Changing the Discourse

Lisa Harris published a significant and troubling article in Reproductive Health Matters Supplement in May 2008.  Entitled “Second Trimester Abortion Provision: Breaking the Silence and Changing the Discourse”, Harris breaks from what is commonly presented as the party line in recognizing some of the difficulties faced by abortion providers.  Harris is willing to confirm that abortion is not merely another medical operation: "Abortion is different from other surgical procedures . . . Even when the fetus has no legal status, its moral status is reasonably the subject of much disagreement. It is disingenuous to argue that removing a fetus from a uterus is no different from removing a fibroid."

As an OB/GYN who also performs abortions, Harris refers to the conflict in her work:

The last patient I saw one day was 23 weeks pregnant. I performed an uncomplicated D&E procedure. Dutifully, I went through the task of reassembling the fetal parts in the metal tray. It is an odd ritual that abortion providers perform - required as a clinical safety measure to ensure that nothing is left behind in the uterus to cause a complication - but it also permits us in an odd way to pay respect to the fetus (feelings of awe are not uncommon when looking at miniature fingers and fingernails, heart, intestines, kidneys, adrenal glands), even as we simultaneously have complete disregard for it. Then I rushed upstairs to take overnight call on labour and delivery. The first patient that came in was prematurely delivering at 23-24 weeks. As her exact gestational age was in question, the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) team resuscitated the premature newborn and brought it to the NICU. Later, along with the distraught parents, I watched the neonate on the ventilator. I thought to myself how bizarre it was that I could have legally dismembered this fetus-now-newborn if it were inside its mother's uterus - but that the same kind of violence against it now would be illegal, and unspeakable.

Harris asserts that the pro-abortion argument has consistently denied and downplayed the reality of the procedure—what she refers to as “the violence and, frankly, the gruesomeness of abortion”.  This tactic has also ignored the experience of those participating in abortions as well.  Harris, reflecting on a procedure she carried out when she herself was 18 weeks pregnant, writes about carrying out the abortion on a woman whose fetus was also at the same stage of development.  "I went about doing the procedure as usual," she documents. "I used electrical suction to remove the amniotic fluid, picked up my forceps and began to remove the fetus in parts, as I always did. I felt lucky that this one was already in the breech position - it would make grasping small parts (legs and arms) a little easier."

With my first pass of the forceps, I grasped an extremity and began to pull it down. I could see a small foot hanging from the teeth of my forceps. With a quick tug, I separated the leg. Precisely at that moment, I felt a kick - a fluttery "thump, thump" in my own uterus. It was one of the first times I felt fetal movement. There was a leg and foot in my forceps, and a "thump, thump" in my abdomen. Instantly, tears were streaming from my eyes - without me - meaning my conscious brain - even being aware of what was going on. I felt as if my response had come entirely from my body, bypassing my usual cognitive processing completely. A message seemed to travel from my hand and my uterus to my tear ducts. It was an overwhelming feeling - a brutally visceral response - heartfelt and unmediated by my training or my feminist pro-choice politics. It was one of the more raw moments in my life. Doing second trimester abortions did not get easier after my pregnancy; in fact, dealing with little infant parts of my born baby only made dealing with dismembered fetal parts sadder.

Kathleen Gilbert, reviewing Harris’ article at LifeSiteNews.com, notes Harris’ confirmation that abortionists’ experience often more closely matches pro-lifers depiction of abortion, even as their values are in sharp contrast.  Harris recognizes the prevailing sentiment that “frank talk like this is threatening to abortion rights.”  While many of Harris’ colleagues may be angry at her openness, she feels that honesty is necessary in addressing the abortion argument.   As society continues to examine its values regarding pregnancy and early life, honesty will be a help to us all.