Posted on 02/14/2005 2:56:44 PM PST by Soliton
Are Howard Dean and Judy Dean abortionists?
In a well-reported and thoroughly analyzed January 8th, 2004 interview with People Magazine, Drs. Dean were asked if they “were active in Planned Parenthood in Burlington”.
The conversation from that point went like this:
Judy: We both worked there, while we were residents, but I wouldn't call it active. Howard: And no, neither of us ever did an abortion.
Q: Why do you say it that way? Howard: Because I always get asked that. Q: Why didn't you perform abortions?
Howard: Because we don't do them. They don't train residents to do that.
Judy: When we were residents, we were working there basically to get GYN experience because you don't generally do it on hospitalized patients. And then you start to have a practice without having a lot of GYN experience.
Q: Do you have a moral opposition to performing the procedure? I mean, you're both physicians, you at some point — Howard: I think that's a private matter between the physician and the patient. I don't have a moral problem, but neither of us is trained to do abortions. We're both internists. Internists don't do abortions. ... It would be malpractice if we did.
Q: Would you do them if you'd had the training? Howard: I've learned long ago not to answer hypothetical questions like that. Both of us chose internal medicine, so we never had to make that choice. I firmly believe in the right to choose. This is a private matter between a doctor and a patient. It's none
Kathryn Jean Lopez, of National Review Online had this to say about the exchange:
“I have no idea if Howard Dean is telling the truth when he says he has never performed an abortion and that he does not have the necessary training. But I do have reason to wonder. Dean, it would seem, has spent way too much time as a politician around abortion-advocacy doublespeak: He may not know the truth anymore.”
And later in the same article, Ms. Lopez adds:
“And as an added question mark — Vermont is actually one of two states that allow non-physicians to perform abortions. What was that about malpractice, again?” www.nationalreview.com/lopez/lopez200401221110.asp
George Neumayer of The American Spectator had this to say about the same exchange in the same interview:
“Dean's comments to People magazine raise more questions than they answer. In a state where non-physicians are performing abortions, it seems remarkable that a former Planned Parenthood doctor and board member would never have performed, assisted at, or referred for abortions. (If a Republican presidential nominee had worked for the NRA, served on its executive board, and then said he didn't own guns, wouldn't the press find that a little curious?).” http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6028
Both of the above publications are considered “right wing media”. Of course, if you are going to find questions that may expose the darlings of the “left wing media”, like the Deans, that’s where they would most likely originate.
I am only interested in the truth.
It appears to be as follows:
Dr. Howard Dean uses the phrases “did abortions” and “do abortions”. This apparently refers to surgical abortions because he goes on to say, “We're both internists. Internists don't do abortions. ... It would be malpractice if we did.”
The Deans are “Internists”, or those that practice internal medicine. Internal medicine is a non-surgical medical specialty concerned with diseases of internal organs in adults. Internists don’t “do” surgery; therefore the Deans couldn’t “do” abortions.
Both Lopez and Neumayr point out that Vermont allows non-physicians to “do” abortions these days, but that doesn’t mean it was the case when the doctors worked for Planned Parenthood.
The interesting fact missing from all of this is that there is a common non-surgical procedure for terminating pregnancy called Intrauterine Instillation:
“This abortion procedure involves either withdrawing a portion of amniotic fluid from the uterine cavity by a needle inserted through the abdominal wall and replacing this fluid with a concentrated salt solution (known as saline instillation, saline abortion, or saline amniotic fluid exchange) or injecting a prostaglandin - a substance with hormone-like activity - into the uterine cavity through a needle inserted through the abdominal wall (known as intra-uterine prostaglandin instillation). The saline instillation process induces labor, which results in the expulsion of the usually dead fetus approximately 24 to 48 hours later. The interval between prostaglandin injection and expulsion tends to be shorter than in a saline abortion.”
A physician would prescribe the medications and the procedure and then perform the instillation. This is something that an internist doing an internship with Planned Parenthood would reasonably be expected to do. The doctor introduces a chemical agent that in turn induces an abortion, but doesn’t actually “do” the abortion (the mother does). In the event of an incomplete delivery of the fetus or after birth, a D&C, not an “abortion would be performed.
Howard Dean’s Alma Mater practice this procedure while he was there:
Obstet Gynecol. 1972 Oct;40(4):556-62. Related Articles, Links
Factors responsible for delay in obtaining interruption of pregnancy.
Mallory GB Jr, Rubenstein LZ, Drosness DL, Kleiner GJ, Sidel VW.
