(A4e3a1a1) Partial Birth Abortion

A partial birth abortion is the deliberate killing of a baby which is in the process of being born. *********************************************************************************************************************** As of this date, 04-04-07, this folder contains 5 items. ******* item 1 MAINSTREAM MEDIA CONTINUES BIAS, ERRORS ON PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION ******* item 2 PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION COURT TRANSCRIPTS ******* item 3 PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION NOT SAFE FOR WOMEN ******* item 4 ABORTIONISTS PROVIDE THE MOST GRAPHIC TESTIMONY AT ABORTION BAN TRIAL ******* item 5 ABORTIONIST ADMITS PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION CAN HURT OR KILL WOMEN ********************************************************************************************************************** ******* item 1 MAINSTREAM MEDIA CONTINUES BIAS, ERRORS ON PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION ******* From: "Steven Ertelt" ******* Source National Right to Life; June 14, 2003 ******* Reply-To: Steven Ertelt ******* by Doug Johnson, NRLC Legislative Director ******* Washington, DC -- Some journalists (and some others) are so attached to comforting myths about partial-birth abortion that they just won't let them go -- even after they have been thoroughly discredited by other journalists, and even after they have been forcefully repudiated by leading spokespersons for the abortion industry. ******* Worse, some of the offenders, when they are challenged for disseminating long-debunked misinformation, simply restate the misinformation without in any way addressing the substance of the challenge, or fail to respond at all. ******* From the time that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was first introduced in June, 1995, until early 1997, the leading pro-abortion advocacy groups vigorously asserted that the abortion method that the bill would ban was employed only hundreds of times annually, and only or nearly only in medically acute circumstances. (Typical of innumerable such claims: "The procedure, dilation and extraction (D&X), is extremely rare and done only in cases when the woman's life is in danger or in cases of extreme fetal abnormality." (Planned Parenthood of America news release, Nov. 1, 1995). "This particular procedure is used only in about 500 cases per year, generally after 20 weeks of pregnancy, and most often when there is a severe fetal anomaly or maternal health problem detected late in pregnancy." (National Abortion Federation factsheet, downloaded February 27, 1997) ******* From day one, supporters of the bill vigorously challenged these claims and provided documentation -- mainly, statements by abortionists in their own writings or in interviews with various publications -- that showed that the partial-birth abortion method was employed thousands of times annually, mostly on healthy babies of healthy mothers. In particular, bill supporters often cited the explicit statements of Dr. James McMahon, who developed the partial-birth abortion, and Dr. Martin Haskell, who drew it to public attention by writing an instructional paper explaining how to perform the procedure. In 1993, Haskell told American Medical News that 80% of his partial-birth abortions were "purely elective.") See the first NRLC factsheet sent to reporters on the issue, on June 21, 1995. ******* Nevertheless, the abortion lobby's claims were adopted and reported -- not as disputed claims, but as fact -- countless times by major U.S. broadcast and print news outlets, including The New York Times, the Washington Post, the Associated Press, the Los Angeles Times, Time, ABC News, National Public Radio, and many, many others. ******* But by late 1996 and early 1997, this misinformation campaign collapsed under the weight of journalistic and congressional investigations. I will cite just a few of these sources here. ******* On September 15, 1996, the Record (Bergen-Hackensack, New Jersey) published a report by staff writer Ruth Padawer, based on separate interviews with two abortionists at a single abortion clinic in Englewood, who independently told her that they perform over 1,500 partial-birth abortions annually in that facility -- triple the nationwide figure given out by pro-abortion advocacy and industry groups. As to why they performed these procedures, the Record reported what the abortionists said: "'We have an occasional amnio abnormality, but it's a minuscule amount,' said one of the doctors at Metropolitan Medical, an assessment confirmed by another doctor there. 'Most are Medicaid patients, black and white, and most are for elective, not medical, reasons: people who didn't realize, or didn't care, how far along they were. Most are teenagers.'" ******* The September 17, 1996 edition of the Washington Post contained the results of an investigation conducted by reporters Barbara Vobejda and David M. Brown, M.D., who interviewed several doctors (not those in New Jersey), and concluded: "Furthermore, in most cases where the procedure is used, the physical health of the woman whose pregnancy is being terminated is not in jeopardy. . . . Instead, the 'typical' patients tend to be young, low-income women, often poorly educated or naive, whose reasons for waiting so long to end their pregnancies are rarely medical." ******* The abortion lobby's misinformation campaign collapsed entirely in February 1997, when Ron Fitzsimmons --- who was then and is now the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers (an association of hundreds of abortion providers) -- gave a series of well-publicized interviews. In those interviews, Fitzsimmons said the claim that the partial-birth abortion procedure was used rarely and mostly in acute medical situations was merely a "party line" (his term) developed by opponents of the bill, and was false. Fitzsimmons also expressed regret about his own previous (albeit minor) role in propagating what he called a "party line," explaining, "[I] lied through my teeth." ******* The truth was that "in the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along, Fitzsimmons said." (The New York Times, Feb. 26, 1997.) ******* After Fitzsimmons spoke, other representatives of the abortion industry also refuted the mythology. Renee Chelian, the president of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, said, "The spin out of Washington was that it was done for medical necessity, even though we knew it wasn't so." For more such