We welcome another guest blogger.  Double Domer and second-year Pitt Med student Nicole Shirilla offers a unique perspective on the battle vs. the Culture of Death.  You want to talk about battling in the trenches, Nicole has courageously done it.  Her post also gives some eye-opening facts about Roe v. Wade.  It's long, but do yourself a favor and read every word... at least twice.

Dear friends,

(There has been much talk about the importance of dialogue in regards to abortion, and I wanted to humbly share with you my own recent experiences in attempting to dialogue on this most important matter of human rights.)

Sometime during the night between the evening of December 11th and the early morning of December 12th I had a dream like none that I have ever had before.  In my dream, as clear as the light of day, Pope John Paul II took my chin in his hands, looked me in the eyes and said, "Young people, do not to be afraid."  

Around 1:30pm the following day, December 12th, the feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe, this dream came back to me in full force. 

Let me back up--  I am a second year medical student, assigned to shadow a gynecologist in the month of December.  The first patient that  afternoon was a woman who had an abortion a little over a month ago, worried she might be pregnant again.  I listened as she told the doctor "if I'm pregnant I want it taken care of" to which the doctor said, " I understand.  We''ll take care of it either way."  The doctor took an ultrasound of her uterus but wasn't able to determine if what was inside her uterus was a new pregnancy, or remains of the abortion.   She gave the woman a pregnancy test and called in one of her partners from the "family planning" service to take a look at the ultrasound.   As the two doctors  discussed the ultrasound, the pregnancy test came in negative.  At this point the second doctor looked me directly in the eye and said, "Well, whatever it is, it's dead.  Just let it run its course."

I made it through the rest of the afternoon, and riding the bus home I could only think that I wanted to talk to my mom.  As soon as I stepped off the bus--  literally--- she called.  Mother's intuition, perhaps.  She asked how my day was and by the time I was at the front steps of my apartment I was sobbing.

Needless to say, I have replayed the scene many times in my head, praying about what I have done, what I have failed to do, what I saw and heard and above all the message of my dream, "Young people, do not be afraid!"

A few months later, as part of our course on Reproduction and Development, we were to have a lecture on abortion on February 25th, 2009.  Ash Wednesday.  I did some research on the lecturer and found that he was the same man whose eyes pierced my heart and words shook my soul on December 12th "Whatever it is, it's dead."

I debated about attending his lecture, but decided that I must know what he is teaching if I am to know how to dialogue in this secular medical world in which I now very much live. 

I attended the lecture, and some of what he said I do not even feel comfortable repeating.  Suffice it to say, those comments COMPLETELY dehumanized the unborn child.  I can give you some of his main points though.   He began his lecture saying that he felt sorry for anyone who didn't come to the lecture, because whether or not we agree with it, abortion is the 2nd most commonly performed outpatient procedure in the United States (second to circumcision)-  one million abortions a year.   He then said that 63% of all abortions are performed at 8 or less weeks of gestation (2005 data), largely due to the increased availability of high sensitivity over the counter pregnancy tests.    He then discussed (from the point of view that this is a problem) the declining number of abortion providers, stating that there were 11% fewer providers in 2000 than in 1996. 

He then divided his talk into two parts:  medical abortion (from pills such as the "abortion pill" also known as RU-486) and surgical abortion.  I won't go into every detail, but did want to share some of what he said.

When he spoke about medical abortions, he said that there are drugs (normally given in the first trimester, but also for second trimester "labor induction" abortions) that cause an abortion.  Most disturbingly, during this section of his talk he praised the convenience of these drugs.  He said that women can determine what period of time is most convenient for them to take these pills and said (a direct quote), "You can put your kids to bed and have your abortion by the morning." 

[By the way, reading a direct quote like this might make you wonder, as it did for me, how such availability and convenience of abortion fits into an ideology that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare." This was the phrase that Bill Clinton introduced in the early 90's to describe his platform on abortion, and this phrase was in the platform of the Democratic Party until this past year when (as announced by Linda Hirshman of Slate magazine http://www.slate.com/id/2197363/):  "The Democratic Party platform of 2008 finally dropped its old abortion language (”safe, legal and rare”), which had asked that women not have abortions unless they absolutely must. The 2008 platform, just announced, says instead, “The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.”   Two words come to mind:  slippery slope.]