PIP: A sample of 132 women undergoing early abortion by suction curettage or late abortion (after the twelfth week of gestation) by intrauterine saline instillation at the Hospital of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine between January 1 and March 31, 1971, were interviewed to explore why there are so many late abortions. Women having late abortions tended to be younger (mean age 22.2 compared to mean age 26.6 for women having early abortions) single and nulliparous and were less likely to use contraception than women seeking early abortions (only 26% under age 25 had used contraception compared to 71% of the same age group who had early abortions). The majority (55%) of the patients delayed abortions for personal reasons, but 26% of the abortions were delayed because of reasons related to the medical care system. Women from outside of New York experienced greater difficulty in obtaining abortions than residents as evidenced by the fact that almost 1/2 of the nonresidents had decided on abortion before the twelfth week and still had late abortions. In both the early and late groups nearly 14% had to wait longer than necessary to obtain abortions. The study suggests that both physicians and patients be made aware of the advantages of early abortion. Over 40% of the women in the study had never used contraception, a result which stresses the need for health education and counseling with emphasis on contraception, particularly among the inexperienced and younger women. Until a major shift is seen from late to early abortion however, saline abortions must be provided safely and with consideration for the woman.
If Howard Dean did perform this procedure it might explain something confusing he said to Kathryn Jean Lopez:
“This all makes what he said during a conference call last week a little more understandable. Dean claimed, "No doctor is going to do an abortion on a live fetus. That doesn't happen. Doctors don't do that. If they do, they'll get their license pulled, as well they should."
If you recall from the description above:
“The saline instillation process induces labor, which results in the expulsion of the usually dead fetus…” It’s all just clean up from there.
I don’t know what Dr. Dean did as an intern at Planned Parenthood, or for that matter, before or since. I do know that his answers are incomplete and factually incorrect. As he and the democrat Party reach out to evangelicals, and try to move to the center, they should have the integrity to be honest about his record. He should release his case files from his time at Planned Parenthood.
Would it be out of place for an internist on an OB/GYN rotation to do an Intrutrine Instillation?
Intruterine
Intrauterine
Whether they've committed abortions or not is somewhat of a mute point.
The real issue now is that Howie, in his new role, supports the killing of unborn children up to birth.
It does matter if they performed the abortions or not - you see there is a special place in hell for those who hold the knife.
Granted if the Dean's were offered the "experience" I doubt they would have declined.
As far as training at PP, I've never seen Internal Med residence rotating through there because now you can get loads of experience in the ERs,but it's possible. I have no idea what it was like back then.
There are so many levels to who CAN do what and what they're likely to do...there are Licenses, privileges and scope of practice.They're all different.
As a physician a psychiatrist is LICENSED to do an appendectomy - or for that matter brain surgery. However no hospital is going to give them PRIVILEGES to do anything other than practice within the scope of psychiatry. If they did an appendectomy or brain surgery it would be malpractice. (These kind of discussions relate to whether or not OB/GYN's should be giving botox - some are.)
Most internists (all I know) would be unlikely to feel confident doing an intrauterine instillation. I don't know of any internal medicine program that would teach intrauterine instillations. They'd refer it to the OB/GYN. It sounds to me like its basically an amniocentesis, but instead of withdrawing amniotic fluid, saline is instilled.
Could the Deans have received extra training from an OB/GYN and then done intrauterine instillations - Sure, their licenses would allow them to do this.
But having been through internal medicine internship, I believe it's more likely that they felt they didn't get enough experience doing even basic GYN procedures like pap smears and pelvic exams (that they would be asked to perform in a private practice clinic) and they were looking to get more experience at the very basics.
I could be wrong - but without any paperwork showing "privileges" for them do do intrauterine instillations, I can accept their explanation without thinking it's necessarily fishy. Others clearly think differently.
If Dr. SDean has no problem with abortion, what would be wrong with him releasing the records. It might help him.
I really am not trying to defend Dean. Generally speaking I don't like him or what he stands for. I just don't want our side to end up looking as crazy as the left did over the Texas Air National Guard paperwork.
More information is better than less and I don't think there would be anything wrong with opening up his records on what kinds of privileges he's held where. (Though clearly opening up patient records gets into privacy issues).
I sort of suspect though that he sees it as a no win situation. After a number of years it wouldn't surpise me if a page here or there is missing (as they were with GWB's national guard records). If the bulk of records exonerate him (at least in terms of actually performing abortions rather than 'just' being pro-choice - which we already know he is) there will be some on the right who will be as unsatisfied with the validity of those records as some on the left were with GWB's TANG records.
Thanks for the unbiased response. We should never be guilty of forcing our data to match our hypothosis.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.