quotes, see "Pro-choice advocates admit to deception," by Ruth Padawer (The Record, Bergen-Hackensack, NJ, Feb. 27, 1997). ******* Even before Fitzsimmons blew the whistle on the disinformation campaign, the PBS program "Media Matters" (in January, 1997) devoted a segment to examining how the news media had been very gullible in accepting what turned out to be wildly erroneous and self-serving claims from the abortion lobby. In this program, Washington Post medical writer David Brown, M.D., is shown saying that based on the Post investigation of the use of partial-birth abortion, "Cases in which the mother's life were at risk were extremely rare . . . Most people who got this procedure really were not very different from most people who got abortions." ******* The entire transcript of the "Media Matters" segment makes for very instructive reading. ******* For further information published in 1997 on the collapse of the pro-abortion misinformation campaign, see an NRLC memo issued at the time, a column by John Leo in U.S. News & World Report showing how the truth about partial-birth abortion was deliberately concealed, an article by Matthew Scully in the National Review giving many examples of how the news media had accepted the abortion lobby's manufactured claims about partial-birth abortion,and a column by political analyst Charles E. Cook published in Roll Call: The Newspaper of Capitol Hill. ******* NEW INFORMATION? ******* What new information has come to light since February 1997 only confirms that the partial-birth method is usually used in circumstances not involving any acute threat to the mother or grave disorder of the baby. ******* Kansas became the only state to enact a law that requires reporting of partial-birth abortions separately from other abortion methods. The first year the law was in effect (1999), Kansas abortionists reported that they performed 182 partial-birth abortions on babies who were defined by the abortionists themselves as "viable," and they also reported that all 182 of these were performed for "mental" (as opposed to "physical") health reasons. See pages 10-11 of the Kansas Health Department report. ******* In January 2003, the Alan Guttmacher Institute - an affiliate of Planned Parenthood - published a survey of abortion providers that estimated that 2,200 abortions by the method were performed in the year 2000. While that figure is surely low for reasons discussed by NRLC elsewhere, it is more than triple the number that AGI estimated in its most recent previous survey (for 1996). ******* In March, 2003, Ron Fitzsimmons -- still the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers -- was asked if he wanted to withdraw the assessment he gave to The New York Times in 1997 (quoted above). He said, "No, no, no, no. I'm not recanting any of that stuff. In terms of when it's done or how it's done, nothing has changed, as far as I know." Informed of a news story that asserted that the method is used mostly to save a mother's life or in cases of fetal deformity, Fitzsimmons said, "It's amazing that a lot of people still think that, despite the evidence to the contrary." ******* SO, IS THE MYTHOLOGY DEAD? ******* To summarize what appears above: The claim that the abortion method banned by the pending bill, partial-birth abortion, is performed mainly or only in medically acute circumstances, was definitely discredited by February 1997 if not earlier -- disproved by congressional investigators and by journalists for top newspapers, and repudiated by spokespersons for the abortion industry itself. ******* So is the mythology dead? ******* Not by a long shot. Even though it takes no more than a few minutes with Google to easily find information such as that cited above, and much more like it, some reporters, editorial writers, and pundits refuse to let go of the blatant misinformation. They are once again propagating the myth that most (or all) partial-birth abortions are performed because of grave threat to the mother or major fetal disorders. Moreover, in most cases so far, those propagating the myths have refused to either run corrections or provide documentation of their claims -- or even, in some cases, to respond at all. ******* Here is a sampling of recent sightings of the long-discredted mythology, by no means exhaustive, compiled on June 11, 2003: ******* [NOTE: All of the quotations below were in the voices of the newspapers themselves. That is, it is the newspaper, or the reporter or commentator, who is making the assertion -- NOT some attributed source.] ******* SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE ******* From news analysis, "California abortion rights threatened," by Bob Egelko, March 15, 2003: ******* [Regarding the abortion method that would be banned by the bill under consideration in Congress:] "It is generally performed late in pregnancy after discovery of damage to or abnormalities in the fetus." ******* [Egelko wrote to me on June 5, "I believe my article was accurate," but has refused to provide any authority for the assertion or to address any of the documentation cited. No response from editors or "reader's representative."] ******* THE BOSTON GLOBE From "Senate OK's ban on a late-term form of abortion," by Susan Milligan, March 14, 2003: ******* "Because of fetal abnormalities or medical conditions threatening a woman, doctors employ the technique between the 20th and 26th weeks of a pregnancy when the head of the fetus is enlarged and unable to easily pass through a woman's dilated cervix." ******* [On June 4, 2003, the Globe ombudsman, Christine Chinlund, wrote that new guidelines had been adopted, among these, "the Globe would not say or imply that the procedure known as partial birth abortion is used only when medically necessary -- thus recognizing that [it] is also used by healthy women who carry a healthy fetus. I also believe that any mention of the bill's lack of an exemption for the health of the mother should be accompanied by a mention of the exemption that does exist to protect the life of the mother." [full statement available on request] ******* GANNETT NEWS SERVICE ******* From news story, "Anti-abortion lobby counting on victories in 108th Congress," by Pamela Brogan, December 17, 2002. "A so-called partial-birth abortion is defined generally as a late-term abortion procedure in which the fetus is aborted after it is partly outside the mother's body. It is usually performed in cases when the mother's life is threatened or the fetus is deformed." [This dispatch appears, with a different