Babies are sometimes born alive after an abortion. Should they be saved?

August 29, 2024 22 Reactions

The Queensland Parliament is studying a bill which would require doctors, midwives and nurses to care for babies born alive after abortions. This move is being fiercely opposed by pro-choice advocates because it would tarnish the image of abortion as healthcare. They say that babies are almost never born alive after abortions because feticide is standard practice -- babies in late-term abortion are given a lethal injection in the womb.

How often this happens is a matter of dispute. It is uncommon, but it does seem to happen about 30 times a year in Queensland. That’s not a trivial number. As Queensland MP Stephen Andrew remarked: “If you put it in terms of planes, if you lose 30 out of the thousands of flights we have every year then you would have to reconsider flying.”

Last week, the star witness for the Termination of Pregnancy (Live Births) Amendment Bill 2024 was Louise Adsett, a midwife with 14 years’ experience. This is an excerpt from her testimony.

* * * * * * * *

Over the last few years, however, the midwives within [our] unit have been required to provide care for women who do not want their babies, and the fact is that these babies are perfectly healthy, with no abnormalities. These are social terminations or psychosocial or for financial reasons, and because of the Termination of Pregnancy Act 2018 women can access a termination at any gestation for any reason. The only difference is that after 22+1 weeks of gestation there must be two medical officers to approve the abortion and the baby is killed by feticide and delivered by the midwives as stillborn.

I am a conscientious objector when it comes to providing care for women aborting their babies; however, I have provided care for many women who have unfortunately lost their babies at similar gestations to those who are now getting abortions for any reason at any gestation. I am also happy to make myself available to hold the baby who is born alive after an abortion.

Sadly, in the birth suite unit in my hospital work where every new birth is celebrated and protected, there has been an increase in the number of social terminations at later gestations, and this is now common. We have had babies born alive after terminations from 15 to 22 weeks—born alive, gasping for air, moving and having a palpable heart rate, fighting for their lives as we are humans designed to do.

From what I have directly witnessed or been told by my colleagues, we have been present at the time these babies were alive for anywhere from two to 20 minutes to three to five hours. Parents of these babies who are born alive after abortion do not want to see or hold them. This means the only person left who could possibly hold them is a midwife or a nurse.

If this were a pregnancy loss of a wanted baby, the mother and father would usually comfort that baby while the baby was alive until they pass. In a termination of pregnancy where a baby is unwanted, babies are sometimes born into witch’s hats or kidney dishes and taken out of the room immediately, at the parents’ wishes.

If alive after abortion, the bereavement midwife or a regular midwife providing care for the woman holds the baby until the baby stops gasping or moving or no longer has a palpable heart rate. Sometimes babies born alive after an abortion are put into witch’s hats and are covered, taken out of the room and die while in that witch’s hat. This is distressing to many of the midwives as they are unable to provide any medical care for the baby but are limited to providing comfort care only, which is merely wrapping and holding the baby. We are so often short-staffed and some of the time midwives and doctors will provide this care for the terminated baby while caring for the labouring woman.

At times we have had women who have lost their babies at term, which is a gestation of 37 weeks onwards, in the room next to women who are terminating their babies—unwanted babies.

Join Mercator today for free and get our latest news and analysis

Buck internet censorship and get the news you may not get anywhere else, delivered right to your inbox. It's free and your info is safe with us, we will never share or sell your personal data.

To give you the first example, a mother made a decision to abort her baby at 21-plus weeks of gestation. The process began in the morning with Misoprostol given throughout the day. The process took all day and the baby was only delivered during the early hours of the night shift, where skeleton staff was on duty. This baby moved vigorously, gasped for breath and had a palpable heart rate. To make it clear, this baby was alive. It was over 400 grams, so the baby was a good weight. The parents of this baby did not desire to see or hold this baby. Midwives and doctors were left holding this little life while they continued to provide care for other women who were birthing and welcoming babies into the world. This baby boy fought for his life for five hours before taking his final breath. This is not an uncommon occurrence.

Just recently a mother decided to abort her baby at 19 weeks. The same Misoprostol regime was started and this little baby was born alive—again, moving, gasping for air and having a palpable heart rate and, once again, weighed over 400 grams. This was a busy shift and the midwife who took over care from the bereavement midwife when this baby was delivered was distressed and shocked that the baby was alive at 19 weeks and they could not hold it. The baby was taken to the pan room and, as the mother declined to hold that baby, even knowing it was alive, the midwife who was providing care for this baby and mother who was terminating was also providing care for another lady who had decided to terminate her baby at a later gestation but had not had a feticide.

As this was a busy shift and we were short-staffed, it was suggested that this little baby be put into the dirty pan room and covered and be left on its own to take its final breaths alone. As the baby kept on breathing for longer than anticipated, thankfully another midwife was able to hold the baby while doing work until the baby took its final breaths. This baby was alive for almost three hours.

These are just two of many examples that occur in not only birth suites that I work in but also birth suites across Queensland. In these accounts which I tell you, I was either on shift or my colleagues have told me about their experiences. My colleagues are very often distressed about what they have seen and participated in, as am I.

