H 23°, L 4° | Tomorrow: 
H 21°, L 6°
The issue of abortion has divided today’s society, as emotions and opinions run strong on both sides of the debate.
With the nation’s economic struggles at the forefront of people’s minds, the debate has been out of the spotlight recently but is again being brought to light locally as the Madison Surgery Center is moving toward offering second-trimester abortions.
This new service is being considered after the retirement of Dennis Christensen, who provided second-trimester abortions at Madison’s Planned Parenthood. With his retirement at the end of December, there are no area facilities that provide this service.
This is the main reason why physicians at Madison Surgery Center are opting to take over these procedures as a service to the community, according to Lisa Brunette, spokesperson for University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics.
MSC is run in cooperation with UW Hospital and Clinics, Meriter Hospital and the UW Medical Foundation. It is governed by the UW Hospitals and Clinics Authority Board, which is composed of members from each of the hospitals along with seven representatives from UW.
They are in charge of, among other things, setting the hospital’s policies.
“The staff there is proposing they take over some of the responsibilities that were previously held by Planned Parenthood,” Board Chair David Walsh said. “I envision that a presentation will be made by those recommending it, and we’ll discuss it and make the decision that day.”
Their next meeting is Feb. 4, and the board will hear and vote on the physicians’ proposals. Walsh said he could see the vote going either way. However, if passed, the MSC Board will act toward implementation shortly thereafter.
Community uproar
Several anti-abortion organizations across Wisconsin have expressed outrage against MSC’s proposal, including the Alliance Defense Fund, Wisconsin Right to Life and Pro-Life Wisconsin.
The Alliance Defense Fund was one of the first organizations to publicly oppose MSC’s plan for second-trimester abortions and is composed of a group of lawyers whose purpose, according to their website, is to defend “the truth” through litigation and funding.
On Jan. 6, the group sent a letter to the UW Medical Foundation, UW Hospital and Clinics and Meriter Hospital expressing their disapproval of second-trimester abortions.
“It is extremely troubling that second-trimester dismemberment abortions are being imposed on a previously legitimate surgery clinic over the objection of employees,” ADF said in its letter.
Barbara Lyons, executive director of Wisconsin Right to Life, also voiced her organization’s disapproval.
“We are obviously against all abortions because they destroy the life of an unborn baby,” Lyons said. “It is very problematic in terms of moving late-term abortion to the surgery center.”
She said the issue of having life-enhancing treatment in one area of the hospital while ending human life by abortion in another area is concerning and also expressed concern over the health of the mothers and those in the clinic.
“Abortions are always a health concern for the mother, and there are mental health concerns for everyone that goes to that surgery center. It’s a bad mix,” Lyons said.
Pro-Life Wisconsin also released a statement from State Director Peggy Hamill, who said, “We are appalled to learn that our own publicly-funded University of Wisconsin hospital and medical foundation is planning to directly participate in the dismemberment of second-trimester babies.”
Lawmakers and ordinary citizens alike have also voiced concern about MSC’s new policy adoption, including Sen. Glenn Grothman, R-West Bend, who has sat in the state Senate for the last three years.
“Other hospitals in the country pride themselves on keeping children 24 to 25 weeks after conception alive,” Grothman said. “I can’t believe the university would want to be known for killing these children. … Even in the primarily atheistic countries in Europe, this would be illegal.”
As part of Grothman’s disapproval, he is calling for UW to come out and stop the new proposal, adding second-trimester abortions would tarnish the good name and prestige of the university.
He also said he would use his role as legislator to help introduce a resolution to stop these procedures from happening at the MSC.
Why second-trimester abortions?
While anti-abortion organizations may be in an uproar over the possibility of this service moving to a local surgical center, many feel this is something that is vital to the community.
Madison’s Planned Parenthood had been offering these services for years before the retirement of its leading physician.
According to Brunette, because second-trimester abortions are no longer available in Madison, there is a “public-health responsibility to provide such procedures as part of a comprehensive program of family planning and reproductive health care that our community deserves.”
UW graduate student Celeste Benson agrees. As a sociology student, Benson is writing her dissertation on the politics of abortion and said it is a matter of access that causes the need for second-trimester abortion availability, especially in major cities across rural states.
“The number of policies made it so getting abortion is more difficult than just going to a clinic,” Benson said. “Women have no access in rural areas.”
She added the only cities that offer second-trimester abortions are Appleton, Milwaukee and Madison. Because of this, there is a major delay in the amount of time it takes a woman to get an abortion.
“Increase in the legislation has made abortion access more difficult, pushing women into getting abortions later,” Benson said.
Benson also said while second-trimester abortions are necessary, the sooner a woman can get an abortion, the better. The later an abortion is done, the higher the risk of complications and emotional distress.