headline, here.) ******* [On Feb. 20, 2003, after repeated requests, Brogan sent an e-mail purporting to quote three sources in support of her claim, but in each case the sources could not be found to say what she quoted them as saying; details on request. No response from her editors to multiple communications; details on request.] ******* MIAMI HERALD (EDITORIAL) ******* From editorial, "A Flawed Bill," June 6, 2003, "Invariably, in the extremely rare situations when the procedure is used, extraordinary circumstances are involved: The rape of a mentally incapacitated women incapable of knowing even the consequences of the act; the brutal assault of a 12-year-old child by a relative; a woman weakened by an illness whose life would be endangered by carrying a pregnancy to full term." ******* [On June 12, the paper posted a portion of my letter challenging the statement, but omitted my quotation from Ron Fitzsimmons of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers.] ******* THE GUARDIAN (U.K.) ******* On June 6, 2003, The Guardian published two articles by its correspondent in Washington, D.C., Suzanne Goldenberg, concerning certain pro-life issues currently under consideration in our federal and state legislative bodies: "US abortion ban sets stage for court battle," and "When does life really begin?" In the article "When does life really begin?," Goldenberg wrote: "The ban on 'partial-birth abortions' --- which are generally performed in the second or third trimester of pregnancy if the foetus is so malformed it would die at birth, or if continued pregnancy puts the woman's life at risk --- is a huge setback for the pro-choice lobby." In "U.S. abortion ban sets stage for court battle," Goldenberg wrote that the partial-birth abortion method "is a last resort used during the final stages of pregnancy when the foetus is fatally malformed. Rightwingers call it partial birth abortion, but the procedure is only generally used for hydrocephalic babies and involves collapsing their enlarged skulls." [No response, no correction] ******* PROFESSOR GEORGE LAKOFF, author, linguist George Lakoff, professor of linguistics at Berkeley, on "To the Point," a program produced at KCRW-FM in Los Angeles and broadcast on various NPR stations, June 10, 2003. ******* Asked by the host, Warren Olney, to analyze the term "partial-birth abortion," Lakoff replied as follows -- this is a verbatim transcription from the Real Player file posted at the KCRW website: "Partial-birth abortion is not a medical description. The medical procedure, as I understand it, is a procedure that applies in a quarter to one-half of all cases [sic -- he apparently meant to say one-quarter or one-half PERCENT of all abortions], and these are cases too in where the fetus is not viable, is not likely to live a life -- perhaps doesn't have a brain -- and where the mother's health or life would be in danger . . . You have an unviable child, one who can't really live. Also, there would be a health and endangerment of the mother's life. So the term 'partial-birth abortion' sort of hides the issues that are really there in that operation." ********************************************************************************************************************** ******* item 2 PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION COURT TRANSCRIPTS ******* From: [email protected] ******* Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 06:57:54 EDT ******* Dear Friends, ******* I urge all of you to write to your local media and ask why they are not letting people know of the horrors of abortions, especially the trials currently going on in three states regarding partial-birth abortions. Following is one such letter, which was just sent to me: ******* Frank Joseph MD -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Editor, ******* I am writing in response to the letters to the editor, Sat April 3rd, regarding the photos you printed on the horrors of the war in Iraq. On writer in particlular "Appalling picture needed to be seen" stated, "What better way to shock us out of complacency and force us to see the reality of our involvement in Iraq". Now I would like to ask the Times, where is your coverage of the real horror going on right in this country which is being brought out in testimony at the Federal Lawsuits challenging the partial birth abortion ban? Not one word in your newspaper about the slaughter and vicious dismemberment of unborn children - not one word about the fact that nearly all abortions in the second trimester are done in this manner. Are you so afraid to print the truth because then America would wake up from its complacency on this issue? Why not show the pictures being displayed to the courts of the children whose limbs are ripped from their bodies and many times are still alive and suffering? As another writer puts it, "There will no longer be so many pleasant things to look at if responsible people do not do something about the unpleasant ones." It is your responsibility to print the truth and if you cannot stomach the photos, then at least print the testimony. America has a right to know the truth. ******* Sincerely, ******* Debra L Vinnedge ******* 2130 Catalina Dr ******* Clearwater, Fl 33764 ******* 727 536-8839 -------------------- COURT TRANSCRIPT (Sent from the USCCB office) ******* Date: April 2, 2004 ******* Subject: SNAPSHOT OF FIRST 3 DAYS OF TRIAL -- HORRIFIC TESTIMONY FROM ABORTION DOCTORS ******* Trials in the 3 lawsuits against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act began Monday, March 29th in three separate U.S. District Courts. The primary plaintiff in the Southern District of New York is the National Abortion Federation (NAF); the plaintiffs in the District of Nebraska are Dr. Leroy Carhart and several other abortion doctors (Abortion Doctors), and the primary plaintiff in the Northern District of California is Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA). The Attorney General of the United States is the defendant in each case. ******* After opening statements from each side, plaintiffs began presenting their evidence. Excerpts from the unofficial transcripts of testimony from the first 3 days of trial appear below. ******* NEW YORK CASE. ******* DAY TWO: Tuesday, March 30, 2004. ******* Excerpts from NAF's re-direct examination of Dr. Amos Grunebaum: ******* THE COURT. Doctor, you mentioned earlier today that you believe in full disclosure to your patients as to the procedures and the various possibilities that are available. ******* THE WITNESS. Yes, I do. ******* THE