Ohio Legislature Passes H.B. 78
by Robin Marty, RH Reality Check
July 13, 2011 - 2:58pm (Print)
The Ohio legislature has passed yet another abortion restriction, this time banning abortions at 20 weeks. Kellie Copeland,executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio, condemned the move, accusing legislators of playing doctor.
“For the second time in two weeks, Ohio lawmakers are practicing medicine without a license by inserting themselves between doctors and their patients. Ohio is on the fast track to becoming the most dangerous state in the country for pregnant women,” said Kellie Copeland, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio.
“Last fall politicians promised that they would work tirelessly to create jobs and grow our economy. Instead they have declared war on Ohio women. They are endangering women’s health because they don’t trust women to make personal, private decisions for themselves.”
H.B. 78 only allows abortions in the case of immediate and permanent endangerment of a woman's life, and has no exceptions for cases of health issues or abortions for fetuses with severe medical issues.
It is now up the to Republican Governor John Kasich to veto or approve.
Follow Robin Marty on Twitter, @robinmarty
A clear and present danger? And they KNOW how risky that is as opposed to... say... a DOCTOR? Um, nope???
It would seem that an abortionist might have a slight conflict of interest when determining whether or not a woman should have an abortion. The relationship between an pregnant mother and an abortionist isn't the close, ongoing doctor/patient relationship many have tried to paint it. Woman nixes abortion, abortionist gets zero $$$.
In the rare case of a pregnancy being truly maternal-life endangering, the lives of both mother and child can be saved, something an abortionist isn't paid to do. And it actually takes less time to perform an emergency c-section (7 minutes) than it does to abort (15 minutes minimum) and it's medically safer for the woman, as no dismemberment occurs, thus no fetal body parts left behind.
Excuse me, Mama, but women don't nonchalantly wait 5 months before deciding to have an abortion. A woman that does not want to be pregnant does something about it as soon as possible. There are reasons that you and I would hate to be in the position of ever considering that a woman would need or want to have an abortion at 20 weeks.
Has your dentist given you a dozen root canals just because of the $$$?
The vast majority of late-term abortions are elective (for non-life-threatening pregnancies), and committed on healthy fetuses, according to Martin Haskell, abortionist in Dayton, OH and the deviser of the IDX abortion method (Intact Dilation and Extraction), or Partial-Birth Abortion (PBA).
In fact, the number Haskell gives is 80%. The other 20% include "fetal anomalies" such as cleft lip, spina bifida,and Down's Syndrome, none of which are maternally life-threatening conditions. To justify aborting a child with one of these anomalies is to approve - fatally - of discrimination against individuals with handicaps.
My point about the abortionist having a conflict of interest addresses the viability testing that will be done on late-term fetuses once the post-viability bill becomes law in Ohio; an abortionist probably wouldn't be an impartial judge in such testing, as s/he does not profit from a mother's decision to carry her child to term.
Finally, abortion is the most un-regulated industry in this country, despite the number of legal restrictions currently in place. Laws exist, but the enforcement of those laws is haphazard at best, and much time elapses before the violators are brought to justice. Most often, the foxes are merely chastized and allowed to remain in charge of the henhouses, while followup inspections do not occur.
I recommend the book Lime Five by Mark Crutcher, a painstakingly documented behind-the-scenes expose' of abortion in the U.S.
The vast majority of late-term abortions are elective (for non-life-threatening pregnancies), and committed on healthy fetuses, according to Martin Haskell, abortionist in Dayton, OH and the deviser of the IDX abortion method (Intact Dilation and Extraction), or Partial-Birth Abortion (PBA).
So you support comprehensive sex education, and subsidized availability of contraception, then?
In fact, the number Haskell gives is 80%. The other 20% include "fetal anomalies" such as cleft lip, spina bifida,and Down's Syndrome, none of which are maternally life-threatening conditions. To justify aborting a child with one of these anomalies is to approve - fatally - of discrimination against individuals with handicaps.
So "pro-lifers" and their Republican supporters are in favor of funding assistance for children born with these conditions, as well as pre-natal care that can help prevent the conditions from coming about in the first place?
My point about the abortionist having a conflict of interest addresses the viability testing that will be done on late-term fetuses once the post-viability bill becomes law in Ohio; an abortionist probably wouldn't be an impartial judge in such testing, as s/he does not profit from a mother's decision to carry her child to term.
What country do you come from where the majority of medical doctors do not practice their art with integrity and with priority on the patient's well-being, rather than their own pocketbook?
Finally, abortion is the most un-regulated industry in this country, despite the number of legal restrictions currently in place. Laws exist, but the enforcement of those laws is haphazard at best, and much time elapses before the violators are brought to justice. Most often, the foxes are merely chastized and allowed to remain in charge of the henhouses, while followup inspections do not occur.
Would you support a tax increase to provide funding for inspections and enforcement of medical facilities? Most Republicans don't seem to think it's that big a deal.
I recommend the book Lime Five by Mark Crutcher, a painstakingly documented behind-the-scenes expose' of abortion in the U.S.
I suppose you also recommend Lifesite and Jill Stanek's blog?
That's right, the woman is the patient. So they will do everything they can to mitigate the risks to her. C-sections are FAR more risky than abortion. Early-term intact abortion is MUCH more risky than early-term non-intact abortion.
All medical procedure should be MEDically, NOT legally, regulated, Equally.
