RH Reality Check
Font Size: A |  A |  A

How to (Un)pack for a Real Conversation About Abortion

Heather Corinna's picture

The murder of abortion provider Dr. George Tiller on May 31st has resulted in a lot of conversation about abortion. It's a topic frequently hushed, or spoken about more around its politics than the actual procedure, the experience itself and the real women who have abortions. So this increased discussion is certainly something potentially positive happening because of something horribly tragic. More discussion around anything which is or may be treated as unspeakable is always a good thing.

However, often in these conversations and news stories, language is used that's confusing or inaccurate, and some statements are made about abortion or women who choose abortion which are false, unrepresentative or misleading. And any of this can come from either "side" of abortion debates or discussions, due to political aims or motivations, ideological ideas or agendas or just out of plain old ignorance. Just like a whole lot of people don't know the finer points of open-heart surgery, a lot of people just don't know what goes on with an abortion procedure, especially from a provider's point of view. If inaccurate, misleading or ideologically-loaded language is being used, or myths are being held as truths, our communication and understanding is always going to be limited. And that's never a good thing, unless we don't really want to understand something at all.

Let's start with a few typical language issues. When the politics of abortion are discussed, often language is used in talking about abortion that doesn't actually exist in the practice itself, that providers don't usually use or have any practical use for, and some of which is absolutely meaningless or invented only to try and misrepresent abortion or pregnancy.

"Late-term abortion"

Plenty of you have probably heard the term "late-term abortion," lately because Dr. Tiller was one of the few providers who provided abortions for women past 24 weeks. "Late-term" is a phrase that we don't use in practice because it doesn't mean anything solid, practical or medical. Even in common use it's pretty meaningless: when some people say that they mean an abortion from the 20th week through the current legal limit (which in some states is up to 28 weeks), others mean the whole second trimester, and some are talking about abortions into a period of time when legal abortions can no longer even be performed (past that 28th week or less in some states) except when the life or health of the mother is in danger, as determined by her doctor.

Whether a doctor or healthcare worker is talking about a pregnancy that ends in a birth, miscarriage or with an abortion, we talk about the timing of pregnancy either in weeks (as in, labor and delivery usually happen around the 40th week) or in trimesters. The first trimester of pregnancy is from gestation (from the date of a woman's last menstrual period) through 12 weeks, the second from weeks 13-28, and the third from week 29 until a full-term, which is generally considered to be between the 37th and 42nd week, even though some women may deliver earlier or later.

Viability is more of a legal term than one used in healthcare, and in legal use has been defined as a fetus "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid." In other words, for much of pregnancy, even with amazing care and medical technology, a fetus cannot survive outside a mother's uterus. But at a certain point, even if it has not fully developed yet, it can or may be able to.

What viability is considered to be, in terms of at what number of weeks, varies from state to state and has also changed over time. When Roe Vs. Wade was decided, viability was considered to be around 28 weeks, but since that time, it has changed in some areas or countries to be as early as 22 weeks. However, in practice, viability is generally determined more by unique development, like lung development (which will vary some from fetus to fetus) rather than by weeks.

An astute bit of commentary in the Wiki on pregnancy adds about the increasing time period of viability that, "Unfortunately, there has been a profound increase in morbidity and mortality associated with the increased survival to the extent it has led some to question the ethics and morality of resuscitating at the edge of viability."

Babies and Conception

"Baby" is another term we don't use in medical practice: it's an infant or newborn when we're talking about a live birth. Before birth, we are talking about an embryo, around two weeks after gestation, or a fetus, from the end of the tenth week of gestation onward. This language is not meaningless or just about semantics: we're talking about very different phases of development when we talk about a zygote, a blastocyst, an embryo, a fetus and an infant. But for those of us working in abortion, embryo or fetus are the only terms we're using: anything before an embryo is to early for a termination (and often even for a pregnancy test), and an infant at or post-birth is not something we ever see in our practice.

Conception is also not a term we use in abortion. We don't have any need to argue when conception does or doesn't start, or to use this term at all because it doesn't give us any information we need. What we need to know is if a woman is pregnant, and if so, what the size (via an ultrasound) of the fetus or embryo is, and, for legal purposes, how many weeks pregnant she is based on that size and her last menstrual period.

"Partial-birth abortion"

This this is not a medical term, and there is no such medical procedure that exists by this name. Rather, it was a term invented by Douglas Johnson, the legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee in 1995.

We have a legal ban -- put in place during the Bush administration, and which remains in place now -- on something by this name, even though it has no meaning in actual practice. Incidentally, the law itself also contains some pretty strange language for a law or policy. (In fact, if you also click the link to Roe V. Wade on that page, check out how different the language is. It's a pretty major difference.)

What people using this term usually mean is a termination which is done around or after the legal limit for elective (as in, chosen, and with no need for a doctor's order) abortions. The actual medical practice often being called "partial-birth" is an intact dilation and extraction (an ID&X, which is very different than a standard D&E), which is almost exclusively done for health reasons, stillbirth or profound fetal abnormalities, and/or also if the mother or parents would like the fetus to remain intact (for their own emotional process or for burial) or an autopsy is recommended. I won't go into depth here about all that procedure can involve, but now that you know the right term, you can look it up for yourself, or take a look here, here or here for some sound general information.

Abortion procedures done at this time make up less than 2% of all abortions every year: they are exceptionally rare. An ID&X is not usually the procedure used for second-trimester procedures, and never for first-trimester procedures. ID&X is a type of abortion procedure for women who, very late in the game (usually in the third trimester) discover that either their fetus has very serious problems, that their health or life will be or is in grave danger with a birth or continued pregnancy, and/or if a fetus was already was stillborn (had died in the womb). A termination done like this and at this time can spare the mother the physical risks and emotional pain of going through the rest of her pregnancy, then labor and delivery with an infant absolutely known to be born still (to be dead before birth), or which would die shortly after birth. An ID&X can also be done more quickly than an induced labor and delivery, and with life or health at stake, that's another reason why it has sometimes been done.

"Abortion doctor"

I don't know of anyone with a doctorate degree in abortion, nor of any programs where you can get a doctorate in abortion. "Abortionist" is also a problematic term for this reason. "Abortion provider" is the preferred term by most. Many doctors who provide abortions are OB/GYNs: they are obstetricians and gynecologists. Some nurses also administer medical abortions.

