RH Reality Check
Font Size: A |  A |  A

How a Late-Term Abortion Saved My Life

Cecily Kellogg's picture

This article originally appeared on American Forum.

On Sunday May 30th, a man walked into a church in Wichita, Kansas and shot to death Dr. George Tiller. Dr. Tiller was volunteering as an usher that Sunday, so he was standing in the lobby of the church when the gunman entered. Unfortunately, Dr. Tiller's death didn't really come as a surprise; his medical practice centered on performing abortions, particularly late term abortions, and he'd been attacked before. Regardless of the near constant threats and harassment he received, Dr. Tiller was committed to his work. Why? Because he believed that "abortion is a matter of survival for women."

It was for me. In October of 2004, I was pregnant with my sons Nicholas and Zachary. With great joy and expectation, my husband, my best friend, and I visited my doctor for a normal growth ultrasound. I was nearly 23 weeks pregnant, hovering at the start of the third trimester. Within moments it was clear something was wrong; one of the boys was still and had no heartbeat. When I met with my doctor, routine screening revealed the worst: the symptoms I'd been experiencing that I thought were normal with a twin pregnancy were actually evidence that I was sick -- very, very sick. I was immediately admitted to the hospital with severe preeclampsia, and though my doctors tried mightily to slow the progression of the disease, by the morning of October 27, 2004 a group of doctors stood at my bedside and delivered the worst news I'd ever received.

I was in advanced kidney failure. My blood pressure was skyrocketing, and it could not be controlled with medications. My liver was beginning to decline. The horrific headache I was experiencing could no longer be treated with pain medications because they were afraid it would depress my ability to breathe when I began to have the seizures they expected at any moment. I would soon likely suffer a stroke or a heart attack. In other words, I was going to die unless the pregnancy was terminated. Immediately.

There was no hope for my surviving son. He was too tiny and too frail to be viable. With my dangerously high blood pressure, a c-section would have likely caused me to bleed to death, and inducing labor would have stressed my system too much. My safest option was the procedure known as an intact dilation and extraction. It would save my life, and preserve my future fertility. As luck would have it, my obstetrician happened to be one of three doctors in the Philadelphia area that was both trained and willing to do the procedure. Within an hour of receiving my bad news, I lay in the surgical suite, covered in tubes and wires, weeping inconsolably as the doctors tried to offer comfort as they prepped me for surgery.

It was the worst day of my life.

After I came home from the hospital, grieving, I searched and found other women like me -- women whose lives were saved by the late-term medical termination of a pregnancy. I also met women who chose to spare their children from agonizing health conditions and birth defects by having an abortion. What I learned is that we are rare; only 1.1 percent of all abortion are performed after the 21st week of pregnancy (according to the Guttmacher Institute), and doctors only perform them in cases of extreme medical need. Dr. Tiller himself never performed a late term abortion without counseling the parents -- and getting a second opinion from another doctor. My doctor described the day of my surgery as the worst in his professional career.

With the help of other women like me, I grieved. I healed. I tried again, and in June of 2006, my wild and fierce daughter Victoria was born. As I healed, I came to realize how lucky I was. Yes, I said lucky. This was in 2004, before the Partial Birth Abortion Ban became law, and my doctors were able to move quickly to save my life without worrying about breaking the law. My doctor knew the procedure and was willing to perform it; something that has already become rare and will be rarer still if doctors have to put their lives on the line to perform this life saving medical procedure. If it's you or your daughter, will you be so lucky?


. . . . .
71 comments
Please login or register to post comments...

Thank you for sharing your story here. It takes great courage to put a face to a demonized procedure.

Submitted by ahunt on June 30, 2009 - 10:57pm.

I'm already familiar with your story, and your blog, and yet this still made me cry all over again. The fact that this could happen to any pregnant woman, at any time, is an incredibly sobering reminder that we really ARE engaged in a fight for our lives.

Thank you for being brave enough to stand up tall and share your loss with all of us; and in doing so help us bring attention to just how important these procedures are and how vital it is that we continue fight for our right to health care.

Submitted by dltbhs on July 1, 2009 - 2:37am.