He then proceeded to talk about surgical abortions.

When he talked about first trimester surgical abortions he said it's  "quick and dirty--  no, not dirty-- simple,  5 minute procedure."   He then explained the suction technique for the first trimester, and said that "the pain is nowhere near the pain that a woman experiences in labor."  He then talked about second trimester abortions, and proceeded to explain dilation and extraction abortions.  I am going to spare the details on this, but will say that he finished his graphic descriptions by saying that "Maybe this sounds grotesque to you.  Well, there's a lot of things in medicine that are grotesque...  open heart surgery is grotesque."

He finished on the note of telling us that this is about a woman's choice and empowering women.  He added that the reality is that sex happens, contraception isn't effective and many pregnancies are unwanted.  He said something to the effect that the way to reduce abortions is to have better controlled fertility through better contraceptives, and although I didn't write down many exact quotes during this time I do remember the last thing he said was "You can't put your head in the sand."

Then, he was applauded.

Immediately after the talk I sent him an e-mail to ask  him when he believes that life begins and how he distinguishes between abortion and murder.  He replied saying they were both good questions and invited me to meet with him in person to discuss.

At our meeting I looked him in the eye as he told me that he believes that life begins at 24 weeks gestation.  Why?  This is the point of viability outside the womb.  [As a side note: Developmentally, all organs (heart, brain, lungs, etc.) are formed by 8 weeks gestation and continue to mature throughout pregnancy.  It is at 24 weeks that the lungs secrete a substance called surfactant that helps keep the airways open, preparing the baby for life outside of the womb.]  I asked him what he believes the fetus is before 24 weeks gestation, and he said "potential life."   He said that he drew his belief from Roe v. Wade, which he said named 24 weeks as the point of viability.

He declined to discuss the ethics of abortion with me, and told me that there is no right or wrong in regards to it, and suggested that perhaps I was raised with a religion that said otherwise.   For the record, I believe that labeling abortion as a theological debate is an insidious tactic of those who support abortion to undermine this crime against humanity.  There is no doubt that my faith instructs my heart and my mind completely on this issue, but I resist abortion being called a theological issue because I have witnessed firsthand how this label is manipulated by those who support abortion as a "religious right issue" or a "matter of belief" that (to them) falls safely within the sphere of separation of church and state, pluralistic religious views, etc.

I had never looked very closely into the language of Roe v. Wade before, but this doctor's answers inspired me to do so.  What I found was eye-opening:   Roe v. Wade NEVER defines when life begins.  Instead the court took what I have decided to call a "position of non-decision."   From the Roe v. Wade decision: "When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."   Instead of asserting when life begins they pointed out that under English and American common law and statutes, "the unborn have never been recognized...as persons in the whole sense"  and fell back on the position that the State has a "compelling interest" in protecting "potential life at the point of viability."

While the court might not have had the info that they needed in 1973 to make a decision on when life begins, it is a different ball game now.   36 years of inquiry leave no doubt.

Case in point:
A few years after Roe (1981) a US Senate judiciary subcommittee received testimony from a collection of medical experts (Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981), who gave testimony such as:

"It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive...It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception."  Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth
Harvard University Medical School

    "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."  Professor Hymie Gordon,  Mayo Clinic

After reviewing the testimony, the official Senate report reached this conclusion:   "Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings."

I go back and read the words:  "When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."  My thought is this:  At this point in the development of man's knowledge, we do know and is time for Roe v. Wade to be revisited accordingly.  Let the highest court re-debate this, given the info they were lacking 36 years ago.  To decide that abortion is legal because they do not know for sure when life begins is one thing.  To decide it legal with the knowledge that life begins at conception is another.  I implore those who are responsible for the legality of murder to claim it as such.  If they can't claim this with a clear conscience, i would hope this would lead them to start asking themselves why.

