Abortionist said abortion would protect this mother’s health, but later admitted the truth

Abortionists and abortion advocates claim induced abortion — the direct and intentional killing of children in the womb — is a “necessary” part of “healthcare.” They even say killing her preborn baby can be beneficial to a mother’s physical and mental health. One abortionist, however, admitted under oath that a preborn baby she killed could have enhanced his or her mother’s well-being if she had been allowed to live.

Dr. Shannon Carr was employed to commit late abortions by infamous late-term abortionist, Dr. Curtis Boyd from 2014 to 2019, at the abortion facilities Boyd formerly owned in New Mexico and Dallas. It was at Southwestern Women’s Options in Albuquerque that Carr carried out an abortion that ultimately caused the death of the young mother, Keisha Atkins, and her baby, leading to a massive lawsuit against Boyd and his staff brought by attorney Mike Seibel on behalf of Keisha’s mother and sister Tina Atkins and Nicole Atkins. The case was settled in favor of the Atkins family, and Boyd ended his business soon after.

Carr’s admission

During Carr’s deposition for the case, conducted by attorney Justin Hall, co-counsel with attorney Mike Seibel in October 2019, Hall questioned Carr about her evaluation of Keisha and her decision to abort Keisha’s’ baby. Keisha tragically died along with her baby during the multi-day abortion Carr committed on her in February 2017. Keisha was six months pregnant, which means her baby had a good chance of surviving outside the womb at the time of the abortion.

Carr had written on Keisha’s paperwork that the abortion at 24 weeks was necessary to prevent Keisha from suffering negative effects on her well-being. However, at one point during Carr’s deposition, Hall compelled the abortionist to consider whether or not Atkins’ baby might have actually enhanced her mother’s well-being. Her response was telling.

Hall asked Carr if “having a child could actually enhance [Keisha’s] well-being” and Carr responded, “Sure.”

This admission was astounding because it followed Carr’s contradictory assertions in which she said Keisha needed an abortion to prevent “substantial and irreversible harm” to her health, safety, and well-being. Carr continuously undermined her own claims, admitting that Keisha’s physical health was not endangered by pregnancy, that she had not interviewed Keisha’s family to ascertain the familial health or the safety of Keisha’s personal relationships, and that she was merely speculating about the effect of the pregnancy on Keisha’s mental health and overall well-being when she began the abortion.

Carr lied about Atkins’ need for a late abortion

In her deposition, Carr admitted she inaccurately indicated on Keisha’s patient evaluation that she would suffer “irreversible harm” to her physical health if she were to carry the baby to term.

Over the course of the deposition, Hall drew from Carr the admission that she had lied about committing the abortion for a substantial and irreversible physical health reason and that she had merely been speculating as to Keisha’s mental health and safety needs during her 20-minute consultation with her.

During the deposition, Hall said, “You indicated here that it was your ‘Professional opinion that being forced to continue the pregnancy would cause substantial and irreversible harm to Keisha Adkins’ physical health.’ What are you referring to there?’”

Carr replied, “Well, more so that — that continuing a pregnancy is — takes its toll on women in a physical way. And that per her own wishes, in wishing to end the pregnancy, that she’s made a conscious decision to not be pregnant and not go through with the pregnancy and not to parent. And that would change her path in life, and that’s not something that she wanted to do.”

When Hall asked Carr to give an example of “specific irreversible harm” to Keisha’s physical health if she carried her child to term, Carr was unable to answer. She was forced to admit that there was no such threat, effectively acknowledging that she had lied on Atkins’ charting and exposing that simply not wanting to parent is used as a health reason by abortionists.

Hall: As a medical physician, do you have a specific irreversible harm to her physical health that you can identify that you’re basing this decision on?

Carr: I would say that not necessarily, no, not irreversible harm. Irreversible changes to her physical health having, you know, gone through labor and childbirth.

Hall: So, then there was no irreversible harm to her physical health for carrying the child to term?