I'm glad you and your daughter are doing well. I know people who consider themselves
"prolife". I don't consider myself one of them because they are, I think too far to the right. They are opposed to abortions in all cases
(including rape) unless the mother's life is in danger. They also believe keeping a person alive by machine when most doctors would consider them "brain dead", but I have never met or heard of one pro lifer whose oppposition to abortion included maternal death. Your story is increadibly sad but I think for the most part you are argueing with a population that doesn't exist. I remember a friend from work whose unborn child had a cardiac condition and they induced labor at 17 weeks after which he passed away peacefully. I think when it comes to partial birth abortion the general thinking is "if the cervix can be dialated enough to expel the baby from foot to neck then it can certainly expel the head with no additional dialation so there is no reason for the dr to puncture the brain and expel brain matter unless he has a vested interest in making sure the child is stillborn". Your case was obviously not one of the ones that made this person a national phariah. Its also worth noting that even in countries where elective abortion is illegal or in this country before roe vs. wade, if the mother's life was in danger abortion was/is absolutly legal. Can you find countries where it's not? probably, but generally speaking I don't think your story would be controversial within the pro life community.

Submitted by cmarie on July 1, 2009 - 7:24am.

The Center for Reproductive Rights publishes this awesome map http://reproductiverights.org/sites/crr.civicactions.net/files/documents/Abortion%20Map_FA.pdf which shows abortion laws, by country across the world. Please note the countries in red where abortion is either completly illegal, or almost impossible to get, even in the cases of imminent maternal mortality.

 

And cmarie, you sound like a compassionate person. However I have heard anti-choice protesters tell women outside of the abortion clinic they should rather die, than kill their child for any reason, because that is what a woman does, or should be.

 

Cecily, thank you for telling your story. 

Submitted by Everysaturdaymorning on July 1, 2009 - 9:43am.

That laws do not indicate access to safe services.

In many places, including increasingly the United States, safe abortion services even under legally approved conditions are not available or accessible for the women in need.

 

Laws only tell part of the story.

Best, Jodi Jacobson

Submitted by Jodi Jacobson, Editor, RH Reality Check on July 1, 2009 - 10:31am.

If there are stringent "but reasonable" limits about an abortion "must be to preserve the woman's health" -- it puts additional risk on the woman. If there's a strict standard of proof, by the time the doctor can "prove" the woman's life or health is in danger it may be too late.

There isn't any way to write a law that gives with reasonable "protections" [when legislators don't trust women and don't trust doctors that trust women] that would allow the doctor to do what s/he needed to do when a troubled pregnancy goes into crisis -- without danger of being charged with murder by a "pro-life" local Attorney General.

The pro-criminalization groups will likely then use their echo chamber to say that the purpose of a reasonable abortion law (that allows a doctor the discretion s/he needs) that would theoretically "allow" a nine month abortion is have "Abortion On Demand -- at the last second!!!"

Submitted by Julie Watkins on July 1, 2009 - 10:54am.

cmarie, you're wrong, sorry. I wish you weren't, but you are. I work in reproductive justice and every single day I meet so-called pro-lifers who would have preferred that Cecily die rather than be allowed an abortion. If you have the opportunity to tell them a story like hers---which I try to do, when I can---they just. don't. care.

I am aware that there are people like you who are capable of stopping to think about things for a moment, but the extremists are very vocal, very determined, and very very busy drowning out your voice. I see it every day.

And also? A little bit offensive of you to presume to speak to the question of how to perform any medical procedure. Unless you can tell me where you trained for your M.D., that's inappropriate, and unhelpful.

Submitted by M. on July 1, 2009 - 8:58am.

TKC!
Dear Cmarie,
You make too much of a generalization when you claim that prolifers would have preferred that Cecily die rather than be allowed an abortion. This situation for this woman was very difficult and heartwrenching, as a woman who respects human life at all stages from the womb to death, I would prefer that no one had to die, neither the woman or her children. The authentic "pro-life" person cares about this woman and her story and other women suffering with the contemplation of abortion, ending her child's life. I regret that you have not come across authentic pro-life men and women who would care about this story, but we are out there. You are correct in saying extremists are very vocal. We find this on both sides of this issue. Nothing will be accomplished when both sides refuse to listen and deal with others in a spirit of charity and respect, and ultimately until we except Truth, then we will always be arguing for our own personal agendas. My prayers go out for all men and women personally facing the abortion issue. And as the blog mentions these cases of abortion (to save the mother's life) are a very small percentage. The majority of abortions (as a means of birth control) are happening reflecting many other social ills such as bad parenting, break down of the family, young girls who are misinformed and lacking proper guidance, absentee fathers, pushing God out of our lives, grown women who have lost or never knew the true meaning of authentic femininity...the list goes on and on. Abortion and other evils of the world will not change unless the hearts of men and women truly change. Our selfish pursuits and desires will only bring us heartache and more suffering. When will we learn.

