Abortion Choice

Woman‟s # 1 Social Issue:
Abortion

I thought
abortion
was about
Roe v. Wade

But it‟s not.
It‟s about choice.

Choice to continue a
wanted pregnancy
or
Choice to abort an
unwanted child

Abortion is also
about
wounded women.

And about their
unborn children.
Who were conceived at
no fault of their own.

It is about providing
equal
Healthcare to both.

I have spent the last 31 years
caring for children.
Some as small as 1 pound,
as much as 4 months
premature. And they were as
deserving of medical care as
any other child.

In the past, as I cared for these tiny
premature infants, I thought, as we
fought to keep them alive, and
their parents cried for fear of
loosing them, that under the
Roe v Wade ruling, these small
children could be aborted, if still
in uteroand unwanted.

The difference – birth
or abortion –
is whether the
pregnancy is wanted
or unwanted.

I am a pediatrician.
My patients call me
Dr Fred

My dad was also a pediatrician.
His last written words to me,
though he probably did not realize
they were,
was about abortion:

“I do not understand how
they permit them [physicians]
to do it [abortion]
and how
there could be physicians
willing
to do this!”

It is really not about
choice -
It is about a mother and
her unborn child – how
can one choose between
them?

Roe v. Wade
I always though if I could
make people see crucial
evidence which was left out in
1973, then Roe v Wade
would be overturned.
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_18/
(Link for arguments on audio)

I have the evidence which
makes this judicial
decision incredulous
– just review the following
slides.

Roe v. Wade
Document from CQ Press's
Encyclopedia of U.S. Political History

“By 1970, the question of
whether and how to change
abortion laws had emerged as
one of the most divisive
political issues in American
history.”

“Throughout most of U.S. history,
abortion was both a taboo topic and
rare in reality. It was never considered
to be a political issue. Even the
nineteenth-centuryfeminists were
unanimous in denouncing abortion as
„child murder‟ and demanding
increasingly strong measures against
it.”
Document from CQ Press's Encyclopedia of U.S. Political History

U.S. Supreme Court
ROE V. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
410 U.S. 113
ROE ET AL. v. WADE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF DALLAS
COUNTY  APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF  TEXAS
No. 70-18.   Argued December 13, 1971 Reargued October
11, 1972  Decided January 22, 1973

A pregnant single woman (Roe) brought a class action
challenging the constitutionality of the Texas criminal
abortion laws, which proscribe procuring or attempting
an abortion except on medical advice for the purpose
of saving the mother's life.

The Court concluded
existing abortion statutes
violated the constitutional
rights of pregnant women
based on
the 14 th Amendment.

And the Court interpreted
the 14th Amendment to

deny the unborn
protection – due to not
being “born”

US Constitution
14th Amendment
Section 1.  
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizensof the
United States and of the State wherein they reside.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any State deprive any person
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Born in US = Citizen (not “Person”)
• 14th Amendment defined a “citizen” to be a
person born in the United States or a naturalized
person -- using the term born to distinguish from
those not born in the US.
• 14th Amendment also deliniated the rights of
a person who is a citizen of the United States.
• 14th Amendment did not define “person”,
specifically; it did not specify being born as
necessary prerequisite to be considered a person.

The Court concluded that the 14th
Amendment excluded the unborn as
citizens protected - like their mothers -
by this Amendment because they were
not yet born.
Born to the Court therefore was a
requirement for protection under the
14th Amendment.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary
http://www.merriam-webster.com/

Origin of PERSON:

Middle English, from Anglo-French persone, from
Latin persona actor's mask, character in a play,
person, probably from Etruscan phersu mask,
from Greek prosōpa, plural of prosōpon face,
mask.

First Known Use: 13th Century.

Can you identify the human person?

Human face Not Human face

Face of an unborn
child: – Human Face

http://www.sandcastlefetalpics.com/images/LROWELL10.JPG

Constitutional Rights of the Unborn –
Inheritance Laws
Regarding inheritance the U.S. Supreme Court in
1884 McArthur v. Scottruled in favor of "The plaintiffs
in the present case, being as yet unborn," regarding
"the will of their grandfather..." Similarly, in their 1972
Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. case, in which
the youngest "child was born posthumously," that is
after the father's death, the court ruled that the case
"requires equality of treatment between two classes of
persons," in this case, between legitimate and
illegitimate offspring, and for both born and unborn,
as late as a year before Roe, the court recognized the
inheritance rights of the unborn child.

