Opinion: Column
Abortion clinic cover-up absurd
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Laura Brennan:
- WFC stands in way of gay rights progress (April 15, 2009)
- WUD correct to 'miff' Mifflin bash (April 6, 2009)
- Mistele's rhetoric unworthy of county executive (March 30, 2009)
- Madison's public schools must think about nutrition (March 9, 2009)
- Traffic cameras needed, fast (March 2, 2009)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
For the most part, the University of Wisconsin is a very respectable institution.
While standing as one of the most prestigious universities in the country — even set by one ranking as 17th in the world — it conducts world-class research ranging from agricultural technology to artificial hearts. Its hospitals constantly strive to remain at the cusp of cutting-edge research as well. For this reason, it is hardly surprising that UW Hospital has landed itself in the headlines for a controversial move. What is surprising, however, is what that move was.
Information recently leaked to the public indicated UW is considering performing second-trimester abortions. As demonstrated by Saturday’s Pro-Life demonstration, abortion is a very hot issue in the traditionally liberal-leaning Madison. The subject of second-trimester abortion, however, is far more controversial.
The second trimester of pregnancy, which extends from weeks 13 through 27, is a period in which the fetus develops extensively and rapidly. As a result, an abortion during this period is a much more invasive and complicated procedure. Most abortion clinics, including Planned Parenthood, will perform the procedure up to the 19th week of pregnancy. The controversial proposal being considered by UW Hospital would allow the procedure at 22 weeks.
The disturbing part of UW’s proposed change in policy is not the policy itself but the way they have gone about making the change.
The Associated Press uncovered evidence that the university and hospital intended to keep the proposed changes from both their staff and the public, even though the introduction of the controversial policy could compromise staff decisions to remain at the hospital. Additionally, documents and e-mails were found implying the university planned to profit from the later-term abortions — as in making a significant policy change to perform a dangerous and distressing procedure in order to make money.
Under the open records law, The Associated Press obtained a detailed PowerPoint presentation promoting the plan that was developed by UW doctors. One of the slides, titled “Benefits,” has “increased departmental revenue” at the top of the list.
Aside from being unethical from a business standpoint, the idea of such a thought is downright revolting. Although I hope for the sake of the university and everyone associated with it that these allegations are untrue, they are very serious and should absolutely not be dismissed. The university is large and old enough to know how to handle such delicate situations and that covering them up is not an option. Any whiff of a controversy could jeopardize more than their proposed change in policy.
According to WLUK-TV, Lisa Burnette, a spokesperson for UW Health, claims the slide does not refer to the Wisconsin proposal at all and has not been seen by doctors. Instead, she says, it was taken from an abortion rights center at University of California, San Francisco, and refers to medical departments that generally provide abortions. While this is a convenient excuse, it seems to be just that — an excuse. Why would a slideshow promoting the new plan, with a UW logo at the top nonetheless, be detailing profit benefits for the University of California? Something isn’t right here.
This isn’t an issue of whether abortion is right or wrong — as the law currently stands, abortion is a legal medical procedure, and as long as this law stands, UW Hospital is operating fully within their rights to perform this procedure. But if these allegations are even remotely true, if top hospital officials discussed this change as a way of increasing revenue, then the UW health system needs more than a slap on the wrist and a serious reconsideration of the Hippocratic Oath.
Brunette says that under the UW plan, about 100 abortions would be performed per year on patients who would often be young, poor and in desperate situations — some would even be victims of rape or incest. If this is true, then the university would very likely be helping many people who have nowhere else to turn. But if the allegations turns out to be true — and I would hope that investigation is taken forward swiftly and intently — a move for profit hiding under such a righteous guise would be a dishearteningly morbid indicator of the university’s intentions.
Beyond it all, I am bothered by the fact that my university would knowingly keep this information from its staff as well as its supportive public. So, until these allegations are further investigated, the UW should think twice before keeping things under wraps.
Laura Brennan (lbrennan@badgerherald.com) is a senior majoring in communicative disorders.
13 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Muckrakers
President’s Visit Marked a Speech to One of the Last Groups Not Critical of Him
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
The UW should not try to hide the fact that it plans to profit from offering a new procedure.
That is your argument in a nutshell. Keep emotions out of this, it’s ridiculous this is even a concern.
They’re not doing it for profit, they’re doing it to provide a service to those who want it. End of story. Any profit that comes from it isn’t enough for them to go through the scrutiny that they’ve received—they’re going through the scrutiny because they believe it’s something that should be available in Dane County.
Whether you agree with abortion or not, you cannot argue against that.
As usual, an awful column from Laura Brennan.
What if the fetus has a serious defect that will limit its life to a maximum of 1 week after birth; a week filled with painful and expensive, ultimately unsuccessful medical treatments? Are you not going to abort?
Have you ever put yourself in someone else’s shoes?
It’s not unethical to add a completely legal procedure to your health care repertoire.
For the record, NOBODY in Bascom had anything to do with this. UW Hospitals & Clinics is a legally separate entity from the university, and the Madison Surgery Center is co-owned with Meriter Hospital.
This column is so loaded with misinformation that I’m surprised any newspaper would print out. Campus readers deserve much better. This wouldn’t pass the test of a grade-school journalism class.
Good work Biddy…kidding. (That is until you kill all the kids…)
2:27 am is wrong.
this is possibly your only good column, laura.
Can anyone verify said powerpoint? I cannot find a link to it nor any non-hearsay references to it. I would love to see it, plus meta-data. I would not put it above the anti-choice movement to fake that
I really don’t understand what the problem is here. The UW Hospital and the Madison Surgery Center are not charity hospitals or non-profit organizations—they are businesses. They probably make money on most of the procedures they do. By adding second-trimester abortions, they would be one of three locations in the state to offer such services, and thus, likely would increase revenue.
Laura are really grasping at straws here. If you want to argue the UW shouldn’t perform these procedures, than make it without criticizing them for being “unethical from a business standpoint.” From a business standpoint, this isn’t a bad move.
WHAT WILL WE DO FOR CANNON FODDER?
I guess we can just import it?
PS. I’m sure that someone looking for an abortion at week 22 would otherwise make an excellent parent.
What an awful article. All medical procedures generate some revenue. There is no news here, no secrets, no cover up, only manufactured outrage.
So you are against the clinic because they didn’t bring it in under the guise of helping women but under the reality of making money from late-term abortions? Interesting logic. I thought it was awful of them to bring it in because they would be dismembering living children inside their mother’s wombs. If you think that description is a stretch, I challenge you to go to www.humanlife.org and read the description of a D&E Abortion here www.humanlife.org/abortion_commonmethods.php
The UW Hospital board voted 11 to 3 today to support a proposed abortion clinic at the Madison Surgery Center. To the whack jobs, in the immortal words of Nelson Muntz,”Haaaaaa haaaaaa!” If only you would take half the effort you put into your useless protests and use it to help the least of your brothers, then the world could be a much better place.
If the church considers a fetus to be a living person with a soul then why don’t they have funerals for them???