Justices Say Abortionists Can Deceive Women About Fetal Development

"Don't be stupid. It's only blood."

That's how obstetrician-gynecologist and abortionist Sheldon Turkish allegedly answered Rose Acuna when she asked if there was a "baby in there" after six to eight weeks of pregnancy. Apparently, Acuna wanted to make an informed decision before going through with an abortion. But Turkish wanted to decide for her by referring the life growing inside of her as "just blood" and making her feel like an idiot for even asking.

And according to the New Jersey Supreme Court, that's perfectly acceptable.

Last week the court dismissed the lawsuit Acuna filed against Turkish claiming he lied to her about the development of her baby. You see, she began her own research into fetal development after her abortion when she had complications and was told by a nurse that "the doctor had left parts of the baby inside of you."

National Review Online's (NRO) Walter Weber describes the events this way,

Baby? What baby? Didn't the doctor say "just blood" (or "just tissue")?

Acuna started looking for answers. What she found out about the medical realities of human development and abortion was emotionally devastating. Now, she would carry a burden of guilt and grief for the rest of her life.

Rose Acuna sued the doctor, saying she'd been lied to and misled. The case wound its way through the New Jersey legal system until, on September 12, the state supreme court ordered her case dismissed.

The court determined that since Acuna knew she was pregnant, then she knew she would give birth to a child in 7 months if she didn't have a miscarriage. So they said it doesn't matter that the abortionist misinformed her about its development.

Again, NRO's Weber clarifies it for us,

In other words, so long as the woman is told she's pregnant, the would-be abortionist can feed her the most preposterous nonsense about what's actually going on in her womb. And if that nonsense induces the woman to abort the baby in ignorance, too bad.

Looking at the enclosed photo of a 7 week old pre-born baby and recalling the words of the abortionist Sheldon Turkish and subsequent decision from the New Jersey Supreme Court, I'm reminded of this passage in Romans about God's just wrath against mankind.

Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

I believe this is true for these justices. They approve of those who murder pre-born babies. And in this case, by any means necessary.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

1. JB said the following at 1:38 PM on Sep 17:

I'm not sure in what sense the doctor misinformed Ms Acuna. He sounds like he was unspeakably rude to her, but he says that he told her the embryo was "just tissue" which is medically accurate as far as it goes. Even "just blood" is a good answer to, "What would it look like if I could see inside the uterus?" At seven weeks gestation, Ms Acuna shouldn't imagine that the contents of her uterus would appear anything like an infant except at high magnification.

The nurse who told her that there were "parts of the baby" still in her uterus is the one who was misinforming Ms Acuna. Almost certainly she had endometritis, which is caused by remaining pieces of placenta - not pieces of "baby."

In any case, Ms Acuna knew the relevant facts. She was pregnant and the doctor was terminating a pregnancy. What kind of answer was she looking for?

2. LauraS said the following at 1:49 PM on Sep 17:

I heard a message John MacArther gave on the National Day of Prayer this year. He said a depraved mind is a mind incapable of discerning right and wrong.

Sometimes I get frustrated at stories like this, when justice is so incredibly perverted. But those doctors and judges have a depraved mind and are wholly incapable to discern between right and wrong.

3. Motte said the following at 2:06 PM on Sep 17:

JB:

Your argument seems to be that because you can't see the baby clearly without "high magnification," it's not worth considering. Well Ms. Acuna considered it after she found out that her baby's heart had been beating for one month; that it had arms and legs, and fingers and toes; and that it could kick and swim in her womb.

And now she is suffering the guilt of allowing her abortionist to kill her own baby.

You are also a pretty bold with your "medical" assertions. Tell me, have you ever seen the "product" of abortion from a 7 week old pregnancy? You must have to claim there would be not parts of the baby that can be left in her uterus.

Is it not plain to you that the photo I enclosed of a 7 week old pre-born baby is in fact a baby and not just blood or tissue? If not, it appears you too have exchanged the truth for a lie.

4. Ted Slater said the following at 2:12 PM on Sep 17:

JB -- shall we infer that you consider yourself to be "just tissue" as well?

5. nikki said the following at 2:23 PM on Sep 17:

This story is a good reason that graphic "baby pictures" can be effective. I don't know how someone can really be so ignorant to think there is "just blood in there," but if they really don't know, then they need to be shown some accurate photos. My heart goes out to the woman who had her child killed.

Sometimes I get frustrated at stories like this, when justice is so incredibly perverted. But those doctors and judges have a depraved mind and are wholly incapable to discern between right and wrong. That's nonsense. Everyone has a moral conscience or "compass" that points the way towards a higher power by way of its universalism. I know there has to be some kind of intense suffocation of the moral directions when people can be so inhumanly cruel, but they certainly know what they are doing, even if they have deceived themselves.