Submitted by Atlanta on July 1, 2009 - 9:54am.

The first line of your comment shows that you didn't even read mine. I made no generalization at all. I said that EVERY DAY I meet "pro-lifers" who would prefer that an ill woman like Cecily have died rather than aborted. I know this because they tell me so. This is not a generalization: this is a factual accounting of real people who I have the misfortune to have to wrangle with every. single. day.

As for the rest of your post... didn't read it because before I had a chance, my eye fell on your phrase "authentic femininity," and well, I was too busy vomiting all over my own shoes to see what else you had to say.

Submitted by M. on July 1, 2009 - 11:48am.

I never ever said pro lifers would have wanted to see the author die. I said even people who oppose abortion cases of rape would make an exception for the life of the mother. Somebody named M said in a very general sense that she has come across random unnamed people who identify themselves as prolifers and would have been happy to see the author die. I suppose there are nuts out there who might say something like that but that's kind of like comparing pro choice people to Peter Singer who was chair of ethics at (I believe) Princton and may still be. He doesn't believe children are entirely alive until they reach the age of two. Most pro choice people would be horrified at that assertion which is why it would be unfair to present his beliefs as representative of the whole pro choice community. My point is the vast vast majority of people who DO identify themselves as prolife would never oppose an abortion (or induced preterm delivery or ceserian) if it was necessary to save the mother's life.

Submitted by cmarie on July 2, 2009 - 7:09am.

Cmarie, while I appreciate the symmetry and fairness of comparing extreme ends of the spectrum of opinion on pro-life/pro-choice issues (ie, Peter Singer's assertion that children aren't fully human until age 2 is analogous to the folks who believe Cecily should have died rather than aborted), I think you miss that the real-life implications for these two equally offensive ideas are not so symmetrical.

I know for a fact that the no-exceptions pro-lifers are quite politically active and that they are having some real success changing the laws and the culture to fit their beliefs. No one, not even Peter Singer, is going to get political traction advocating the idea about two-year-olds. Never gonna happen. I am aredently pro-choice, and I had never heard of this wacky idea of his. However, I bet everyone in this country, pro-life or pro-choice, has heard of the idea of making absolutely no exceptions for abortion!

your point about equal and opposite extremism is an elegant rhetorical device, and I sense that you yourself do not condone allowing Cecily and others like her to die for the sake of ideology.

However, your argument fails to address the fact that the no-exceptions folks are highly visible and influential within the pro-life camp. I even wonder if they are not to a great degree in control of the pro-life movement.

I am bemused by your portrayal of yourself and many, many others as mild-mannered rational pro-lifers who would _naturally_ make humane exceptions for the life of the mother, while you depict the no-exceptions folks as just a few bad, loud apples. It kind of reminds me of the way muslims have found themselves portrayed post-9-11.

Just as moderate muslims speak out against terrorism, so should pro-lifers speak out against the no-exceptions lunatics in your midst. Otherwise you are no different than they are.

Submitted by ebr on July 7, 2009 - 10:57pm.

Oof, Cecily, clicked Post too fast: wanted to thank you also for sharing this story. What a heartbreaking thing to have happen. I'm glad that you came through it, and grateful to you for sharing your story. You know as well as I that there *are* extremists who would remain unmoved by it, but I hope with every story like yours that is told, that somewhere, someone is learning something real about the absolute need for safe and legal late-term abortion.

Submitted by M. on July 1, 2009 - 9:01am.

Cecily, your story is tragic and my heart goes out to you.

