How late can an abortion be done in Wisconsin? The answer will shock you.

Last week I read an article that stated:
Audrey Jean was born 15 weeks early at just 25 weeks gestation due to severe pre-eclampsia and severe IUGR. She surpassed all expectations. After 93 days in the NICU, we brought our beautiful, healthy baby girl home.

37 states allow abortions past 24 weeks gestational age. Pro-abortion organizations believe all state bans on abortion are unconstitutional.
Thank you to Virginia Zignego from Pro-Life Wisconsin for the help compiling this information.  These good folks are doing so much for the unborn in Wisconsin, please consider donating to the cause!

How late can Wisconsin children be aborted?

There exists a Wisconsin state ban on abortions after “viability” which is 22 weeks.  The ban has a "life of the mother" exception - which unfortunately can be interpreted pretty much however the woman/doctor/psychologist want it to be.  That means technically the abortion could be performed at any time during the pregnancy if any of the abortionists are willing to chop him/her out of the womb. 

Planned Parenthood will perform abortions up to 12-14 weeks(officially).  As we’ve seen with the Live Action videos, what actually occurs behind their doors is another story, so who knows what actually happens.

Affiliated Medical Services in Milwaukee is the only stand-alone abortion facility in WI that performs abortions up to 22 weeks (the same caveat as above). This was one of the reasons the pro-aborts claimed we “needed” the Madison Surgery Center to perform late-term abortions, because Milwaukee was too far to drive. While abortions in WI rose in 2009, late-term abortions actually dropped, because of the lack of late-term abortion providers.

Besides stand alone abortion facilities, we know for certain that other hospitals now perform elective abortions.  Froedtert Memorial Lutheran in Milwaukee performs abortions, presumably the life of the mother ones.  Froedtert Hospital agreed to partner with Columbia St. Mary’s, a “Catholic” hospital in the Milwaukee area. Apparently since abortions won’t be done on what is considered Columbia St. Mary's grounds, it wasn’t an issue.  We also know that Gunderson Lutheran in La Crosse does, as does Bellin in Green BaySouthwest Health in Platteville is rumored to also possibly perform even late term abortions.  They’re hospitals, not stand-alone abortion facilities, so they fly somewhat under the radar.

When the state compiles the annual abortion statistics, it is prohibited by law from revealing where abortions are done or what doctors perform abortions. With the stand-alone facilities, they reveal the locations do abortions; but with the hospitals we have to use what is revealed in the media .

Wisconsin’s 2009 abortion stats show there were 136 abortions over 20 weeks gestation (it doesn’t break it down further than that, unfortunately. Page 8 at Wis DHS)

And despite the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, they are still legal in Wisconsin depending on how the "life of the mother" clause is interpreted.  The same as above, if the exception can be interpreted by a psychologist that a women is emotionally unstable(because no pregnant woman is emotionally unstable) then a partial birth abortion could be done to kill the child and end the pregnancy.  If partial birth abortion isn’t the operation of choice, there are other ways to do late-term abortions (such as a saline injection [warning: graphic], where saline solution is injected into the baby and the mother “delivers” the dead body 2 days later).  The difference is that the baby’s body doesn’t leave the mother during any portion of the abortion.  In that case, the partial birth ban does not apply and the child is covered under the Wisconsin state ban after viability(22 weeks) but if a psychologist or doctor recommends a woman needs a late term abortion, a saline injection abortion method can be used up until 9 months.

If you can find an abortionist (and they’re out there… Dennis Christensen still does late-term abortions in Milwaukee and in Rockford, Ill.) who would be willing to do an abortion up to nine months pregnancy, it would be legal, using the life of the mother clause. There are cases involving inner-city women who “ignored” their pregnancy until they were eight months pregnant and were able to have an abortion under the life of the mother clause; the argument was that because of their general lack of access to health care (whatever that means), it would be too traumatic to give birth, so the abortion was filed away under a mental health clause of the life of the mother exception.

This document from the State of Wisconsin describes the status of partial-birth abortion in WI and points out that in other states that ban partial-birth abortion, the life-of-the mother exception is generally allowed.