6. P&P said the following at 2:41 PM on Sep 17:

It sounds as though both the doctor and nurse that followed up were painfully insensitive, if the testimony is accurate. However I also wonder about the woman who seems to have waged a well-funded battle against the physician.

There's something "off" in this case. I wonder if this woman would have been so remorseful of her abortion had there not been complications.

7. Jacob said the following at 3:01 PM on Sep 17:

We tolerate the killing of children and somehow consider ourselves a "sane" "normal" and "humane" society. In reality, abortion is nothing short of barbarianism and those who practice it the barbarians.

8. JB said the following at 3:04 PM on Sep 17:

Motte,

I made no such argument. I'm just wondering what it is that you would have had the doctor tell Ms Acuna that would be within the realm of science and medicine (he could have said, "it's a person" but he would not have been doing so in his capacity as a doctor). I assume, since you've defended the idea that life begins at conception elsewhere, that you think the level of embryonic development at 7 weeks gestation is entirely beside the point in deciding if abortion is wrong. So Ms Acuna had all the relevant data from a moral standpoint and I don't see where she was mislead.

I have seen pictures of the products of a first trimester abortion and it looks like a mass of bloody tissue, which is why I imagine the doctor responded as he did. And as for the post-abortion complications, anything is conceivable, but because the placenta adheres to the uterine wall and the embryo does not, endometritis is caused by placental tissue.

It just sounds to me like one of two things happened in this case. Maybe Ms Acuna, while she knew that she was terminating her pregnancy, didn't think through her decision and ended up lashing out at the doctor. Or maybe Ms Acuna and her doctor just weren't communicating - she wanted to know one thing and the doctor thought she was asking another. The thing I don't see here is a doctor intentionally misinforming or misleading a patient.

9. Vincenzo said the following at 3:29 PM on Sep 17:

Jacob said:

"We tolerate the killing of children and somehow consider ourselves a "sane" "normal" and "humane" society. In reality, abortion is nothing short of barbarianism and those who practice it the barbarians."

I agree with your sentiment. People get in an uproar over the Michael Vicks case and dolphins getting dragged in nets, yet not a word of protest over babies being aborted.

10. JB said the following at 3:32 PM on Sep 17:

So I finally did what I should have started by doing and looked up the case (http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courts/supreme/a-15-06.doc.html).

The summary and opinion make it pretty clear what Ms Acuna wanted the doctor to say. A few quotes (where Ms Acuna is "Plaintiff"):

"In her complaint, plaintiff specifically alleges that Dr. Turkish breached a duty owed to her by failing to inform her of “the scientific and medical fact that [her six- to eight-week-old embryo] was a complete, separate, unique and irreplaceable human being” and that an abortion would result in “killing an existing human being.” Plaintiff contends that every physician, before performing an abortion, must advise the patient in clear and understandable language that “the family member [the embryo] is already in existence and that the procedure -- indeed the central purpose of the procedure -- is intended to kill that family member.”"

"Plaintiff contends that “there is a critical difference between agreeing to a procedure that would prevent a human being from coming into existence, and agreeing to a procedure that terminates the life of an existing living human being.”"

So, essentially, Ms Acuna wanted to be told that her embryo was a person. I think it's strange to insist that a doctor know whether an embryo is a person or not (and know that he needs to inform his patients of this fact) when that is a continuing theological and philosophical argument.

11. Motte said the following at 5:14 PM on Sep 17:

You are right on one point. The fact that the level of embryonic development is 7 weeks is entirely beside the point for me. But it is not beside the point when you consider the circumstance. Ms. Acuna was clearly uncertain about having an abortion when she asked if it was a baby. At that point, the abortionist had an obligation to provide her with more detailed information about fetal development if he were at all concerned about her well-being. He was not.

Also, you are wrong about your arm chair diagnosis of an "incomplete abortion." An incomplete abortion by definition is an abortion where the parts of the fetus are left inside the uterus. Yes, the placenta can be a part of an incomplete abortion too but I don't understand why you won't acknowledge that fetal parts can be left inside the uterus as well.

I wonder too if you are being intentionally vague to hide the horror of abortion when you describe a first trimester abortion as a bloody mess. Because baby body parts can be seen.

12. Canadian Boy said the following at 5:55 PM on Sep 17:

Great judgmental tone, Motte. I'm sure if any of those justices read this article they'd be feeling a lot of fear of God.

But, and I gotta be honest here, this case feels like it belongs on Judge Judy. Ms. Acuna sued the doctor because he told her it was just blood in "there". Was Ms. Acuna not aware that, since she was pregnant, there WAS a baby inside of her? What sort of bizarre circumstances must have taken place for her to never know that a baby inside of her was going to be aborted?