I would just like to point out to other people reading your article that the majority of prolifers do NOT oppose abortion when it is the only way to save the mother's life. But regardless, statistically, only 0.05% of ALL abortions are for the causes of rape, incest and the mother's health COMBINED!

The majority of late-term abortions taking place are completely unnecessary: early induction or c-section can be performed in most cases, saving both mother and child. Yours is the tragic exception, however, again, I want to point out that prior to legalizing aborton ON DEMAND, it *WAS* legal for a woman to have an abortion if her life was at stake.

Submitted by Bekah Ferguson on July 1, 2009 - 9:05am.

You are getting your numbers mixed up, or you are intentionally trying to confuse people.

I'd ask for a link to the numbers you cite first. Secondly, stipulating 0.05% of abortions are for the causes of rape, incest and the mothers health does not in any way prove your statement of "the majority of late-term abortions taking place are completely unnecessary". You're comparing apples to oranges. For example, a woman might obtain an abortion because of rape, but it'll probably be within the first trimester, not the 3rd.

Doing the bare minimum of research on the causes of late abortion would yield the proof that the majority of late abortions are in fact necessary. You can research this very website but if it's too biased for you, the Guttmacher Institute is the place to go. It's scientific and peer-reviewed, no political agenda, etc.

Submitted by TeeDub on July 1, 2009 - 1:37pm.

The previous bit of drivel about only 0.05 percent of all abortions being performed due to rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother was pulled out of the sphincter of some anti-abortion fanatic somewhere with neither credentials nor peer-reviewed science to back it up. What fries my knickers is that _so many people_ just blindly accept this horse puckey at face value without ever checking it out.

Submitted by Catseye on July 2, 2009 - 10:35am.

The number of pro-lifers going "But I'm one the good ones!" in the comments is sickening. If there weren't pro-lifers who didn't feel that late-term abortion was always evil, Dr. Tiller would still be alive. Women who have faced tough situations like this aren't the types you should be convincing of your goodness. If you aren't like that, then this post isn't about you.

Submitted by LM on July 1, 2009 - 10:03am.

If there weren't pro-lifers who didn't feel that late-term abortion was always evil

Ug...what I was trying to say that there are pro-lifers who feel that late term abortion is always evil. I think it's too early for me to try forming complete sentences.

Submitted by LM on July 1, 2009 - 10:07am.

While you now suppose to be compassionate in Cecily's circumstance, you still think that the state has the right to intervene when someone in her situation needs to make the decision of whether to save her own life or that of her potential child.

In fact, the only circumstance where anti-choicers think abortion *is* necessary is in the case of etopic pregnancy. Aside from that, death during or prior to the birth process is seen as the only really honorable thing for a woman to do, according to the anti-choice movement.

Submitted by Anonymous on July 1, 2009 - 10:12am.

Some of them don't believe even an ectopic pregnancy is an acceptable reason to terminate. I recall an idiot on here insisting that, in the case of ectopic pregnancy, the embryo can just be transplanted into the uterus. Even more disturbing was the fact that s/he claimed to be a nurse. So aside from hating women, some antis are also utterly, embarrassingly deluded.

Submitted by Emma on July 1, 2009 - 8:51pm.

I recall an idiot on here insisting that, in the case of ectopic pregnancy, the embryo can just be transplanted into the uterus.

It was worse than that. This person claimed that the proper MO was to remove the Fallopian tube altogether. Yes, wrecking the woman's fertility---the responses pointed this out, and the point was never rebutted. And this was so that the faux-nurse (I keep thinking back to the Joker's hospital scene in The Dark Knight here) could claim that she did not directly perform an action that can be called an abortion.

Submitted by Anonymous on July 1, 2009 - 9:33pm.

A local anti-abortion place killed at least 2 women by "counciling" them out of having etopic pregnancies terminated so that's not even 100% true. They literally told one that "babies move so it could move out of the tube".

Submitted by Anonymous on August 16, 2009 - 12:06pm.

I'm sorry this happened, and I'm glad you were able to get the help you needed.

Submitted by Julie Watkins on July 1, 2009 - 10:56am.

