Madame Restell, also known as Ann Caroline Lohman, had the dubious honor of
lending her name to a practice which became a focus of tensions in nineteenth
century American society. “Restellism,” or abortion, was attacked
by “regular” medical men hoping to establish their profession, by
men resenting women’s increasing desire to control their reproductive
lives, and by nativists fearing a take-over by the foreign-born, the Catholic,
and the poor. In the midst of all this, Madame Restell built a fortune, rising
from immigrant poverty to one of the finest mansions on
In the first few decades of the nineteenth century, abortion was not considered an important social, political, or moral issue. Popular opinion concurred with common law that a fetus was an “inert non-being” until quickening. Since quickening was the first time that a woman could be sure that she was pregnant, simply missing her menstrual periods could be, if she chose, defined as a medical problem that needed treatment - removal of the “obstruction.” Most authors assumed that abortion was usually the desperate resort of an unmarried girl who had been abandoned by her seducer, and counseled pity and compassion for such unfortunates. Sexuality was, of course, surrounded by a web of conflicting feelings and attitudes, and these conflicts inevitably extended to abortion, but the moral weight of abortion lay primarily with its association with sexuality rather than with anything distinctive to abortion.
This was the prevailing ethos when Ann Trow was growing up in rural
Unfortunately, Restell left no personal writings, so it is impossible to determine why she began to offer abortion services. Undoubtedly, much of her motivation was monetary. Her husband’s wages were not high, and she had already once been left a widow with a child to support, so she probably saw clearly the insecurity of being financially dependent on a man. Within a few years of her marriage she, with basically no training, went into business as a “female physician” offering a full range of services from contraception to abortion to assistance at deliveries and, if needed, arranging adoptions for unwanted infants.
Like other abortionists of the time, she advertised her services openly in the newspapers. Typical ads promoted “monthly pills” to cure “female irregularity.” Unlike other abortionists, Restell sometimes justified abortion in moral terms. One of her first ads for contraceptives asked,
In how many instances does the hard-working father, and more especially the mother, of a poor family remain slaves throughout their lives, “urging at the oar of incessant labor, toiling to live, living but to toil,” when they might have enjoyed comfort and comparative affluence; and if care and toil have weighted down the spirit, and at last broken the health of the father, how often is the widow left, unable, with the most virtuous intentions, to save her fatherless offspring from becoming degraded objects of charity or profligate votaries of vice? Is it desirable, then, is it moral for parents to increase their families, regardless of consequences to themselves, or the wellbeing of their offspring, when a simple, easy, healthy, and certain remedy is within our control? (1)
At this time, abortion techniques basically had not changed since prehistory. Abortionists first used pills and potions of varying efficacy. When they were not successful, the more skilled and confident abortionists would perform surgical abortions. With either method, abortion must have been very painful and frightening. The alternative, however, was to face pain and possible death in childbirth. At least in the first half of the century, popular opinion agreed with medical fact that an abortion before quickening was safer than childbirth. Though from our point of view a surgical abortion without anesthesia or rudimentary knowledge of sanitation sounds horrific, Linda Gordon argues that the chemical abortions were actually more dangerous, since they produced abortion by punishing the woman’s body beyond its ability to sustain pregnancy.
In this context, it is not surprising that the earliest laws in the
Restell entered the abortion business at a very advantageous time. Shortly before 1840 the abortion rate began to rise dramatically as it began to be used not just as a way to hide extramarital pregnancy, but also as a method of family limitation. Though fertility rates had been dropping steadily since before the turn of the century, in the 1840’s they fell much more sharply. Much of this drop is attributable to the use of methods to prevent conception, but with inaccurate beliefs about when a woman was fertile and widespread resistance to mechanical forms of contraception, it is unlikely that such a dramatic decrease in the birthrate occurred without at least some couples being willing to back up their choice to control births with abortion when other methods failed. Contemporary observers consistently noted that abortion was much more often a choice of white, married, Protestant, middle-class and upper-class women who wished to delay, space, or cease childbearing. Though abortion was still greatly cloaked in the aura of danger that surrounded all aspects of sexuality, in 1859 a respectable unmarried woman schoolteacher could casually mention an acquaintance’s abortion in a letter home to her parents.