No thank you. Will not be reading anything by a pro-life man with an agenda.
I have my own experience with abortion having had 2, almost 3 (thankful miscarriage at 17 years old), within the past 20-something years. Both were done as soon as I missed a period and realized I was pregnant. Both were done in reputable facilities, one a private OB/GYN in NJ, one Planned Parenthood of Boston. Maybe it's because I live in the (mostly - FU NH) liberal Northeast, but I've heard of no one having an elective late term abortion, and no one going to a seedy Gosnell type clinic. If we keep abortion safe, affordable and available, these elective late-term abortions you speak of wouldn't be happening. But as long as states keep restricting and restricting, all you speak of will keep on happening, even moreso.
(Sorry again, inadvertent double-post. Learning this website's ins and outs.)
Now I wonder why my opthamologist told me that I didn't need a second eye surgery? It would've have made him more $$$ to tell me otherwise. Doctors get paid for the work they do. This is not a conflict of interest. And women don't just casually get late-term abortions. The vast majority of abortions after 20 weeks are wanted pregnancies gone horribly wrong.
And as for your blanket statement regarding life-threatening pregnancies, who are you to decide that? Where did you get your medical degree? That should be up to the woman, her doctor, and whomever else she chooses to involve. It shouldn't be a decision made by so-called 'pro-life' activists and a bunch of interfering congressmen and women.
Your ophthamologist illustration does not fit the abortionist-deciding-if-the-fetus-gets-to-live scenario, as there is no second human life at stake. And far from dedicated, humble surgeons, abortionists are for the most part the 'fringers' of the medical community. They are not respected by their 'fellow' OB/Gyns, and often have shady pasts that prevent them from practicing 'cleaner' forms of medicine. The male abortionists frequently have deep-seated antipathy toward women, and act out power plays on their patient/victims, staff, and girlfriends and wives. Abortionists are often not medical doctors at all, which is not required by current law.
I might also ask you for a glance at your diploma - can you give reliable stats for the number of late-term "wanted pregnancies gone horribly wrong" claim you make? Martin Haskell, abortionist from Dayton, states that 80% of IDX (Partial-Birth) abortions are done electively, meaning there is no maternal-life-threatening condition. Incidentally, this type of abortion takes three days to complete, and therefore is not a true 'emergency procedure.'
Finally, the first view most women have of their abortionist is from between their feet; other than that, they never consult with him/her. The pre-abortion prep, including so-called 'counseling,' is done by abortuary staff, and any complications that occur afterward are either pooh-poohed by the same staff, or the hemorrhaging woman is taking to the nearest ER, where actual doctors clean up the mess the abortionist left behind, including removal of fetal body parts, repair or removal of punctured and/or lacerated maternal organs, and treatment for sepsis.
Again, read Lime Five by Mark Crutcher, and have your eyes and heart opened to the reality of abortion in the U.S. today. Learn about the lack of accurate medical histories taken to learn of maternal pre-existing conditions before abortions, and how many women's lives that careless practice has ended.
HB 78 will reduce the number of abortions done in Ohio, thus reducing the number of maternal fatalities and injuries caused by abortion. It is also completely in line with Roe-v-Wade, as Roe provides for the state's interest in an unborn child once that child has been proven to be viable. Read the law, and Roe's companion case Doe-v-Bolton. HB 78 is, and will be proven to be, constitutional. And it will save lives, both fetal as well as maternal, and save families the hell of a regretted abortion.
And, as we have been doing since the mid-l960s, prolifers will stand in the breach between impossible situations that cause desperate expectant mothers to choose between their children and their jobs, their educations, their relationships. And we will provide that invaluable help and support for FREE, as we always have.
They are not respected by their 'fellow' OB/Gyns, and often have shady pasts that prevent them from practicing 'cleaner' forms of medicine.
LMFAO. Most ob/gyn doctors are trained to perform abortions. It's not taboo. Oh, and there are ob/gyns who deliver babies and perform abortions, among other things. Let me guess, did you interview all of the ob/gyn doctors in this country to get their personal opinion on their fellow doctors who specialize in abortion? No? If not, you are trying to pass off bullshit as truth.
The male abortionists frequently have deep-seated antipathy toward women, and act out power plays on their patient/victims, staff, and girlfriends and wives.
Hilarious projection!!! Dr. Tiller -- who was MURDERED by a "pro-lifer" -- was a feminist and had deep respect for women. His motto was "TRUST WOMEN." Unlike Christian fascists who think women are either evil sluts or naive children... Dr. Tiller actually trusted women with their own decisions about their body and their pregnancies. You know who has deep-seated antipathy toward women? You. The anti-choicers such as yourself LOVE the idea of forced birth and compulsory motherhood, because you think the "highest purpose" of women = making babies, and you LOVE the idea of punishing those ~*~other~*~ women for their sexuality when it does not result in ~*~Babies~*~
Finally, the first view most women have of their abortionist is from between their feet; other than that, they never consult with him/her. The pre-abortion prep, including so-called 'counseling,' is done by abortuary staff, and any complications that occur afterward are either pooh-poohed by the same staff, or the hemorrhaging woman is taking to the nearest ER, where actual doctors clean up the mess the abortionist left behind, including removal of fetal body parts, repair or removal of punctured and/or lacerated maternal organs, and treatment for sepsis.