Constitutional Rights of the Unborn –
Homicide Laws
• in 1891 the U.S. Supreme Court in Union Pacific Railway Co. v.
Botsford, … a woman convicted of a capital crime would be examined
for pregnancy, "in order to guard against the taking of the life of an
unborn child for the crime of the mother.”

• As of April 2012, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws. The
states include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California,
Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West
Virginia and Wisconsin. At least 23 states have fetal homicide laws
that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation,"
"conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization”) .
-The National Conference of State Legislatures

The 1973 Court claimed:
Our task, of course, is to resolve the issue by
constitutional measurement, free of emotion
and of predilection. We seek earnestly to do
this, and, because we do, we [410 U.S. 113,
117] have inquired into, and in this opinion
place some emphasis upon, medical and
medical-legal history and what that history
reveals about man's attitudes toward the
abortion procedure over the centuries.

Instead: “The Court drew on two articles by
law professor Cyril Means Jr., then the
general counsel of the National
Association for the Reform of Abortion
Laws (now NARAL Pro-Choice America)
to develop their legal decision.
The Court relied uncritically on Means's
work, citing him seven times and no other
historian more than once.”
from CQ Press's Encyclopedia of U.S. Political History

Case Name: ROE V. WADE, 410 U.S. 113
VI
2. THE HIPPOCRATIC OATH.
WHAT THEN OF THE FAMOUS OATH THAT HAS
STOOD SO LONG AS THE ETHICAL GUIDE OF THE
MEDICAL PROFESSION AND THAT BEARS THE
NAME OF THE GREAT GREEK (460(?)-377(?)B.C.),
WHO HAD BEEN DESCRIBED AS THE FATHER OF
MEDICINE, THE "WISEST AND THE GREATEST
PRACTITIONER OF HIS ART," AND THE "MOST
IMPORTANT AND MOST COMPLETE MEDICAL
PERSONALITY OF ANTIQUITY," WHO DOMINATED
THE MEDICAL SCHOOLS OF HIS TIME, AND WHO
TYPIFIED THE SUM OF THE MEDICAL KNOWLEDGE
OF THE PAST? /13/

THE OATH VARIES SOMEWHAT
ACCORDING TO THE PARTICULAR
TRANSLATION,
BUT IN ANY TRANSLATION THE
CONTENT IS CLEAR:
"I WILL GIVE NO DEADLY MEDICINE
TO ANYONE IF ASKED, NOR SUGGEST
ANY SUCH COUNSEL; AND IN LIKE
MANNERI WILL NOT GIVE TO A
WOMAN A PESSARY TO PRODUCE
ABORTION," /14/

Court dismisses Hippocratic Oath
“THE LATE DR. EDELSTEIN PROVIDES
US WITH A THEORY…THAT THE
OATH ORIGINATED IN A GROUP
REPRESENTING ONLY A SMALL
SEGMENT OF GREEK OPINION AND
THAT IT CERTAINLY WAS NOT
ACCEPTED BY ALL ANCIENT
PHYSICIANS...
THIS, IT SEEMS TO US [The Court], IS A
SATISFACTORY AND ACCEPTABLE
EXPLANATION OF THE HIPPOCRATIC
OATH'S APPARENT RIGIDITY.”

So it appears the 1973 Court dismissed “THE
OATH THAT STOOD SO LONG [Over
2000 years] AS THE ETHICAL GUIDE
OF THE MEDICAL PROFESSION,”
based on the “theory,” and opinion of one
single medical historian - Professor
Ludwig Edelstein (1902-1965).

ManyBriefs Of Amici Curiae presented:

WERE FILED BY GARY K. NELSON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ARIZONA, ROBERT K.
KILLIAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CONNECTICUT, ED W. HANCOCK, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF KENTUCKY, CLARENCE A. H. MEYER, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
NEBRASKA, AND VERNON B. ROMNEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF UTAH; BY JOSEPH
P. WITHERSPOON, JR., FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF TEXAS DIOCESAN ATTORNEYS;
BY CHARLES E. RICE FOR AMERICANS UNITED FOR LIFE; BY EUGENE J. MCMAHON
FOR WOMEN FOR THE UNBORN ET AL.;
BY CAROL RYAN FOR THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS AND
GYNECOLOGISTS ET AL.; BY DENNIS J. HORAN, JEROME A. FRAZEL, JR., THOMAS M.
CRISHAM, AND DOLORES V. HORAN FOR CERTAIN PHYSICIANS, PROFESSORS AND
FELLOWS OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY;
BY HARRIET F. PILPEL, NANCY F.WECHSLER, AND FREDERIC S. NATHAN FOR
PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA, INC., ET AL.; BY ALAN F.
CHARLES FOR THE NATIONAL LEGAL PROGRAM ON HEALTH PROBLEMS OF THE
POOR ET AL.; BY MARTTIE L. THOMPSON FOR STATE COMMUNITIES AID ASSN.;
BY ALFRED L. SCANLAN, MARTIN J. FLYNN, AND ROBERT M. BYRN FOR THE
NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE COMMITTEE; BY HELEN L. BUTTENWIESER FOR THE
AMERICAN ETHICAL UNION ET AL.; BY NORMA G. ZARKY FOR THE AMERICAN
ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY WOMEN ET AL.; BY NANCY STEARNS FOR NEW
WOMEN LAWYERS ET AL.; BY THE CALIFORNIA COMMITTEE TO LEGALIZE
ABORTION ET AL.; AND BY ROBERT E. DUNNE FOR ROBERT L. SASSONE.

Two main briefs were considered:
• by Carol Ryan for the American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists et al.; by
Dennis J. Horan, Jerome A. Frazel, Jr., Thomas
M. Crisham, and Dolores V. Horan for Certain
Physicians, Professors and Fellows of the
American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology;

• by Harriet F. Pilpel, Nancy F. Wechsler, and
Frederic S. Nathan for Planned Parenthood
Federation of America, Inc., et al.

Apparently the 2001 publication shown
on the next 3 slides suggests the
American College of Obstetricians
and Gynecologists
was rushed into contributing to an
amicus curiae and it did not
necessarily reflect the true position of
this organization.

And there was no Brief of amici curiae
by the American Academy of Pediatrics
• Did the only American medical organization
committed to advocate for the rights of all
children not have any opinion on Roe v.
Wade?
• Was Roe v. Wade beyond the purview of the
American Academy of Pediatrics?
• Was there no organization committed to
protect the rights of the unborn in the United
States in 1973?

The letter on the next
2 slides shows
the American Academy of
Pediatrics
did not speak out.

“WE
DID NOT
SAY ANYTHING!”
John Zwicky, PhD
AAP Founding Archivist (1994-2009)
Pediatric History Center

John Zwicky, Ph.D., AAP
The founding archivist of the AAP Pediatric History Center

Died of cancer March 10, 2009. He was 62. AAP archivist since 1994, John
was well-known to AAP staff and Fellows during his tenure. Active in local
and national archival organizations, John held leadership positions in the
Society of American Archivists Science, Technology & Healthcare
Roundtable and the Chicago Area Medical Archivists.
“He was passionate about history and always relished the
opportunity to dig deeper into the archives of the Academy or
pediatrics.”
His work is reflected in the center‟s collection at: www.aap.org/ research/
history.htm.

As stated, the 1973 Court
asserted:
“The unborn have never
been recognized in the law as
persons in the whole sense.”

And the 1973 Court‟s decision states:
“We need not resolvethe difficult
question of when life begins. When those
trained in the respective disciplines of
medicine, philosophy, and theology are
unable to arrive at any consensus, the
judiciary, at this point in the development
of man's knowledge, is not in a position to
speculate as to the answer. [410 U.S. 113,
160]”

Did the Court not consider there
was a medical organization with
specific interest for the rights of
all children, including the
unborn?

The American Academy of Pediatrics was founded
on June 24, 1930 by 35 pediatricians who met in
Detroit at Harper Hospital in response to the need
for an independent pediatric forum to address
children‟s needs.

The Academy has always had as its primary purpose
“The attainment by all children of the Americas of
their full potential for physical, emotional and
social health.”

“The Academy did not want to be another
scientific society, but an advocacy group.”

Did the Court not realize the AAP had a Policy
on the unborn?

AGE LIMITS OF PEDIATRICS

The purview of pediatrics includes
the growth, development, and health of the child
and therefore begins in the period prior to birth
when conception is apparent.

COUNCIL ON CHILD HEALTH

PEDIATRICS, Vol. 49, No.3, March 1972

Recall the Court‟s stated task:
“Our task, of course, is to resolve the issue by
constitutional measurement, free of emotion
and of predilection. We seek earnestly to do
this,and, because we do, we [410 U.S. 113,
117] have inquired into, and in this opinion
place some emphasis upon, medical and
medical-legal historyand what that history
reveals about man's attitudes toward the
abortion procedure over the centuries.”