One of the trends through this summary is that good meaning people insert an unnecessary "life of the mother" clause.  The mothers life is of utmost importance, but the assumption is that there is a medical necessity for a direct abortion which is not true.  Although those inserting the clause meant well, all it does is provide a backdoor for those who profit from abortion.  Particularly when we look at partial birth abortion, the general consensus even among the so called pro-choice crowd is the practice is never medically necessary.  To denigrate the life of the child to some kind of intruder in the mother's body trying to wreak havoc is disingenuous to say the least.  So why does that clause exist?  So those businesses that prey on women can continue on unhindered.  If abortion is legal in Wisconsin up until 9 months, then us pro-lifers need to examine why we have failed in protecting children.  We can do better.  We must do better.


Siarlys Jenkins said...

The way it spozed to be...

...if live delivery is possible, without increased risk or harm to the mother (including death of course), and the resulting baby can survive without an artificial heart-lung machine, then the procedure is a delivery, and should be treated as such. If the mother's life is truly at risk, then even killing a near-term baby ready for delivery, TO SAVE THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER, is in my seldom humble opinion justified. But psychologists should stay out of it. "This baby is giving me suicidal thoughts" doesn't cut it. At all.

Anonymous said...

Human life begins at conception. The only time that an abortion should be legal is if the mother's physical life is in danger. There are counselors that can help the pregnant woman get over the stress of an unwanted pregnancy. In addition there are always couples that will adopt the child if the mother does not want the child.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

Anonymous, there are kids bouncing around the foster system for YEARS that haven't been adopted. WHERE ARE all these eager adoptive families? I know they exist, but not enough of them! "There are counselors that can help..." assumes that counseling can solve whatever is bothering the woman. Not always so. What a neat little uninforming pat answer you have to take over other people's lives.

Human life begins long BEFORE conception. Sperm is alive. So are ova. They are undoubtedly human. Think of all the sperm who have to DIE so one can make it into the egg. Think of all the ova who DIE with every menstrual cycle. Why oh why didn't those women get themselves pregnant before a precious egg was lost?

Now, I'm being heavily sarcastic, for a simple reason. I can respect that you believe, and practice, and reach out to others to offer exactly what you are saying. But I won't go along with you dictating to another that they must carry to term what, inevitably, is in their own body, and cannot be transferred to yours.

Anyway, the law is what it is, and not likely to change soon. So can we agree on curbing abuses like aborting at 8 1/2 months because a psychiatrist recommends it?

Badger Catholic said...

SJ: In your previous comment you said capitalists have no ethics or morals, yet in this post you declare there should be no ethics and morals legislated. Well which is it? Should we have justice in society or not? You can't on the one hand say we should legislate against the evils of capitalism but then say we shouldn't legislate on the evils of liberalism.

Hmm, guess there's no need for contraception anymore, you have discovered that all children are immaculately conceived! Oddly enough abortion advocates are on the opposite side of science. You accuse Christians of pushing their religious dogmas on the populous when in reality they are pushing the laws of science!

Turns out Catholics have always stood up for the little guy, the most hated and despised in society. There is no group of people more ferociously attacked in today's society than children conceived via incest and rape. Innocent themselves they suffer an oppression without mercy.

How bizarre would it be for me to argue, “Unless you are willing to marry my wife, you have no right to oppose me beating her.” Or, “Unless you employ ex-slaves in your business, you have no right to oppose slavery.” (Indeed, this was the very argument slave owners made a century ago.) Pro-lifers are willing to adopt, even handicapped children that are often targeted for abortion.

If 8 1/2 months is abuse, when is abortion not an abuse?

Kat said...

BC, I think the strangest thing SJ writes is the argument that sperm and ova are "human life." I've seen this before, and it always makes me wonder how much people were really paying attention during bio and health ed. I really can't let it hang, so excuse my comment please.