COURT. And that you spell out for the woman just what is entailed in a D&E that involves dismemberment, correct. ******* THE WITNESS. Yes, I do. ******* THE COURT. You also spell out that if you are doing an intact D&E or D&X or partial-birth abortion, whichever term is used, that that entailed a partial delivery, and then the procedure you described of inserting the scissors in the base of the skull and using a suction devise to remove the brain. ******* THE WITNESS. Yes, I do. ******* THE COURT. And that some of them desire that because after the procedure if they want to see or hold the dead fetus, is that correct? ******* THE WITNESS. Yes. ******* THE COURT. I believe you mentioned also take pictures, is that correct? ******* THE WITNESS. Yes. That is part of our common policy -- it changed about ten years ago -- that we take pictures. ******* THE COURT. This is part of the grieving process? ******* THE WITNESS. Absolutely. We have been told by grieving counselors to take pictures of all dead fetuses and babies -- specifically babies, but also fetuses -- so there is a memory of the baby by the mother. ******* DAY THREE: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 ******* Excerpts from NAF's direct examination of Dr. Timothy Johnson: ******* Q. Do you have an opinion, Dr. Johnson, as to which of the two D&E variations, the intact or the dismemberment variation, may best facilitate the extraction of the fetal skull during an abortion procedure? ******* A. I think that the intact procedure is actually developed in part to deal with the problem of the fetal skull. When one does a D&E, technically one of the challenges is to remove the fetal skull, partly because it is relatively large, partly because it is relatively calcified, and it is difficult to grasp on occasion. So one of the common technical challenges of a dismemberment D&E is what is called a free-floating head or a head that has become disattached and needs to be removed. This can lead to more passages of instruments through the cervix. And technically it is difficult to grasp the head; it is round, it slips out of the instruments that we generally use. Either those instruments or the head can be extruded outside the uterus and cause perforation. ******* Q. Did you make any observation of the way the physician performing that intact D&E effected the incision into the skull? ******* A. In the situations that I have observed, they either -- actually, the procedures that I have observed, they all used a crushing instrument to deliver the head, and they did it under direct vision. ******* Q. Thank you, Doctor. ******* THE COURT: Can you explain to me what that means. ******* THE WITNESS: What they did was they delivered the fetus intact until the head was still trapped behind the cervix, and then they reached up and crushed the head in order to deliver it through the cervix. ******* THE COURT: What did they utilize to crush the head? ******* THE WITNESS: An instrument, a large pair of forceps that have a round, serrated edge at the end of it, so that they were able to bring them together and crush the head between the ends of the instrument. ******* THE COURT: Like the cracker they use to crack a lobster shell, serrated edge? ******* THE WITNESS: No. ******* THE COURT: Describe it for me. ******* THE WITNESS: It would be like the end of tongs that are combined that you use to pick up salad. So they would be articulated in the center and you could move one end, and there would be a branch at the center. The instruments are thick enough and heavy enough that you can actually grasp and crush with those instruments as if you were picking up salad or picking up anything with -- ******* THE COURT: Except here you are crushing the head of a baby. ******* THE WITNESS: Correct. ******* THE COURT: Was the body outside the woman's body to an extent? ******* THE WITNESS: Some of it. It can be or not. Some of it can be or -- it depends on where the cervix is. It depends on where the uterus is. It depends how long the baby is. It depends how long the mother's vagina is. ******* THE COURT: At some times that you observed it was? ******* THE WITNESS: Right. And sometimes during the procedure the cervix can actually be brought down so that -- the cervix and the uterus can be moved up and down relative to the opening of the vagina. ******* THE COURT: An affidavit I saw earlier said sometimes, I take it, the fetus is alive until they crush the skull? ******* THE WITNESS: That's correct, yes, sir. ******* THE COURT: In one affidavit I saw attached earlier in this proceeding, were the fingers of the baby opening and closing? ******* THE WITNESS: It would depend where the hands were and whether or not you could see them. ******* THE COURT: Were they in some instances? ******* THE WITNESS: Not that I remember. I don't think I have ever looked at the hands. ******* THE COURT: Were the feet moving? ******* THE WITNESS: Feet could be moving, yes. ******* THE COURT: If you are all finished let me just ask you a couple questions, Dr. Johnson. I heard you talk a lot today about dismemberment D&E procedure, second trimester; does the fetus feel pain? ******* THE WITNESS: I guess I -- ******* THE COURT: There are studies, I'm told, that says they do. Is that correct? ******* THE WITNESS: I don't know. I don't know of any -- I can't answer your question. I don't know of any scientific evidence one way or the other. ******* THE COURT: Have you heard that there are studies saying so? ******* THE WITNESS: I'm not aware of any. ******* THE COURT: You never heard of any? ******* THE WITNESS: I'm aware of fetal behavioral studies that have looked at fetal responses to noxious stimuli. ******* THE COURT: Does it ever cross your mind when you are doing a dismemberment? ******* THE COURT: Simple question, Doctor. Does it cross your mind? ******* THE WITNESS: Does the fetus having pain cross your mind? ******* THE COURT: Yes. ******* THE WITNESS: No. ******* THE COURT: Never crossed your mind. ******* THE WITNESS: No. ******* THE COURT: When you have done D&Es or when you have done abortions, do you tell the woman various options that are available to her? ******* THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. ******* THE COURT: And do you explain what is involved like in D&E, the dismemberment variation? Do you tell her that? ******* THE WITNESS: We would describe the procedure, yes. ******* THE COURT: So you tell her the arms and legs are pulled off. I mean, that's what I want to know, do you tell her? ******* THE WITNESS: We tell her the