Now Sterile Mother Sues After Abortionist Leaves Baby’s Skull Bone Inside Womb During Dismemberment

Photo Credit: Jess Lis
Photo Credit: Jess Lis

BOULDER, Co. — A mother who obtained an abortion in 2013 after learning that her child had “cerebral abnormalities” has filed a negligence lawsuit against the abortionist for leaving a piece of the baby’s skull inside her womb which resulted in a total hysterectomy—leaving her unable to bear children for the rest of her life.

Jennifer DeBuhr and her husband, Jason, are seeking over $75,000 in damages from Boulder abortionist Warren Hern over the matter.

According to the lawsuit, DeBuhr was nearing the end of her second trimester when tests from Methodist Women’s Hospital in Elkhorn, Nebraska revealed that her baby had cerebral abnormalities. She was told that the child would not likely live longer than one year.

The DeBuhrs decided to obtain an abortion, but since Jennifer was nearing the third trimester, she could not obtain a late-term abortion in her home state of Nebraska. The couple decided to go to the Boulder Abortion Clinic and scheduled an appointment for Dec. 3, 2013.

“Dr. Hern used an ultrasound to find the location of the fetus’ heart. Dr. Hern then inserted a syringe containing medication into Jennifer’s belly and into the fetus’ heart in order to stop the heart,” the lawsuit explains.

The following day, staff inserted laminaria to dilate DeBuhr’s cervix and did so again the next day. On Dec. 6, DeBuhr began vomiting and was instructed to come in to the abortion facility earlier than her scheduled appointment.

Althugh Hern and his staff were unable to dilate DeBuhr sufficiently, he decided to proceed with the dilation and extraction (D&E) procedure, which is commonly used in second trimester abortions. During the procedure, the abortionist removes the child piece by piece and reassembles his or her body on a tray.

  • Connect with Christian News

“Jennifer could feel a lot of pulling from the lower half of her body all the way up to her chest,” the lawsuit outlines. “Jennifer experienced intense pain, and as a result of this pain, at some point during the procedure, she blacked out.”

She was later released and returned back home to Nebraska, but months later, DeBuhr began bleeding abnormally. Her gynecologist, Dr. Mark Carlson, ordered an ultrasound, which showed an object cutting into her uterus. He ordered surgery to remove the object, but was unable to do so, and ended up having to perform a hysterectomy, leaving her unable to bear children ever again.

“The object was tested and it was determined to be a fragment of bone, the shape of which was consistent with the curved portion of a fetus skull,” the lawsuit explains.

DeBuhr says that the situation traumatized her and is seeking damages, plus costs and attorneys fees.

“As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff Jennifer DeBuhr suffered severe and permanent physical and mental injuries as a result of the lack of appropriate or adequate treatment for her medical needs, including but not limited to vaginal bleeding, surgery to remove her uterus, and, severe pain, stress, and anxiety,” the lawsuit outlines.

“Plaintiff Jennifer DeBuhr has suffered damages including permanent injury, disability or impairment to Plaintiff’s body; loss of her ability to conceive children; and physical pain and mental suffering endured in the past and reasonably certain to be experienced in the future,” it says.

According to reports, abortionist Hern is one of the leading authorities on abortion, and invented tools such as the “Hern forceps,” which are used to remove the child from the uterus. He opened the Boulder Abortion Clinic in 1973.

Become a Christian News Network Supporter...

Dear Reader, has been of benefit and a blessing to you? For many years now, the Lord has seen fit to use this small news outlet as a strong influential resource in keeping Christians informed on current events from a Biblical worldview. Despite Facebook's recent algorithm changes, which has limited our readership, and, as a result, has affected operational revenue, we continue to strive to bring you the news without compromise and to keep Christ in focus. If you have benefited from our news coverage, would you please prayerfully consider becoming a Christian News supporter by clicking here to make a one-time or monthly donation to help keep the truth widely and freely published and distributed? May Christ continue to be exalted through this work!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • storie

    Wow. Just wow.
    She was traumatized? What about that precious baby that she decided wasn’t good enough to live?

