Famed late-term abortion doctor closes Colorado clinic after decades of protest
Famed late-term abortionist Dr. Warren Hern, long a target of pro-life protests, closed his Boulder clinic this week after 50 years, saying it's time to pass on the "sacred commitment" of providing safe abortions to others.
"It has been a privilege to do this work for almost 55 years," Hern said in a statement on his website. "It has been a privilege to know the many exceptional people in this field who were and are devoted to the highest standards of medical care for women and who are dedicated to the fundamental principle of reproductive freedom for everyone."
Hern, who has detailed the gruesome procedure of "dismembering" fetuses during third-trimester abortions in his writings, said that although he loves his work, he has "wanted for years to be free from the operating room and the daily cares of a private medical practice."
"When I have a patient, I can't do anything else. Her safety and well-being is my priority. Nothing else matters while her life is at stake," he wrote.
Hern added that performing abortions has given him and his colleagues "great satisfaction and meaning in our lives."
Hern's clinic, the Boulder Abortion Clinic in Colorado, was one of the few that offered late-term abortions nationwide, even prior to the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Hern would see visitors from all over the country. Colorado is one of nine states that has no restrictions on when abortions can take place in the course of the pregnancy.
In his book, "Abortion Practice," first published in 1984, Hern describes abortions in detail, including how "A long curved Mayo scissors may be necessary to decapitate and dismember the fetus."
"The procedure changes significantly at 21 weeks because the fetal tissues become much more cohesive and difficult to dismember," Hern wrote. "This problem is accentuated by the fact that the fetal pelvis may be as much as 5cm in width. The calvaria [head] is no longer the principal problem; it can be collapsed. Other structures, such as the pelvis, present more difficulty."
Hern has been a dominating voice for late-term abortions since the 1970s. He was featured in prominent media outlets over the decades, including The New Yorker, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times and The Atlantic, among others. Hern also wrote a memoir recently, "Abortion in the Age of Unreason: A Doctor's Account of Caring for Women Before and After Roe v. Wade."
Hern writes in that memoir about how, in the early days of his clinic, he had to personally prove that abortions were being conducted safely. Following a dilation-and-evacuation procedure, he would have to "empty the cotton sock in the suction bottle of its contents, spread the tissue out on a glass plate, and look at it carefully over a light box" to show that no parts of the baby were left inside the woman, The New Yorker reported in a 2024 profile of Hern.
In his interview with The New Yorker, Hern also said that after the decision to reverse Roe v. Wade, the clinic was flooded with patients – and it would prioritize the late-term pregnancies over the earlier ones.
"We couldn't see patients who were earlier in their pregnancies, because we were just too busy taking care of the more difficult patients. We have seen some earlier patients now, but our special interest is in helping women who are having abortions later in pregnancy because they have the most difficult circumstances. They're at the end of the line. They can't find anyone else to do this," he said.
Later in the interview, Hern said, "The basic fact is that if you're pregnant, you're at risk of dying from that pregnancy," and "All abortions are elective, and all abortions are therapeutic."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
20 hours ago
- The Hill
Former White House doctor: Biden physician should have tested for cognitive decline
A former doctor for the White House under the Obama administration said former President Biden should have been tested for cognitive decline in his final year in office, given his age. Jeffrey Kuhlman said performing such a test on Biden would have shed light on the former president's mental state and ability to serve another four years. 'Sometimes those closest to the tree miss the forest,' Kuhlman told The Washington Post. Biden's long-term doctor, Kevin O'Connor, didn't perform a cognitive test on the leader during his fourth year in office, as White House officials said formal results weren't needed to prove the former president's mental soundness. 'The president's doctor has said, if you look at what this president, who is also the commander-in-chief — he passes a cognitive test every day — every day, as he moves from one topic to another topic, understanding the granular level of these topics,' former White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said during a February briefing last year. 'You saw him talk about fighting crime today. Tomorrow, he's going to go to the border. Next week, he's going to give a State of the Union Address,' she added. O'Connor was recently subpoenaed by the House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) to address why a cognitive test wasn't given. Biden traveled often while serving, including taking two international trips prior to his first presidential debate with President Trump. 'This is a very rigorous job. And the president has been able to do — do this job every day for the past three years,' Jean-Pierre previously told reporters from the podium. However, Kuhlman said the public deserved to have evidence that Biden was mentally sharp, arguing that health reports should include a total overview of a president's well-being. 'It shouldn't be just health, it should be fitness,' Kuhlman said. 'Fitness is: Do you have that robust mind, body, spirit that you can do this physically, mentally, emotionally demanding job?' Months after leaving office, Biden was diagnosed with prostate cancer amid reports alleging he suffered from mental decay while serving as commander-in-chief. 'Cancer touches us all. Like so many of you, Jill and I have learned that we are strongest in the broken places,' he wrote in a post on X. 'Thank you for lifting us up with love and support.'