Last I looked, sperm and ova, as opposed to an embryo or any of the other developed stages of human life, only have 23 chromosomes. Not 46 (23 pairs), which is the minimum number for the pattern card we call homo sapiens. So, um, that means it's not human life. Unless you're talking about the human beings from whom those gametes come, a unique human life doesn't begin before conception.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

Kat, your argument is at least coherent and well organized, so I'll answer you first. Your numbers are accurate. But, to borrow a bit of logic from Tollefson, if these are not HUMAN sperm and ova, then what kind of sperm and ova are they? Leopard, perhaps? Rattlesnake?

My point is, the mere existence of human germ plasm does not make a human being. I could scrape some cells off the skin of my arm, and each would have a full complement of 46 chromosomes, 23 complete pairs, but I daresay you would not call them "a human being." Yet with the proper understanding of epigenetics, we may soon be able to GROW that cell INTO a complete human being.

(I don't favor doing so. I would favor interrupting such cloning almost anytime during the fetal stage, BUT, if there were a fully formed baby, despite the moral questions raised by the cloning, I would NOT destroy the self-conscious result, which would be innocent of plotting its own existence.)

Badger runs through a series of arguments so rapidly that it is difficult to sort out one at a time for the purpose of providing a direct answer. But I will try to make sense out of the muddle.

I did not argue that ethics should be absent from the civil law. I argued that the law should not dictate to a woman what she must carry inside her own body, merely because you think she should. I draw the line a little short of that, as did the United States Supreme Court. I would even set the line at 20 weeks, because to me, evidence of sentience, self-awareness, and conscious response to pain, define an independent existence.

Once a baby is born, anyone could raise it if the mother does not wish to. But you cannot transfer a 15 week fetus into your own abdomen as your commitment to seeing that it is carried to term. I consider that an important ETHICAL distinction.

Please substantiate the statement that children are immaculately conceived. I can't find it anywhere. Straw man perhaps? A rather weak one, I must say.

Although I know you differ, as you have a right to do, I do not know of any "children" conceived through incest and rape. A zygote is conceived. Without further acts of conception, it grows into a blastocyst. This in turn grows into an embryo, which then grows into a fetus. Any of the above may be spontaneously swept out of the womb, or deliberately removed. None is a child. A fetus may grow into a child, several stages removed from conception.

Again, I am more concerned with whether the woman who would have to carry the result of rape or incest inside her own body, a daily reminder of her violation, chooses to do so, than whether you think she should. Again, a matter of ethics.

It is not necessary for me to marry your wife in order to prevent you from beating her. I could kill you, without killing her. I could offer her shelter at a location kept secret from you, without the slightest necessity to consummate a marriage. I could take full responsibility for her shelter and sustenance, or I could imprison you while she roams freely.

However, a fetus, as I've said, CANNOT live outside the mother. It MUST have another womb to enter into, or it will die. Once it is sufficiently developed to live without a placental connection and amniotic fluid, and without artificial heart-lung machines, it is no longer a fetus, it is a baby, and entitled to protection.

I've already answered your last question, but to be perfectly clear: When the growth inside a woman's body is sentient, and able to survive outside the protection of the womb, without placental support, removing it from the womb is a DELIVERY, not an abortion, and should be legally treated as such.

Badger Catholic said...

the law should not dictate to a woman
That is an ethical decision. What set of ethics should be applied? Businesses are the only entity that can break ethical laws?

cannot transfer a 15 week fetus Why would this be necessary?

that children are immaculately conceived
You stated that Human life begins long BEFORE conception Therefore, the act of contraception is not necessary. Since a sperm is "alive" and "already human" it(or should I say he?) will develop into a fully formed man with no need of fertilization. All these contraceptives in place to make sure sperm and ova do not unite are useless against this new science of "already human" gametes.

Whatever makes you feel better about the situation. When does a zygote/blastocyst/embryo/fetus/mass of cells/blob of tissue become a child? Birth? The pagan Romans were permitted to abort their children... sorry... tissue mass... after birth as well.

Abortion doesn't un-rape a woman. The abortion industry might sell it as such though. Guess you're buying it.

That's for ignoring the argument. It's wrong for a man to beat his wife regardless of what conditions are applied to the situation.