In these early years the public press rarely voiced concerns about the mother’s health or fetus’ life. Fears that women would use contraception and abortion to hide “unchastity” were, however, explicit and rampant. Restell responded to these concerns by asserting that women do not need an external enforcer of virtue:
I cannot conceive how men who are husbands, brothers, or fathers can give utterance to an idea so intrinsically base and infamous, that their wives, their sisters, or their daughters, want but the opportunities and “facilities” to be vicious, and if they are not so, it is not from an innate principle of virtue, but from fear. . . . Would your wives, and your sisters, and your daughters, if once absolved from fear, all become prostitutes? (2)
Restell’s advocacy of women’s independence in intellectual and moral as well as reproductive realms made her a dangerous threat to the status quo, and the newspapers censured her accordingly.
The public storm had its counterpart in the legal system. Between 1839 and 1845 Restell was indicted six times for procuring abortions. In only one of the six cases, however, was she brought to trial, and that case was eventually dropped. The lack of success in prosecuting Restell despite public outrage over her highly visible business is indicative of judicial attitudes towards abortion in this period. Abortion is a private action and judges were very careful to protect the common law rights of defendants.
The publicity surrounding these cases, however, meant that for the first
time the
The clergy’s almost complete silence on the issue of abortion was remarkable. In the early part of the century, they probably thought (or hoped) that abortion would not be an issue for their congregants. James Mohr suggests that as abortion later silently came to be a more accepted practice among the respectable middle class, Protestant clergy probably feared to alienate their mostly female congregations by taking a hard line on the issue. The clergy had every reason to stand by traditional church teachings and popular beliefs that the fetus was not alive until quickening. They also tended to be much more aware than physicians of the moral ambiguity of abortion. They often responded to criticisms for not taking a more vocal stand on the issue by saying that abortion was something on which individual church members would have to decide for themselves.
It wasn’t until 1847 that Restell was actually convicted of abortion. Maria Bodine was a housekeeper who had gotten pregnant by her employer, Joseph Cook. Restell had advised her not to have an abortion, as she was already seven months pregnant, but to board with her until the baby was born. Bodine replied that Cook would object to the cost and insisted on the abortion. Bodine did not want to press charges, but was pressured into doing so by the police who had been watching Restell’s house.
As it turned out, she had every reason to want to avoid a trial. This was
one of the longest trials in pre-Civil War
Restell’s attorneys argued that Bodine was actually a prostitute and that her obvious poor health was a natural consequence “not of Madame Restell, but of habitual and promiscuous intercourse as a harlot - not with Mr. Cook, but with every man every hour, or every five minutes of her life!” They stated that she was “as foul, corrupt, loathsome, guilty thing as ever polluted God’s blessed earth by her pestilential presence.” The jury returned a verdict of “Not guilty of manslaughter, but guilty of the misdemeanor charged.” Though the jury was convinced that an abortion had taken place, they would not take Bodine’s word that she had felt the fetus quicken. Restell was thus saved from the much more severe penalties that would have followed an abortion after quickening, and was sentenced to a year in prison.
After her release from prison, Restell returned to work, and the next twenty years of her life were relatively quiet and successful. The country had made it through the transition time around 1835 to 45, and was no longer quite as scandalized by its own increased acceptance of abortion. Abortionists, for their part, were less brazen in advertising their services, and Restell’s ads like the others tended to be quite discreet.
Restell was not satisfied by quiet obscurity, however, for she wanted the
social recognition that would normally have come with her increasing wealth.
She dressed in her best to ride behind fine horses in the fashionable streets
of the city and, later, in the newly created
If Restell resented the respectable society which both patronized and excluded her, she also made sure that it could not forget her. Her greatest audacity was reserved for Archbishop John Hughes. In 1857 the Archbishop had selected the site for Saint Patrick’s Cathedral and his own residence across the street. He had also recently denounced Restell from his pulpit, so when the lot he had selected for his home went to auction, Restell’s husband bid the price up beyond what the Archbishop’s agent, who was the only other bidder, had been authorized to pay. By 1864 the property boasted one of the finest mansions in the city. It was valued at $200,000, and the newspapers reveled in describing its marble halls, Italian frescoes, and sumptuous furnishings. Soon after moving in, Restell threw a ball and reception that was strikingly well attended.