First of all, "abortuary staff"? I'm sorry, but that just makes you sound like a nutcase. Second, "abortionists" are ACTUAL DOCTORS, so cut the crap.
Does your above description of abortion procedure match the typical process of having an abortion? No? Have you had a surgical abortion to verify this? No? Then, once again, please stop bullshitting us.
If you are soooo concerned about the health of women (as you pretend to be, when listing side-effects of botched abortion), then you would realize that making abortion illegal will not make abortion go away, it will only make it more dangerous. So you can expect to see botched backalley abortions as a commonplace occurence, with thousands of women dying of sepsis, just like you describe. Whereas LEGAL abortion as it currently stands is one of the safest medical procedures -- safer than having your tonsils removed -- and it is safer than childbirth.
(by the way: There were "obstetric sepsis" wards in the days before Roe, specifically for women who were dying of illegal, unsafe abortions. Would you like to see a return to this?)
HB 78 will reduce the number of abortions done in Ohio
Wrong. Women who need late-term abortion are already desperate. Such a callous law will only cause those desperate women to turn to self-harm.
Roe provides for the state's interest in an unborn child once that child has been proven to be viable
A 20-week fetus is NOT viable. It is just anti-science garbage to pretend otherwise. The medical community has shown that viability does not occur until the 28th week, and the neurological capacity to feel pain is not in place until at least the 29th week (even afterward, the fetus remains in an unconscious state in the womb, and does not process pain). http://www.ansirh.org/research/late-abortion/fetal-pain.php
save families the hell of a regretted abortion.
It's not up to you to decide what strangers do with their pregnant bodies, or any regret that they may or may not experience afterward!
What about the hell of a pregnancy doomed by fatal abnormalities? What about the hell of an unwanted pregnancy? Or, worse, why don't anti-choicers ever mention the merest possibility that someone will regret having a child, because they had been coerced/shamed into keeping their unwanted pregnancy?
The opthamologist comparison still stands, and it's not an illustration; it really did occur. He could've made a lot more money off me if he had said that I needed an additional surgery to correct my lazy eye, but he didn't, because he knew I didn't need it. Your implication was that a doctor has a conflict of interest if he stands to gain money off you--you're going to have to explain to me exactly where you think a second human life being involved would make a difference. If you're implying that a doctor who performs an abortion somehow 'gets off' on it, I'm afraid that only takes place in a right-wingers lurid imagination.
Several other things to point out here, prolifemom. The vast majority of abortions performed are not late term abortions. They take place in the first trimester. And that's becuase if a woman does not wish to continue a pregnancy they don't wait until the last minute when the procedure will be more complex and invasive ; they take care of it as early as they can. That's logical, is it not? Late term abortions generally happen because there is some sort of threat to the physical or emotional health of the woman or because there is a health issue with the fetus. And sometimes they are very young and victims of rape and incest--I would consider it the height of cruelty to force a young child to give birth against her will. The 'statistics' you provided, which were given bias by the group interpreting them, tend to belittle some of the health issues involved such as diabetes, which can be very serious and life-threatening and vomiting, which can also be a serious issue during a pregnancy.
An abortion is a medical procedure, and as with any medical procedure, things can go wrong and complications can occur. A friend of mine went in to have her wisdom teeth pulled and had an unforseen reaction to the anasthetic--she almost didn't wake up. And there are good doctors and bad doctors. But statistically the risk to the patient is not any greater than with any other medical procedure. However, if you make it illegal, the risk will increase and more women will die.
You aren't going to be able to force women to comply with your idea of motherhood and 'morality' through banning abortion, the pill, etc. and trying to force them to give birth to numerous babies until their bodies wear out. You're simply going to make them more desperate and determined.
And you're a doctor to have determined that both lives can be saved in those life-endangering instances? If not, you're talking out your ass. Even in cases where there's a slim chance that the fetus could be saved, it's not your decision as to whether that particular family should be forced to take on the emotional and financial costs of trying to get a very preterm infant to survive. In the case of those wanted pregnancies that are ended because of life-threatening complications, do you really thing the woman and her obstetrician haven't already looked at that option?
Regardless, at 20 weeks, a fetus is not going to survive a C-section. Why should a woman undergo a riskier and more painful procedure simply because [b]you[/b] don't feel that abortion is ever warranted?
/////
No, I'm not a doctor, but I have attended several conferences at Holiday Inns, and listened to high-risk obstetricians' lectures describing how they determined both mother and baby's chances, and utilize their skills to the utmost to ensure a good outcome (that's doctor talk for both mother and baby surviving the pregnancy's complications). As the mother of a preemie, I would hazard that most parents want their OB/Gyn to do all s/he can for their child, give him/her every chance to live, and that this is likewise the goal of the majority of competent OB/Gyns.
I would ask you also, please, to provide a copy of your obstetrical/neonatological diploma, since you claim that 20-week-old fetuses never survive c-sections. Perhaps you meant that a 20-weeker would not be viable ex utero; in fact, many have survived and also thrived, as a quick Google search will confirm, wihile sustaining no long-term complications due to their prematurity.
Finally, in the very rare event that a pregnancy must be ended in order to save the mother's life from imminent danger (death, not 'mental health' issues), the baby still does not need to be dismembered, suctioned out, or given a needleful of potassium chloride or digoxin to the heart, causing instantaneous death. The child can be quickly and respectfully removed (remember, it takes at least 12-15 minutes to complete a suction abortion; removing him/her intact eliminates the need to check the uterus for baby parts) and given whatever palliative care is possible and appropriate until s/he dies, his/her comfort and human dignity acknowledged and provided for.
