Challenge to Liberty

by Ron Paul

  Challenge to Liberty

  Coming to Grips with the Abortion Issue

  Ron Paul, MD

  Copyright

  Challenge to Liberty

  Copyright ©1990 by The Foundation for Rational Economics and Education

  Cover art to the electronic edition copyright © 2010 by RosettaBooks LLC

  First electronic edition published 2010 by RosettaBooks LLC, New York.

  ISBN ePub edition: 9780795312151

  Contents

  Introduction

  Chapter I Coming to Grips with the Issue

  Chapter II A Unique Perspective

  Chapter III Twentieth Century Perspective

  Chapter IV Cliches of Abortion

  Chapter V Modern Problems

  Chapter VI Legal Dilemmas

  Chapter VII Libertarian Views

  Chapter VIII Challenge to Liberty

  The Author

  Sources

  Challenge to Liberty

  Coming to Grips

  with the Abortion Issue

  by Ron Paul, MD

  Member of Congress 1976-1984

  INTRODUCTION

  For the past thirty years the abortion issue has sharply divided this nation with strong intellectual and emotional arguments on both sides. It is an issue that cannot be dismissed lightly and will continue to divide us throughout the 1990s.

  A jury, in January 1990, found Pamela Marie Sims of Peoria, Illinois, guilty of murder and eligible for the death penalty for the murder of her newborn infant daughter. If that same infant had been killed a few weeks earlier in an abortion procedure, the abortionist would have been paid a handsome fee for the procedure and it would have been legal.

  Madelein Mann was born months premature in June of 1989 and was small enough to fit in the palm of her mother’s hand. She weighed a mere ten ounces. After four months she was discharged from the hospital weighing 4 pounds 3 ounces, normal in every way. Many infants much larger are routinely aborted without a second thought.

  In December 1989, Dr. Joseph Melnick was convicted of infanticide in the death of a fetus born alive during an abortion procedure. It was determined that the abortion was performed in the eighth month of pregnancy. The doctor was convicted under a 1974 Pennsylvania law which states that if an infant happens to be born alive during an abortion procedure, the doctor is required to keep the fetus alive.

  The doctor argued that he “was told” the patient was in her fourth or fifth month of pregnancy, which is a time of gestation when the fetus may certainly weigh more than the tenounce Madelein Mann. Witnesses stated that the infant survived for an hour and a half, moving and gasping, and Dr. Melnick ordered that no care be given.

  Diane Pfanenstiel of Laramie, Wyoming, was charged in January 1990 with felony child abuse for drinking alcohol and endangering her unborn fetus. Several similar charges against other women have resulted from drug use.

  A New York physician had his license suspended in 1989 for alleged negligence. In performing an abortion on a four-month gestation, he failed to completely empty the uterus. Two days following the procedure, the woman delivered a fetus missing the right arm and right leg. In another case, this same abortionist went through the motions of doing an abortion on a woman who was pregnant in her fallopian tubes.

  Carol Everett, a former abortion clinic owner, claims that abortion complications receive little or no media attention. She reports that a patient had severe hemorrhage following an abortion in one of her clinics. After an hour of observation, the patient was sent home. At 3:00 a.m., due to excessive bleeding, her boyfriend called the clinic and the clinic doctor advised him to put her in a warm tub of water. She hemorrhaged further while in the tub and fell unconscious. She died shortly thereafter.

  Everett states: “Nothing appeared in the news media about the death. No one called to ask any questions. Even our employees had no idea a woman had died. The patients were not aware of it.” Evidently the patient’s family, the abortion clinic, and the personnel did everything possible to cover up the catastrophe, and there was no particular interest by the media in reporting such an event. Miss Everett claims this is not an unusual course of action with abortion deaths.

  Can a moral society, concerned about life and liberty, peace and prosperity, survive without resolving the obvious contradictions demonstrated in these cases? Dismissing the abortion issue as a woman’s privacy issue for dealing with a glob of tissue within a self-owned body is insufficient.

  Abortion and how it affects human value may well prove to be the most profound issue of the 20th Century. In spite of the current worldwide move toward more freedom and increased interest in a free-market economy, one wonders if the worth of the individual can survive if the abortion issue is not resolved in favor of life.

  The value we place on life determines the position we hold on abortion. If one has high regard for the essence of life, a pro-life position must result. A casual or calloused attitude toward human life results in a pro-abortion position. A strong pro-life position should lead to strong pro-liberty beliefs.

  When one places importance and value on all life, one emphasizes the value of self-responsibility in dealing with social and economic problems. Likewise, pro-liberty beliefs are questioned if an inconsistent position is taken where life before birth is of relative legal and moral value.

  CHAPTER I

  Coming to Grips With the Issue

  I was born and raised in the Pittsburgh area and, after graduation from Gettysburg College in 1957, my wife, Carol, and I moved to Durham, North Carolina, to start medical school.