With those linguistic foibles cleared up, let's take a brief look at some common statements you may have heard before the last few weeks, but may be hearing more of now. Nearly all of these statements are either false, misleading or only represent one group of women or one kind of experience while rendering another invisible. And all or some of them have been used by more than just one "side" of debates around abortion, too. Some of these phrases are used by those who are pro-choice (who support every woman's right to choose parenting, adoption or abortion, whichever a woman feels is best for her), some by those who are antichoice (who do not support a woman's right to choose all three of her options), some by both.

Some of the statements or my responses to them may make you uncomfortable. I don't state or respond to them to vilify anyone, to call out one group any more than another, to put anyone's rights at risk or to enable these statements or ideas. I make them because I think it is so important that we do our best to tell the truth about abortion and about women. All too often I hear even some pro-choice people who are not being truthful: sometimes out of ignorance, limited exposure to abortion and the diversity of women who terminate, sometimes because they seem to be trying to simply walk the party-line and limit talk to those situations or women where abortion is the least challenged out of a fear of losing our reproductive rights.

The thing is, when it comes to reproductive rights, choice and experience, something as simple as a glib party line is too simple, because women's lives and reproductive experiences are not at all easily simplified. We cannot be easily reduced down to one or two groups when it comes to our experiences with pregnancy, any choice we make around a pregnancy, or mothering. Those experiences and situations are just much too varied for that.

If we deny or hide some truths -- and usually the ones that challenge us the most -- I don't think we're helping anyone. If our rights are based on falsehoods, or are only about one group of women and exclude others, then they may not actually give everyone rights or be rights which are particularly solid, rather than arbitrary or mercurial.

In my responses to these statements, I'm coming at them from a few spheres of experience: from the decade and some I have run Scarleteen and talked with or read women talking about abortion, from the year and a half I have worked part-time at an abortion clinic (which provides abortions up to 24 weeks), from a lot of academic reading on the subject, both in terms of the medical aspects and the first-person experience of pregnancy, decision-making and abortion, as well as from my own life: my experiences and those of my friends and family.

"No woman wants to have an abortion."

Many women, if not most, who choose an abortion want to have one. If a woman freely chooses abortion for herself, rather than being pressured or coerced into it, then an abortion is absolutely what she wants.

And let's be real about that: women are pressured or coerced into all of the possible choices with a pregnancy with some frequency. Sometimes that pressure is direct, from family, partners, friends. Sometimes that also comes from communities, cultures, religions, politics. No matter WHAT choice a woman is making about her pregnancy, from a pro-choice perspective, pressure, coercion or force is absolutely unacceptable.

By all means, some women have pregnancies they do NOT want to terminate, where the last thing they want is an abortion, yet they still decide to terminate, usually based on very serious or grave circumstances. Some women feel that of the three choices available they don't want to make any of those choices: but one has to be made, even if none of them are wanted.

There is a range in this: for some, abortion is an ideal choice, what is most wanted, full-stop and without any feelings of conflict. For others, neither abortion nor childbirth are wanted outcomes, but abortion is the more wanted choice and what seems best to that woman with her pregnancy. For many, feelings lie somewhere in between those two poles.

"Every woman who choses abortion does so with sadness, or finds the decision to terminate one that is exceptionally difficult."

In the United States (and many other areas) abortion is legal. And there is no legal requirement that a woman must feel a certain way in order to have or retain the right to terminate her pregnancy.

There is no way all women feel with the end of every or any pregnancy: all women who terminate do not experience feelings of pain or deep sadness, just as all women who give birth do not experience bliss and perfect joy (a myth which is propagated just as much as the opposite around abortion has been). Women's feelings vary widely with every pregnancy, every termination, every delivery. There is not a "right" way to feel with any of these choices, with any part or experience of pregnancy, nor if a woman does or doesn't feel a given way is she any more or less entitled to her own choices with her pregnancy.

"No woman has an abortion casually."

Just as the case is with the great range of experiences with how a woman feels about abortion, so it is with the motivation for, or decision-making process with abortion. Some women DO have abortions in a way you or I - or even they - might call or see as "casual." For some women, having an abortion is not a big deal, is not upsetting, is not something she feels carries a lot of weight for her. It should also be noted -- though this is not to say if a woman is "casual" about abortion it is only for this reason -- that certain developmental disabilities, addictions, traumatic life experiences or psychological conditions can cause a woman to give any number of things, like death, abuse or pregnancy, less gravity than others might give them or feel about them.

Having talked to a lot of women about their abortions, would I say there are many women who feel casually about abortion or take it lightly? No, I would not: in my experience, that's the exception rather than the rule. In fact, I think we can go one step further and say few women feel casual about a pregnancy, period. But again, we have to be very careful not to deny any woman's real experience, even if the reason we might be tempted to do so is in an effort to try and retain her/our rights.

"Abortions in the second trimester are only done in cases of rape, incest, or when the health of the mother and/or fetus are at risk."

That is not true. While in the third trimester, past viability, abortion procedures can only be done when the mother's life is at risk, this is not so for most or all of the second trimester. While second-trimester procedures are much less common than those done in the first trimester, many second-trimester abortions are chosen electively, and it is absolutely legal to do so.

Why do women terminate in the second trimester? Well, this is a big topic, because we'd need to address the myriad of reasons why a woman has an abortion at any time. We'd also be irresponsible if we didn't explore why it is that second-trimester procedures are considered so different than first-trimester procedures by many people, even though that doesn't fit everyone's experience of pregnancy. So, I'll have to shortcut a bit here to avoid writing a thesis.

There are some common reasons why women do not terminate by the end of the first trimester, but in the second: because she didn't accept or know she was pregnant until later (remember that not all women have regular periods, and some women experience bleeding during pregnancy they mistake for a period), because she couldn't afford a termination until later, because she couldn't get access to an abortion in her area earlier, because she originally wanted a pregnancy, but then changed her mind, often based on something major changing in her life (loss of a home or job, loss of healthcare, a natural disaster, another child or family member becoming ill or in need, loss of a spouse or husband or of a partner's support for a pregnancy or child, a relationship becoming abusive or existing abuse increasing, etc.), and also because of maternal or fetal health issues or abnormalities (often these can't be identified until later in a pregnancy).

If you want to know more about women who have had later terminations, some sites have recently been compiling first-person stories. RH Reality Check has a bunch here, and The Atlantic has a good round-up of some from their site here. And for general first-person abortion stories from women at all stages, the clinic I work for has kept a story archive for a long time right here.