This is not an abortion, as the life of the mother, not the death of the child, was the primary objective in performing the surgery. Abortion carries far more risk than c-section, due to the complication rate among even experienced abortionists for perforation, laceration, hemorrhage, sepsis, etc. C-section, while it carries risks, is a much safer option for both mother and baby.
Once we as a society move slowly back to the attitude of children being gifts we receive, rather than commodities we're entitled to acquire (I want a hamburger, I want a car, I want a $10,000 diamond, I want a baby), respect for these little human beings and tender sympathy for their physical challenges and limits will replace the callous expectation of perfection, and parents will lovingly welcome and cherish and care for all their daughters and sons, regardless of 'fetal abnormality,' for the natural length of that child's life. We will no longer mask our decision to prematurely end these tiny lives with "it's so the baby won't suffer" when in reality, it is our own suffering we wish to alleviate or avoid.
Complete and utter bullshit. The earliest term fetus to survive was 22-23 weeks. And that fetus survived only due to the advanced medical treatment it received at one of the most advanced hospitals around. If this were at ALL common, it would have been raised as a MEDICAL MIRACLE long ago. It wasn't. I repeat: BULLSHIT.
I love how you put mental health in scare quotes. It's people like you that create individuals who commit such monstrous acts as Andrea Yates did. Because the mental health of a woman is deemed so unimportant to you, the true monsters.
A fetus experiences no pain or suffering while in the uterus. Once outside, there is very little one can do to mitigate such a harsh introduction to the world. Wow. If fetal pain were truly something you were opposed to, you would want the fetus to be aborted, you wouldn't WANT the fetus to experience the trauma of birth. SO sorry.
Anti-choicers are the ones who view children as consequences not gifts. They use fetuses and pregnancy to punish sexually active women. Not men, of course! The ones who expect perfection are ProLifers not ProChoicers. They expect every child to be wanted no matter how poor, how destitute and/or how many children the woman is and/or already has. You are the ones who propose imposing suffering... on others. Your greed outstrips anyone else. Greed is a sin, y'know. So, you're saying that it's better the fetuses suffering continues, since abortion isn't really about ending its suffering, but the woman's? Wow, how much crueler can you get. I am SO glad I don't lack compassion like ProLife.
I don't know where the hell you get your statistics from. While I have no doubt that there are probably one of two babies born at twenty weeks who have survived, your implication that many have survived and thrived at only 20 weeks gestation is just pure BS. Many hospitals don't even have equipment usable for babies that small and the survival rate is essentially 0. And even when you get further along--say to 22-24 weeks it's still basically a 50-50 proposition. My cousin was born at 26 weeks and was in the hospital for quite a while before they finally let her go home. And you are talking about a lot of hospital time and very advanced care--the emotional and financial cost runs very high.
I can't even imagine the pain of having to give birth to a child who might already be dead or is only going to live a very short time. You can tell people 'Oh I know how you feel', but the fact is that you don't. Even if you've experienced something of that nature yourself, you haven't actually walked in their shoes and you can't speak for them. That's why I think the decision of what to do in these cases should be left up to the family and the doctor and it should be private--you, your fellow activists, and especially the government should not be involved.
Jennifer, my step-niece was born at around 23 weeks in December of 2007. Her mother had difficulties all throughout the 5 and a half months she was pregnant. She was put on strict bed rest because she kept trying to miscarry the baby. I don't know what finally happened, but she went into labor at 23-24 weeks and the doctors just let her deliver. Once the baby was born, they said she would not live past the first 48 hours. She did. Then she went on to survive an eye surgery in the NICU. After 5 months in the NICU, she finally went home...with a bunch of equipment. I first met her when she was a year old...but she looked and functioned like a 6 month old. Today, she is a fully functioning, healthy 3 and a half year old. :) My father credits her survival to being born in a military hospital where cost for her care was no option. She received the best medical care there was paid for by the US government. After seeing her NARROWLY survive at 23 weeks outside of the womb, I know without a doubt there is NO WAY a 20 week old fetus would ever survive. She had THE BEST doctors working with her to save her life, and even those expert doctors have her only a 1% survival rate at birth.
Very true--and every statistic I've been able to find gives a 0% chance of survival at 20 weeks. There is just no way. Even with my cousin at 26 weeks it was touch and go and the doctors were always very guarded about her chances. She's a normal thirteen year old now but she had some problems when she was younger. So glad to hear your step-niece is doing well-that's very good news :)
I had a friend whose son was born at 25 weeks. He was 3lbs 1oz. His mother and I visited him daily in the hospital. It was touch and go for awhile but now he's a regular two year old, although, it took him 17 months to learn how to walk. My mom was even smaller when she was born. Part of the reason why they believe she developed a chordoma. I am so glad my family lives in Canada. If not for that, maybe my mother, myself and my friend's son wouldn't be here, today.