By around 1870, however, the tide was beginning to turn again. A general spirit of reform was rising, and Restell’s apparent immunity to prosecution was seen as part of New York’s general political corruption, as it was assumed that she regularly paid off appropriate personnel. Of course, by this time many people had personal reasons not to want to antagonize her. It was generally rumored that she had threatened to expose many fancy skeletons in the closet if she were prosecuted, and many men feared to discover that one of their womenfolk was on her list. Thus for a while Restell continued unmolested, but she must certainly have been aware of the events around her.
Shortly before the Civil War the AMA had begun a concerted campaign to eliminate abortion. Horatio Robinson Storer took the leadership in this crusade, and his letter-writing and lobbying repeatedly brought the issue to the attention of physicians and legislators. The physicians found an especially sympathetic audience among those who feared that the falling birthrate meant that “native” Americans would soon be overrun by immigrants and other undesirables. They warned that the breeding power of “the ignorant, the low lived and the alien” would mean that “the Puritanic blood of ‘76 will be but sparingly represented in the approaching centenary.”
Such concerns had their counterpart in an increasing antagonism towards the women who dared to jeopardize the future of the race for their own “selfish” reasons. As a popular advice writer wrote:
We can forgive the poor, deluded girl - seduced, betrayed, abandoned - who, in her wild frenzy, destroyed the mute evidence of her guilt.... But for the married shirk, who disregards her divinely-ordained duty, we have nothing but contempt, even if she be the lordly woman of fashion, clothed in purple and fine fashion. If glittering gems adorn her person, within there is a foulness and squalor. (3)
Such anger reflected a backlash against the rising feminist movement and its demands for economic and political rights as well as for “voluntary motherhood.” The rhetoric of the time made clear that what was at issue was no longer just “female purity,” but also female power.
Feminists, however, were practically universal in their condemnation of abortion. They saw abortion as a way for men to avoid responsibility for their sexual behavior and place the consequences of sexual activity on women alone. Many women experienced abortion as a violation, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton was true to this experience when she stated that abortion was one more part of “the degradation of women.” Feminists concurred that the central reproductive issue was voluntary motherhood obtained through the right of sexual refusal, and that abortion undermined women’s ability to refuse sex because it encouraged men to think pregnancy could be “fixed” by paying a sum of money. Women knew the situation was much more complicated than that.
The anti-abortion movement gained strength rapidly in the years following
the Civil War, and ever more restrictive laws not only increased the severity
of penalties for abortion and made self-abortion a crime for the first time,
but also cleared up many of the legal ambiguities that had made it difficult
for prosecutors to obtain convictions from judges who were concerned with
preserving civil liberties. Clearly, the law-makers intended that the full
force of the state be used to eliminate abortion, and in 1870 a rash of
prosecutions began in
In 1872 Anthony Comstock launched his personal crusade against vice. With the backing first of the YMCA and later of the federal government, Comstock became a special agent for the enforcement of his own 1873 “Act for the Suppression of Trade in and Circulation of, Obscene Literature and Articles of Immoral Use.” Suddenly the newspapers not only universally refused to publish ads referring, however obliquely, to contraceptives and abortion, but even designations like “female physician” and “midwife” became suspect and unprintable.
Though Restell was undoubtedly the most well-known abortionist in the
country, Comstock did not immediately seek to lock horns with her. Instead he
energetically pursued many other paths, earning himself many enemies as well as
supporters. Even those who basically agreed with his definition of obscenity
were often horrified by his tactics. By the late 1870’s, he was the
target of much mockery and hostility. One charge that repeatedly appeared was
why, if he was so concerned about morality, he had let one of the most immoral
women in
On January 28, 1878, Comstock made his appearance at Restell’s door. He inquired about contraceptives and made a purchase. A week later he returned to receive more instruction, and four days later arrived with police officers and newspaper reporters in tow. Restell was arrested and charged with selling abortive and contraceptive devices.
While she could hire the best attorneys, Restell was otherwise quite alone in the world. Her husband had died the year before, and with his death Restell lost both her colleague and her only trusted companion. She was mostly estranged from her daughter, who had married a Irish patrolman who was far below Restell’s social aspirations. She apparently did not tell her parents of the courtship until after the wedding. Restell was a doting grandmother, but two of her four grandchildren had died in childhood. Her granddaughter often greeted customers and otherwise assisted her, and Restell was distraught when Caroline announced her intention to marry - she thought the suitor was simply after her money. Nevertheless, in the middle of Restell’s trial Caroline was married.