These babies deserve better. They deserve to have the same rights that all of us human beings have, and I hope that the live births bill will be the first of many steps taken to protect and give rights to babies born alive after abortion.

Do you believe that babies born alive after abortions should receive the same care as other premature babies?

Louise Adsett is a Queensland midwife with 14 years’ experience.

Image credit: Bigstock

Showing 22 reactions

Sign in with

Andrew Watkins commented 2024-09-19 10:51:13 +1000

„Infinite value“ makes it rather hard to deal with the messy realities of life, at least if all have this value. If my life has infinite value it justifies any intrusion by me on your life if I deem it to be in my interest, and vice versa.

This is a recipe for paralysis. In dealing with the messy realities of life there is a lot to be said for recognising that those closest to the problem, who will bear the consequences, are best placed to decide

Absolutist positions rarely produce usable solutions
mrscracker commented 2024-09-19 09:36:38 +1000

Mr Watkins, human rights reforms don’t work like that. We are all accountable for the fundamental rights of others no matter in how low esteem some classes of human beings are held. Every life has infinite value.
Andrew Watkins commented 2024-09-19 06:26:15 +1000

So dont have an abortion yourself. I have supported many women who have made this choice after nasty fetal diagnoses.

Just stay out of the decisions of other folk and don‘t allow politicians to restrict those choices. We can never fully understand what is going on in the loves of others and owe them the respect for their decisions we expect for our own
mrscracker commented 2024-09-19 01:17:14 +1000

I choose to not directly or intentionally take the life of a child in it’s mother’s womb. Period. There can be reasonable disagreements about negotiable issues but for this one , no.
Andrew Watkins commented 2024-09-18 21:11:02 +1000

The principal "first do no harm " is all very well, especially when written ( allegedly ) 2500 years ago when our ability to do anything useful about most conditions was distinctly limited and many treatments were actively harmful.

IT is altogether different these days, when the task is of balancing risks and harms and one may not have the choice of doing no harm – there is rarely a clear and unambiguous way forward, which is where tha agency of the patient and her own priorities and assessments of the risk to be taken must be at the forefront.

Doing nothing is often harmful in itself, even if it does allow us a warm inner glow of smug moral satisfaction
mrscracker commented 2024-09-18 20:59:59 +1000

I’m fine with correct medical terminology but not when it’s used selectively.
Andrew Watkins commented 2024-09-18 20:30:38 +1000

You should have paid more attention in classics.

While it pains me to admit it, the American usage is etymologically correct. The Latin for fetus is fetus, (4th declension)

The -oe-diphthong generally indicates transliteration from the Greek. The Greek word for fetus is εμβρυο ( embryo )

This is well explained in the OED

The fetus is not recognised in most legal or religious systems as having equal rights to the mother. There are reasons for this which are intuitively obvious to most. The focus of the American RTL movement to establish fetal personhood from conception is a tool to control the debate and to justify unconscionable legislation. The idea of personhood from conception would be strange to Augustine and Aquinas, who dated personhood well after the time at which most abortions are conducted.

If one looks at the early church fathers much of the discourse about abortion is in terms such as " that the woman shall not escape the consequences of sin" without any interest in fetal personhood. Simone de Beauvoir summed it up very well in her observation to the effect that women’s bodies are media through which men transmit property. Which may have something to do with the efforts to turn the USA into Gilead.
Christopher Szabo commented 2024-09-18 20:11:39 +1000

‘Fetus’ is a misspelled form of the Latin ‘foetus’ which is the approximate translation of our ‘embryo’ or unborn child.
I find it interesting that whenever humans do something they know to be inherently wrong, such as killing in wartime, which is legal but not right, the call it: “taking out” or “eliminating the opposition”. And the list is endless.
The idea that a ‘feotus’ or unborn child is worthy of killing, while after it is born, that is infanticide, that is unlawful killing, makes no sense.
I have never heard of a woman giving birth to a litter of puppies or cats. The ‘fetus’, is as human as a grown person missing both limbs or part of their brain.
The position that someone may take a life just because they feel like it is untenable. It is different if the life of the mother is in danger, but not on demand.
“First, do no harm”, is the ancient code of all medical personnel.
Those who advocate for abortion on demand are clearly violating this code.
Andrew Watkins commented 2024-09-18 20:07:56 +1000

“We can choose our words to anaesthetise our conscience”

Or we can tell it like it is – complex , messy and ambiguous, with real, normal people struggling to make the best of whatever fate life has dealt them and their baby in their own terms. These terms may not be mine or yours, but the duty of the clinician is to meet the woman’s needs on her own terms.

The complexity, messiness and ambiguity of the situation is perhaps illustrated by the fact that abortion has been a fact of life since time immemorial – it is a choice women make, often at great risk to themselves ( I practiced in the days before sane abortion law and have treated women after backyard abortions. The smell of gas gangrene doesn’t leave you, nor the memories of lives destroyed)

The ubiquity of this choice – a fact of life – is perhaps also reflected in the writings of St Hildegarde of Bingen, a saint in good standing and a doctor of the church, who wrote in the 12th century detailed, approving, instructions on how to procure an abortion. The fixation on the morality of abortion above all else is a relatively new phenomenon.

