What's not mentioned (by either the Times or Fielding) is that Fielding is a former abortionist who co-authored a 1984 article in Obstetrics & Gynecology which found that looking for the body parts of unborn children after an abortion helped reduce the number of failed abortions to 1/3 it's usual number. I also found this blurb online from "Caught in the Crossfire: A Year on Abortion's Front Line" by Sue Hertz:
"It was easy to shrug off an aborted pregnancy as nothing more than a sack of blood and globs of tissue - as many pro-choice activists did- if one never saw fetal remains, or products of conception (POC) as they were known in medical circles."
"The counselor/medical assistants (CMAs) met regularly to discuss their feelings about their work...Inside a procedure room, facing the contents of the uterus, there was no denying what abortion was."
"During the procedure, Doris [Merrill] would offer her hand for the patient to squeeze, or if the abortion were particularly painful, a notepad for the patient to bite...Doris knew what [Dr. Waldo Fielding] was doing at the end of the examination table as he pored over the legs and ribs and hands, but she chose not to look. It wasn't that Doris ignored the truth, but rather that her commitment was to the woman, not the fetus..."
"...Waldo removed from the glass jar cheesecloth sack which caught the fetal parts, dumping the parts into a basin at the end of the table, between [the patient's]feet. Two legs, two arms, two fists, a skull, a backbone, a placenta. "We've got it" he announced."
As usual, the essay describes some horrible methods used to self-induce abortions (including the infamous coathanger) or used by abortionists whom Fielding describes as "often unknowing, unskilled and probably uncaring" and the injuries women suffered.
I guess not a lot has changed except that abortion is legal instead of illegal and the techniques for killing children in the womb have gotten a technological upgrade. We still have abortionists (like Alberto Hodari) who are unskilled and uncaring. We still have women who are horribly injured or killed by abortion. The stories of those deaths and injuries just never seem to make it to the New York Times.
The essayist also seems to believe that because women will have abortions even if they are illegal and some women will be injured is a valid reason for making abortions legal. No argument is made regarding what the unborn are and whether it should legal to kill them or not.
So we have a man who likely spent countless hours combing his hands over and examining tiny human hands, feet, arms, legs, rib cages, etc. after he removed from a woman. I guess it's not that big of a surprise that the only defense he can muster for legal abortion is claiming women will just have them anyways.