I don't buy it. I don't see how Ms. Acuna could not know that there was a baby inside her if she was pregnant. And if she didn't know, then I think we need to ask why. But since she probably did, this just seems like a ridiculous lawsuit she's presenting to gain some cash. So I'm siding with the courts.

Now, I only know of the case from this post, so if I've missed a really important part, I apologize. But for a woman to claim she didn't know that it was a baby that was being aborted when her pregnancy was terminated... come on. No way.

13. Chris said the following at 6:26 PM on Sep 17:

I found this on-line:

"On the profound issue of when life begins, this court cannot drive public policy in one particular direction by the engine of the common law when the opposing sides, which represent so many of our citizens, are arrayed along a deep societal and philosophical divide," New Jersey Justice Barry T. Albin wrote for the court.

This came from http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jrs9m50NDTbUyvg4Gy0ZyVfdRedg.

Reading that quote, it seems to me like the court said that it could not legislate from the bench on a divisive issue. Note the phrase "cannot drive public policy."

I thought that's what conservatives always wanted from legal rulings.

14. JB said the following at 9:14 PM on Sep 17:

We may actually agree about several things.

I agree with you that the doctor ought to have provided Ms Acuna with whatever information about embryonic development she wanted. If she wanted to know, say, if the heart was beating, the doctor should have told her. It's really unfortunate that he dismissed her concerns so quickly. I don't know if he's a bad doctor or if there was just bad communication on both sides, but certainly he should have done better. I do not think, however, that it is his place to tell her whether or not an embryo is a person. Ms Acuna's lawsuit was based on the contention that the doctor had an obligation to tell her that her embryo was a "complete, separate, and unique human being." That kind of judgment is not properly a medical one, but a philosophical and theological one.

I also concede that it is possible that an incomplete abortion could include embryonic parts, though this is not necessarily the case. Stenchever's Comprehensive Gynecology says, "Incomplete abortion occurs when a part of the products of conception has been expelled but some remains within the uterus." I contend that the remaining products of conception are far more likely to be placental tissue than fetal tissue, but honestly I can't recall why we're arguing this point. I think we're mostly in agreement.

However, I do think the nurse was irresponsible to talk about "baby parts" when she could not have known whether any part of the embryo was there in the first place. It also isn't a very sensitive kind of thing to say.

And as for the final part, at week 7, the embryo is 1/3 of an inch long. Given that, I think "bloody mass of tissue" is a more accurate description of what one sees than "baby body parts." That's not to say that there aren't embryonic body parts there, you just wouldn't see them. I think from the perspective of a layperson unconcerned with the moral import of abortion, "blood" or "tissue" is a better descriptor than "baby."

15. Christy said the following at 10:42 PM on Sep 17:

In her complaint, plaintiff specifically alleges that Dr. Turkish breached a duty owed to her by failing to inform her of “the scientific and medical fact that [her six- to eight-week-old embryo] was a complete, separate, unique and irreplaceable human being . . .”

Dr. Jerome LeJeune, the renowned geneticist who discovered the cause of Down syndrome, once testified to this effect before a U.S. Senate Judiciary subcommittee. He said that "each individual has a very neat beginning: the moment of its conception." This individual's human nature is not a question of "opinion" or a "metaphysical contention," but is "plain experimental evidence."

At conception, fetal genes organize into "an entirely original combination that has never occurred before and will never again." Dr. LeJeune described "a movie featuring the youngest star in the world," an 11 week old baby dancing in utero, produced by a doctor from England: "The baby plays, so to speak, on a trampoline! He bends his knees, pushes on the wall, soars up and falls down again."

With regard to the fetus, "We now know what he feels, we have listened to what he hears, smelled what he tastes and we have really seen him dancing full of grace and youth. Science has turned the fairytale of Tom Thumb into a true story, the one each of us has lived in the womb of his mother."

I can see why this might appear to be an issue of whether New Jersey legislates from the bench. Courts need not decide, though, whether life starts at conception. In the Acuna case, the issue is not whether the high court decides this.

The issue is whether medical staff must accurately represent what scientific research has established, when they advise women about abortion. It is already the case, I think, that they must give accurate information when abortion is not the issue.

Dr. LeJeune's full Senate testimony, is online here.

16. Shannon said the following at 10:51 PM on Sep 17:

Just as regretted sex doesn't become rape the next day, a regretted abortion doesn't become an actionable court case against the doctor. What about her personal responsibility to understand her own actions? Did the doctor deny her the right to go on the internet and look up fetal development? And how, as Canadian boy said, could she know she was pregnant and yet not understand that she was pregnant with a baby?

Cases like this turn on the idea that we women need to be protected from ourselves, that we are infantilized and incapable of taking responsibility for our own decisions.

17. Mariposa said the following at 10:54 PM on Sep 17:

According to the actual facts of the case, it appears that Ms Acuna possessed (or later developed) a particular religious/political belief about the contents of her uterus. Her physician did not share her views. This apparently upset Ms Acuna, so she sued her doctor.

