Remembering the Pre-Roe Days

Before I start out describing how an abortion works, I always make sure that the woman knows enough about her reproductive organs to understand what I'm talking about when I say uterus or cervix. When I sat down with Amy yesterday, she looked that the 3-D model I was using to describe anatomy and said, "I know that this might be a gross question, but I've been doing some research on the internet. What I want to know is--where did the hanger go?"

We went on to have a great conversation about what it was like for women before abortion was legal. In her honor, I want to put up this essay from the New York Times. This was published a few months back and I've been meaning to find an excuse to post it.

Repairing the Damage, Before Roe
by Waldo L. Fielding, M.D.

With the Supreme Court becoming more conservative, many people who support women’s right to choose an abortion fear that Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that gave them that right, is in danger of being swept aside.

When such fears arise, we often hear about the pre-Roe “bad old days.” Yet there are few physicians today who can relate to them from personal experience. I can.

I am a retired gynecologist, in my mid-80s. My early formal training in my specialty was spent in New York City, from 1948 to 1953, in two of the city’s large municipal hospitals.

There I saw and treated almost every complication of illegal abortion that one could conjure, done either by the patient herself or by an abortionist — often unknowing, unskilled and probably uncaring. Yet the patient never told us who did the work, or where and under what conditions it was performed. She was in dire need of our help to complete the process or, as frequently was the case, to correct what damage might have been done.

The patient also did not explain why she had attempted the abortion, and we did not ask. This was a decision she made for herself, and the reasons were hers alone. Yet this much was clear: The woman had put herself at total risk, and literally did not know whether she would live or die.

This, too, was clear: Her desperate need to terminate a pregnancy was the driving force behind the selection of any method available.

The familiar symbol of illegal abortion is the infamous “coat hanger” — which may be the symbol, but is in no way a myth. In my years in New York, several women arrived with a hanger still in place. Whoever put it in — perhaps the patient herself — found it trapped in the cervix and could not remove it.

We did not have ultrasound, CT scans or any of the now accepted radiology techniques. The woman was placed under anesthesia, and as we removed the metal piece we held our breath, because we could not tell whether the hanger had gone through the uterus into the abdominal cavity. Fortunately, in the cases I saw, it had not.

However, not simply coat hangers were used.

Almost any implement you can imagine had been and was used to start an abortion — darning needles, crochet hooks, cut-glass salt shakers, soda bottles, sometimes intact, sometimes with the top broken off.

Another method that I did not encounter, but heard about from colleagues in other hospitals, was a soap solution forced through the cervical canal with a syringe. This could cause almost immediate death if a bubble in the solution entered a blood vessel and was transported to the heart.

The worst case I saw, and one I hope no one else will ever have to face, was that of a nurse who was admitted with what looked like a partly delivered umbilical cord. Yet as soon as we examined her, we realized that what we thought was the cord was in fact part of her intestine, which had been hooked and torn by whatever implement had been used in the abortion. It took six hours of surgery to remove the infected uterus and ovaries and repair the part of the bowel that was still functional.

It is important to remember that Roe v. Wade did not mean that abortions could be performed. They have always been done, dating from ancient Greek days.

What Roe said was that ending a pregnancy could be carried out by medical personnel, in a medically accepted setting, thus conferring on women, finally, the full rights of first-class citizens — and freeing their doctors to treat them as such.

Waldo L. Fielding was an obstetrician and gynecologist in Boston for 38 years. He is the author of “Pregnancy: The Best State of the Union” (Thomas Y. Crowell, 1971).

Comments

[steph]

But you better believe more will rise to take his place, Pandora. Terrorism won't stop us.

[Pandora]

"George Tiller performs an incredible service for women who are in a crisis pregnancy who often risk their health and their lives by trying to have a very wanted child. He performs untold procedures for women who are unable to pay for the incredibly expensive terminations."

Not any more, he doesn't.

[Дизайн каталога]

I can't imagine being so desperate that you put something sharp up your vajayjay. But clearly many, many, many women were. It makes me so sad we're getting close to returning to that era.

[judith Krain]

RTL supporters are generally not physicians. If they were, they would tell you that the D&X procedure is a safe procedure that eliminates the possibility of uterine perforation for each of the 4 or 5 times the physician would otherwise have to dismember the fetus in utero.

George Tiller performs an incredible service for women who are in a crisis pregnancy who often risk their health and their lives by trying to have a very wanted child. He performs untold procedures for women who are unable to pay for the incredibly expensive terminations.

People who believe that a woman can and should make her own reproductive choices do not force others to have abortions. Anti-abortion people want to force women to carry an unwanted or unhealthy pregnancy to term. Pregnancy is not a punishment and should not be treated as such.

The world has always had abortion on demand. However, since Roe, women are no longer dying in the thousands in septic wards all over the US. Legal abortion is now safe. But if the zanies succeed in imposing their beliefs on others, women will die, again.

[marsha]

I am still overjoyed I had the abortion. That child would not have been happy if born.

[Pandora]

Ah yes, the Guttmacher Institute .... a source of unbiased information about abortion. Yes indeed .....

[Mellankelly]

Regarding the "abortion after rape only causes more trauma" comment, I terminated a pregnancy that was the result of rape and have experienced only positive feelings in regard to my abortion (I would do it again under those same circumstances.) Over the years I've been so outspoken about my positive experience with abortion that I've met many women who share these feelings. I've also met women who gestated rape-related pregnancies and decided to either a) give up for adoption or b) raise the child themselves. Regardless of how these women feel about their personal decisions, they would never dream of taking this choice away from any other woman. I think that the bottom line is that each individual woman needs to decide for herself what the best course of action regarding an unwanted pregnancy is. We need to trust these women and support them, whatever their choice may be.