"If everyone had access to birth control and all the methods we had were 100% effective, all pregnancies would be wanted and we would have no abortions." 

While some women have very firm and consistent feelings before and during the whole of a pregnancy that a pregnancy is wanted, not everyone feels that way. Given how much pressure expectant mothers are under to express nothing but joy about a pregnancy, we can't even accurately say how many women have mixed or mutable feelings: we just don't live in a world yet which allows women that kind of honesty around pregnancy.

Even if every wanted pregnancy remained wanted, we can be certain that many women would still want and need abortion. Life doesn't just stay put while we're pregnant, so our circumstances can always change, like some of the changes I talked about above, and some of those changes can seriously alter our plans, previous wants and needs or the status of our pregnancy. In fact, I think it's pretty strange to talk about a process which is about nothing but constant change - for a developing, as well as for a pregnant woman - as if it could be unchanging.

That said, birth control access and efficacy is a huge issue, and given that in America alone, nearly half of all pregnancies which end in abortion are unintended, we know that lack of access to methods, not knowing how to use methods properly or having a lack of cooperation around contraception in sexual partnerships and the level of effectiveness methods provide does very much contribute to more abortion than we would see otherwise. Those earnestly looking to help reduce the number of abortions drastically should absolutely be working to increase birth control access, awareness and the development of reliable methods of contraception, since this is the one thing we know would make a huge difference which does not in any way diminish or remove women's reproductive rights.

"Women who have abortions don't like or love children."

In the United States around 60% of women who have abortions are already mothers; mothers who love their children no more or less than anyone else. Often already being a mother informs much of their choice: they know, after all, without having to guess, what parenting requires and what their children need, and if they can or cannot meet those needs. Lower-income women have always had more abortions than higher income, and that's part of this piece, too: many women know when we cannot afford any children or are already finding it very difficult to provide care for existing children. Some women choose abortion in part or entirely out of love for the children they already have: they know when another mouth to feed and child to care for will make providing good care for all their children impossible.

There's an old pro-choice slogan which is "If you can't trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child?" It's been pretty popular because it feels so true for so many women. When women make decisions around pregnancy, they usually are not just about either themselves or a child, but about the welfare of both. Mothering is not an easy business and mothers have to make choices for their children every day, often many times a day, and some of those choices are tough ones. Deciding to be a mother or not is one of those choices, potentially the biggest and most important of all of them.

"Abortion is a bloody, ugly, brutal, painful -- insert any other words here used to make surgery sound like a world war -- procedure."

I spent a lot of my childhood in a hospital: my mother was a nurse and a single parent, the hospital was often my after-school hangout, and I was a curious kid. I probably saw more blood and guts than most children do for that reason. I was also an adventurous child who got injured a lot: I severed two of my fingers when I was seven, scraped the mush of them off the sidewalk, and carried them rather casually back to our apartment. (Some of my ability to do that without flinching was likely shock, mind you, but some was probably because I was used to dealing with or seeing injuries.) I also personally have seen blood and violence in my personal life outside medical situations, and have lived through a few incidents of brutality, as have other members of my family. And I have observed a number of abortion procedures, both in the first and second-trimester. I've also had a termination myself, and did so only with a local anesthetic.

Certainly, to some people, any surgery seems or looks bloody and brutal, especially those who get queasy around this stuff. Too, not everyone can manage emotions well around blood and other things involved in surgery and healthcare.

However, ANY surgical procedure usually involves blood. Most involve pain or discomfort, either before, during and/or in recovery from the surgery, and when a surgery is not painful, it's usually because anesthetic and/or sedation was used: some abortion providers offer both, others just one. Are abortions more bloody than most other procedures? No. More bloody or physically (or emotionally, though that, varies very widely from women to women and birth to birth) intense for a woman than childbirth? Not usually.

Are most women I have observed in horrible pain during their abortions? No. All of our pain thresholds vary, so what a woman experiences varies, but again, we're not talking about a birth here (birth is usually painful, but we hardly suggest that's a reason women should not give birth), and remember, too, that most abortion procedures only take a few minutes, not hours and hours. Most abortions are not highly painful procedures, and pain can also be managed with medications, as with any surgery. While like other aspects of abortion, experiences of pain vary, some women even report that their monthly menstrual cramps or some sex they have in their lives had has been more painful than an abortion was.

I have yet to see an abortion procedure I'd describe as brutal or violent. As someone who has observed procedures first-hand, I'm always amazed by how many people who have NOT done so will tell me how things happen, or how awful everything is, apparently forgetting that of the two of us, I'm the only one who actually knows and has experienced how abortions are performed.

By no means is this an inclusive list of either the language used or misused with and around abortion or the various mythologies around abortion and women who have abortions. But it's a place to start, and we truly are long overdue at even just starting truthful collective conversation about abortion. If we truly can do that, I strongly suspect that it can play a part in both reducing clinic violence and in everyone starting to see women's lives more clearly, accurately, fully and compassionately.


. . . . .
343 comments
Please login or register to post comments...

I agree with this article.

I'm perfectly willing to be honest about my pregnancy and abortion experiences. After my abortion, I was relieved, happy, and glad it was over. I told my boyfriend pregnancy is "legalized torture". I hated every second of it. There was no joy for me until after my abortion.

I get called strange, stupid, emotionless, and other bad things for admitting I was happy not sad after my abortion by some anti-choicers though. I also get called a liar when I give my honest opinion about how pregnancy was for me by certain anti-choicers. If they'd be nicer, I'm sure more women would be willing to share their stories. Pro-Choicers might treat women who enjoyed pregnancy and regret their abortions the way the Anti-Choicers treat me. If they do, they should be nicer, too.

When I found out I was pregnant, I told my doctor I didn't want to continue the pregnancy. Even though she was Pro-Life, she put my wishes first and told me about an abortion provider that was covered by my insurance. Like my doctor did, we should put our personal feelings and religion aside, and actually give thought to the situation at hand.

People need to stop generalizing and stereotyping. So, pregnancy was torture for me, that doesn't mean it's that way for everyone. Just because some women are excited when they find out they're pregnant doesn't mean all women are, I'm proof of that.

Submitted by Anonymous on June 24, 2009 - 9:32pm.

I think you may be missing the point as evident by the language you use.