The Hill
a day ago
- The Hill
Trump stokes fear, confusion with pulled emergency abortion guidance
The Trump administration sowed confusion and fear among physicians with its move this past week to rescind Biden-era guidelines to hospitals that provide life-saving abortions. While the move doesn't change the law, doctors and reproductive-rights advocates fear it will have a chilling effect on health care workers in states with abortion bans, ultimately harming pregnant women. Earlier this past week, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced they would rescind guidance issued during the Biden administration, which reinforced to hospitals that under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA,) abortions qualify as stabilizing care in medical emergencies. Emergency rooms in states with abortion bans have been struggling since the 2022 overturning of Roe v. Wade to understand when they can legally provide emergency abortions. After President Trump pulled the Biden-era guidance seeking to clarify that question, emergency room doctors will experience 'more confusion' and 'more fear,' according to health and legal experts who spoke with The Hill. 'Clinicians are scared to provide basic medical care, and this care is clearly in line with medical ethics … medical standards of care, and they're being put in this situation where they can't win,' said Payal Shah, director of research, legal and advocacy at Physicians for Human Rights. Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, at least 13 states have enacted near-total abortion bans, according to data from the Guttmacher Institute. There are exceptions in these states when continuing a pregnancy poses a threat to the health or life of the mother. However, most of the language in state laws is unclear on how that determination is made, resulting in instances of emergency rooms denying care. Doctors in states like Idaho, Texas and Tennessee have filed lawsuits requesting that lawmakers clarify when an abortion is allowed to save the life of a pregnant person. The doctors and patients involved in the lawsuits argue that state laws do not adequately protect pregnant patients in emergencies. Many of these states have severe punishments for doctors who violate abortion bans, like steep fines and prison time. 'For clinicians, there is actually no safe way to navigate this in this moment, and ultimately, that's how these laws are designed,' Shah said. 'They're designed to cause chaos and confusion. They're often written in ways that don't use medical terminology.' Without clear guidance, pregnant women suffer and sometimes die, as ProPublica has reported. One striking example of this is the 2023 case of Kyleigh Thurman, a Texas woman who was repeatedly denied care for a nonviable pregnancy after days of experiencing bleeding and pain. Health care workers discovered that she had an ectopic pregnancy, which is when a fertilized egg implants and begins to grow outside of the uterus, usually in a fallopian tube. Ectopic pregnancies are never viable and are life-threatening if not treated properly. It wasn't until her OB/GYN 'pleaded to hospital staff that she be given care,' that the hospital administered a shot ending her pregnancy, according to a complaint filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights on behalf of Thurman. The shot came too late, and the ectopic pregnancy ruptured Thurman's right fallopian tube, which was then removed. 'If a patient is actively hemorrhaging or experiencing an ectopic pregnancy which is also life-threatening, doctors need that clear guidance that yes, EMTALA applied,' said Autumn Katz, associate director of U.S. litigation at the Center for Reproductive Rights. A federal investigation into Thurman's case found that the Texas hospital violated EMTALA, according to a recent letter from the CMS. 'I finally got some justice,' Thurman said in a statement. 'I hope this decision will do some good in encouraging hospitals to help women in situations like mine.' Hospitals that violate EMTALA are subject to heavy fines and, in some extreme cases, risk losing a portion of their Medicare and Medicaid hospital funding, according to the National Institutes of Health. Former President Biden leaned on the law to preserve access to emergency abortion across the country, leading to a legal fight with Idaho, which has a strict abortion ban. The Supreme Court last year dismissed the case, declining to rule on the merits of a politically charged case. The rescinding of these guidelines also means hospitals that violate the law will likely not be investigated as often as they were under previous administrations, according to Shah. That lack of punitive risk means that hospitals could be incentivized to deny life-saving care for patients. 'The standard of EMTALA is pretty high,' said Katherine Hempstead, senior policy adviser at Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. 'This kind of takes that layer of reassurance away, and it will make a lot of providers feel very vulnerable.'
