Abortion Decision: Court Should Not Take Away Patient's Choice

[question everything]

The Wall Street Journal

Abortion Decision: Court Should Not Take Away Patient's Choice
April 27, 2007; Page A15

(snip)

1. Intact Dialation and Extraction is the scientific description of the procedure banned in the 2003 bill that the Supreme Court upheld as constitutional last week. What was omitted in your editorial is that it is often the safest procedure for late-term abortions, as less instrumentation is required than for its alternatives. Most people on all sides of the debate agree that late-term abortions are painful and difficult on all levels. Also, they occur rarely, usually when extreme fetal abnormalities are diagnosed too late in the pregnancy for other procedures. Any invasive procedure can be described as gruesome; most are done when medical wisdom together with that of the patient believe the alternatives to be worse. Know anyone who has volunteered to have a limb amputated, or choose it lightly? Aware of the grizzly details of the surgery, would they not proceed with their eyes on that lesser of other evils? Your support of peoples' personal objections to this procedure over the rights of families to make medical choices with qualified doctors, and your implied agreement with moral decisions of governments taking precedence over individual freedom, lost you any high ground. It is an easy leap to read into your editorial that your trust and respect of doctors and families is way below that of our government.

2. As for your advocating that the high court repeal the Roe and Stenberg decisions as well and send the debate back to the states, with your prognosis that liberal abortion laws would be enacted, the facts are instructive. Only 10 states have constitutional protections for reproductive choice; 30 states have pre-Roe bans, or more recent bans on the books. These may or may not be repealed or amended. Only 25 states have the referendum option that South Dakota has, and used to override one of the most restrictive laws in the country last November. Some states already have drafted very restrictive bills or outright bans that are waiting in the wings. The ripple effect of changes in the Supreme Court's composition is palpable: In 2004, prior to the Roberts and Alito appointments, two state bans were introduced. Since then, 14 state bans have been proposed. I question your conclusion that the Kennedy opinion has very narrow implications.

Jackie Merrill
Pitkin County, Colo.

I'm not surprised but very disappointed in your position supporting the Supreme Court's ban on certain late abortions. You try to make the case that this was a limited decision and that it does not represent an anti-Roe v. Wade direction for the court. You may be correct that Roe will not disappear soon, but it is very obvious that this is what the conservative element of the court desires. While criticizing the "extremes" of the abortion debate, you then use inflammatory language characteristic of the extreme pro-life faction to describe the late-term procedure as "gruesome."

No physician likes late-term abortions, and they are performed rarely. The decision to perform emotionally difficult medical procedures is made after considerable thought by educated physicians with two considerations in mind, the safety and health of the patient. Do you really think that lawyers and our government know better? Where is your respect for both the physician and patient? To believe that the court should decide the fate of a woman's safety and well-being is to demean both the doctor and the patient.

As a physician (not a gynecologist), I certainly do not want my government second-guessing my decisions. The next time you have a medical problem and decide to call your lawyer instead of your physician, be my guest.

Barry C. Baron, M.D.
San Francisco
URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117764187716284435.html (subscription)

[Solo_in_MD]

1. That only doctors should decide is the wrong road to take

IIRC there was a doctor performing what it called the "Love Operation". It mutilated women, not quite FGM, but close. There are other horror stories out there, including doctors from certain cultural areas working with husbands/families to force certain procedures on women. Doctors, just because they have a license to practice, are not absolute.

The right answer is Federal legislation. Abortion needs to be taken away from the courts and localities and move to a clear national standard. Anything else is a serious step backwards.