baby, the fetus is dismembered as part of the procedure, yes. ******* THE COURT: You are going to remove parts of her baby. ******* THE WITNESS: Correct. ******* THE COURT: Are you ever asked, Does it hurt? ******* THE WITNESS: Are we ever asked by the patient? ******* THE COURT: Yes. ******* THE WITNESS: I don't ever remember being asked. ******* THE COURT: And although you have never done an intact D&E, do you know whether or not the incision of the scissors in the base of the skull of the baby, whether that hurts? ******* THE WITNESS: Well, I guess my response would be I think that the baby feels it but I'm not sure how pain registers on the brain at that gestational age. I'm not sure how a fetus at 20 weeks or 22 weeks processes and understands pain. ******* THE COURT: You have never done one of these procedures but did you ever ask what -- you say you know about it clinically, did you ever ask one of those who perform them whether it hurts the fetus? ******* THE WITNESS: No, sir. ******* THE COURT: When you describe the possibilities available to a woman do you describe in detail what the intact D&E or the partial birth abortion involves? ******* THE WITNESS: Since I don't do that procedure I wouldn't have described it. ******* THE COURT: Did you ever participate with another doctor describing it to a woman considering such an abortion? ******* THE WITNESS: Yes. And the description would be, I would think, descriptive of what was going to be, what was going to happen; the description. ******* THE COURT: Including sucking the brain out of the skull? ******* THE WITNESS: I don't think we would use those terms. I think we would probably use a term like decompression of the skull or reducing the contents of the skull. ******* THE COURT: Make it nice and palatable so that they wouldn't understand what it's all about? ******* THE WITNESS: No. I think we want them to understand what it's all about but it's -- I think it's -- I guess I would say that whenever we describe medical procedures we try to do it in a way that's not offensive or gruesome or overly graphic for patients. ******* THE COURT: Can they fully comprehend unless you do? Not all of these mothers are Rhodes scholars or highly educated, are they? ******* THE WITNESS: No, that's true. But I'm also not exactly sure what using terminology like sucking the brains out would -- ******* THE COURT: That's what happens, doesn't it? ******* THE WITNESS: Well, in some situations that might happen. There are different ways that an after-coming head could be dealt with but that is one way of describing it. ******* THE COURT: Isn't that what actually happens? You do Use a suction device, right? ******* THE WITNESS: Well, there are physicians who do that procedure who use a suction device to evacuate the intercranial ******* EXCERPTS FROM NATIONAL ABORTION FEDERATION'S DIRECT EXAMINATION OF DR. CASSING HAMMOND: ******* THE COURT: Do they give full disclosure as to the various procedures available and what is entailed, such as the dismemberment, in some forms of D&E? ******* THE WITNESS: If they do not and then the patient is referred to me for D&E, we do tell the patient what's entailed in a D&E. ******* THE COURT: In simple, clear English? ******* THE WITNESS: I think so, your Honor, yes. Now, there are variations, depending on the patient's own kind of psychological situation that we clearly take into consideration, but we actually have a large number of patients who look at us and say, let me get this straight. What you will be doing is dismembering the fetus. And we say, yes, that's exactly what we are doing. ******* THE COURT: Do you tell them what happens when they do an intact D&E? ******* THE WITNESS: If the patient -- ******* THE COURT: The brain is sucked out? ******* THE WITNESS: Well I don't -- as a point of fact, your Honor, I don't usually do the suction part. I do compress the calvarium and I do some other procedures. I don't actually do suction so I don't explain that part. ******* THE COURT: You don't explain that to them? ******* THE WITNESS: Well I explain the method. ******* THE COURT: You explain what a compression of the calvarium is? ******* THE WITNESS: Yes, sir; that I do explain. ******* THE COURT: That that's crushing the skull? ******* THE WITNESS: I explain that, yes. ******* NEBRASKA CASE. ******* DAY TWO: Tuesday, March 30, 2004. ******* EXCERPTS FROM ABORTION DOCTORS' DIRECT EXAMINATION OF DR. WILLIAM FIRZHUGH: ******* Q. All right. Going back now, I think you said in some instances when you use a suction cannula, that part of the fetus or the umbilical cord will come out through the cervix. Then what do you do at that point? ******* A. Well, if the umbilical cord comes down, I unattach that from its integrity. I just break it and pull on it. If a foot comes down, I grab the foot and pull down on that. ******* Q. If no part comes down, as a result of the suction, what do you do? ******* A. Then I have to place the ring forceps up into the uterus and find a part. ******* Q. And is there a particular part that you're trying to grasp, at that point? ******* A. I take whatever I can get, because I have really -- I have a feel of when you feel the cranium of the head, but that's about the only thing I have a feel of when you grasp until you pull it down. … I just pull down with the forceps and, you know, see what part you have, and see if you can get more of that part out. If you get more of the part out, you twist to try to get more tissue out. If that doesn't happen, then you pull hard enough that it will disarticulate at that point or break off at that point. ******* Q. Do you have other concerns, when you find yourself in that situation, to cause you to use forceps to compress the skull? ******* A. As I mentioned earlier, my preference is that when I use a suction, my preference is that I obtain the umbilical cord and separate the umbilical cord. The one thing that I want--and I don't want the staff to have to deal with is to have a fetus that you remove and have some viability to it, some movement of limbs, because it's always a difficult situation. ******* Q. So one of the reasons that you use the forceps is to compress the skull is to ensure that the fetus is dead when you remove it? ******* A. That's one of the reasons. ******* Q. ....what actions do you take during a D & E that would be fatal to the fetus? ******* A. Well, number one, I like to interrupt the umbilical cord. Number two, we are working on a young gestation, but that's not to do it. And we break up parts in the uterus and we crush skulls. ******* Q. Can