My niece weighed 1 pound and 12 ounces when she was born. We have a photo of her shortly after she was born where she is laying next to an ink pen. The pen was longer than she was!! And there's another photo of her with my brother's wedding ring around her leg. It's a close-up photo, and the ring looks like a hoola-hoop around her leg!!! She just looked horribly tiny when she was born...it was painful to look at her. Had she not been born in a military hospital, she would have died, no question about it. When I met her at a year old, she was the size of an infant. She couldn't crawl or stand up. She didn't start talking until she was two and didn't breathe without a machine until she was one. And these idiots think a 20 week old fetus can easily survive??? Please.
I don't need a medical degree to look at history. Your contention that a 20 week-fetus can survive after being removed via C-section...or any other means, is bullshit. The earliest premature infant on record as surviving is 21 weeks...and that was seen as a miracle of heroic proportions. The prognosis even at 24 weeks is pretty grim.
Are you, perhaps, talking about efforts made to operate on fetuses in utero to correct? Totally different thing, obviously.
Listening to high-risk ob/gyns talk about their success stories still doesn't give you (or I) the credentials to sit and second-guess the decisions between a woman and her doctor for those stories that do not manage to end with the possibility of having two healthy patients at the end. Some women are willing to risk their health, forgo chemo, etc. in order to give their fetus a chance to survive, others are not willing to risk themselves in that fashion. It's not up to anyone except the woman involved to decide how much she is willing to risk her own life and health.
C-section has a much longer recovery time. You're cutting a rather impressive and vital muscle right up front there--no medical degree here, but one that involved learning plenty of anatomy and physiology, thank you. Forget possible laceration, you have definite intrusion into the abdominal cavity and the possibility of infection that comes with any surgery. In general, doctors aim for the least-intrusive method of treatment for a reason. I don't really think that obstetricians are recommending D&C vs. C-section because they have some innate desire to cut up fetuses. I do not, however, have the statistics to hand to show mortality/complication rates of late term D&E vs. C-section.
Your definition of abortion is rather telling. Abortion is not defined by intent, it is defined as the termination of a pregnancy. There is no intent at all behind spontaneous abortions, for example. So delivery of that pre-term infant by C-section is as much an abortion as a D&E. Both are intended to save the mother's life as the primary objective (in the implied example given).
In the rare case of a pregnancy being truly maternal-life endangering, the lives of both mother and child can be saved, something an abortionist isn't paid to do.
Right. That whole 'maternal mortality rate' thing is a lie cooked up by liberal abortionists.
And it may surprise Mama that 'abortionists' are OB/GYNs. They do save mothers and children, and get paid to do it.
Quite so. I figured that anyone who thinks a well timed c-section is the solution to maternal mortality is simply too far gone to reason with.
... that placing a woman under general anaesthesia and performing a major abdominal surgery, complete with slicing the uterus open, might not be the best plan of action for a woman already in a state of medical emergency? That cutting open a woman who is hemmoraging or in shock is somehow a bad idea?!?!! You ogre! Next you'll also insinuate that a quick abortion procedure might be more humane for both the family and the fetus than being forcibly ripped from the womb at 20 weeks to feebly gasp a few moments...
That being said, anyone who thinks that I should have had to carry a doomed fetus to term with a daily risk of it dying and resulting in sepsis, (ie, carrying a decaying body in my uterus) on the off chance it might make it to term, only to die a short while later, is a sick fucking ghoul. When I was pregnant with my 3rd child there were cysts on his brain detected at 18.5 weeks which might have indicated Trisomy 18, but that couldn't be determined for sure until the amniocentesis came back... 2 weeks later. But ghouls like these think I should have remained a walking incubator for a fetus with no chance at life, risking my health and messing with my family, my other two children having to witness a sibling being born only to die.
Pardon the French, but fuck you very much.
... that placing a woman under general anaesthesia and performing a major abdominal surgery, complete with slicing the uterus open, might not be the best plan of action for a woman already in a state of medical emergency?
If they really hurry it only takes 7 minutes
If they are good surgeons, they can successfully perform the procedure, and save both mother and baby. I experienced such a surgery with our firstborn. He's now 26, college-educated, working, and living on his own. My husband and I have five other children who love their oldest brother and each other. It's all good.
I am so sorry for the loss of your precious son. But your son DID have, not just "a chance" at life, but a life, short though it was. And sick babies who later die are born every day into families with young children who welcome their little sister or brother, then mourn their sibling's death, then are comforted by their parents, who also mourn, and then support each other in the days ahead. Their comfort lies in the memory of their loving welcome and loving parting, with no deliberate ending of life to darken that memory.
When babies die within their mothers, a miscarriage is a natural end to the pregnancy, and most women go through the experience with little risk to their health. I miscarried our sixth child. If she had lived, and an abnormality, even a fetal-life-threatening one, had been detected, we would have supported her with our love and care for as long as she was in my womb, and if born, in our arms, until she died in her own time, with every comfort we could provide.
Please know I will hold you and your family in my heart.
In case you missed it!
TheRealistMom: anyone who thinks that I should have had to carry a doomed fetus to term with a daily risk of it dying and resulting in sepsis, (ie, carrying a decaying body in my uterus) on the off chance it might make it to term, only to die a short while later, is a sick fucking ghoul.
By the way, it is not your place to tell her HOW she should choose to mourn, or what she should've done in such a situation. It is none of your damn business.
But your son DID have, not just "a chance" at life, but a life, short though it was.
There is something seriously wrong with you.
As it turned out, my son didn't have Edward's syndrome, and today is a healthy almost 12 year old, extremely gifted and apparently the ADHD poster child.