    • xinthose

      you can’t trust what doctors say either sometimes; they have been recruited in the depopulation agenda

      • Jalapeno

        You genuinely believe that doctors are regularly lying because they like pushing women into getting abortions?

        Saying that they’re wrong sometimes, fine. Of course, in these situations the doctors usually explain chances.

        “your baby is missing most of their brain” is different than “I believe that they will have this defect based on this test”.

    • Jalapeno

      It’s an end of life decision..some people think that it’s more cruel to the child to let it live and then die in a possibly painful way.

      Maybe she was doing something that she didn’t want to do but thought was best for the rest of her family. Sometimes people prioritize suffering over blindly protecting life, for instance. So..if she thought it was better for everyone involved, INCLUDING the child…how can you say that she just thought the kid wasn’t “good enough to live”?

      • storie

        Are you out of your mind? That’s what we call situational ethics. Right is right and wrong is wrong.
        Hitler had everyone believing that the World would be better off without Jews, Christians, homosexuals, artists, etc. So what did they do? Exterminated them. No one…and I mean NO ONE but God himself has the right to deem a life fit to live. The argument that it’s better for everyone is one made out of convenience.

        • Jalapeno

          Different people have different morals.

  • Ryan Welch Anderson

    I am assuming this couple takes absolutely no responsibility in this whatsoever. It’s the most difficult and painful thing to do….to own up to the fact that you have willingly murdered the life of your own baby, and seek forgiveness. I pray they feel such immense guilt for the sin they have committed, that they are driven to God on their knees in repentance. And I pray God gives them Grace and the strength to overcome the guilt I hope they truly feel.

  • Reason2012

    So she’s suing for losing the ability to have a son or daughter so that she can dismember him or her?

    • xinthose

      I know, right? She has received her due recompense

    • Jalapeno

      The article clearly explained that she was having an abortion for health reasons. It’s very likely that she WANTED this child.

      Why would that mean that she would terminate later?

      It’s one thing when people make snide, judgmental comments about a teenager getting knocked up and deciding to terminate, but..when a woman gets an abortion for health reasons and now can’t have any?

      How can someone have such a lack of empathy?

      • storie

        So she valued her own life above the life of the innocent one inside her. Very sad indeed.

        • Jalapeno

          Did you even read the article?

          • storie

            Why yes, yes I did.

      • Reason2012

        // he article clearly explained that she was having an abortion for health reasons. It’s very likely that she WANTED this child.//

        No, she did NOT want the child because he wasn’t going to be perfect.

        // when a woman gets an abortion for health reasons and now can’t have any? How can someone have such a lack of empathy? //

        It’s one thing when a woman gets an abortion otherwise she would die (even then many women would risk it anyway for their son/daughter), but because her child will not be perfect and “may” die early, she chooses to have him or her dismembered instead? How can someone have such a lack of empathy indeed.

        Or maybe this is the way to get abortionists’ attention: if she was having a daughter, then her daughter will never have children either and I’m sure she’d love someone to sue her “mother”.

        Or how about this: her mother is now no longer “normal” so should she be put to death as well? Of course not.

        • Jalapeno

          There’s a pretty big difference between “won’t be perfect” and “won’t survive”.

          Often, there is a lot of painful suffering after birth. Do you not understand why someone would not want their child to suffer?

          • Reason2012

            So if a baby that’s 1 day old is shown that they MIGHT not live another year and/or might suffer, it’s ok to_kill him or her?
            Is it ok on the day before that?
            2 days before that?
            On what day, exactly, does it become ok to slaughter your son/daughter because they “might” die young and/or might suffer?
            Please back up your claim as to what day it’s ok to do so and why it’s not ok the very next day.

          • Jalapeno

            There’s two different ideas involved there.

            Whether or not it can ever be moral to pull the plug, or to speak, to try to prevent suffering. That’s kind of what the idea is here. Some people protect life no matter what, some people think that it can be a little more of a grey area.