In your mind they are anti-choice.
In their mind, they are pro-life.

In your mind, it's about your rights being in danger.
In their mind, it's about your baby's rights being in danger.

This is why it is such a difficult discussion, because not everyone agrees on the personage of that "thing" inside a woman when she is pregnant.

Submitted by Anonymous on June 26, 2009 - 3:20pm.

I told my boyfriend pregnancy is "legalized torture". I hated every second of it.

I totally understand this, as I feel the same way. And I did it twice, on purpose and planned, because I wanted kids. But I did hate every single thing about being pregnant (and breastfeeding wasn't exactly fun or wonderful either).

But if I get pregnant again, I would have an abortion as soon as I found out. Because much as I love and wanted the kids I have, I don't want any more and there is not a single thing in this world that could induce me to go through another pregnancy for any reason whatsoever.

And every time I mention to anyone how very much I hated being pregnant and my absolute certainty that I won't do it again, ever, I get looked at like I suddenly grew an extra head with fangs or something. Because a woman disliking pregnancy and not wanting more babies is unnatural or something.

Submitted by ks on June 27, 2009 - 1:37pm.

I agree about everything...except the abortion part. I had two children. Hated the process, love the kids. And I'm also certain I never want to do it again. But because of this, I had my tubes tied. Even though I hate pregnancy/childbirth/breastfeeding, I'd never kill one of my children, and the child that would be conceived would have every much a right to live as the others I brought into this world already. I don't hate the process enough to actually kill over it. Personally, I'm proud of my tubal ligation. I want to get a t-shirt that says I had one, because I love it so much, and I'm not the least bit scared to tell even my closest family that I had one to stop the "So, when are you going to have another one?" conversation before it even begins.

Submitted by Anonymous on June 29, 2009 - 12:51am.

It's restating the obvious and already said, but no one here is talking about killing children.

Submitted by Heather Corinna, Scarleteen.com on June 29, 2009 - 8:16am.

Because you choose to form definitions based on your side of the argument.

When I was pregnant, I was pregnant with my children. That's not inaccurate to say. It's not as though they sprung out of thin air one day after a doctor visit.

I HIGHLY endorse contraception. I think that numerous overlapping methods aren't endorsed as much as they should be, and if they were, abortion would be verging on a non-issue due to its rarity. Abstinence is unrealistic, and oftentimes oppressive, particularly to women.

But to ignore the life of another human in a certain stage of development is a tragic case of age-discrimination the likes of which has scarcely been equaled in history.

Submitted by Anonymous on June 29, 2009 - 4:49pm.

The whole point of the piece is to talk about using language that involves accuracy from both a medical point of view, and that of the diverse realities of women.  By all means, yes, this is from my "side," which I made very clear, though when we're talking about things like the reality of a diverse array of women (including some who terminate, by the way, but identify as pro-life or antichoice), I don't think sides are so easily divisible.

 

I absolutely understand that your experience being pregnant -- and that of many women -- is that when you were pregnant, you were pregnant with a child in terms of your emotional experience, and I don't think there is anything invalid about that. But your experience is not everyone's experience, and it's also not in alignment with medeical procedures before labor. (I also agree with you about endorsing doubling-up methods: I do that all the time in all my work.  In fact, I think Scarleteen is one of the only places, if not the only, where anyone can find the math to show effectiveness rates of combining methods.)

 

But IF we want to be able to talk about abortion accurately, and in a way where some real communication can happen, rather than be stonewalled -- again, this piece is about abortion --  we simply cannot talk about "killing children." That is not how the law here in the states views it (and through most of human history as we know it, from what we know of the history of abortion, that is not how it has been viewed), it is not how the medical community at large views it, including all the OB/GYN orgs, the field of practice which deals with all of pregnancy. To view abortion that way, and fetal development that way, also suggests some mighty strange and disturbing (IMO) things (whether a woman terminates or not) if you follow that kind of thinking to it's logical conclusion, and dismissing the irrefutable fact, and one we thus far cannot change, that it is inside the body of a woman and, to a certain point, is totally reliant on her life, health and well-being.  In other words, based on what you're saying and where it leads, we would have to then choose whose life to "ignore" in a lot of situations: the fetuses' or the woman's.  If that's the case?  Then by all means, I am someone who is going to say that a person who has been born and who lives autonomously comes first.  But I really don't see it that way, and I don't think framing it that way is sound. 

 

And when you say things like that we are "ignoring a life" again, you are using ideologically-loaded language that also dismisses so many women's expreiences.  Many, many women, if not most, who terminate pregnancies are NOT ignoring anything.  They are making that decision very aware of the potential child -- and what their life may be like to the best of their abililty -- they may bring into the world should they continue a pregnancy to term.

Submitted by Heather Corinna, Scarleteen.com on June 29, 2009 - 5:53pm.

This, & the original essay, are going into my "talking points" file.

Submitted by Julie Watkins on June 29, 2009 - 6:08pm.

You're welcome, but I hope you'll edit those from that last comment.  My verb tenses were all over the place in a spot there: sorry about that, folks.

Submitted by Heather Corinna, Scarleteen.com on June 29, 2009 - 6:28pm.

"The diverse realities of women" Reality is reality, and fiction is fiction. If it's wrong to kill a human in one stage of life, it only stands to reason it should be illegal to kill that human at a different point in its life cycle. Also, I think talking about finding "common ground" while you continue to call us "antichoicers" is just adorable. Maybe you might want to drop that if you want to be taken seriously when you talk about "common ground"...

"But your experience is not everyone's experience, and it's also not in alignment with medeical procedures before labor." Well, I'm pretty sure that regardless of how we FEEL about the human in their fetal stage we carry in our uteri in gestation pre-birth, we're all carrying the same thing most of the time. How you feel about something doesn't change the fact of what it is. If I would've been pregnant with my daughter and decided to think of her as a turnip while I was carrying her during pregnancy, it wouldn't have changed what she actually was, and what would happen as a consequence a short time later (labor and birth). And by "medeical procedures before labor" do you mean ABORTION, perhaps? (I know, it's such an ugly word even people who support it don't like to use it...I wonder why?)