And yes, miscarriage is natural- however, spontaneous abortion at a later stage of pregnancy carries a lot of risks, especially an incomplete one where <i><b>there is a dead fetus in the mother's uterus</i></b>. With all of the anti-abortion bullshit going on, there are attempts to keep doctors from learning the necessary procedures to safely help a woman in this circumstance, <i>even when the fetus is already dead.</i>
Cancer is natural too. Doesn't mean we should encourage it.
But yes, feel free to tell me, a woman who already had a disabled child when I was pregnant with my son, that had he had the fatal abnormality trisomy 18, that I should have put my life and health at risk, particularly having Major Depressive Disorder and already at risk through the pregnancy. Feel free to tell me what is "natural" and "right", to spend sanity and resources on a fetus who if it survived the pregnancy would never attain any kind of meaningful consciousness. Feel free to decide for other women what they should do, and how they should mourn, because mourn I would have... I knew he was a boy, I saw his hands and feet on the ultrasound when they were guiding the amniocentesis needle.
And I'll continue to feel free to tell you you are a heartless, self-righteous, sick fucking ghoul to impose your uneducated opinions on the rest of us.
The problem here, as I see it, is that you just cannot grasp that everyone in the world is not JUST LIKE YOU and all people don't believe exactly the same things that you do. I'm sure you would assert that your first paragraph about loving welcomes and loving farewells and all that sentimental, Precious Moments, superstitious stuff is a fair characterization of what happened when Santorum and his wife lost a child. But, see, the thing is, the rest of us are thinking 'They took home a fetal CORPSE and encouraged their TODDLER to fondle it and kiss it? They took home a fetal CORPSE and played with it like a dolly? Yuck! Yuck! Yuck! Child abuse. Sicko!'
What YOU would have done is not the definition of reality. There are lots and lots of people out here who don't WANT to do what you think is 'natural', and for sure there are lots of people out here who think it's pretty hypocritical for men to want to use medical interventions in every other aspect of life in an unnatural way, from getting an erection to getting their stomach stapled to having a pacemaker installed, even though impotence, obesity and heart attacks are all 'natural', and yet wall off the ONE procedure that is exclusive to only women and say THAT condition should be endured without interventions. Since, you know, THEY don't need it.
You have moral opinions about how other women handle their pregnancies? You're certainly entitled to have opinions. But while we're feeling entitled to have and express our own opinions here I'd just add, many people having a sixth pregnancy is just disgusting because good parents don't have so many children that individual children end up lost in the crowd. Good parents have a little self control so that Mom doesn't end up spending all her time pregnant and mostly absentee in the existing children's lives and don't expect the older children to raise the younger ones. Good parents don't have more children than they can provide shelter and food, medical and dental care, education and enriching experiences for. Some people even believe that those who fetishize reproduction and over produce are greedy and selfish by insisting their family is entitled to an unfair share of the world's production. And based on my total ignorance about your family and circumstances, and ludicrous prejudices and uninformed beliefs about 'people like you', I could assert that MY moral beliefs about family size are superior to yours just because they're my opinions. But that would be both silly and rude, wouldn't it? Because decent people don't JUDGE EACH OTHER.
The problem here, as I see it, is that you just cannot grasp that everyone in the world is not JUST LIKE YOU and all people don't believe exactly the same things that you do.
I'd love to see an anti-choicer open up a pizza shop. Not only would they serve only one kind of pizza (whatever crust and toppings the proprietor likes), they'll hurl abuse and misinformation at you and tell you you're going to hell for even wanting to order extra cheese.
Gee then, Colleen, there are a few hundred thousand OBGyns I'd like to introduce you to, including my own, who every day quickly determine, under touch-and-go, life-and-death situations, that a c-section will absolutely save Mama's life and baby's too. They avoid lawsuits by making just such educated judgments.
Watch A Baby's Story.
Here is what you said:
In the rare case of a pregnancy being truly maternal-life endangering, the lives of both mother and child can be saved, something an abortionist isn't paid to do. And it actually takes less time to perform an emergency c-section (7 minutes) than it does to abort (15 minutes minimum) and it's medically safer for the woman, as no dismemberment occurs, thus no fetal body parts left behind.
The fact of the matter is that sometimes the life of a pregnant woman cannot be saved without an abortion. The fact of the matter is that sometimes abortions are necessary to save a woman's life and that sometimes a fetus or embryo cannot be saved. The maternal mortality rate is very real and people like you seem absolutely determined to make certain that more women die when their bodies cannot sustain a pregnancy . It's people like you (and the Catholic hierarchy) who have managed to drag our nation down to 41st in international rankings in maternal mortality. We have the worst maternal mortality rate of all industrialized nations, Cuba does a better job of caring for it's pregnant women.
So PLEASE spare the simpering platitudes about 'saving Mama's life' because when mama is 10 weeks pregnant and hemorrhaging and her heart is failing because her body cannot sustain the pregnancy what she needs is an abortion. Meanwhile 'baby' is still an embryo and NOT A PERSON and a c-section is not the cure all for complications of pregnancy.
////
Not all abortionists are OB/Gyns; in fact, the majority are not. Think about an abortionist who both saves and destroys his or her tinier patients...what a conundrum this must create. In fact, read Lime Five by Mark Crutcher and learn about the psychological disorders that develop in these abortionists' minds, how their personalities are warped by the illogic of saving a 23-week-old preemie in one room, while down the hall they abort a perfectly healthy 28-week baby...
