Walsh abortion comments ignite firestorm

Republican amends comments on using procedure to save a life

October 19, 2012|By Bob Secter and Deborah L. Shelton, Chicago Tribune reporters

The focus of a fierce suburban congressional battle turned from the economy to abortion literally overnight following Republican Rep. Joe Walsh's controversial declaration that there's no medical necessity to use the procedure to save a woman's life.

"With modern technology and science, you can't find one instance," Walsh declared in comments to reporters after a televised debate Thursday night against Democrat Tammy Duckworth in the northwest suburban 8th District race.

By Friday those comments had created a firestorm, and tea party icon Walsh was in damage-control mode. At a hastily called news conference, the freshman congressman backed off that sweeping assertion, slightly, acknowledging "very rare circumstances" where lifesaving abortions might be required.

Medical experts sought to refute Walsh's initial claim. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said 600 women die annually in the U.S. from pregnancy and childbirth-related causes. Comments like those from Walsh, the group said in a statement, were ample reason why politicians need to "get out of our exam rooms."

"Walsh's comments have no grounding in science and are completely inaccurate," said Dr. Cassing Hammond, an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine.

Life-threatening medical conditions that can lead to terminating a pregnancy include infections of the uterus or the amniotic sac surrounding the fetus, some heart conditions and pre-eclampsia, a rapid rise in blood pressure that occurs during pregnancy and in the period right afterward, said Dr. Erika Levi, an obstetrician-gynecologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

"All of these conditions can occur throughout the pregnancy," Levi said. "If these conditions occur prior to viability (of the fetus) then, at that point, abortion can become the only option to save the life of the mother."

Dr. David Grimes, a clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, added others to the list, including complications of diabetes, pulmonary hypertension and cancer, which he said sometimes can require termination of the pregnancy before treatment can proceed. Cases severe enough to require abortions are rare, Grimes said, adding that he nonetheless sees several a year.

Grimes took issue with anti-abortion politicians who view "women as some kind of Tupperware container that holds the fetus for nine months."

The unfolding controversy stepped on Walsh's key political message about slashing government. It also spurred critics to compare him with Republican Rep. Todd Akin, another staunch abortion foe who famously damaged his once front-running Missouri U.S. Senate campaign by proclaiming that a rape victim's body would not allow her to become pregnant.

Duckworth, who supports abortion rights, also took aim at Walsh. "I am flabbergasted that he is that out of touch with science," she said.

Some anti-abortion activists, while generally agreeing with Walsh, appeared to acknowledge that the congressman came on a little strong. ABC News reported that the National Right to Life Committee said in a statement that it supports allowing "abortion if it is necessary to prevent the death of the mother."

Joseph Scheidler, longtime head of the Chicago-based Pro-Life Action League, said his first thought after reading Walsh's Thursday comments was, "Poor guy, he's going to have everybody on his neck."

That said, Scheidler thought Walsh's problem was one of wording, not conviction. Scheidler said there is never a need to perform abortions, but he also made a distinction between abortion and necessary lifesaving treatments for pregnant women — such as surgery for uterine cancer — that have the side effect of terminating pregnancies.

"Strictly speaking, he's correct," Scheidler said of Walsh. "If the woman is going to die if you don't take out her uterus, it's not an abortion per se."

Saying he wanted to "clarify" his earlier comments, Walsh read a lengthy statement Friday at an empty warehouse in Elk Grove Village, but then refused questions.

"I want to make it very clear that I am in fact pro-life without exception," he said before outlining exceptions. One of the "very rare circumstances" that justify lifesaving medical intervention for the mother that will kill a fetus, Walsh said, is an ectopic pregnancy, in which an embryo embeds outside the uterus.

Walsh later released what he characterized as medical evidence to back up his claims. It did not, however, consist of studies but rather excerpts of statements, most decades old, from physicians casting doubt on the need to abort a child to save a mother's life.

Tribune reporters Monique Garcia and Duaa Eldeib contributed.

bsecter@tribune.com

dshelton@tribune.com

It is hard to keep track of all the GOP Congressmen demanding a federal abortion ban with no exceptions—even to save a womans life. Maybe that does not reflect the whole party (that put the same demand in its platform) but voting for ANY Republican is probably voting for a federal ban on even life-saving abortion. Republicans keep asking, "why are we talking about abortion?" and the answer is "because ya'll keep advocating a federal abortion ban with no exceptions."