you tell the Court how often the fetus comes through entirely intact, without you having to do anything more to remove it? ******* A. It happens about two to five times a year. And in those situations, it will occur one of two ways. One is that the ladies has had some labor up to that point. And when I remove the speculum, the laminaria and sponges from the vagina, she'll already have a foot in the vagina or two feet in the vagina. That's one of the times it happens. And the other time it happens is when I reach up and deliberately grasp for something. I will get a foot, bring it down, and the whole body will come down. And it happens about two to five times a year. ******* Q. And in that situation, is the entire fetus coming out or is it any part of it remaining in the uterus? Is the head -- ******* A. It can happen either way. I would say one time out of those that I will pull and everything will come out. I'll pull and twist and everything will come out. And probably two or three times, I'll have to pull and the head will get stuck against the cervix. So I'll have to use my ring forceps and crush the skull. ******* Q. So other than drugs or making incisions in the cervix, could you simply detach the head at that point? ******* A. I guess you could, but then you would have to find it. … ******* Q. Does it every happen that you would disarticulate a piece of the fetus, and then on the next pass, bring out the remainder of the fetus, except for the head? ******* A. Its happened that way, disarticulated up to a knee joint. You grab the next grasp and you brought most everything out. ******* Q. But some of them are alive at the time you do the procedure? ******* A. The majority of them are alive at the time. ******* EXCERPTS FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DR. FITZHUGH: ******* Q. So when you're doing the D & E procedure that you do, you expect dismemberment to occur; is that correct? ******* A. It happens in the majority of cases, not expected, but it sure would be nice if it happened more often. ******* Q. When there have been instances where the -- you have been doing a D & E and the fetus has come out intact, have you been aware of reactions from others in the operating room? ******* [Here counsel for the plaintiffs entered an objection, which the Court overruled.] ******* A. Yes, they certainly show more interest in that when it happens than they do on a routine situation. ******* Q. In fact, they gasp, don't they, when that kind of thing happens? ******* A. Some of them gasp, yes, sir. ******* Q. Your impression in those situations is that they were probably having a harder time dealing with that situation; is that correct? ******* A. Yes, sir. ******* EXCERPTS FROM ABORTION DOCTORS' DIRECT EXAMINATION OF DR. JILL VIBHAKAR: ******* Q. And after the grasp part passes through the cervix, what typically happens then? ******* A. At some point, the more proximal part of the fetus that remains in the uterus becomes too large to fit through the cervix, and so it becomes, pulls apart from the rest of the body and becomes -- or it becomes disarticulated. ******* Q. Okay. Is there an average number of times that you reach into the uterus? .... ******* A. No. It generally requires multiple passes. ******* Q. And have you had any situations where the fetus is not necessarily coming out feet first but where part of the fetal trunk past the naval has come outside the mother? ******* A. Yes, . . . the upper extremity is removed included [sic] the shoulder area, and sometimes when--sometimes when we are doing the D & E, some of the first things that are removed are maybe a portion of skin from the trunk or even ribs or other trunk contents. ******* Q. And can the fetus still be living in that it has a heartbeat or other signs of life at that time? ******* A. Possibly, yes. ******* Q. Do you know when the removal of the fetus, fetal demise occurs? ******* A. No, I don't. ******* Q. Is there any clinical significance to when you cause fetal demise during the procedure? ******* A. Not in my opinion. ******* EXCERPTS FROM GOVERNMENT'S CROSS EXAMINATION OF DR. VIBHAKAR: ******* Q. Okay. When the head was struck, you disarticulated the body from the head; is that correct? ******* A. Yes. ******* Q. And you removed the body, compressed the head and removed the head; is that correct? ******* A. Yes. ******* Q. And in decompressing the skull, you're trying to reduce its sides [sic] so it can fit through the cervix? ******* A. Yes. ******* Q. And when you are doing this, you're trying to remove skull pieces so the liquid brain will empty from the cranium and the head will decrease in size; is that correct? ******* A. And in compressing it, if it doesn't fit, and in my experience it hasn't fit without decompressing it in the process of crushing it or grasping it, it becomes punctured enough so that the cranial contents will drain, and then it will fit through the cervix. ******* A. ....There was one instance where one of our faculty who doesn't normally perform them agreed to perform one on the labor floor, and then her mother needed emergency surgery, and in order to allow her to be with her mother, I came off my maternal leave to complete the D & E, … ******* DAY THREE: Wednesday, March 31, 2004. ******* EXCERPTS FROM ABORTION DOCTORS' DIRECT EXAMINATION OF DR. WILLIAM KNORR: ******* Q. Can you tell the Court approximately how many abortions you performed last year? ******* A. Somewhere between five and six thousand. ******* Q. Of those, can you estimate how many were second trimester abortions? ******* A. Somewhere between 12 and 15%. ******* Q. Dr. Knorr, before you begin to remove the fetus during a D & E procedure, is the fetus typically alive? ******* A. . . . . the majority of the fetuses are alive. ******* Q. And you don't routinely induce fetal demise, as part of your second trimester abortion procedures, is that right? ******* A. That's right. Very rarely. ******* Q. And why not? ******* A. I just don't believe in it . I think that it's an extra procedure and, you know, we first have to remember, don't do any harm. ******* Q. When it happens and the fetus comes through the cervix except for the head, how do you proceed? ******* A. I first evaluate the cervix to see if I have enough room to slip a finger between the cervix and the fetal head, and if I can do that, I can then insert my crushing forcep around the head, crush the head and extract it. If the cervix if very tight, I can't do that, I will use a craniotomy procedure, will turn the fetus so the back is up