All the pay in the world can't help them sleep at night, or prevent waking nightmares.
Not all abortionists are OB/Gyns; in fact, the majority are not.
Source, please.
(getting late.)
First of all, I think a 'conservative abortionist' would be a rare animal, indeed...
Second, it's undeniable that an abortionist is in the killing business. S/he regards a baby who survives an abortion as, and this is an abortionist quote, the "dreaded complication." How motivated will s/he be to try to save that little girl or boy if born alive?
In fact, there are hundreds of stories of babies surviving the abortion ordeal only to be left in a steel basin in a darkened hospital linen closet, struggling to breathe, with orders not to give any medical assistance or even comfort care, especially if they are afflicted with some deformity or chronic condition.
The current U.S. Commander-in-Chief voted four times as an Illinois senator against providing mandatory medical care to babies who survived abortion, stating that the mother's intention that her child be killed should be carried out.
First of all, I think a 'conservative abortionist' would be a rare animal, indeed...
No conservatives kill actual, born people for fun and profit.
First of all, I think a 'conservative abortionist' would be a rare animal, indeed...
Second, it's undeniable that an abortionist is in the killing business. S/he regards a baby who survives an abortion as, and this is an abortionist quote, the "dreaded complication." How motivated will s/he be to try to save that little girl or boy if born alive?
In fact, there are hundreds of stories of babies surviving the abortion ordeal only to be left in steel basins in a darkened hospital linen closet, struggling to breathe, with orders not to give any medical assistance or even comfort care, especially if they are afflicted with some deformity or chronic condition.
The current U.S. Commander-in-Chief voted four times as an Illinois senator against providing mandatory medical care to babies who survived abortion, stating that the mother's intention that her child be killed should be carried out.
Wrong. An 'abortionist' regards a fetus that survives birth as a patient in need of treatment. Any abortion provider that does not do this is NEGLIGENT in his/her duties. THAT is why the 'current US Commander-In-Chief' voted four times against providing mandatory medical care to infants that survive abortion. Because there were ALREADY LAWS IN PLACE THAT ADDRESSED THAT. DUH.
As for babies that survive abortion being left to die, please provide evidence using a non-biased, accredited website. And one that collects data SINCE Roe Vs. Wade. Kthxbai.
Abortion isn't killing. An ob/gyn delivers babies as well as provides abortions. So, are you saying that they're in the business of playing God, then? Oh, NOES. Better stop ob/gyn's from delivering babies, too, then!
If both mother and child can ALWAYS be saved why do 600 women die from pregnancy complications every year in this country?
If both mother and child can ALWAYS be saved why are there 30,000 stillbirths every year in this country?
My statement was that both mother and child can be saved, not can always be saved. When it is possible to save both, shouldn't that be the goal, of everyone?
Stillbirths are another story, and you well know it. Often a child dies from unforeseen and unpreventable causes, and neither the mother nor the doctor is culpable.
Incidentally, abortion causes the rate of stillbirths, prematurity, and other pre-term problems, to escalate, due to scarring of the uterus leading to placenta previa, incontinent cervix, not to mention the well-documented link between abortion and breast cancer. It also causes maternal death, in spite of it being a 'safe, legal procedure.'
So I ask you, why do women die each year in the U.S. and all over the world from safe, legal abortion - RU486, surgical abortion complications, and incomplete abortions? Do a Google search to learn these women's names, their ethnicity, their age at time of death, the complications from a so-called "safe, legal abortion" that killed them.
Incidentally, abortion causes the rate of stillbirths, prematurity, and other pre-term problems, to escalate, due to scarring of the uterus leading to placenta previa, incontinent cervix, not to mention the well-documented link between abortion and breast cancer.
These are lies & myths and you well know it. You have been brainwashed.
see: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1751433
see: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199701093360201
and: The American Medical Association, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the World Health Organization, and the United States National Cancer Institute "have analyzed larger studies regarding induced abortion and breast cancer. Their uniform conclusion is that there is no causative link between induced abortion and breast cancer."
By the way, regarding the safety of legal abortion vs. illegal abortion, you would do well to consult non-biased sources (not Lifesite or Jill Stanek or Mark Crutcher or whatever you happen to find in a "Google search.")
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/12/4/gpr120402.html
Please educate yourself before coming here and spewing lies.
"Dr. Janet Daling, who considers herself supportive of a right to perform abortions, brought the abortion-breast cancer link into the mainstream with her federally funded research on the topic. Her report, released in 1994, found a 50% increase in breast cancer risk due to induced abortion.[26][27] She said, "I have three sisters with breast cancer and I resent people messing with the scientific data to further their own agenda, be they pro-choice or pro-life. I would have loved to have found no association between breast cancer and abortion, but our research is rock solid and our data is accurate."[28]" (L.A. Daily News, Sept. 1997.)
Even if I had no evidence, which I do (and you can Google it yourself, but be brave and click on non-pro-choice website hits for a change!), of abortion causing problems with future pregnancies, logic and reason are on my side of the argument. Abortion, even when done guided by ultrasound, is a rough procedure. Scarring always occurs, and the more scarring inside the uterus, the less area for a future placenta to adhere, and the higher the risk of placenta previa and miscarriage. Ask March of Dimes, if you can find an honest representative, if prematurity - MOD's new cause - can be traced to a previous abortion or abortions. Then ask how this rep can work for a supposedly charitable organization that sponsors search-and-kill testing and recommended abortion for fetal anomalies. They don't prevent so-called 'birth defects', they just kill the babies affected by them.