I find it more than interesting that in his remarks on embryonic stem cell research Obama spoke of "restoring scientific integrity to government decision-making."   What about the scientific integrity of the beginning of life?  I would welcome the chance to dialogue with him about this, and would be the first in line to do so.  Sadly, though, we have seen his responses thus far.  If is above his pay grade to decide when life begins, shouldn't it also be above his pay grade to decide when it ends?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRswgN-Wf6g 

I must stop here and say that I agree with those on this blog who welcome dialogue about abortion.  Absolutely.  We must not be afraid to engage those who disagree with us, and to speak the truth with love which (as I have experienced it on the receiving end) is a powerful path to conversion.  Moreover, we (I know I personally must guard my heart for this) must do so with the greatest humility knowing that we serve God who is the Prodigal (meaning: giving in abundance; lavish or profuse) Father, more prodigal with His mercy than we are in our denials of Him, who calls us not to judge others and to forgive 70x7 times. 

In fact, there is a real line between loving the sinner and hating the sin that Christ makes clear when he draws a line in the sand and says, "Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her."  "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"  She replied, "No one, sir." Then Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you. Go, (and) from now on do not sin any more."  Jesus spoke to them again, saying, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."  (John 8: 7-13)

So how do we do this?

The catechism describes that "Sin is a personal act" (Catechism of the Catholic Church:  1868).  Furthermore, "Sins give rise to social situations and institutions that are contrary to the divine goodness. "Structures of sin" are the expression and effect of personal sins. They lead their victims to do evil in their turn. In an analogous sense, they constitute a "social sin."  (Catechism of the Catholic Church:  1869)

On a personal, individual level I believe that our hearts must (and can, through the grace of God) continually be converted to the Gospel of Life, and that this must be done through prayer and through meeting people where they are at to speak the truth with great love, compassion and fidelity to the truth.   Don't be fooled as I initially was though--  this is not necessarily the easier path.  Meeting someone on a personal level can be a long road of love to tread, for it involves a personal relationship and the investment of time, energy and emotions and the risk of rejection (no matter how subtle) that comes with it.

That being said, on a societal level I believe that  we must labor to defend and protect what our individual hearts-in-need-of-changing (through the force of social sin) actively leave abandoned and destroyed. This is the work for societal justice.  In the words of Martin Luther King Junior  (a quote Ryan has pointed out to me on several occasions), "It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important."  (Martin Luther King, Jr., Wall Street Journal, November 13, 1962.)

As was true in the era of the Civil Rights movement, we need now more than ever people who will stand up for the dignity and the rights of the least protected members of our society.  This is why I do not support Notre Dame's decision to honor the president with an honorary degree.   Barack Obama is receiving a great honor and a platform from which to speak, and at this point (as I read in a comment on another blog-- sorry I can't remember which) the moment that he receives his ND degree, the University is publicly either "condoning his policies or turning a blind eye to them."   I'm not even sure at this point which is worse.

The past few months I have witnessed the subtle (and not so subtle) dehumanization of the unborn that surrounds abortion in medical education.  We must guard our hearts and our consciences from the numbness of such dehumanization, because the fact is that once a person is dehumanized ANYTHING can be rationalized.  I guarantee it.  History has taught us that lesson (or not taught us, perhaps) time and time again.

To end on a word of hope:

After the doctor refused to talk about ethics with me,  I shared with him how difficult it was to hear his descriptions when he lectured to us on the procedure of an abortion.  I told him that I could hardly even listen to what he described, and asked him if it is difficult for him to do.  He looked down and then at me and said, "Of course it is.  I'm not a cold person.  Especially when it's further along and developed and..."    His voice momentarily trailed off.  My eyes glanced upwards at wall behind him and the hand drawn pictures that said, "I love my dad."

In that moment I knew that he knows that the child in the womb is a living human being.   Lord, let this seed of truth grow...

Our Lady of Victory, pray for us!