Atlanta, please explain what you meant by "grown women who have lost or never knew the true meaning of authentic femininity." It sounds very much like code for "women who don't know their place/duty/role in a world that's 'rightly' ruled by men." So much of this sad situation gets tangled up in patriarchal imperatives. Let's be clear. This is a tragedy -- and a medical emergency -- that only befalls a female, and is a basic issue of her personal survival. To say that women must be willing to sacrifice themselves in childbirth is to say their ultimate worth as a human is nothing more than a baby-making machine. If that is what you believe, then we see civilized culture -- and God -- in a very different context.

Submitted by indiga on July 1, 2009 - 11:33am.

here is an example from JPII
[http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_29061995_women_en.html]

the Church has many reasons for hoping that the forthcoming United Nations Conference in Beijing will bring out the full truth about women. Necessary emphasis should be placed on the "genius of women", not only by considering great and famous women of the past or present, but also those ordinary women who reveal the gift of their womanhood by placing themselves at the service of others in their everyday lives. For in giving themselves to others each day women fulfill their deepest vocation.
[emphasis in the original]

Women, according to this theology, won't reveal their full gifts unless they're giving of themselves to others. I suppose the official theology is that everyone in the congregation is supposed to be giving to others ... but it seems to me that women are (always) expected to give more. I think people whose worldview includes "things happen for a reason" tend to think being born female & fertile is a Pretty Big Sign & have no trouble expecting women to act certain ways. Also, don't have trouble trying to coerce or use laws to try to make her compliant. (Me, I think my biological sex was chance, & I won't cooperate with the program.)

Submitted by Julie Watkins on July 1, 2009 - 12:05pm.

It is incredibly important that we demystify the very need for safe/legal/accessible abortion, and you are, quite literally, living proof of that. THANK YOU so much for having the courage to share your story.

We've reposted excerpts of it on our blog feministcampus.blogspot.com and want to share it with everyone we can!

Submitted by FeministCampus.blogspot.com on July 1, 2009 - 11:45am.

Dear Cecily,
I am sorry for the loss of your sons. I can not imagine the grief and heartache you have felt--and the huge fear for your life.

I am so happy you have a healthy daughter and are able to experience the joys of motherhood. Victoria is the perfect name.

Again, I am so sorry that your sons didn't have a chance to grace us with their presence.

Submitted by kim on July 1, 2009 - 8:27pm.

Cmarie is right. No one I know in the pro life community actually believes that women should be forced to continue a pregnancy when her life is in jeopardy. The author is arguing with a population that for all intents and purposes doesn't exist. Such people exist, but this post makes a point of arguing with pro life people who opposed Dr. Tiller's work, as if her story of needing a late term abortion to save her life would change our minds about what Tiller did. Well, it doesn't, because such procedures can be done at regular hospitals, and secondly, the inventor of the D and X procedure has openly stated that out of all the procedures of this nature that he has performed, only nine percent have been done to save the woman's life. The rest are elective.
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

Submitted by Progo35 on July 2, 2009 - 9:51am.

<...the inventor of the D and X procedure has openly stated that out of all the procedures of this nature that he has performed, only nine percent have been done to save the woman's life....>

So can you post us a CREDIBLE link to the quote?

Anti-abortion sources do not count, because _nothing_ of this nature they say _ever_ turns out to be factual.

Submitted by Catseye on July 2, 2009 - 10:41am.

Here is the information on the info I provided. Look it up.

 

Gianelli DM. 1996. Bill banning partial-birth
abortions goes to Clinton. American Medical News. April 15, 1996:9, 10.

 

 

"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

Submitted by Progo35 on July 2, 2009 - 9:14pm.

So, the 17% who don't believe that abortion should be permitted under any circumstances believe what, exactly?

And don't worry, I don't know anyone here and certainly not myself believes you are capable of changing your mind.

 

 

 

 

The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.

Dr Warren Hern, MD

Submitted by colleen on July 2, 2009 - 10:56am.

And your case of this is just below...copied in by Jodi from the link.

Submitted by Anonymous on July 2, 2009 - 12:54pm.

Colleen-get bent. The odds of having a productive discussion with your attitude are very slim. As you said, that amounts to seventeen percent. that means that 82 percent of pro life people would not force a woman whose life is at risk to continue a pregnancy.  

