. Tiller's. Would you then be against late-term abortion when the fetus is healthy? I certainly would not have a problem with the idea of an abortion at any stage when the fetus is severely malformed.

[Sepulchre]

A 21 year old study would not reflect the change in laws for one. Since 1988 many states have outlawed late-term ab0rtions unless the mother is at risk or the child will not survive (sever genetic deformities). Very few states let anyone terminate past this point outside of those two reasons. That would dramatically change the statistics of the study, as well as the increases in the ability to detect detrimental genetic diseases during pregnancy. For the most part depending on the area, any study done more than about 10 years ago, isn't usually a reliable source of material for information on anything current.

[David Campbell]

Please see the political cartoon in today's Pittsburgh' Post-Gazette by Rob Rogers.
Post-Gazette.com
He is our very best.

[hbarrs 11]

I will start by saying I had an abortion and I am not ashamed. And I will not apologize for it.
My choice to end the pregnancy was MY CHOICE to make and needs no justification. It was not a late - term abortion, and by all accounts, would have resulted in a healthy, viable child. I chose to terminate because I was not in a position financially nor emotionally, to be a mother.
I say this because there are far too many posters questioning the "true reasons" behind women seeking abortions. There are many factors that a woman will take into account when deciding to keep or terminate a pregancy. The one common factor is this choice is hers and hers alone to make.
If you value life, good for you. If you religion says that I will burn in hell for commiting murder, ok. That's something I will have to atone for. But notice that I will be the one to deal with the consequences, not you. It is insulting and so disrespectful for anyone to assume they know what is better for me than I do.
If you're anti-choice and want to see abortions limited to extreme circumstances, then you should name yourself as legal guardian for every unwanted child that your forced into this world. You will provide shelter, clothing, food, education, and protection for all of them. If that's not a deal you're willing to make, mind your business and allow me to the same

[viewfromuphere]

further to that...if your anti choice....how about safe, effective and readily available birth control for every woman who wishes to use it....including your teenage daughter....

[LeftRight]

Not to mention the fact that the anti-choicers should also volunteer to be host mothers for every child that they will force into the world!

[faucetman]

You do not have the moral RIGHT to end another PERSON's life. A BABY in your womb is NOT your PROPERTY. It is an individual HUMAN BEING. In MOST cases conceived WITH your knowledge and consent. So don't give me this "CHOICE" CRAP. The only "CHOICE" here is when you DECIDED to have sex that resulted in your pregnancy. You don't feel 'guilty"? Why should we believe you are not deceiving yourself? The "CHOICE" reasoning is the excuse you use to assuage yourself of that guilt. Hopefully someday you will repent of your sin and ask forgiveness for what you have done and be forgiven. This is murder plain & simple. It doesn't matter if it is the first day or the last day. If after being born, a baby is immediately killed by your doctor. EVERYONE would agree that this is murder. If the doctor killed this same baby in the womb minutes BEFORE birth is that not the same murder? IT's THE SAME CHILD. Now consider, an HOUR before birth, a MONTH?, 3 MONTHS? Where exactly are you okay with this murder knowing that life begins at conception? Once you become pregnant you have an OBLIGATION to bring this life to term. You have NO RIGHT to take another's life. It may be inconvenient, financially difficult, emotionally stressful, but this is the responsibility you have as a woman. God created women to bear children and that's just how it is.

[notconfindtweenhatnboots]

A fetus is not a baby. Big difference. It's typical right-wing tactic of renaming reality to fit your agenda.

[JuliaRain]

If you guys were still in charge, fetuses would have voting rights by now.

"A BABY in your womb is NOT your PROPERTY."

BUT HER WOMB IS.

[Psyche78]

It must be nice living in your black and white world. Based on your reasoning, one could not intercede and kill another person in self-defense or defense of another's life. Based on your reasoning, we should never wage war. Because, as you said "You have NO RIGHT to take another's life."
And if "God" created women only to bear children, why do so many suffer with infertility? Why are there so many miscarriages?
Perhaps the truth of your reasoning lies in this statement: "The only "CHOICE" here is when you DECIDED to have sex that resulted in your pregnancy." Because it sounds like it is all about a woman having chosen to have sex and, damn it, she had better pay the consequences, even if it means losing her chance at education, losing her chance at being able to raise her other children, or even losing her life. None of that matters in your world - it only matters that a woman had the gall to choose to have sex.
On second thought, you go on living in your black and white world. I'll stick with the gray shadows in reality.

[Channel4NewsTeam]

I believe I have NO right to use my mother's body when she objects to such use, even if it's to save my life. What's your belief? That you were entitled to her reproductive organs, blood, tears, pain, and suffering? Perhaps you should reflect on that and whether or not your sense of entitlement goes too far.

[PartyPartyParty]

You do not have the moral right to dictate to any individual, male or female, what they should or should not do concerning their own bodies and their own families.

That is just how it is.