Boston Globe
3 days ago
- Boston Globe
Massachusetts joins three other Democrat-led states asking FDA to remove abortion pill restrictions
Advertisement Abortion pills — particularly mifepristone — have become the focus of legal battles and new legislation seeking to expand or further curtail access to the procedure since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, and with it, the national right to abortion. Thursday's petition comes days after FDA Commissioner Marty Makary said he would conduct a review of the drug, alarming reproductive health advocates who worry the agency is gearing up to further limit access. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services, which includes the FDA, said HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. had asked Makary to review mifepristone data. The spokesperson added that Makary 'will ensure gold standard science is used while incorporating practical, common-sense considerations to its regulatory processes.' Advertisement A large body of research shows mifepristone, first approved more than two decades ago, is safe and effective. It is used in the majority of abortions in the United States. The Democratic attorneys general asked the FDA to review the restrictions on mifepristone Thursday through a citizen petition submitted to HHS and the FDA. By law, the FDA is required to respond within 180 days of receiving the petition — granting, denying or dismissing it, or justifying why it has not reached a decision on the matter. In the month after a decision, petitioners can ask the FDA to reconsider. After that, they have the option to take the issue to court. The four attorneys general are asking the FDA to remove requirements under its Mifepristone Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) program that mandate pharmacy certification, which involves using shippers that provide tracking and patient agreement forms for receiving the drug. They are also asking the FDA to remove prescriber certification requirements, saying the restrictions 'can discourage clinicians from offering it,' according to the petition. To prescribe mifepristone, clinicians have to send a certification form to the pharmacies their patients will visit to receive the drug. That process poses safety risks 'should such lists be leaked or compromised,' the petition says. Those risks for abortion providers are 'all the more prevalent now given the number of states that have criminalized abortion and are seeking to punish providers who have facilitated medication abortions for patients who reside in other states,' the petition says. It alludes to the first-of-its-kind prosecution this year of a New York doctor who allegedly prescribed abortion pills to a patient in Louisiana. Advertisement In a statement Thursday, James said these restrictions discourage many family medicine practices and primary care clinics from stocking or prescribing mifepristone, which particularly impacts 'rural and underserved communities' that have no alternative health-care options. According to the FDA, the Mifespristone REMS program is intended to 'mitigate the risk of serious complications' associated with the drug 'by, among other things, requiring that prescribers have the necessary qualifications to assess whether patients are appropriate candidates for the drug and to provide necessary intervention in case of complications (or have made plans to provide such care through others), ensuring that mifepristone is only dispensed by certified pharmacies or by or under the supervision of certified prescribers, and requiring that patients be informed of the risks of the treatment regimen.' Some Republicans have been pushing the FDA to reassess the safety of mifepristone, based on a study conducted by a conservative think tank that said it found the risk of serious adverse events from taking the drug is much higher than advertised. The study is not peer-reviewed and does not reveal the database used for it. The Washington Post Fact Checker analyzed the study, which was conducted by the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and noted that it found similar rates for the most serious problems associated with abortion, such as sepsis, infection, and emergency-room visits, as are listed on the FDA-approved label of Mifeprex, the brand name for the abortion pill. According to the FDA's prescribing information on mifepristone, fewer than 0.5 percent of people taking the drug with misoprostol to end pregnancy experienced serious adverse reactions. On Thursday, the attorneys general rebuked 'recent attempts to challenge mifepristone's safety using methodologically flawed scientific research papers, noting that several of these papers have been retracted by medical journals.' Advertisement 'The coalition are urging the FDA to use this full review of mifepristone to lift unjustified restrictions and maximize access to this essential medication,' James's statement said.