            And… whether or not terminating a pregnancy is the same as infanticide. That’s an obviously idiotic idea, so I’m ignoring it.

          • Reason2012

            // There’s two different ideas involved there. //

            False: there’s ONE idea here: When is it ok to slaughter your son/daughter in the name of “well he or she might die a year from now anyway” or “well he or she might suffer so we’ll just kill_him or her anyway”.

            // And… whether or not terminating a pregnancy is the same as infanticide. That’s an obviously idiotic idea, so I’m ignoring it. //

            Of course you’re going to try to ignore what exposes your claims as flat out evil:

            But you unwittingly gave your answer:

            So a baby that’s 1 minute out of the womb, it’s evil to “kill_him or her because he or she might die in a year” or “because he or she might suffer” because that’s infanticide, but moments before he or she comes out of the womb, it’s now just fine to “kill_him or her because he or she might die in a year” or “because he or she might suffer” because we’ll call it “terminating a pregnancy” to make it sound like you’re not_killing anyone.

            Behold the deception of the pro-death movement.

            And when we face God, we’ll answer for each life we helped end by deceiving his or her mother that such things were just fine.

            I would think twice before you go around trying to convince others such evil acts are just fine.

          • Jalapeno

            There is a difference between an abortion and infanticide.

            Do you think it’s immoral to pull the plug on a person suffering and being kept alive via life support?

          • Reason2012

            Yes, I get it: seconds before being born, you approve of dismembering a human being because that’s only “terminating a pregnancy” – but seconds after it’s “infanticide”.
            What happened over those few seconds that made it no longer ok to slaughter him or her?

          • Jalapeno

            I’m not arguing about the difference between the two concepts. We allow abortion and we do not allow infanticide.

            This is about the morality of keeping someone on life support just so they can suffer more.

      • jael2

        Excuse me, if I debunk your health reasons for butchering a little preborn girl or boy. A disability is not a reason to murder a person; period. What happened to the Hippocratic oath: first do no harm? A physicians job is to do everything in his power to save both mother and child. Secondly, second and third trimester abortions are dangerous. Putting a woman through a three day procedure and artificially dilating her cervix is not natural. Plunging a syringe filled needle with digoxin into a baby’s heart is a horrific act. Carrying a dead child in your womb for three days increases infection. The list goes on and on. No, the problem with our hedonistic society is that we are so wrapped up into self, and think so little of others, including our own offspring. We want perfect children.
        The most loving act a mother can do is to carry the child to term. If the child is terminal, let him/her die naturally in a loving environment, cradled in the arms of their parents. God is the giver of life, and no man has the right to destroy that life.
        Where is the empathy for the baby?

        • Jalapeno

          Don’t pretend like you care about the health risks of the woman.

          Do you think that it’s loving to pay for expensive life support to keep someone suffering alive? Make sure they get to live their life to the fullest while they wish they were dying?

          • Reason2012

            What about the “health risk” of the 27.5 MILLION females who have been slaughtered under the pretense of caring about the “health risks of women”?

          • Jalapeno

            Yeah, I didn’t think you would answer that.

          • jael2

            I care deeply, Jalapeno. I have counseled hundreds of women before and after abortion. I have seen up close the devastating effects of abortion: spiritual, emotional, and physical. It’s ugly.
            Are you suggesting we put a monetary figure on life? If that is the case, that leads us down a very dangerous road. Why not just stop with disabled babies? What about all the elderly in nursing homes? The millions on welfare who are bankrupting our country? All the “useless eaters” ?
            Sounds a lot like Nazi Germany, eh?

          • Jalapeno

            People who care about womens health also take into account the effects of pregnancy instead of blindly pushing them to carry to term.

            I think you missed the point though.

            If someone WANTS TO DIE, is it “loving” to keep them on life support anyways?

          • jael2

            Maybe you should ask Jennifer Morbelli’s husband who is now a widower due to his wife’s late term abortion?
            I don’t recall any preborn baby requesting a death sentence.
            Jalapeno, do you work in the death industry?