 

"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

Submitted by Progo35 on July 2, 2009 - 9:10pm.

colleens statistics weren't that it was 17% of prolifers ...it was 17% of adults when including prochoicers...meaning the percentage if calculated only using prolifers alone would be a higher percentage.

Submitted by Anonymous on July 2, 2009 - 9:48pm.

Anon-you should reread that pathetic attempt to respond to this particular point of contention, as it makes absolutely no sense. "Um....this poll was of adults, not pro lifers...so...uh...the percentage must be higher because both pro choice and pro life people were polled on this question..."

 

"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

Submitted by Progo35 on July 2, 2009 - 9:56pm.

I read the poll she links to with the 17% progo. I didn't 'uh' my comment on the poll...no need to, of course you do as you are on the defensive on it so would rather put 'uhs' in it than offer a real argument against it. Saying it was prolifers was your mistake . progo...the 'uh' is your issue in an attempt to ignore it without refuting it.

Submitted by Anonymous on July 2, 2009 - 10:12pm.

As you said, that amounts to seventeen percent. that means that 82
percent of pro life people would not force a woman whose life is at
risk to continue a pregnancy.  

 Whatever are you talking about? At least in this poll 17% of all adults in the US do not believe that abortions should be permitted under any circumstances. Not rape, not incest, not to preserve the life or health of the mother. Not to save the life of a raped 9 year old. The poll was of adults (both pro-choice and anti-abortion) and was not confined to the'pro-life' movement. Had you actually read the poll you might have noticed.

You were trying to deny that such monsters exist, I was pointing out that they constitute a big chunk of your 'pro-life' movement. Do  try to focus.

 

 

 

The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.

Dr Warren Hern, MD

Submitted by colleen on July 2, 2009 - 10:10pm.

I've read the poll, too, and I interpret the 22 percent as referring to the pro life movement, as it was taken from the percentage of people in the US who oppose abortion. Thus, that part of the pole referred to the prolife movment. 

 

 

"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

Submitted by Progo35 on July 2, 2009 - 10:35pm.

From the link colleen provided I only see two types of populations used for the polls. Those of adults or those of registered voters ...none that limit themselves to pro-lifers as the sample population for calculating the percentage. So not sure where the 17% of adults gets compared to 82% of pro-lifers....and now 22%?

Submitted by Anonymous on July 2, 2009 - 10:47pm.

and I interpret the 22 percent as referring to the pro life movement,
as it was taken from the percentage of people in the US who oppose
abortion. Thus, that part of the pole referred to the prolife movment.

 

 This makes no sense at all. Perhaps you read a different 'pole' or perhaps you have no idea how to intrepret 'poles' but the fact remains that about 40% of the anti-abortion movement would make all abortions illegal, no exceptions. Not for rape, not for incest, not to save the life or for the health of the woman (or child in some cases). 40% is a big chunk of youir movement. Indeed they often post here.

 nasty sorts they are too....

 

 

The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.

Dr Warren Hern, MD

Submitted by colleen on July 3, 2009 - 12:36am.

get bent??? really?!? you hijack just about every single discussion on this website & you have the nerve to tell someone "get bent"? you're not here for discussion - i think you often verge on being a troll. i just caught your discussion hijack on the article about the extra credit in school & the virginity pledge. you don't even care what the post was about - you'll find a reason to jump in & have a contrary view.
yeah, you've got some freaking nerve telling anyone here to 'get bent'.

Submitted by betty brown922 on July 3, 2009 - 4:29am.

The court system will kill women if the decision is in their hands. I can't find any good numbers Have you followed the WM3 case? It took YEARS to get a hearing to decide if their DNA evidence could be heard and it was delayed multiple times. I have several divorced friends, it took 7 months on average from filing to being in court. I needed a temporary restraining order once. I was VERY lucky and the local police helped me as soon as I filed it since they knew the situation. It took 6 weeks to get it. Would they allow abortions any faster?

Just so I'm throwing this in here: private insurance covers abortion, the government does not. If you have private insurance you are paying for abortion.

Submitted by Anonymous on August 16, 2009 - 12:02pm.

CNN/USA Today/Gallups 2003 poll of adults broke it down by reason....11% thought it should be illegal even in the case where the womans life was endangered.