Carr: Correct.

More lies about the reasoning for the abortion

Carr’s assessment of Keisha was not the only instance in which the abortionist lied about abortion being necessary. In a 2017 film by The Atlantic, Carr said that she wasn’t really “killing babies” by committing abortions and asserted that abortion is “necessary.”

When Hall asked Carr if she had made any formal assessments of Keisha’s mental health using the Diagnostic Statistical Manual, and if she could specify how pregnancy would impact Keisha’s mental health, Carr responded in the negative.

Hall: Can you give us an example of what irreversible harm would occur to Keisha’s mental health if she were to carry the baby to term?

Carr: That would just be speculation of — of parenting at a young age with — as a single mom and financially not stable, depression, anxiety. That would be speculation as to any forward effects on her mental health. It’s possible.

Hall: So, in your interview and your assessment of Keisha Atkins, is it fair to say that you do not have a specific incidence of irreversible harm that you believe she would have incurred to her mental health had she carried the baby to term?

Carr: I think that it’s a possibility that it could have, sure.

Hall: It’s a possibility, but certainly not something that was definitely going to happen?

Carr: Correct.

Hall: Now, as far as accessing her mental health, is it fair to say that you did not make a formal assessment of Keisha Adkins’ mental health?

Carr answered, “Correct. I’m not a psychiatrist, so no.”

Hall: And you didn’t employ the DSM or any other criteria for the purpose of assessing her mental health?

Carr: No.

As Hall reiterated, Carr had indicated on Keisha’s patient assessment, that “[b]eing forced to continue the pregnancy would result in substantial and irreversible harm to Keisha Atkins’ safety,” but during her deposition, she told Hall that she made no assessment to determine whether or not Atkins’ boyfriend was physically violent towards her. Carr acknowledged that she hadn’t taken the time to interview Keisha’s mother or boyfriend, both of whom accompanied her to her appointment. She admitted once more to only speculating about Keisha’s situation.

Hall: Did you make an assessment to determine if her boyfriend was physically violent toward her?

Carr: Nope.

Hall: So, then, you were just merely speculating about substantial and irreversible harm to Keisha’s safety?

Carr: Yeah. Speculation and — and her expressing wishes that she didn’t want to be pregnant.

Hall: Did you take the opportunity to interview either Christina or her boyfriend to determine if indeed there was a risk of irreversible harm to Keisha Adkins’ family health?

Carr: No.

Carr didn’t want Keisha to continue to work at Applebee’s

When questioned as to why she indicated that pregnancy would cause “substantial and irreversible harm to [Keisha’s] well-being,” Carr implied that her speculation about Keisha needing an abortion rested on her assumption that working at Applebee’s wasn’t something Keisha should continue doing in the long-term.

Hall: You also indicated that: (reading) “If Keisha were forced to continue the pregnancy, it would cause substantial and irreversible harm to her well-being.” What were you referring to?

Carr: To her overall prospects in life. If she, again, wanted to get more education, not just work at Applebee’s for the rest of her life. You know, I — I can’t know what she’s wanting to do with her life, but certainly having a child changes the calculus of what a young Latina woman is able to do in this country.

Atkins wasn’t Latina. She was Black and Native American. In addition, Carr’s comment about Keisha’s employment at Applebee’s was demeaning; she thought that because of her job and her assumed racial origin, she would not be able to achieve success.

Again, Carr owned up to the fact that her abortion prescription was really supported only by “mere speculation.”

Hall: So, as far as your professional opinion that her carrying the baby to term would cause irreversible harm to her well-being, that was just mere speculation.

Carr: Based on the fact that she’s at my abortion clinic wishing not to be pregnant, that’s true.

Despite the tragic loss of Keisha, an undercover call made to Southwestern Women’s Options in May of 2017 revealed that its abortionists were still willing to abort a baby at 30 weeks’ gestation – just because the mother was stressed.

[Editor’s note: This story originally was published by Live Action News.]