The argument could be made the purview of
the unborn lies in the realm of obstetricians and
not pediatricians.

This concern was addressed in 1970 by the
American Academy of Pediatrics.

The letter that follows (next 3 slides) reflects the
response of obstetricians to the question.

Having obtained support of the
American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists, the American Academy
of Pediatrics, published on December
of 1971 its position on the unborn.

AAP – the established leader and
authority…of health care to
children (1981)

Chief Justice Burger:
What right, if any,
does the unborn
fetus have?

AAP 1981
“Preferred Images of the Future”

Shouldn‟t the Court have asked
the AAP for its position?

Should the AAP not have
spoken out about the “rights
of the child” including to
conception?

Innocenti: the unwanted children
http://www.museumsinflorence.com/musei/ospedale_degli_innocenti.html

US Abortion annual rates
1974: 898,570
1990: 1,610,000
2004: 1,222,100
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2008/09/23
/TrendsWomenAbortions-wTables.pdf

Conclusions:
• The stated American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists support for Roe v Wade was apparently
rushed and not necessarily representative of its
membership opinion.
• Either the Court failed to discover available information
from the American Academy of Pediatrics or the
Academy did not speak out/did not advocate for the
unborn it claims to have purview over.
• The American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists should have spoken out about the
American Academy of Pediatrics joint responsibility for
the fetus, to which it had agreed upon in 1970.
• Courts should only rule on ending life when no other
recourse remains in order to protect other human life.
• Courts cannot justly or morally grant the “choice” to end
innocent life.

Professor David W. Louisell
was right.

Report and Recommendations Research on the Fetus
The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research
1975
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
DHEW Publication No. (OS) 76-127

DISSENTING STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER DAVID W. LOUISELL

“the harsh and pervasive reality that American society is itself at
risk--the risk of losing its dedication "to the proposition that all
men are created equal." We may have to learn once again that
when the bell tolls for the lost rights of any human being, even
the politically weakest, it tolls for all.”

David W. Louisell
Elizabeth Josselyn Boalt Professor of Law
University of California, Berkeley

Baring Gould
The Seven Last Words
1890

“There is nothing more disgraceful, there is no
greater evidence of a demoralised heart, than to
look upon suffering without sympathy and with
mockery. It gives proof of the deadening of the
humanity in man if he can see a fellow-creature
endure agony without emotion.”

Chapter 1, page 5.

“Woman‟s Choice”

She might choose not to get pregnant.
Or she might choose to complete the pregnancy
and keep the baby.
Or she might make the choice to adopt the baby
to couple unable to conceive.
She should not have the “choice” to end the life
of her innocent unborn child, on the basis of
being unwanted.

“How can one morally accept laws that
permit the killing of a human being not
yet born, but already alive in the
mother‟s womb?”

Blessed John Paul II

The outcome
is 2 victims -
The Aborted Child
His Mother

We have to figure out how to love the
women who find themselves in an
unwanted pregnancy without
forgetting to also love the child in her
womb who was conceived by no fault
of his/her own.
Both should be afforded protection
under the 14th amendment.

The1973 Court asked the question:
Has anyone in the Medical field
defined when life begins?
YES!
The American Academy of
Pediatrics “Age Limits” policy
position extended it to conception
in December 1971

The Court also asked if it would ever be right to
take the life of the unborn, at any stage of
A
gestation, if it were granted personhood.

The moral, ethical response is:

h
“Operations, treatments, and medications that
have as their direct purpose the cure of a
o
proportionately serious pathological condition of
a pregnant woman are permitted when they
u
cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child
is viable, even if they will result in the death of the
s
unborn child.”
Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services.
Number 47. 2009 edition.

“The end result of this is tragic: not only is
the fact of the destruction of so many
human lives still to be born or in their final
stage extremely grave and disturbing, but no
less grave and disturbing is the fact that
conscience itself, darkened as it were by
such widespread conditioning, is finding it
increasingly difficult to distinguish between
good and evil in what concerns the basic
value of human life.”
Excerpt from Evangelium Vitae by Blessed Pope John Paul II, 1995

As a pediatrician, I am making a plea to
Honorable John G Roberts,
Chief Justice of the United States and to
the Court:
When an inmate in prison is found to have been
incarcerated based on wrongful evidence, he is
granted his due freedom.

Based on presented evidence, the unborn
child‟s right to be born should be granted
protection under the 14th Amendment.

Abortion Choice

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Featured

Featured (20)

Abortion Choice

Editor's Notes