"That is not how the law here in the states views it (and through most of human history as we know it, from what we know of the history of abortion, that is not how it has been viewed), it is not how the medical community at large views it, including all the OB/GYN orgs, the field of practice which deals with all of pregnancy." That is why the law must be changed. The Supreme Court declared in its statement that it could not consider the life of the fetus because medical technology had not progressed that far. Well, we've come a long way since the 70's. Routine DNA testing (which shows that the fetus has a separate genetic pattern than its mother, indicating a different organism), ultrasound technology (standard and 4D) that shows the fetus preforming actions such as crying, using its own musculature and skeletal systems to move independently of the mother in reactions to stimuli (http://dsc.discovery.com/news/media/fetalcryingvideo.html)...none of these were considered in the court case that established one of the largest human rights violations of our time, considering that a human fetus is by definition "human".

"that it is inside the body of a woman and, to a certain point, is totally reliant on her life, health and well-being." The body is being shared. A shared body implies shared bodily autonomy. The mother should be given consideration if the fetus poses an immediate and severe threat to the woman's life and should be removed. However, the woman is obligated to give the same consideration to the fetal human within her, and must not threaten his or her life. I'm not advocating protecting one human's rights over the other. There is such a thing as shared rights.

"And when you say things like that we are "ignoring a life" again, you are using ideologically-loaded language..." How so? Is a fetal human not alive? Is the fetal stage not a stage of human development and included within a human's life cycle? I'm not saying that women's experiences should be dismissed. But abortion is a permanent end to another person's life cycle in order to rectify a temporary condition on the part of a woman (pregnancy), and to me, that makes little sense when one considers BOTH the fetal human AND the woman, equally rather than one over the other.

Submitted by Anonymous on June 30, 2009 - 1:04pm.

Oh, and this bit is actually a lie:

"it is not how the medical community at large views it, including all the OB/GYN orgs"

There is such a thing as the American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Submitted by Anonymous on June 30, 2009 - 1:22pm.

My apologies: I had not ever heard of that special interest group within the ACOG before.

Submitted by Heather Corinna, Scarleteen.com on June 30, 2009 - 2:51pm.

...and to be clear?

Maybe you might want to drop that if you want to be taken seriously when you talk about "common ground"..

I, personally, who do not represent RH Reality Check as an organization, have not ever talked about or called for "common ground."  Personally, I feel that women's bodies and women-in-toto have been used as "common ground" by everyone and political aims far too much in history.  I'm not interested in signing on to that and I'm not a fan of that phrase in relationship to this issue.  So, I have not said I am looking for "common ground," not in this piece or anywhere else.

 

Which is NOT to say I am disinterested in anyone and everyone being able to discuss the issue better than it has so often been (I am), nor that, particularly as a pro-choice person, I don't respect any woman's views or choices concerning her own body and anything at all that happens to be a part of her body at any given time. 

 

I also do not feel abortion is an ugly word, not in the slightest: when I discussed medical procedures before labor I was referencing any number of the procedures a woman may have with a pregnancy before labor, not just abortion.

Submitted by Heather Corinna, Scarleteen.com on June 30, 2009 - 3:01pm.

We discuss abortion and call it abortion all the time on this site...its even in the title of Heather Corinna's article above....

How to (Un)pack for a Real Conversation About Abortion

Submitted by Anonymous on June 30, 2009 - 3:08pm.

I apologize for generalizing about the pro-choice side of this debate. If anything I said does not specifically apply to you or your position, please disregard.

Submitted by Anonymous on June 30, 2009 - 3:34pm.

"And when you say things like that we are "ignoring a life" again, you
are using ideologically-loaded language..." How so? Is a fetal human
not alive? Is the fetal stage not a stage of human development and
included within a human's life cycle? I'm not saying that women's
experiences should be dismissed. But abortion is a permanent end to
another person's life cycle in order to rectify a temporary condition
on the part of a woman (pregnancy), and to me, that makes little sense
when one considers BOTH the fetal human AND the woman, equally rather
than one over the other.

 

I think I was pretty clear in my response here that I was not denying that a fetus or embryo or even a zygote, for that matter, is living.  What I disagreed with is that women who choose abortion are IGNORING fetus, embryo, zygote or the child any may become. Most -- when you talk with them, and when you listen -- express thoughts and feelings around their choices that make very clear neither is being ignored.  Some women even choose to terminate setting their own wants around having children aside because they feel that terminating is what is best FOR that potential child.

 

Who are you to say what's temporary for a given woman or not?  Heck, when I terminated back in the early nineties, a protestor I got into it with told me I wouldn't always be without the resources I was then.  And yet, here I sit, a decade and a half later, still without them despite often working 2-3 jobs, and could have remained without them for the whole of a child's life, one reason I made that choice for myself. Pregnancy may be temporary, but everything that comes after it may not be.

 

Even if something IS temporary in a woman's life that makes her feel unwilling or unable -- or where it's not even about feelings at all, but literal circumstances -- to continue a pregnancy, to parent or to choose adoption, many temporary issues, conditions or sets of circumstances are not irrelevant or minor for many women. My severe hyperemesis is temporary: it only happens when I'm pregnant.  But that doesn't solve the issue of the fact that it would not go away, to the point that some days I could not even keep water down.  A woman's homelessness may be temporary: that doesn't change the fact that she may consider that an unsuitable time to remain pregnant or parent.  An abusive relationship may be temporary: same deal. Heck, a woman not wanting to be pregnant at all, to give birth, to put another kid into the world may be temporary, but that doesn't have anything to do with how she feels at the time, and within the limited window she's got to make decisions about her whole life and what will or may become of someone else she brings into the world.

 

I hear that women choosing to terminate thinking both of themselves and a possible child doesn't make sense to you.  However, there are a lot of women to whom it does make sense, to whom it has made sense, and what makes sense to you or doesn't does not alter their realities and their experiences.

Submitted by Heather Corinna, Scarleteen.com on June 30, 2009 - 3:55pm.

The body is being shared. A shared body implies shared bodily autonomy.

You cannot be serious.

Submitted by ahunt on June 30, 2009 - 4:19pm.

And she is not interested in having an accurate conversation about abortion. She is anti-choice and her goal here is to "offer readers" anti-choice opinions because she thinks that any discussion of abortion that does not emphasize "killing children" is dishonest.

Submitted by Priscilla on June 30, 2009 - 5:27pm.

You're right, I'm not interested in having an accurate conversation about abortion. But, I happen to know someone who is....Leroy Carhart!

Are there times when you don't remove the fetus intact?

Carhart: Yes, sir.

Can you tell me about that, when that occurs?