The court ruled correctly in reaffirming the right of a physician to stick to medical facts without need to infuse them with religious notions.

As the AP reports: 'The decision, citing past rulings, said the court "will not place a duty on doctors when there is no consensus in the medical community or among the public" on when life begins.'

18. Jethro said the following at 5:28 AM on Sep 18:

Which Bible verse says that judge's should be strict constructionists? In the absence of a verse, which Biblical principles underly this opinion which seems to be held by almost all evangelical Christians?

19. Justice said the following at 11:39 AM on Sep 18:

You guys,
Cher had complications because PARTS OF THE BABY WERE STILL INSIDE!!!!!

This after being told there were no parts! only blood!

20. Christy said the following at 12:31 PM on Sep 18:

I agree that the physician should not be required to hold any religious views.

A different legal question is whether the physician must give accurate medical information.

She is free to believe that abortion is morally fine, but she could not call the fetus "only blood" and pass a basic medical exam. Genetically and biologically, the child is distinctly human from the moment of conception. It does not become human at a later point.

21. Kelly said the following at 12:37 PM on Sep 18:

I don’t necessarily think the doctor needed to tell Ms. Acuna that she had a “human being” inside her, but I certainly think he failed to adequately answer her question about whether or not there was a baby. It sounds like this particular pro-choice physician was acting out of his own emotional reaction to calling a “fetus” a “baby.” Medically, a fetus is NOT just mass of tissue or just blood, but a fetus. I don’t think this doc had to go so far as to call it a “baby” in order to inform his patient, but he should be required to adequately inform her of the medical facts. Yes, sometimes patients do get confused about what’s going on in their bodies, and it’s the physician’s job to clarify things, ESPECIALLY when an appropriate understanding is necessary in order to make a moral decision.
This doctor failed to tell his patient what was really going on. How frightening it is to know that the right to informed consent cannot be assured to those women trying to choose between life and abortion.

22. Jessica said the following at 6:34 AM on Sep 19:

JB: You are right to say that the doctor was not responsible to inform Ms. Acuna that the embryo was a person, as in our culture that is, unfortunately, a matter of personal opinion, and, if he is performing abortions daily, he likely is of the opinion that embryos are not yet "people."

You cannot logically argue, however, that a doctor is ever correct in misinforming his patient or withholding information from his patient. When Ms. Acuna asked if there was a "baby in there," the doctor was then bound by his own oaths of practice to inform her what the procedure entailed (though I would argue that he was already bound prior to her questioning), and also what would be removed from her uterus.
If I were to go have my gallbladder out, though it contains no viable life, I would expect the doctor to explain to me the function of my gallbladder, what it looked like, where it was located, what would happen in the procedure, how I could expect to recover, etc.
If you do a little research, you will find that abortion facilities and Planned Parenthood (check out their website - they never inform the women having abortions about what really happens in an abortion. It is QUITE glossed over. Also look up a synopsis of what really does happen. You'll probably want to vomit.) are content and happy to gloss over the entire procedure. Why? They contend that embryos are not "viable lives". What beyond that? I would argue that they have a motive. If abortion were to be considered the willful taking of viable life, if we were all honest and said that development of a heartbeat, fingers and toes, etc. proved that an embryo was a person-in-waiting to come into the world, abortionists would be murderers, as would women having abortions, abortion would be outlawed and classified as murder, and the crashing of the entire industry of performing abortions would leave many doctors without their previous incomes, many women with unquenched guilt and grief, and many people wondering why we allowed it to go on for so long.
I would even argue that many women who go to get abortions prefer to be in the dark about the procedure. If I am "ignorant" about what I am doing, aren't I somehow justified in considering myself less responsible for the life I took than if I had known what happens in an abortion? Ignorance allows women to "pass the buck" to the doctors, who then attribute their practices to a "knowledge" that unborn babies are not viable lives.

23. Tasiyagnunpa Livermont said the following at 8:39 PM on Oct 31:

The problem is not so much with the doctor, as it is with our education system in America. Forget about sex ed, why can't we educate our youngsters on what the "tissue" looks like at various stages. I'm pro-life, I'm all about calling it a baby, but we need to educate people about the stages of pregnancy and the different stages of development of the fetus.

Then, doctors who are foolishly misleading people will have lost their power.

Knowledge is power--if this woman had had know the facts of development and seen pictures of the developing baby she wouldn't have even been sitting there. And if she had been, then she knew what she was doing, and the doctor needn't be blamed.

The doctor should not have done what he did, but neither should we leave young people so ignorant about human life.

As for the judges and even the doctor, let's all turn our fingers back on ourselves for putting up with a country where we don't educate our young people thoroughly.