[BJSurvivor]

The Elliott Institute is crackpot, forced-birther pseudo-science. Here's a place to start for true scientific evidence: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/09/3/gpr090308.html

[SoMG]

Julie, the "Eliot Institute" is a fraud. It's a post-office box. No serious researcher even bothers to read their table of contents.

And "post-abortion syndrome" is being enormously and systematically exaggerated. Including efforts by RTLs to recruit women who have negative feelings about their abortions, and convince them to medicalize those feelings.

[Julie]

Hello and sorry for the off topic post. But on a yahoo abortion discussion board, a "pro lifer" once again brought up the claim abortion after rape only causes more trauma. She posted an article from the Eliot Institute which cited "studies" that looked suspiciously thin.
But I can't find any credible medical information even on google. Virtually every site is a "pro life" or anti-abortion site that repeats this claim. Are there any medically credible sites which HAVE addressed this issue? Perhaps you could do a blog post on it. Thanks for listening.

[SoMG]

Sorry, there's a typo in my post--I posted the link to Nathanson's pro-terror-murder comment in parentheses and your site thinks that the close-parenthesis-character is part of the link. Just get rid of that character and the link will work.

[SoGM]

Sorry for another off-topic post and I won't be offended if you decide to delete it, BUT:

I assume you’re all familiar with Catholic Former-Abortionist Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who created the short propaganda film SILENT SCREAM. But did you know he supports killing abortion docs? I didn’t know that either until I read the following:

“If [Paul] Hill had caught Dr. Britton in the act of commencing an abortion (which is, after all a lethal assault on a human being-I am one of those who draws [sic] no moral distinction between the born and the unborn), then he would have been correct in interposing his body between Dr. Britton and the unborn, and if necessary defending the unborn with the use of lethal force if Britton was determined to proceed with his assault. But such was not the case. Hill acted violently, not in a directly intercessory manner,… ” from (http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9412/articles/killing.html)

In other words, Paul Hill’s murder was wrong because… he should have waited until his victim was actually at work.

Here's an idea for improving the image of the Catholic Church: Dr. Nathanson should be immediately excommunicated. Does the Catholic Church WANT members who support murderous anti-abortion terrorism? If you had a piece of Jesus’ feces, would you eat it?

[SoMG]

Also, lots of stuff on the web about Obama's opposition to the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act. And really, belated congratulations are due to RTLs for passing it into law.

BAIPA is accomplishing the same thing the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban has accomplished, but the scope is wider. What the PBA ban has accomplished is this: docs doing post-viability abortions now kill the fetus in utero and document its death before starting to take it out. Now because of BAIPA docs are preventing accidental live births by adopting the same change in protocol for NEAR-viability abortions (middle of second trimester) as well.

Late-termers like Dr. Tiller kill in utero by injecting arythmiogenic drugs or salts directly into the fetus' heart through a long needle guided by ultrasound. Earlier in pregnancy when the fetus is smaller it's harder to hit the heart so cruder methods may be necessary. You want to minimize bleeding so the best way is probably to go into the uterus with a laproscope and jam the tip up the fetus' nose into the brain.

Congratulations again to RTLs on BAIPA and all it has accomplished for the unborn!!!!

[SoMG]

Hi Afrodie, yes, I got the pfli site from PZ. I am a fan of PZ, I agree with him on most questions, but I object to him selectively desecrating a Catholic sacred symbol but not a Muslim one (translations of the Koran are not sacred to Muslims, only the original Arabic text). This lends credence to the pernicious idea that religions can achieve respect, or at least respectful treatment, by means of plausible threats of violence. It encourages fatwas and fatwa-envy.

Lots of stuff in the papers today about Catholics and abortion. For my part, I very much hope the Church will excommunicate all pro-choice Americans. Then we could do something about getting rid of the few Catholics who would remain. A single gas chamber might be enough! (Ba-dum bump).

[Aphrodie]

@SoMG:

Are you a fan of PZ Meyer's blog? I noticed that your comment was made the same day that PZ mentioned the Pharmacists for Life organization ("http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/09/he_doesnt_know_me_very_well_do.php").

All I can say is WHAT. THE. FARK. How can anyone be against contraceptives? Many even prevent cervical and uterine cancers and can help women with low iron anemia. Banning contraceptives isn't pro-Life, it's anti-Woman. No doubt about that. It's one hundred percent utter bullshit that an organization can say, "sorry women! You are unqualified to make choices about your own health!" and keep a straight face.

[SoMG]

Thanks for allowing my off-topic post. Here's an on-topic one.

My Mom had FOUR illegal abortions before Roe/Wade.

RTLs these days like to point out that the black market was less dangerous than it has been made out to be, and that most illegal abortions were (probably) done by doctors in their offices.

Probably true, but what this means is that the bans were not well-enforced.

Using "it won't be enforced" as a talking point for a proposed law is not good argument.

[NewsCat]

I cannot even describe how uncomfortable reading those descriptions made me. I can't imagine being so desperate that you put something sharp up your vajayjay. But clearly many, many, many women were. It makes me so sad we're getting close to returning to that era.

[SoMG]

I apologise for posting an off-topic comment but I MUST vent.

I just visited the Pharmacists for Life website. http://www.pfli.org/

You'd expect a professional pharmacists' organization, dedicating to protecting its members from being forced to violate their consciences, to have a serious-looking web site and to discuss its issues in a professional manner, right? Not this one.

They repeatedly refer to Obama as "Barrie Hussein." They call pro-choicers "abortoholics". And they refer to Planned Parenthood as "Klan Parenthood".

What a bunch of little kids! If I were a RTL pharmacist I'd feel insulted.

[Aphrodine]

Wow. Sometimes there are just no words... My hearts really go out to those women in the pre-Roe days.

I mean... damn. I couldn't even imagine what that's like.