The job of clinicians is to do the best they can for the woman and family with the hand dealt to them

The job of others with no lived experience of the situation appears to be to pontificate dogmatically and simplistically from the sidelines , the amount of moral certainty being inversely proportional to the amount of involvement he/she/they have had with the real issues. Everybody has a different answer in their own situation, this has to be respected – most of us would accept nothing else in our own medical care and cannot seek to inflict our choices on others in their care.
mrscracker commented 2024-09-18 19:46:31 +1000

Mr. Watkins, you can substitute fetus, Jew, Haitian, or Useless Eater for infant but you are still talking about the cold blooded, intentional taking of an innocent human life.
We can choose our words to anesthetize our conscience.
Andrew Watkins commented 2024-09-18 14:01:16 +1000

The injection is not to an infant‘s heart. It is to the heart of a fetus.

The article was about stories of infants ( i.e no longer a fetus ) born alive after premature delivery or after a termination procedure. The provenance of the claim that many are born alive after TOP is doubtful. Many are, however, born alive at unsurvivable gestations after spontaneous premature labour or other obstetric issues

. My point was that in the event of this occurring below 22 weeks‘ gestation any sort of resuscitation would be burdensome and futile. I have treated 22-24 week infants in NICU for 40 years and it is no picnic. Thoroughly justified if it works, but it very often doesn’t and loving parents frequently decide not to offer resuscitation, also at higher gestations.

The last thing families need is ignorant players changing the rules from the sidelines for ideological reasons. These decisions are intensely personal and are very rarely lightly taken. I never cease to be amazed at the love, insight and care most families put into such decisions as I am working through counselling about them.
mrscracker commented 2024-09-18 08:39:45 +1000

If a fatal injection to an infant’s heart is loving I’ll cast my fate with the zealots.
Christopher Szabo commented 2024-09-18 05:47:35 +1000

The article was not about 22-some weeks, but about foetal death after birth.
Andrew Watkins commented 2024-09-18 05:38:47 +1000

Nobody is being mislead about the purpose of feticide. Hard to be ambiguous about an injection of potassium into the heart

The purpose is to ensure fetal death to minimise any suffering for fetus/baby and parents, also to reduce wider political, ethical and bureaucratic issues such as those seen here – the resuscitation of babies at 21 weeks is futile and at 22 weeks‘ is highly ambiguous due to the high burden of care and low returns for baby. It is done, I have done so recently with success, but it is treatment which many parents legitimately and lovingly decline.

The last thing we need is for care decisions to be taken away from parents by ignorant zealots such as those proposing this law
Christopher Szabo commented 2024-09-17 20:50:16 +1000

Interesting: The UK National Library of Medicine defines ‘feticide’ as: Feticide is the practice of inducing fetal demise before the termination of pregnancy.
So the ‘demise’ is induced. Who is misleading whom, here?
Andrew Watkins commented 2024-09-17 20:30:50 +1000

a) birth alive after abortion is unusual due to feticide, which is almost universal unless parents reject it – often so that they can care for the child for some time before death. A loving decision. B) The examples cited are of babies born 18-21 weeks‘ gestation, for whom death is inevitable ( I have treated Prem babies in NICU for 40 years )

So the issue is whether these babies received appropriate palliative care, not whether they were „allowed to die“

This is mischief making by people with a predetermined black/white moral position on a grey issue, an issue with which parents struggle with real love and consideration for their baby, or for which they face impossible life choices. THey should be respected in this and not be used in political campaigns by those with no contact with the real issues – even midwives are generally NOT involved in the agonising process of counselling which precedes such decisions

Our job as clinicians is to do the best we can fo rth ewoman concerned, in HER terms and not on mine, even should I profoundly disagree ( and I have been there ). To do otherwise is unprofessional and an abuse of professional and institutional power
Christopher Szabo commented 2024-09-09 16:52:14 +1000

I think there are times when people should be outraged. This is one of those times.
Emberson Fedders commented 2024-09-09 11:08:12 +1000

I suspect this is simply a way to whip up an outrage-crowd.
Christopher Szabo commented 2024-08-31 02:10:14 +1000

This is unbelievable! Who would bring legislation like this. This is barbaric, pure and simple.
Juan Llor Baños commented 2024-08-31 00:24:38 +1000

Anyone who wants to be indifferent to these tragedies must explain very clearly why they do not deserve to be considered miserable.
mrscracker commented 2024-08-30 00:16:21 +1000

What a ghastly thing that we even have to discuss this sort of tragedy & complete failure of medical ethics. You’d think after what was exposed during the Third Reich we might have learned something about the value of human life , but no. Human nature changes little.
Louise Adsett published this page in The Latest 2024-08-29 15:31:13 +1000

Like what you are reading?

Here are some more articles you may enjoy