Carhart: That occurs when the tissue fragments, or frequently when you rupture the membranes, an arm will spontaneously prolapse through the os...we talk about the forehead or the skull being first. We talked about the feet being first, but I think in probably the great majority of terminations, it's what they would call a transverse lie, so really you're looking at a side profile of a curved fetus. When the patient's uterus is already starting to contract and they are starting to miscarry, when you rupture the waters, usually something prolapses through the uterine, through the cervical os, not always, but very often an extremity will.

What do you do then?

Carhart: My normal course would be to dismember that extremity and then go back and try to take the fetus out either foot or skull first, whatever end I can get to first.

How do you go about dismembering that extremity?

Carhart: Just traction and rotation, grasping the portion that you can get ahold of which would be usually somewhere up the shaft of the exposed portion of the fetus, pulling down on it through the os, using the internal os as your counter-traction and rotating to dismember the shoulder or the hip or whatever it would be. Sometimes you will get one leg and you can't get the other leg out.

In that situation, are you, when you pull on the arm and remove it, is the fetus still alive?

Carhart: Yes.

Do you consider an arm, for example, to be a substantial portion of the fetus?

Carhart: In the way I read it, I think if I lost my arm, that would be a substantial loss to me. I think I would have to interpret it that way.

And then what happens next after you remove the arm? You then try to remove the rest of the fetus?

Carhart: Then I would go back and attempt to either bring the feet down or bring the skull down, or even sometimes you bring the other arm down and remove that also and then get the feet down.

At what point is the fetus...does the fetus die during that process?

Carhart: I don't really know. I know that the fetus is alive during the process most of the time because I can see fetal heartbeat on the ultrasound.

The Court: Counsel, for what it's worth, it still is unclear to me with regard to the intact D & X when fetal demise occurs.

Okay, I will try to clarify that. In the procedure of an intact D&E where you would start foot first, with the situation where the fetus is presented feet first, tell me how you are able to get the feet out first.

Carhart: Under ultrasound, you can see the extremities. You know what is what. You know what the foot is, you know what the arm is, you know what the skull is. By grabbing the feet and pulling down on it or by grabbing a knee and pulling down on it, usually you can get one leg out, get the other leg out and bring the fetus out. I don't know where this...all the controversy about rotating the fetus comes from. I don't attempt to do that, just attempt to bring out whatever is the proximal portion of the fetus.

At the time that you bring out the feet, in this example, is the fetus still alive?

Carhart: Yes.

Then what's the next step you do?

Carhart: I didn't mention it. I should. I usually attempt to grasp the cord first and divide the cord, if I can do that.

What is the cord?

Carhart: The cord is the structure that transports the blood, both arterial and venous, from the fetus to the back of the fetus, and it gives the fetus its only source of oxygen, so that if you can divide the cord, the fetus will eventually die, but whether this takes five minutes or fifteen minutes and when that occurs, I don't think anyone really knows.

Are there situations where you don't divide the cord?
Carhart: There are situations when I can't.

What are those?

Carhart: I just can't get to the cord. It's either high above the fetus and structures where you can't reach up that far. The instruments are only 11 inches long.

Let's take the situation where you haven't divided the cord because you couldn't, and you have begun to remove a living fetus feet first. What happens next after you have gotten the feet removed?

Carhart: We remove the feet and continue with traction on the feet until the abdomen and the thorax come through the cavity. At that point, I would try...you have to bring the shoulders down, but you can get enough of them outside, you can do this with your finger outside of the uterus, and then at that point the fetal...the base of the fetal skull is usually in the cervical canal.

What do you do next?

Carhart: And you can reach that, and that's where you would rupture the fetal skull to some extent and aspirate the contents out.

At what point in that process does fetal demise occur between initial remove...removal of the feet or legs and the crushing of the skull, or I'm sorry, the decompressing of the skull?

Carhart: Well, you know, again, this is where I'm not sure what fetal demise is. I mean, I honestly have to share your concern, your Honor. You can remove the cranial contents and the fetus will still have a heartbeat for several seconds or several minutes, so is the fetus alive? I would have to say probably, although I don't think it has any brain function, so it's brain dead at that point.

So the brain death might occur when you begin suctioning out of the cranium?

Carhart: I think brain death would occur because the suctioning to remove contents is only two or three seconds, so somewhere in that period of time, obviously not when you penetrate the skull, because people get shot in the head and they don't die immediately from that, if they are going to die at all, so that probably is not sufficient to kill the fetus, but I think removing the brain contents eventually will.

Thanks for shedding some light on the procedure, Dr. Carhart!

Submitted by XALISAE on June 30, 2009 - 9:12pm.

I get the impression there is supposed to be some sort of anticipated reaction to this, but I'm not sure what it is.

 

Indeed, this sounds very much like Dr. Carhart explaining -- during the hearing with Ashcroft -- how he does some of his procedures and deals with some issues that can occur during a D&E or an ID&X.  Mind, this is not how everyone does those procedures.  In fact, he makes clear that it is his personal preference in that transcript not to induce fetal demise beforehand with an injection.

 

All the same, while I personally am just as comfortable with second-tri procedures, and ID&Xs based on a doctor's evaluation, D&Es and ID&Xs are the rarest abortion procedures performed.  Just to be clear, what's described here is not only not all of those procedures, or how everyone performs them, it isn't descriptive of any first-tri procedure -- the vast majority of abortions in the U.S. -- at all.

 

But my response to this is...umm, okay. And...?

Submitted by Heather Corinna, Scarleteen.com on June 30, 2009 - 9:30pm.

Just trying to help you keep it factual.

"it isn't descriptive of any first-tri procedure -- the vast majority of abortions in the U.S. -- at all."

Well, imo, a dead fetal human is a dead fetal human, regardless of which stage of development it is in. Age doesn't make it any less human, or any less dead. And that is still scientifically accurate to say.

Submitted by XALISAE on June 30, 2009 - 10:19pm.

Yet, if this was only about merely being alive or being dead, I'm not sure I understand why you'd post the part of that transcript you did and in the way that you did.  I mean, if it's truly just about the fact that something living is no longer living, then who would care HOW it happens or in what manner?

 

In other words, I suspect you're being disingenuous when you say you're "just trying to help keep it factual."  (Especially since I provided links to information on that particular procedure -- I didn't explain it myself because a) how a doctor does it varies and b) I can only put so much information in one article.)  Rather, my feeling is that you wanted to sensationalize.