A Time Poll in 2008 of likely voters also asked if it should be illegal in all circumstances including if the womans life is endangered. 10% agreed.

Submitted by Anonymous on July 2, 2009 - 10:26am.

The author, LM and other similar commenters do have a point - there are some who always oppose it.

Submitted by Anonymous on July 2, 2009 - 10:42am.

I have spent a number of hours protesting, praying and counseling in front of abortion mills.

In a case like Cecily, I would question a few of the details in this heartbreaking essay:

"There was no hope for my surviving son. He was too tiny and too frail to be viable. ... My safest option was the procedure known as an intact dilation and extraction."

We cannot know one of your sons was inviable. That is over reaching. You were 23 weeks. There are a growing number of people walking today who were born at 21 weeks.

I invite you to admit that you had other options to save/deliver your child, but you did not take them.

What do you say we all settle on a policy in the USA that a panel of Doctors (even publicly elected) be in charge of ruling on cases such as these?

Submitted by JSWilson on July 2, 2009 - 10:41am.

the doctors who were there were not good enough?

 

really....how dare you.

Submitted by Jodi Jacobson, Editor, RH Reality Check on July 2, 2009 - 10:49am.

Nevermind that trying to remove the child alive would have probably killed her...and it's not like you have enough information to say if he could have lived or not. Let the doctors diagnose their patients, that's their job.

Submitted by Anonymous on July 2, 2009 - 11:11am.

Your comment is just obscene. Doesn't your faith structure also call for charity? This is the antithesis of even basic humanity.

People can talk/type until they're blue in the face, but people who think like you do just don't understand probabilities (as opposed to possibilities). From
Archives of Disease in Childhood - Fetal and Neonatal Edition 2003;88:F199-F202
:

Objective: To describe the outcome of labour, signs of life at birth, and duration of survival after delivery at 20–23 weeks gestation...

Patients: 1306 babies delivered at 20–23 weeks gestation.

Results: Termination of pregnancy accounted for 33% of deliveries at 20–23 weeks; these were excluded from further analysis. Spontaneous delivery occurred at a frequency of 2.5/1000 deliveries; 30% died before the onset of labour, 27% died during labour, and 35% showed signs of life at birth. Of the latter, 8% were not registered as statutory live births. Of the live born infants, the largest group (39%) had a heart beat but no other signs of life. There was no trend for infants of lower gestation to show fewer signs of life. Duration of survival varied widely (median 60 minutes at 20–22 weeks), and this did not increase with gestation until 23 weeks (median six hours), probably because of selective treatment. Survival curves are presented for each gestation group. At 23 weeks, 4.5% survived to 1 year of age; all were > 500 g birth weight. Below 23 weeks gestation, none survived, and 94% had died within 4 hours of age.

Conclusions: This information on surviving labour, signs of life at birth, duration of survival, and birth weight at 20–23 weeks gestation should help decision making in the management of pre-viable delivery.

To the author of the original post: Best wishes and health to you and yours!

Submitted by littleblue on July 2, 2009 - 2:09pm.

Where and when did you get your medical degree, JS? I invite you to share your credentials and your expertise with those of us who are dismissing you as a jackass without any idea of what you are braying about!

Submitted by ahunt on July 2, 2009 - 7:13pm.

where she was carrying TWINS. One was already dead. This is a dangerous situation to begin with, and the toxemia was immediate and serious. A C-section or induced labor very likely would have killed this woman, and for what? To deliver a fetus that had NO reasonable chance at life. A twin would have been small even for that extreme prematurity, and poorly developed.

I am not a doctor, and neither are you. We have to trust in the MD's and the women to make the choices in these cases. What would a "panel of doctors" do, except delay treatment to someone who is DYING? Oh, I know, we can make a political game out of finding extreme anti-choice physicians who will never admit that the procedure might be necessary.

Cecily I applaud you for the courage to share your experiences and bringing a human face to these tragic situations. Thank you.

Submitted by TheRealistMom on July 2, 2009 - 8:48pm.

If you're actually interested in a thorough, thoughtful Catholic perspective, please check out Thomas Peters at http://www.americanpapist.com/blog.html

Submitted by CS on July 2, 2009 - 10:49am.