Repairing the Damage, Before Roe
By WALDO L. FIELDING, M.D.
NYT
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.
(Continued here.)
NYT
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.
(Continued here.)
1 Comments:
As I read this article in concert with the other news of the day, it reminds us that the Supreme Court will soon weigh in on the Roe-v-Wade debate.
The solution is obvious – make it a campaign issue … McCain & Coleman have already. So, why shouldn’t Obama ?
In fact, when you think that Bush election strategy was to tell his supporters that he would nominate “strict constructionists”, why shouldn’t Obama prime his voters the same way … but go one step further … name the next nominee.
Senator Hillary Clinton.
Clinton’s negatives are so high that putting her on the ticket will only help the Republicans and force Obama to have Clinton(s) hanging around his administration. (Besides, how can you put her on the ticket, when she said that McCain was qualified to be Commander in Chief and that she was … but Obama was too inexperienced.) She doesn’t want to sit as the Junior Senator from New York … especially if the Senate does not have 60 Democrats. But on the Supreme Court, she could influence our country’s laws … and set a legacy. Besides, when Obama does have his first slot to fill, won’t he have to fill it with a woman … and there is no way that the Senate would reject one of its members.
Post a Comment
<< Home