 

All the same, abortion issues can't tend to be boiled down to only whether anyone is alive or dead: central to the issue of abortion, and making reproductive choices as a whole, are quality of life issues for women and children.   That may not be the case for everyone.  But I feel confident saying, particularly as someone who spends so much time listening to women talking about these choices, that no matter what choice a woman makes with a pregnancy -- or in choosing to do what she can to prevent pregnancy -- most women report it as being central in their decision-making.

Submitted by Heather Corinna, Scarleteen.com on July 1, 2009 - 11:25am.

Another area that personally irks me in discussions is the assumption that if there were no birth control, or no abortion, all women would have uneventful pregnancies with safe births - this is where the "a little inconvenience" argument is brought up, when instead there is a 15% chance of complications during the pregnancy itself and a 28% chance of delivery complications.

In addition, the fetus itself does not always do well. I've been pregnant four times and had spontaneous miscarriages twice. I've never had an abortion but I still only had 'successful' pregnancies 50% of the time.

This is the reality of pregnancy some people forget which leads to assumptions that really irk me, such as 'every single time that Plan B is used a healthy viable infant is lost'. That just does not comport with the facts of reproduction - after accounting for mistakes of mioisis which prevent implantation, ectopic pregnancy, miscarriages, stillbirths and birth defects, the potential 'loss' may be as little as 17%, and that's assuming that the woman taking Plan B was actually ovulating near that time.

Submitted by crowepps on June 24, 2009 - 10:43pm.

Not every pro-lifer believes that Plan B/oral contraceptives are abortificent. Some pro-lifers believe that a life protectable by law only exists after implantation (since you kinda need an actual detectable pregnancy to even consider abortion in the first place). All pro-lifers aren't religious. Some are atheistic or agnostic as well.

http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

Submitted by Anonymous on June 27, 2009 - 8:16am.

So how is your proposed law going to handle the 15% of pregnancies that end in a spontaneous miscarriage?  Investigation by the police?  Grand Jury?  Trial?

What sentence do you think she should get if it turns out that she should have been more careful not to fall down or shouldn't have had that much coffee?

I'm aware that not all ProLife Advocates are 'religious' in the sense that they belong to an organized church, but I don't think I've read one yet that didn't base their argument on a personal belief system like 'all human life is equally valuable' and then argue that their imposition of that personal belief system on others is justified because 'everybody agrees' that the fetus is human.  Obviously, if everybody DID agree with them, not only would the laws already have been changed, but there wouldn't be any women requesting abortions.

Submitted by crowepps on July 15, 2009 - 11:44pm.

Obviously, if everybody DID agree with them, not only would the laws already have been changed, but there wouldn't be any women requesting abortions.

There wouldn't be any access to safe, legal abortion, and women who did request abortions would end up going to a backalley butcher, obtaining an illegal abortion, and increasing her risk of sickness, permanent incapacitation, and/or death. This is not a place where we want to be, which is one of the reasons that the right to a safe, legal abortion must be kept in place.

Submitted by Anonymous on July 26, 2009 - 8:29am.

Those are great, important additions, crowepps.  Thanks so much for taking the time to add them.

Submitted by Heather Corinna, Scarleteen.com on June 24, 2009 - 11:03pm.

You're welcome. I agree with you that in finding common ground or even just discussing this issue, it's very important that people need to keep the reality of what we're talking about in mind based on best evidence and personal testimony, not 'I heard' or 'they say'. I'm sure other people have said this before, but if they required the same kind of detailed 'informed consent' facts and information for continuing a pregnancy that some place insist on for abortion, the birthrate would drop precipitously.

Submitted by crowepps on June 24, 2009 - 11:12pm.

Everyone shoud cherish a new life, especially for pregnant women, it's a great chance to lift the health condition of yourself if your treat the pregnancy and be in confinement correctty...

Submitted by Jasmine on June 25, 2009 - 3:15am.

That's one of the most offensive things I've heard in a while.  Are women not allowed to have lives?  Are we supposed to quit our jobs, drop out of school, stop going to the gym, etc. the minute we hear we're pregnant?  Even for a woman who wants a child that's a pretty harsh comment.

 

About the comment on pregnancy complications--I hear ya.  My MIL had two miscarriages, one of which nearly killed her.  My cousin's doctor has threatened her with 9 months of bedrest should she become pregnant again, because both of her previous pregnancies were riddled with complications.  My SIL had a miscarriage that required surgical removal of the fetus.  The physical implications of being pregnant shouldn't be swept under the rug, especially when talking about women who tried to avoid pregnancy in the first place.

Submitted by Jayn on June 25, 2009 - 8:00am.

And this'd be exactly the kind of fostering invisibility and mythology we're all talking about here.

 

No woman "should" feel any given way with a pregnancy: women feel how they feel, and there are a wide range of feelings from woman to woman and from day to day with any given woman.  The idea that pregnancy is about an opportunity to improve one's health is just bizarre: plenty of pregnant women do just fine in terms of their health, to be sure, though plenty also don't, but regardless, calling it a health improvement venture is beyond misleading.

Submitted by Heather Corinna, Scarleteen.com on June 25, 2009 - 11:04am.

That may not be what you meant, but that's sure how it comes across. Ectopic pregnancies, miscarriages and birth defects are very rarely something that's under the control of the pregnant woman. It might be comforting to believe that if she's "in confinement correctly" nothing will go wrong, but that sure wasn't my personal experience.

Submitted by crowepps on June 25, 2009 - 1:21pm.

Kind of a weird comment. Are you being tongue-in-cheek?

I mean, to say to "cherish" a new life, but then use a term usually associated with a prison, seems...huh?

Submitted by Anonymous on June 26, 2009 - 3:26pm.

"Confinement" is an antiquated term for childbirth, mostly used in the 19th century. That the Victorians used it to avoid saying "childbirth," because "childbirth" was (I guess?) too racy, should tell you all you need to know about the term...

Submitted by thedrymock on June 28, 2009 - 4:18pm.

Confinement refers to the 40 days AFTER the birth where the mother didn't leave the home, sometimes didn't leave the bed, in the belief that she was particularly vulnerable then. Considering their obstetric practices, this is probably true.

Submitted by crowepps on June 30, 2009 - 8:22pm.

...if they required the same kind of detailed 'informed consent' facts and
information for continuing a pregnancy that some place insist on for
abortion, the birthrate would drop precipitously.

