The words of an abortionist. I am again spending a few hours digging through a legal database and came across another tragic abortion case. I’ll spare you the details. But this is how Justice MacLellan of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court summarized Dr. Piver’s testimony:
Dr. Julius Piver testified as an expert. He works in Bethesda, Maryland and has performed between 600 to 700 abortions all of which were done in a hospital setting on a Outpatient basis as opposed to a clinic similar to the Morgentaler Clinic. He said his patients normally are given a general anesthetic and they are asleep while the abortion is done. He said he was familiar with the clinic setup for abortions where a local anesthetic is used. Dr. Piver said that his rule of practice was that a patient would not be allowed to drive after having an abortion whether it was done under general or local anesthetic. He said that if he was aware that a patient intended to drive, he would not do the procedure because he felt that it would put the patient’s life in jeopardy.
He said that most women who have abortions are unhappy having the procedure. He said this is particularly true of women who have had a child or other children. He said the procedure is already emotionally charged and that the decision to drive or not to drive should not be left with the patient.
There are references to driving because the woman was in a car accident following her abortion.
So…if he is correct and most women are unhappy having the procedure…why are they having the procedure? Is it because they feel they have no other choice? And if that’s the case, is offering them only one choice, pro-choice? Offering one option, a terrible and unwanted option, doesn’t sound like much of a choice to me.
This woman did not want to have an abortion at all. She even asked the hospital if she could have the body of her aborted child in order to bury her little one, rather than have it disposed or incinerated. The hospital refused. (I’m sure there are regulations against such things.)
Not that we need it, but another indication that there is something seriously wrong with our abortion status quo.
(Case reference: MacPhail v. Desrosiers, 1997 CarswellNS 546)by