However, she added, “I think it’s important that people recognized why people would be getting second trimester abortions. … There are reasons why women get second-trimester abortions and access is a huge [reason].”
Despite the debate of whether abortions should even be completed, anti-abortion organizations are concerned about the possibility of research, public funding and coercion or discrimination of anti-abortion physicians.
Research, public funding and… coercion?
One of the major concerns raised by dissenters is whether aborted fetuses will be used for research at the university or by other researchers.
According to Lyons, Brunette said in the Wisconsin State Journal that tissue from the abortions could be used by UW researchers after review by faculty committee.
However, Brunette told The Badger Herald two days later “this proposal is being contemplated strictly as a service to our community. There are no current research studies (nor any plans to begin such studies) using materials from these medical procedures, nor are any contemplated.”
After hearing about Brunette’s change in policy, Grothman said, “I’m glad they changed their mind, if they can be trusted.”
Lyons was a bit more skeptical, saying the Jan. 7 comment was “right from the spokesperson’s mouth.”
Regardless, Brunette remains resolute that research involving human tissue has never been a consideration in development of this service.
Many also question where the funding for the second-trimester abortions is coming from — the state or the individuals?
Because UW and all of its affiliations are state-funded, many organizations, including Pro-Life Wisconsin, are worried about public tax dollars illegally going toward the procedures.
“How will this UWHC/Meriter plan accommodate existing state and federal laws that prohibit public funding of abortions and protect the conscience rights of our medical professionals? Medical staff at the Madison Surgery Center must be disheartened to learn that their esteemed, state-of-the-art surgical center will double as an abortion center,” Hamill said in a press release. Lyons agreed, condemning the idea of abortion and non-abortion fees being thrown in the same pool.
“When a patient not seeking an abortion pays a fee, they go into same pot that the abortion fees go into,” Lyons said. “That means that even non-abortion payments are underwriting the performance of abortions.”
In response to these accusations from anti-abortion groups, Brunette adamantly said no state funds will be paid to physicians for performing the abortions. Payments will be coming from patients, private insurance and other legally authorized Medicaid insurance.
Walsh also stressed the UW Hospitals and Clinics Authority Board is not involved in the funding of the second-trimester abortions.
“We are just an investor in the Madison Surgery Center, and the handling of it and its relationships are unrelated to us or, as we understand, the state,” Walsh said.
Another issue raised by the Alliance Defense Fund was the coercion of doctors into performing abortions despite their religious or ethical beliefs against such acts and the subsequent discrimination against anti-abortion doctors.
Brunette countered this argument, saying participations by doctors, providers, students and trainees will be “strictly voluntary.”
“Those with religious or moral objections are free to opt out and will not be penalized in any way for doing so,” Brunette said.
IP hash: dbf9afc1
The more clinics the better in Madison. Maybe if we open a few more abortion clinics, liberals will just go extinct because they won’t be able to replicate and pass on their mental retardation.
IP hash: fa0f759f
“…the only cities that offer second-trimester abortions are Appleton, Milwaukee and Madison. Because of this, there is a major delay in the amount of time it takes a woman to get an abortion.
�Increase in the legislation has made abortion access more difficult, pushing women into getting abortions later,� Benson said.
Benson also said while second-trimester abortions are necessary, the sooner a woman can get an abortion, the better. The later an abortion is done, the higher the risk of complications and emotional distress.
However, she added, �I think it�s important that people recognized why people would be getting second trimester abortions. � There are reasons why women get second-trimester abortions and access is a huge [reason].�
This is incomprehensible. If it is more difficult to get a second trimester abortion, would that not make it more likely that women would have abortions EARLIER? Limited �access� to late-term abortions is a �huge reason� that women get late-term abortions? Does this make any sense? Do abortion enthusiasts even know they are lying when they are lying?
IP hash: 4089035a
I am an abortion enthusiast, and I can read. 3:31, take another shot at it. I have faith in you!
What is extremely troubling is that misleading, inaccurate, illogical, and coercive arguments are being used by Barbara Lyons, ADF, Glenn Grothman, and Peggy Hamill against women and families in a time when we’re heralding ourselves as “progressive” cuz omg we elected a black dude.
The antichoice “argument” has been reduced to a pile of hypocritical praise-Jebus gobbledygook. Perhaps if they could comprehend the difference between contraception and abortion, quit fawning over unwed teen mothers like Bristol Palin for their heroic “choices,” and cut stats such as, “Condoms fail to prevent pregnancy 60% of the time” from their abstinence-only textbooks, people might take them more seriously.
Until then, I am going to continue to strongly advocate retroactive abortion.
IP hash: 3f46bdc7
This is an odd sentence: “Medical staff at the Madison Surgery Center must be disheartened to learn that their esteemed, state-of-the-art surgical center will double as an abortion center,” — How does Hamill know? here any medical staff who are objecting? The spokesperson for the Hospital supports the plan. I don’t see any medical staff quoted as opposing.