WHOA, INCREDIBLE. Excuse me, but did you even click on the links I supplied for you at all? Or did you just go straight to wikipedia and copy-paste that garbage? By the way, don't patronize me by telling me to do a fucking Google search on something that I have read about extensively in scientific and medical journals. Last I checked, pulling whatever POS you find on google or wikipedia is not "science."
AS TO THE ACTUAL STUDY YOU CITED: Daling's was NOT A COHORT STUDY. It was interview-based and used a much smaller sample size than the Melbye study, which drew from 1.5 million women. Cohort studies examine objective medical data of a large population over a period of time, whereas case-control interviews only relies on subjective self-reporting. Please read about the DESIGN of scientific studies before you use them; read about the evidence-based advantages of cohort design, the disadvantages of response bias, and the importance of sample size.
Our study of a population-based cohort uncovered no overall increased risk of breast cancer among women with a history of induced abortion. This result is very much in line with the results of previous retrospective cohort studies,9,10,15,16 two of which actually suggested a decreased risk.10,15 However, all previously published retrospective cohort studies lack detailed information on the week of gestation at the time of abortion. The results of case–control studies have been inconsistent,6-8,11_14,17_24 but several groups have reported an increased risk of breast cancer among women with a history of induced abortion.7,8,13,21-24
A recent meta-analysis found an overall increased risk of breast cancer among women with a history of induced abortion of 1.3 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.2 to 1.4).24 The authors concluded that “such a broad base of statistical agreement rules out any reasonable possibility that the association is the result of bias or any other confounding variable.” However, since almost all 23 studies included in the analysis were case–control studies, it is not unreasonable to assume that many of them were inherently biased, making the pooled conclusions biased as well. Furthermore, the authors based their results on a crude analysis of published odds ratios and relative risks with no attempt to incorporate the original raw data into a more sophisticated statistical analysis.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199701093360201#t=articleDiscussion
Oh, and please explain to me why the World Health Organization, National Cancer Institute, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists are all wrong just because YOU say so. Really, I can't wait to read it.
Even if I had no evidence, which I do (and you can Google it yourself, but be brave and click on non-pro-choice website hits for a change!), of abortion causing problems with future pregnancies
Where is it? I'm waiting. For links to actual medical journals, not your ridiculous rambling.
Once again, did you read anything that I supplied for you? Are you so lazy that I need to copy/paste the information from the cohort study FOR you? Here you go:
Overall, induced abortion was not associated with any important effect on the three measures of adverse outcome in the subsequent pregnancy.
The authors investigated the effect of induced abortion on the outcome of the next pregnancy. This longterm, prospective, controlled cohort study was undertaken at the Joint Royal College of General Practitioners/Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and was based in general practice in England, Scotland, and Wales. 1311 women whose recruitment pregnancy had ended in induced abortion (abortion group) and 2131 women whose recruitment pregnancy ended naturally (nonabortion group) were included in this study. The main outcome measures investigated were nonviable outcome (spontaneous or missed miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, or stillbirth), birthweight, and length of gestation. Induced abortion was not materially associated with any of the 3 measures of adverse outcome. Compared with the nonabortion group, the relative risk of a nonviable outcome in the abortion group was 1.01 (95% CI 0.81-1.27). In the abortion group, birthweight was an average 23 g lighter (95% CI -76g to +30 g) and the length of gestation was an average of 0.9 days shorter (95% CI -2.2 days to 0.4 days) than in the nonabortion group. Women who had their abortions in NHS premises had an increased risk of a nonviable outcome (RR 2.55, 95% CI 1.31-4.94) and had babies with significantly lower mean birthweight (-119 g, 95% CI -233 g to +5 g) compared with those who obtained their operations in the private sector. Women whose abortions had been undertaken by a consultant had the lowest risk of nonviable outcome. Although these differences remained after adjustment for a number of important variables, it is possible that factors not measured in the present study, e.g., economic status and occupation, played a contributory role. Overall, induced abortion was not associated with any important effect on the 3 measures of adverse outcome in a subsequent pregnancy
Scarring always occurs, and the more scarring inside the uterus, the less area for a future placenta to adhere,
Scarring does NOT always occur. There is a potential for scarring with curettage, although this is not a guarantee. Also, curettage is not used in every abortion procedure, and still there is no evidence that curettage or abortion in general will effect subsequent pregnancies, as you can see by reading above.
INCREDIBLE. Excuse me, but did you even click on the links I supplied for you at all?
Of course not. She attended 'pro-life' seminars at a Holiday Inn and is here to witness to the truth. We, otoh, are from Satan and she does not want to sully her precious mind with any new information. It's just too scary. She's here to teach us The Way and we should just shut up and try to be more like her .
Pray tell, if ending a pregnancy before term causes breast cancer, then why doesn't everyone who's had: a spontaneous abortion, a stillbirth, or a premature birth, get breast cancer? Or didn't they cover that in your 'Holiday Inn Upstairs Medical College' degree course?
(Once again, double-post. My apologies.)