and find the area that I want to open, and either with a finger, dialator or a scissor will open that area and gently pull down. That pressure alone is enough to empty the cranium and extract the head. ******* Q. And why don't you routinely do second trimester abortions by induction? ******* A. I don't really have the ability to do that. I cannot put a woman in the hospital where I have privileges and admit her for an elective abortion beyond 12 weeks of gestation, and even if I wanted to do 12 weeks and under, I can usually never find a nurse that will accompany me to the OR to do it. ******* EXCERPTS FROM GOVERNMENT'S CROSS EXAMINATION OF DR. KNORR: ******* Q. Also when you bring out a fetus in pieces, you make sure that you have got all the parts that you want; right? You kind of -- ******* A. Yes. ******* Q. You try and lay them out and put them back together as best you can to see if you have everything? ******* A. Not necessarily. Some of us keep track on the way out. ******* Q. Dr. Knorr, is the procedure you perform consistent with this definition in DX 651? ******* A. No. ******* Q. In what way? ******* A. Breech extraction of the body excepting the head, well, according to the way I do my procedure, that sometimes occurs. Partial evacuation of the intracranial contents of a living fetus to effect delivery of a dead but otherwise intact fetus, yes, I do do that. ******* Q. Doctor, when you do have an intact extraction and the head gets stuck at the cervical os and then you do something to bring the head out, you testified on direct that sometimes the fetus is alive before you open the skull? ******* A. Yes. ******* Q. Right. How can you tell? What signs of life are there? ******* A. Well, as I think I stated in my testimony, these fetuses are grossly obtuned, meaning that they have a lack of oxygen due to the tetanic contraction. They have some oxygen, there will be a fetal heartbeat, but they are generally limp. Does that answer your question? ******* CALIFORNIA CASE. ******* DAY ONE: Monday, March 29, 2004 ******* EXCERPTS FROM PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF AMERICA'S DIRECT EXAMINATION OF ITS LEAD WITNESS, DR. MAUREEN PAUL: ******* Q. And when you begin the evacuation, is the fetus ever alive? ******* A. Yes. ******* Q. How do you know that? ******* A. Because I do many of my procedures especially at 16 weeks under an ultrasound guidance, so I will see a heartbeat. ******* Q. Do you pay attention to that while you are doing the abortion? ******* A. Not particularly. I just notice sometimes. ******* Q. Okay. Does it every come out completely without the head becoming lodged? ******* A. Rarely it does. ******* Q. And you had said that sometimes when you apply traction to the fetus it comes out intact up to point where the calvarium lodges; is that correct? ******* A. Yes. ******* Q. In that circumstance, what do you do to complete the procedure? ******* A. Well, there are two things you can do. You can disarticulate at the neck, or what I prefer to do is to just reach in with my forceps and collapse the skull and bring the fetus out intact. ****** Q. You testified earlier, Dr. Paul, that the fetus can be alive when the evacuation begins; is that correct? ******* A. That's right. ******* Q. When in the course of the abortion does the fetus -- does fetal demise occur? ******* A. I don't know for sure. I certainly know that if I deliver intact and collapse the skull that demise occurs. ******* EXCERPTS FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DR. PAUL: ******* Q. In performing a D&E at 20 weeks gestational age and above, in your previous capacity, was there ever a time when you saw any indication that the fetus was experiencing pain? ******* A. I have no idea what that means. ******* DAY TWO: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 ******* EXCERPTS FROM PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA'S DIRECT EXAMINATION OF DR. KATHARINE SHEEHAN: ******* Q. Okay. So after you have assessed the fetal presentation, What do you do next? ******* A. Then, a cervical block of local anesthetic is placed around the cervix, and the amniotic sac is ruptured, allowing the amniotic fluid to flow out. And, then, using the forceps, I begin the procedure if extracting the fetal part. ******* Q. And how do you go about doing that? ******* A. I generally try using the ultrasound to find the small parts of the fetus, �small parts", being considered the extremities. I really prefer it if the lower extremities are presented first. I can grasp the lower extremities of the fetus, and using gentle traction, extract the tissue. ******* Q. And after you have done that, what do you have? What happens next? ******* A. I continue to put traction on the fetus tissue. If the cervix is adequately dilated, then the fetus will generally slide down through the cervix, and I continue to extract the tissue until it is completely extracted. If the cervix is not so well dilated, then disarticulation and dismemberment happens. ******* Q. So do you ever use a chemical agent to cause fetal demise? ******* A. Yes. ******* Q. What is that agent? ******* A. The agent is Digoxin. ******* Q. What is Digoxin? ******* A. Digoxin is the name for Digitalis, which is a cardiac medicine that is typically used for specific cardiac conditions, most typically heart failure. ******* Q. And at what gestational age do you use Digoxin? ******* A. We start using it at 22 weeks. ******* Q. Why do you choose 22 weeks? ******* A. We like to prevent an eventuality of a live birth, and because it seems to make the procedure move along a little bit easier on the day of the procedure. We administer the Digoxin with a needle through the abdominal wall of the woman intro the uterus. We are aiming to get it into the fetal heart, or at least into the fetal thorax. However, we are not able to do that every time. If we are not able to do that, then we attempt to put the Diogoxin into the amniotic fluid. And it seems to work less often when it is just put into the amniotic fluid. ******* Q. What percentage of time are you successful in getting the Digoxin into the fetal heart? ******* A. I would say approximately 50 percent. ******* Q. And what about the term "living fetus," what does that mean to you? ******* A. It would be a fetus that still has a heartbeat, and that would still apply to many of my cases. ******* Q. And in your practice do you bring the fetus to the point where the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the woman? ******* A. Yes, I do. That's what I mainly