  A baby girl was born that same year, in a home for unwed mothers in Pittsburgh, an event not uncommon in those days. Even after returning to Pittsburgh in 1965 to begin my OB-GYN residency at the University of Pittsburgh, the residents still took turns visiting and caring for the patients at the Booth (Salvation Army) Home for Unwed Girls, where the children were put up for adoption. But during my residency, due to changing attitudes, this home was closed.

  Fortunately for one particular person, born in 1957, a home was available. At that time, adoption was encouraged and socially acceptable, while abortion then was illegal and frowned upon as ghastly.

  Eight months after birth, this infant was adopted by Steven and Mary Skowronski, a childless couple, looking for a gift they could love and raise as their own. Later, another child was adopted into that family—a brother adopted at the age of nine.

  The parents always told the adopted children that due to the circumstances of their arrival into the family, they were special. Thirty years later, when the mother died, it became clear to them both that the really special people were the parents who took them in and raised them as their own.

  After high school, the girl attended nearby Bethany College, in Wheeling, West Virginia, and graduated Magna Cum Laude. Now as a famous TV personality, she is the mother of a young son—something that has special value for her.

  In a personal interview she explains how she feels about being a mother, obviously reflecting the special circumstances of her own life. [1]

  The most decisive moment in my life was the decision to have a child…But, there is nothing like having a baby. It gives you a whole new outlook on life. I was always very family-oriented. I always felt my family came before job and career and now that there’s a baby in the mix, the gap is even bigger. You can take the job away tomorrow and I still would be fine. You cannot take my family away and leave me whole. I would love to have more children. As many as God will give me, I will take.

  In this same article, she reflects on her adoption:

  I think adoption is the best thing that ever happened to me. A couple that is childless and that has worked very hard at havin
g a child, then gone through the grueling process of adoption, and then suddenly finds a child or a baby on the doorstep, provides the most loving environment any child can enter. For them, it’s a miracle that a child has come into their home. This is what they have prayed for, this is what they have cried for. It’s the end all.

  I walked into a very loving environment where everything was put on hold when they had kids. Even though my mother worked, we came first.

  Each time one sees Faith Daniel on CBS news, it would be prudent to think about an unwed Pittsburgh girl, who in 1957, bravely chose adoption rather than abortion.

  A special case, a special child, a special star, perhaps, but others might argue that we are all supposed to be special and have something special to contribute.

  My first day of medical school at Duke University remains a vivid memory. Durham in August is hot, and in 1957, air conditioning was not generally used. This, plus my anxiety over starting what seemed like at the time an endless ordeal, produced a crushing headache that made me seriously wonder how the next four years would go. Little did I realize that the years would fly by and that three-and-a-half years and two children later, I’d be ready to move on to my internship at the Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit.

  During my medical school education, I never heard the word abortion. And I never saw, nor heard discussed, any case of a botched abortion.

  No lectures were given in Obstetrics on how abortions were done nor of their danger. The subject was entirely ignored.

  Having accelerated my medical training, I left Duke at Christmastime of my senior year. In June of 1961, I was extremely busy in my internship, and was unable to return to Durham for my graduation exercises. I received my diploma by mail.

  I never heard the word abortion.

  Already by 1961, there were ethical changes in the wind. Abortion may have been taboo during my medical school years, but attitudes were ripe for radical ideas as Viet Nam approached. Situation ethics was being discussed in the universities, and the nature of our government was rapidly changing. The steadily growing size and scope of the federal bureaucracy reflected the general acceptance by the American people of the welfare state and a foreign policy of meddling in the internal affairs of other nations.

  When my class graduated in January 1961, the Hippocratic Oath was omitted. Ethical pledges, although voluntary, were embarrassing, and most major universities abandoned this oath ceremony.

  I spent two years at the Henry Ford Hospital. During my medical rotating internship and a year of medical residency, I came across only one case of abortion. The patient arrived at the clinic where I was working, and once the diagnosis was made, was transferred to the OB-GYN Service. I followed the case closely and realized the young lady was extremely ill with a pelvic infection requiring intensive treatment for nearly a week before being discharged. She was not married and was pregnant by a man of a different race. She was not raped. As a caring physician, I couldn’t help but have concern for her plight.

  The fall of 1962 brought us to the Cuban crisis, and doctors being less equal than others, were easily enslaved by the state in its pursuit of military goals. By the time I was sworn in, however, the crisis faded and I settled in for a two-and-a-half year stint as a flight medical officer at Kelly Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas. This was followed by two-and-a-half years in the Air National Guard at the Greater Pittsburgh Airport while I was doing my OB-GYN residency at the University of Pittsburgh’s Magee Women’s Hospital. Flying was the order of the day while in the service, not weighty matters like abortion.

  Flying was the order of the day…not weighty matters like abortion.