IP hash: 048cf767
Reasons why limited access makes it more difficult to get an abortion early: First, Wisconsin as well as a number of other states requires that women visit clinics two times in order to first receive “counseling” and then to get the actual abortion procedure. Because the shortage of providers makes it so that women can’t generally just stay overnight they need to return home and come back a week or so later. If you do the math, that means that women who don’t live close to clinics not only have to wait longer they also need to:
Keep in mind that a lot of women who are in this situation are already economically strapped. Clearly that isn’t in your comprehensive capacity toolkit, but yes, it’s true, a lot of women who have a hard time getting abortions are poor. And what do these restrictive policies mean for them? Potentially more complications, higher stress and higher costs. And if you don’t believe it, try reading something than other your self righteous websites or wherever you get your information. So when you prolife people get on your high horse and start talking about yourselves like you are so life loving—consider this, the policies you advocate HURT WOMEN. THEY HURT WOMEN. Living, breathing women. Who care about themselves and their families and their futures and would probably care more about you then you do about them.
IP hash: a9fc687f
Yes, people who don’t like the idea of second trimester abortions should advocate for policies that allow all women to get safe abortions early. Or if you are absolutely against abortion, then advocate for policies that really would significantly help women raise their children. That is very very different from trying to regulate and eliminate abortions—a strategy that has only proved to increase health risks and costs for women and really hurt poor women in particular. Opposition to abortion is based on a religious BELIEF that not all people share. In this country you are legally entitled to your belief, but you are not entitled to force it upon others in order to regulate actions you don’t like. The antiabortion movement has become dangerously close to doing this through their singleminded approach to eliminating abortion. Arguably, in many respects and in certain parts of the country they have succeeded. It is a shame that they have approached this with little regard for the impact their actions have had on women and families, or with little regard for alternatives that might make the lives of women with unintended pregnancies better off.
IP hash: de2a30d6
I love pro-choicers. We all provide real arguments, instead of “hypocritical praise-Jebus gobbledygook,” and when the pro-lifers get in our faces, we get right back in theirs.
Keep it up, team.
IP hash: c7641cad
In response to the post by Anonymous on(January 21, 2009 @ 2:37pm.
Just think, there wouldn’t be any expenses for women if they choose adoption! They wouldn’t need to make all of those visits to and from the abortion clinic, so they wouldn’t lose 2 days of wages, have to pay for transportation, or have to pay for child care if they already had children.
The policies you advocate also HURT WOMEN. Abortion hurts women, their families, and their futures.
IP hash: 1283ac60
And who cares for the child in the womb? Surely it too deserves some care.
IP hash: d20747fb
Just think, there wouldn’t be any expenses for women if they choose adoption!
Yup. The state and the church cover all the hospital expenses you need to actually birth the damn thing, plus new maternity clothes, shoes, hemorrhoid cream, lost wages (I mean, unless you can work it out where you deliver during your lunch hour), etc.
You should take your own advice, 7:00pm, and just, you know, think.
IP hash: fcc619ce
Dear prolifers: advocating adoption is wonderful. I am prochoice and I truly believe that a woman should have the right to CHOOSE adoption, if that is what she really feels is the right choice for her. That’s what being prochoice means. HOWEVER, that is very different from FORCING a woman to give up her child or give up her future, which if you think about it, is exactly what you are advocating. Think about this, think very seriously about this: how would you personally feel about giving up your child?? Well, most people don’t really want to. Once you remove shame, stigma and extreme poverty from single motherhood, adoption is a really tough sell. Ask anyone who works in adoption these days. Now, does that mean that the same woman who wouldn’t want to give birth and give up her baby if she was forced to carry it to term wouldn’t be comfortable with a safe and early abortion? NO. It doesn’t. Why?? Now you might want to pause and clear your mind so you can try and be open to this, but here it goes: Unlike you, not all people consider a fetuse, particularly in early stages of development, to be equivalent to a baby. Both for scientific reasons and because they do not share your personal theological/religious beliefs. That is their right in this country. People don’t have the same beliefs as you. You don’t have to have the same beliefs as them either, which you should be happy about.
Anyway, the bottom line is, outlawing abortion means you are forcing women who might be otherwise be comfortable with and choose abortion to instead choose between giving up a baby (which she might not be comfortable with) or raising a child in bad situations (which she also may not want to do). That is a pretty sucky and selfish thing to do just because you personally aren’t comfortable with abortion. I mean, it’s okay to talk about adoption but you should try and be realistic and also holistic about it. There are already hundreds of thousands of older children in the adoption system in the U.S. who REALLY NEED HOMES, who nobody seems to want. The adoption system’s rabid search for infants and prolifers demand that women produce more babies for it is a bit unsettling when you really think about it in that context. If you are really prolife, then be really prolife. Think about women and their pain and suffering, think about living children who don’t have homes who need them. Broaden your perspectives and be compassionate, if that is what you really feel you are. Maybe there is some common ground. If you don’t, people who really do care about life are just going to see you as a bunch of narrowminded and selfish extremists.