do. ******* Q. And that happens often? ******* A. Yes. ******* Q. You testified yesterday, I believe, that you have performed approximately 30,000 surgical abortions throughout your career? ******* A. That is my best guess. ******* EXCERPTS FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DR. SHEEHAN: ******* Q. Thank you. If I could read that to you, page 101 [of Dr. Sheehan's deposition], starting on line 22.and I should say first this question refers to your expert report; is that correct? ******* A. Uh-huh. ******* Q. Question: Could you describe, doctor, what you mean in paragraph 4 by your best efforts to remove the fetus intact? ******* Answer: I think I already described that, but what I attempt to do is to grasp the fetal feet with the instrument, and putting gentle traction on that fetal extremity, I try to tease the tissue down so that the fetus comes down feet first through the cervix, the pelvis and the thorax, and I actually get the arms out and just use gentle traction, rather than using the kind of crushing and compressing gestures that one would use to do the disarticulation. ******* Is that what you said? ******* A. Yes. ******* EXCERPTS FROM PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA'S DIRECT EXAMINATION OF DR. ELEANOR DREY: ******* Q. And was there a time frame of when [Digoxin] was given? ******* A. When we first started giving it, we always gave it at the time that we were doing our pre-operative evaluation, so that the patient would get the laminaria placed. And then, after that, she would have the Digoxin injection. At that time we were waiting two days with the laminaria in place. And, so, initially we were giving Digoxin two days before D&E. ******* Q. And did you ever change that procedure, that time schedule? ******* A. We did. What started happening was we had an unfortunate number of women who were spontaneously going into labor and delivering at hospitals sort of all over the bay area, and it was distressing to everyone. *********************************************************************************************************************** ******* item 3 PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION NOT SAFE FOR WOMEN ******* Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 ******* Subject: LifeNews.com Pro-Life Report 4/07/04 #3228 ******* From: "Steven Ertelt" ******* LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Report ******* Omaha, NE (LifeNews.com) -- The Bush administration began its defense of the partial-birth abortion ban at the Nebraska trial with two doctors saying that partial-birth abortions are not safe for women and studies have never validated abortion advocates claims to the contrary. The federal government is defending the ban in three separate trials of lawsuits filed by pro-abortion groups and abortion businesses. Each of the lawsuits alleges the ban is unconstitutional because it fails to contain a health exception. But Dr. George Mazariegos, of Children's Hospital in Pittsburgh, said studies should be conducted to ascertain whether a new surgical procedure is safe. Mazariegos said no such study has ever been done regarding the abortion procedure. Dr. Watson Bowes, a retired University of North Carolina School of Medicine physician agreed. Bowes said that not only are partial-birth abortions unnecessary to protect a woman's health, they are not safe for women. http://www.lifenews.com/nat426.html ************************************************************************************************************************ ******* item 4 ABORTIONISTS PROVIDE THE MOST GRAPHIC TESTIMONY AT ABORTION BAN TRIAL ******* Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 ******* Subject: LifeNews.com Pro-Life Report 4/07/04 #3228 ******* From: "Steven Ertelt" ******* LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Report ******* Lincoln, NE (LifeNews.com) -- Abortion advocacy groups have long derided the pro-life movement's medical drawings of the partial-birth abortion procedure, saying the photos are too graphic to be shown. However, the abortion practitioners themselves have offered some of the most graphic and unsettling descriptions of what happens during a partial-birth abortion. Testifying last week at the Nebraska trial -- one of three ongoing trials of lawsuits seeking to overturn the partial-birth abortion ban -- Carhart, who admitted he is not a board certified doctor, offered some of the most graphic descriptions yet about the death of a baby during the procedure. To read his accounts of how he dismembers an unborn child during the middle stages of pregnancy, go to http://www.lifenews.com/nat428.html. ******* For news updated throughout the day, visit www.LifeNews.com *********************************************************************************************************************** ******* item 5 ABORTIONIST ADMITS PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION CAN HURT OR KILL WOMEN ******* Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 ******* Subject: LifeNews.com Pro-Life Report 4/07/04 #3228 ******* From: "Steven Ertelt" ******* LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Report ******* San Francisco, CA (LifeNews.com) -- An anonymous abortion practitioner testifying at the partial-birth abortion trial in San Francisco admitted something pro-life advocates have known for a long time -- abortion can kill women. Justice Department attorney Mark Thomas Quinlivan asked the abortionist whether partial-birth abortions can possible perforation or laceration of the cervix, the lower uterine segment, or the uterus. The abortion practitioner said yes. Then, according to the court's transcript, Quinlivan questioned whether those damages to a woman cause a woman to "exsanguinate and die." "Yes," came the response again. "Can you tell us what exsanguinate means," the attorney asked. "To bleed to death, the abortionist said. http://www.lifenews.com/nat429.html ***********************************************************************************************************************

Links to other sites on the Web

(A4e3a1a1f) (A) home page

The following warning is a prophetic message given to me, Frank Wagner, in November of 1974. ******* LISTEN TO THE CRY OF THE ABORTED CHILDREN. THEIR CRY IS NO. THEIR CRY IS A CRY OF TERROR. HEED THEIR CRY. ******* This prophecy is now being fulfilled. ******* For details about the source, meaning and fulfillment of this prophetic message go to ******* http://ca.geocities.com/fwagner4/index.html ******* email me at *** [email protected] ***