  In July of 1965, I was ready to resume my medical education after it had been so rudely interrupted by Uncle Sam and chose Obstetrics and Gynecology as my specialty. I had always thought I would do family medicine, but the message was clear from English and Canadian physicians coming here to avoid socialized medicine that a specialty was much better under government-controlled medicine than family practice.

  Besides, the joy of bringing new life into the world, in spite of the difficult hours, provided special rewards not available in any other specialty. It was during my OB-GYN residency at the University of Pittsburgh that the issue of abortion was no longer kept under wraps.

  My residency lasted from 1965 to 1968. Of course, during this period of time abortions were still illegal in most states except for extreme circumstances. Nevertheless, the OB-GYN Department at Pittsburgh defied the law and performed abortions on a modest basis. This was being done systematically throughout the country to test the anti-abortion laws.

  Those residents opposed to abortion were never asked to participate. Later on, though, I heard of residents who were denied positions in certain OB-GYN residencies because they refused to perform abortions. In other words, if one wanted a good residency, one had to be willing to accept, matter of factly, that killing the fetus was just as integral a part of obstetrics as was caring for the fetus as a patient. It was always emphasized in medical school that the doctor, when dealing with a pregnant woman, had two patients with which to be concerned.

  As a resident, I had not yet thoroughly thought through the issue of abortion, but I’m certain that the very ill patient seen in Detroit had made me concerned about the dangers of unsterile illegal abortion.

  Residents in a training hospital frequently visit operating suites to observe different procedures. One morning, without knowing what was in each room, I made the rounds of the operating rooms. Shortly after entering one room, I was abruptly awakened from the daze I was in, after having been up most of the previous night. The two surgeons were in the middle of a hysterotomy, a C-section performed for pregnancy at less than term. Soon after I entered the room, the infant was extracted, weighing approximately two pounds, weakly crying, and gasping for air.

  No longer would I be able to avoid thinking in a serious manner about abortion.

  Up until that moment, everything that I had learned for the previous ten years was directed toward preserving life and improving the health of all my patients.

  What followed was ghastly. The infant was placed in a basin on the floor in the corner of the room, and everyone pretended not to hear the weak cries and the final gasp as the baby expired. No longer would I be able to avoid thinking in a serious manner about abortion. I would need to come to grips with an issue that would involve my medical career as an obstetrician and affect this nation politically for years to come.

  Technology and an acceptance of a political philosophy that rejects all initiation of violence has kept me thinking and refining my beliefs regarding this matter to this day. Abortion is not a light issue and, as time goes on, the emotional intensity and bitterness of the two sides grows. Most likely it will not be resolved before the 21st Century. The manner in which it is resolved will determine the future of the United States. It’s not an isolated problem, accidentally dumped on us, but reflects deep-seated philosophic and moral commitments of the citizens of this country.

  After the episode in the operating room, I sought counsel from the Chief of the Obstetrics and Gynecology Department. He was strongly in favor of abortion and was responsible for the department’s policy of defying the Pennsylvania law that was then on the books. During this time, defiance was commonplace around the entire country. The move was on to repeal, ignore, or have overthrown all prohibitions against abortion.

  In my discussion with my chief, he strongly argued for abortion to eliminate the fetus diagnosed with serious disease or handicaps. I pointed out to him that some diseases can’t be diagnosed until late pregnancy, or at the time of birth. He agreed and consistently argued that late abortion should thus be permitted. He even went on to say that if a 24-hour observation revealed serious abnormalities, infanticide made sense to him.

  I never found out who was to be the final judge of what was a serious abnormality. Pursuing this line of thinking, I asked about an even later diagnosis of six months or a ye
ar and, again, he consistently argued that infanticide up to one year made sense to him. He thought that one year, though, was ample time to evaluate the infant. After one year if he, or some committee, a government regulation, or whoever, approved, the infant then would gain its inalienable right to life. His arguments were consistent. Anyone who favors abortion and does not agree with him is ducking the issue.

  It was then that I decided that there was truly such a thing as a slippery slope and my professor was on it, sliding out of control.

  It was then that I decided that there was truly such a thing as a slippery slope and my professor was on it, sliding out of control. Tragically, he was in a position to influence hundreds of students, interns, nurses, and residents to his way of thinking.

  I wanted off that slope and became firmly pro-life, accepting the biological fact that life begins at conception, that all human life is precious and deserves protection of the law.

  I started my private obstetrics and gynecology practice in Lake Jackson, Texas, in July of 1968. Prior to the 1973 Supreme Court ruling, no patient ever asked me for information regarding an abortion.

  An OB-GYN resident from a neighboring town covered my practice on my rare weekends off. He and I discussed abortion on several occasions, he in favor and I opposed. After completing his training program, he left the Houston area and settled in another state because “abortion laws were lax and a bundle could be made.” About a year later, on one of his return visits, I asked him if doing abortions bothered him. Did he have any remorse? “No,” he quickly answered, then added, “not unless I have to see the fetal parts.”