Fr. Frank Pavone
National Director
Priests for Life
The practice of abortion today is a far cry from what Roe vs. Wade had in
mind, and abortionists know it.
Dr. Warren Hern, who wrote a medical textbook on how to do abortions, said
the following at the 18th Annual meeting of the National Abortion
Federation:
"I have to say this: There’s a lot of crummy medicine being practiced out
there in providing abortion services, and I think that some of the stuff I see
coming across my desk is very upsetting … We have to do this right or we
shouldn’t do it."
That’s almost as reassuring as the words of Dr. Edward Allred, owner of a
chain of abortion facilities performing some 60,000 abortions per year:
"Very commonly we hear patients say they feel like they’re on an assembly
line. We tell them they’re right. It is an assembly line…We’re trying to be as
cost-effective as possible, and speed is important…We try to use the physician
for his technical skills and reduce the one-on-one relationship with the
patient. We usually see the patient for the first time on the operating table
and then not again…""Doctor’s Abortion Business is Lucrative," San Diego Union,
Oct. 12, 1980:B1
What many don’t realize is that Roe vs. Wade didn’t mean to leave the
abortion decision only up to the woman. It decided, rather, that the "right to
privacy" was broad enough to encompass abortion, which was to be practiced only
after appropriate and sufficient consultation with a responsible physician. The
Court said,
"…Appellants…argue that the woman’s right is absolute and that she is
entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for
whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree…The Court’s
decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state
regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a
state may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in
maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life… The privacy
right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute."
In reference to malpractice, Roe also said, "If an individual practitioner
abuses the privilege of exercising proper medical judgment, the usual remedies,
judicial and intra-professional, are available" (Roe at 166).
Medical professionals have also acknowledged these issues:
"It is recognized that although an abortion may be requested by a patient or
recommended by a physician, the final decision as to performing the abortion
must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending
physician, in consultation with the patient" (American College of Obstetricians
and Gynecologists: Committee on Professional Standards, Standard for
Obstetric-Gynecological Services, 1981).
Abortion is legal, but malpractice is not. My hunch is that if we crack down
on the malpractice, abortion itself will decline. After all, you can’t practice
vice virtuously. When we speak of these things, the abortion industry accuses us
of "harassment." That’s a strange way to label efforts to protect women. Maybe
it’s time for supporters of Roe vs. Wade to reread it.