Restell’s appearance before the Court of Oyer and Terminer was scheduled for April 1, 1878. Unlike in her previous trials, where she had appeared impassive and imperturbable, Restell was now visibly agitated by the proceedings. The newspapers universally denounced her and gloated that she would finally get her due. She alternated between desperately pleading with her lawyers to help her and despairing that any semblance of justice could be done. On the morning of April 1st, she cut her throat.
* * * * *
What do we make of a life like Restell’s?
Clearly, she was a product of her times. She began her trade just as abortion was acquiring a much more significant role in American society. Though she was broadly castigated for her actions, she would not have been so successful had there not been a steady demand and need for her services. Her suicide in 1878 marked the end of an era. Between 1880 and 1900 the abortion rate dropped sharply, as the anti-abortion movement succeeded in changing both law and public opinion. Once again, abortion became the last resort of the desperate. But in the forty-year period of Restell’s adulthood abortion was used by many respectable and moral American women to control their fertility.
Restell was not, however, simply a typical abortionist catering to commercial forces. More than any of her colleagues, she became a notorious symbol of her trade.
At least two characteristics distinguished Restell. While most abortionists around 1840 relied heavily upon advertisements, they generally discussed only the medical aspects of their services. Restell’s ads, on the other hand, specifically pointed to the social and political dimensions of abortion. Her arguments that family limitation could improve the lot of poor families, especially poor women, destroyed any illusion that abortion was simply a medical procedure with no broader implications.
In other ways as well Restell refused to stay in her place. No other abortionist tried to enter into respectable society, but Restell was not one to hide and accept the shadowy and unobtrusive life that was expected of her. She wore the finest fashions and openly drove her elegant carriage in the most fashionable districts. In so doing, she exposed the hypocrisy of a society that needed abortion services but expected those who provided them to accept the punishment of social ostracism. By forcing the city’s citizens to acknowledge her financial success she rubbed their noses in the prevalence of abortion, which most people hoped to keep an open but unspoken secret.
Thus Restell refused to keep hidden what the sexual ideology of her society demanded be kept secret. She publicly justified abortion as a moral good, and her lifestyle demonstrated that she was, in fact, not ashamed of her work. She linked accessibility of abortion to individual self-determination, and then demanded that same right to self-determination in her own life.
Restell was not, however, a revolutionary. She began life as one of the poor and disadvantaged, and throughout her life she did everything she could to advance her station. She charged exorbitant fees, and at her peak her estate was valued at about $800,000. Clearly, though she may have had humanitarian reasons for providing abortions, she did not allow them to interfere with her pecuniary motivations.
We should not, however, discount her stated belief that she was performing an important service for other women. She intended to provide her clients with a little more control over their lives, and to do so in a civilized and respectable manner.
Restell’s abortions were probably quite safe. There is not a single documented instance of a woman dying from one of her abortions. She almost certainly lost some patients, as did all practicing midwives and obstetricians, but her desire to have a neat and respectable home meant that she probably maintained a comparatively high level of cleanliness. With that, and with her technical skill and willingness to use surgery when moderate medications failed, there is every reason to believe that her abortions were probably a little safer than childbirth.
Throughout her life, Restell took strong moral stances that revealed the contradictions inherent in the commonly accepted morality of her society. She did not accept the model of self-sacrifice as moral virtue. Instead, she insisted that both she and her clients be able to make all the choices that their wealth made available to them. Her class bias and her partiality for conspicuous display are evident, but that does not invalidate the significance of her challenge to prevailing sexual and social norms. She was a strong woman who insisted that women be able to make choices, and it is no wonder that she was perceived to be more of a threat to the social order than the typical abortionist.
Notes:
Bibliography:
Browder, Clifford, The Wickedest Woman in
D’Emilio, John, and Estelle B. Freedman, Intimate Matters: A
History of Sexuality in
Gordon, Linda, Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social
History of Birth Control in
Grossberg, Michael, Governing the Hearth: Law and the Family in
Nineteenth-Century
Keller, Allan, Scandalous Lady: The Life and Times of Madame Restell,
New York’s Most Notorious Abortionist,
Mohr, James C., Abortion in