 

Boy, no kidding.

Submitted by Heather Corinna, Scarleteen.com on June 24, 2009 - 11:24pm.

Thanks so much for this.

Submitted by Emma on June 25, 2009 - 3:53am.

Great article, but some of the links therein are broken. (E.g. "the law itself")

Submitted by Anonymous on June 25, 2009 - 4:14pm.

I'll send a note to get them fixed, thanks for letting me know.

 

In the meantime, the links do all work where this was originally published at Scarleteen here:http://www.scarleteen.com/blog/heather/2009/06/09/how_to_un_pack_for_a_real_discussion_about_abortion

 

And that link for the text of the law is here: http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/abortion/2003s3.html

Submitted by Heather Corinna, Scarleteen.com on June 25, 2009 - 4:40pm.

Hi Heather,

 

Thank you so much for taking a stand for the range of feelings that women can have around an abortion experience (or pregnancy).  This is so important to remember when talking about abortion, especially publicly, and the more people who speak on this issue with compassion and understanding for the range of emotions, the more each of us is creating a more supportive and respectful social climate.  It matters to the women who have had abortions to have their voices and experiences reflected back to them in public spaces.  It can help reduce stigma and it can help promote their wellbeing.

Thank you. 

Submitted by Aspen Baker, Exhale on June 25, 2009 - 7:32pm.

Please don't promote killing the weak, innocent, and defenseless babies of America. We should not Kill.

Submitted by ComPassion on June 25, 2009 - 9:29pm.

I agree. Redirecting the enormous amount of money that is spent on the military into social welfare would make the abortion rate plummet.

Submitted by crowepps on June 26, 2009 - 4:13pm.

How...Orwellian...



You wish to eliminate the obvious moral problems in tearing unborn children apart with vacuum hoses, cutting them to pieces with scalpels, crushing their skulls to "evacuate" the brains during partial birth abortion, and injecting them with potassium chloride, by simply claiming that all of the terms used to refer to these procedures, and to the victim, are somehow meaningless because they have no precise medical definition.



It is true of course that babies go through various stages of development. A two year old child is not yet fully developed as a human being. Neither is a nine year old. Will you be rationalizing their murder as well, someday?



What does it matter if a medical textbook doesn't have the term "late-term abortion". The term exists because the fetus is closer to viability (a real term) and it seems even more egregious that a woman would pay a butcher with an M.D. to kill a child to which she could simply give birth, even by an early induction (still morally unjustified, but less egregious because it gives the child a chance to live).



You can't win a moral debate by asserting that all of the terms used by your opponents are meaningless, because they have no precise textbook definition. You can't defeat the truth by attacking language, even if Orwell's villains thought they could.



The above essay reads more like self-rationalizing thought processes...the ones abortion clinic workers use to enable them to sleep at night. Who do you think you're fooling?



The most chilling paragraphs in the article are these:


Certainly, to some people, any surgery seems or looks bloody and brutal, especially those who get queasy around this stuff. Too, not everyone can manage emotions well around blood and other things involved in surgery and healthcare.

However, ANY surgical procedure usually involves blood. Most involve pain or discomfort, either before, during and/or in recovery from the surgery, and when a surgery is not painful, it's usually because anesthetic and/or sedation was used: some abortion providers offer both, others just one. Are abortions more bloody than most other procedures? No. More bloody or physically (or emotionally, though that, varies very widely from women to women and birth to birth) intense for a woman than childbirth? Not usually.



I wonder if Josef Mengele used such cold, clinical language when he talked about his vivisections of children.

Submitted by Matthew Hoffman on June 25, 2009 - 10:00pm.

Thanks.

Submitted by Anonymous on June 25, 2009 - 10:10pm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Also, if you can't tell the difference between a man who actively hated an entire race of people and viewed its born constituents - adults, children, the lot - as pieces of meat, and a woman who is faced with an unwanted or life-threatening pregnancy that she just wants to terminate to get her life back on track, then there's really no point in arguing. The law is on the side of the person whose sovereign body is affected most by the condition of pregnancy. Stop wringing your hands over the "clinical" language used here. We've heard it all before. Women are not stupid.

Submitted by metabonbon on June 26, 2009 - 12:03am.

"What does it matter if a medical textbook doesn't have the term "late-term abortion""

 

It matters because having a common definition helps make discussion possible.  "Late-term" can mean different things to different people--what that phrase means to me and what it means to you may be different, and that muddies the waters of communication, which are already muddy enough here.

 

"I wonder if Josef Mengele used such cold, clinical language when he talked about his vivisections of children."

 

You're missing the point.  Anti-choicers often use descriptions (even pictures) of abortion procedures as part of their 'arguments'.  But that's not an argument, or you could use the same reasoning to ban any surgical procedure, such as, say, a C-section.  What a procedure entails has no bearing on whether or not it should be done.

Submitted by Jayn on June 26, 2009 - 7:23am.

As someone who has observed procedures first-hand, I'm always
amazed by how many people who have NOT done so will tell me how things
happen, or how awful everything is, apparently forgetting that of the
two of us, I'm the only one who actually knows and has experienced how
abortions are performed.

Submitted by Heather Corinna, Scarleteen.com on June 26, 2009 - 12:26pm.

Not to mention the comparison is ridiculously faulty. How many other commonplace life-saving surgeries or operations yeild complete sets of dead organs, multiple limbs, and once-functioning bodily systems without killing the patient? But to admit that one of the patients involved in abortion is always killed would be adding too much of a stigma to the procedure, I suppose.

Submitted by Anonymous on June 27, 2009 - 8:27am.

Just to get this straight. You guys believe the fetus is alive and human but is allowed to be killed when the woman has serious problems and considers it for the best to kill it. Please correct me if I'm wrong on any part.

Submitted by Alaric on July 14, 2009 - 7:40am.

Nearly every part of our bodies are living tissue, including organs we may have removed because keeping them inside us and intact is causing us poor health or suffering. While I don't think it's apt to say a fetus is evivalent to a gallbladder, a gallbladder is also living tissue and no one ever told me I was "killing" my gallbladder when I needed to have it removed to preserve my health and well-being.

 

The issue is not as simple as to be merely about what is living, just like the issue of parenting is not so simple as merely keeping one's child alive.

Submitted by Heather Corinna, Scarleteen.com on July 14, 2009 - 9:38am.