A baby can't feed itself either. I guess until it can walk to the fridge and get a sandwich we should just let them be. In fact sometimes elderly are not complete independent as well. We could suck out their brain with a vacuum as well. And the handicapped, not independent enough, no need to assist them. There's all kinds of people who cannot live outside their mothers. It looks like you have selected some that don't have a right to life.

Kat said...

SJ, I just wanted to get back to you briefly. If you have other questions on the scientific front, perhaps we could move it to e-mail. BC, would you be willing to facilitate that?

Your argument was about human life beginning before conception. Unless we are saying that all human life is the same human, we cannot argue that the child in the womb is the same as the woman who bears it. A sperm is of the pattern of the man from whom it came, but when combined with the egg, the two form a unique human life, of a pattern distinct from either the woman or the man who supplied the gametes. Those skin cells you reference, as much as a single sperm, cannot live a separate reproductive human life. Hence, human cells, but not a human life as we define it. Now, we can get into the realm of cloning and IVF and such, but that's nothing to do with our abortion argument here, hm?

The other aspect of this is that if, indeed, the embryo is a unique human life, what right does a woman have to intentionally snuff it? That it is inside her? If I put my finger inside your mouth, do you have the right to kill me?

Sorry, BC, for dominating the combox. :)

Siarlys Jenkins said...

BC is welcome to provide Kat my email address.

Kat, if anyone took the time to say "from the moment of conception there is a new human cell with an unique new genetic pattern that will, if it successfully implants in the uterine wall, and is not by any natural or artificial process removed, grow into a unique new human being," I could not and would not argue with it.

My argument is with sloppy phrases like "life begins at conception." And then, I distinguish between a zygote, which has no mentation or self-awareness, and a 20-week fetus, which has a sufficiently well developed cerebral cortex to be aware of its own existence.

I've answered most of BC's comments in later posts, but I will note that ANY adult, or even older child, could pick up the baby and feed it, once delivered. Up to a certain point, a fetus removed from the womb would die no matter how many adults were standing by with bottles in hand -- so ONLY the mother could carry it to term. That, in my mind, is one difference between a first or second trimester abortion (legal and acceptable) vs. dumping a new-born baby in the toilet (illegal and unacceptable -- baby could be dropped off at any legally designated safe haven and properly cared for).

Badger Catholic said...

SJ, I don't have your email. Mine is available on the top corner of the screen. If you email me, I will share. I'm hoping Kat would consider sharing the argument to all of us.

Nobody defines that life begins when a baby can nurse from a bottle, scientific to philosophical. Scientifically speaking, human life does begin at conception, even if it is inconvenient. If you are arguing that point, we can bring in a biologist. And again I challenge the assertion that any young child up to a few years old is "aware of its own existence."

Bigbuddah2011 said...

This is simple. Look at the picture. Look at the child theres no argument christian atheist or muslim this is wrong. I never knew until i looked up the procedure. This isnt just another organ this is a life and a little person with feelings. A person who should of had a life ahead of them and got destroyed like a monster. But yet its such an innocent person.

Anonymous said...

Abortion is murder...simply take or use birth thing is abstinence.keep your pants on,in laymans has it helped the children to supply birth control....we need to teach good morals and disciplining yourself...

Anonymous said...

To all who belive it is only a baby if it can live at birth with no life support: Then why are late term abortions wherein the baby is alive before the delivery and dead after considered abortions and not murder? I have nieces who were born at 24 weeks. They are now almost 7. There mother delivered preterm babies and is so happy that they lived. It is a sad fact that many live births are ended after delivery - botched abortions - murdered. When will it be enough to understand truth? When a mother has a sonogram at 8 weeks, her doctor shows her the heartbeat and tells her, "This is your baby!" At 20 weeks, the mother may find out the sex of "the baby." If she goes into preterm delivery mode, everything is done to keep the pregnancy viable so the baby may live. Choices are made every day. If the baby is wanted, it is termed a baby - even days after conception - by Doctors, by lawyers, and by judges! When the baby is unwanted, he or she is called by animal referenced names that began in use during the middle ages. Look up the meaning of the word Fetus from Latin - its original use. Life is precious. It isn't a statistic. Life is a choice. Sometimes it is a difficult choice, but a choice it is.