          • Jalapeno

            Kinda missing the point there.

            Did you think women don’t die in child birth or something?

  • jael2

    The DeBuhr’s hired a paid assassin $7,500, upfront, to snuff out the life of their disabled child, and now they are seeking restitution? It’s a miracle she didn’t die in the process or shortly after. There’s not enough blood money to cover their sin. Their only hope is in repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Only His blood can remove the stain of their guilt.

  • Nidalap

    The mother is a victim too, folks. It helps to remember that if you’re supposed to be merciful as you have received mercy.
    That DOES include the abortionist as well, by the way.
    Just sayin’! (^_^)

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      Yes, the mother is both murderer and victim, this is true. And the abortionist was made in the Image of God. Both will surely perish without repentance and trust in Jesus.

    • jael2

      Dear Nidalap,
      Let’s back up a moment and think this through….
      A girl being dragged into an abortion clinic by adults and strapped down on a table and a abortion is performed is a “victim”. A woman who has talked to countless people, ( doctors, friends, “clergy”, researched the internet, picked up the Yellow Pages, and scrapes the cash together to have her child killed), is a premeditated murderer. She is not a victim. No to the contrary…..she holds more culpability than the abortionist.
      If Christians really want to have victory over this scourge in the land, we must see this as God sees it; the shedding of innocent blood: first degree murder. The punishment for a born person murdered in cold blood should be extended to the preborn child as well.
      We show mercy, when we protect the innocent, and punish the guilty.

      • Nidalap

        Ephesians 6:12

        For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places].

        That’s what she is a victim of, what she has been deceived and blinded by.
        Your zeal to defend the innocent has merit, but God has saved and turned around far more evil a person than this woman. To whom the Master would show mercy, it behooves the servant to do the same…

        • jael2

          A woman who has an abortion can seek forgiveness, and God willing, He can grant her repentance unto life. I know such women.
          What I have witnessed over the years, is the willful sin of women killing their offspring after much counseling and warning from the Scriptures. Innumerable women have made this comment as they march into the abortion clinic: “God will forgive me”. Well no, God is not obligated to forgive anyone who willfully sins. If that was the case, grace would not be grace.
          We really need to be reminded of who the victim is: the baby. And if we truly believe that it’s a baby, and abortion is murder, then we as a society should treat it as such. The penalty for murdering an preborn child should be the same as for the one who is born.
          This 43 year old nightmare could end tomorrow, if the professing church in America had the biblical fortitude to obey God’s commands.

          • Nidalap

            You will never get society to treat such killing that way unless you restore the sanctity of life.
            You will never restore sanctity of life unless you win a majority of the people to God.
            You will never win over such a majority if you’re constantly donning a black t-shirt with a skull on the front and saying how you’re going to make sure ‘the guilty get what they deserve’…

          • jael2

            If that is the case, Nidalap, apply the same reasoning for born people.

            A man kills his wife and kids, and the court determines that since he was raised in an ungodly home, and he’s a non-Christian, he’s a “victim” of his environment and will face no punishment. He is then released from jail.
            Is this showing mercy? What ever happened to the concept of justice?
            I still contend the problem in this country are those who profess Christ refusing to see the complete humanity of the innocent pre-born child, and extending the same rights to the pre-born child as those who are already born. We don’t need to win anyone to our side, but rather side with God Almighty and what His written Word declares.

            “Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.”
            Eccl. 8:11
            By not punishing the guilty and protecting the innocent, we have empowered the evil doers.

    • storie

      How is the mother the victim. We do things that are wrong and when consequences come, we are the victims?

  • WorldGoneCrazy

    For an animated video of a D&E, please see this (remove spaces):

    http://www .abortionprocedures .com/

  • Gena B

    If the doctors said this child would most likely not live past one year, I would take that to mean the baby is not missing a head or something because it could live at least a year, and who knows maybe even longer. If I was in her shoes, I could not, especially late term and my husbands baby, get rid of the child. I think you have to have faith in God for this situation. To say she got what she deserved is something between her and God, he will judge.