IP hash: 53724a2b
when you prolife people say things like “Abortion hurts women, their families, and their futures” and then don’t say anything else, what is that intended to mean? MY GOODNESS!!! do you really believe that women wouldn’t be hurt by being forced to give up a child or by trying to raise a child alone or by trying to raise a child without any money or with a man who isn’t prepared to be a father? ya, those things are real easy and simple. eliminating abortion is such an easy answer. It may be the case that women who have reservations about abortion should not get abortions. Okay, fine, that is fair advice. Why don’t you leave it at that? Unlike your modus operandi, which appears to be something like “i don’t like abortion so nobody can have one, end of story” prochoicers actually understand that people have different views and situations and that maybe abortion is not the best choice for everyone, but it may be right for some. That’s why they call it Prochoice. PRO-CHOICE. I have volunteered in family planning clinics where people are prochoice and I have never met such compassionate people, who really get what women in tough situations go through. People who really try to communicate and connect with women and hear their real story and help and not judge them. And the women they serve are really truly grateful. That is more of what this world needs, not shame mongering narrow-minded selfish dictators.
IP hash: e3b25840
when you prolife people say things like “Abortion hurts women, their families, and their futures” and then don’t say anything else, what is that intended to mean? MY GOODNESS!!! do you really believe that women wouldn’t be hurt by being forced to give up a child or by trying to raise a child alone or by trying to raise a child without any money or with a man who isn’t prepared to be a father? ya, those things are real easy and simple. eliminating abortion is such an easy answer. It may be the case that women who have reservations about abortion should not get abortions. Okay, fine, that is fair advice. Why don’t you leave it at that? Unlike your modus operandi, which appears to be something like “i don’t like abortion so nobody can have one, end of story” prochoicers actually understand that people have different views and situations and that maybe abortion is not the best choice for everyone, but it may be right for some. That’s why they call it Prochoice. PRO-CHOICE. I have volunteered in family planning clinics where people are prochoice and I have never met such compassionate people, who really get what women in tough situations go through. People who really try to communicate and connect with women and hear their real story and help and not judge them. And the women they serve are really truly grateful. That is more of what this world needs, not shame mongering narrow-minded selfish dictators.
IP hash: 4089035a
�When a patient not seeking an abortion pays a fee, they go into same pot that the abortion fees go into,� Lyons said. �That means that even non-abortion payments are underwriting the performance of abortions.�
Uh, yeah, and when I pay for a routine physical, I am also helping to pay for emergency heart bypass surgery, blood pressure medication, and other services for your fat ass, even though I bother to eat well and exercise. Why should I have to pay for your gluttony???
GET OVER IT.
IP hash: 462c1a32
Get over it? Get over the fact that defenseless babies who can feel pain are being torn apart for the sake of “choice”? Nope—-we’ll never get over it.
The fact is, employees HAVE complained internally. In today’s economic situation, do you think people who aren’t happy are going to go slam their employer in the press? Then again, those who are “pro-choice” always seem intent on forcing everyone to aid and abet their agenda.
There are more pro-lifers on this campus than you think. Wake up UW—-no late-term abortion center!
IP hash: 0229670f
I, for one, love killing babies, they’re worthless anyways. Just like old people, prisoners and mentally and physically handicapped, just get rid of them all, I say! oh wait, we can’t kill prisoners…take that out of there, just the babies, old people and handicapped. Keep up the good work Libs!!!
IP hash: 39fc619c
So would one of you prolife commentators be clear what you mean when you say “those who are “pro-choice” always seem intent on forcing everyone to aid and abet their agenda”? For goodness sake, it is the prolife side that has set the agenda when it comes to abortion in this state. Take this article for example, one of the main issues of contention addressed here is the use of state funds for abortions. Because of prolife lobbying, state funds can NOT pay for abortions in Wisconsin except for cases when the mother’s physical health is endangered, and then it is only when a woman is on Medicaid. This is Wisconsin law and has been for quite a while. This is what the prolife side wants, it certainly isn’t in the interests of poor women on Medicaid or without health insurance who are already struggling to stay afloat. In Wisconsin the money to cover the cost of abortions comes from patients themselves, either from a woman’s own pocket or from her own private insurance. It is also the prolife side that has pushed a whole slew of policies that make abortion more dangerous and stressful for women including mandatory delays and “counseling”, and requird multiple visits to get an abortion—policies that have been shown to increase costs and risks to women, particularly by pushing women to get abortions at later gestation. That isn’t what women with unintended pregnancies want, that’s what prolifers want.