"The outlook for twins with TTTS was hopeless over 20 years ago, but now we have the ability to diagnose the condition early (with ultrasound scans) and implement treatments that will ultimately lead to most of the twins surviving and being healthy."
"We were sent to one of the premier fetal care centers in the country and told our only hope for saving this pregnancy was to have a selective termination on the one of the babies, and hope the other twin would survive."
To which "premier fetal care center" are you referring?
"If I hadn’t had the termination, I would have buried two babies instead of only one."
See the odds listed above.
"The total bill from the fetal care center was just over $220,000."
What does that claim have to do with Stupak-Pitts?
"Why should I have to choose between having a life-saving procedure that will most likely put us into bankruptcy while at the same time forcing me to choose between the best interests of our much wanted unborn child versus the best interests of our other two children?"
Does anyone understand this question? What are the two options to which she is referring? How does Stupak-Pitts relate to anything in the "question?"
"...the devastating effects of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment."
What devastating effects of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment? It would not outlaw the procedure you underwent. Nor would it prevent you from becoming insured for it.
This article is just an attempt at contriving a compelling need for government-funded abortion. In reality, nearly all the abortion paid for by government would be purely elective and result because either a man chose to engage in sexual intercourse without being fully committed to being a good father and husband or a woman chose to engage in sexual intercourse without being fully committed to being a good mother and wife or both. Selfishness and irresponsibility are not health care and promoting them is not a good use of the nation's health care spending.
Which is it? Medical condition or emergency? Does the woman actually have to be going to die in the next 10 minutes in order to 'deserve' an abortion? Or can reasonable medical certainty about what will happen in the easily foreseeable future allow her to qualify?
People everywhere require resources that other people want, thus, being dependent on the woman's body does not negate the fetus' right to life.
Which of those other people do you feel are entitled to the "resources that other people want"? Do you think children who require an organ transplant or a blood marrow donation to save their lives are entitled to them even if the person who is a good match objects that they don't want to donate? Should we pass laws making giving up a kidney mandatory because that child also has a "right to life"?
It may be a 'common phrase', but it still doesn't make sense in the context in which you used it. Inspection of a zygote or blastocyst does not reveal any reasonably "exact copy" of limbs or organs nor does it show that they are 'likely to develop'. In fact, they more often than not do not develop and instead the blastocyst or zygote is flushed from the body.
Telemundo 52 recently reported on Alma Minerva Chacon, a woman who was terrorized by Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio by being forced to give birth in chains despite the pleading of nurses and other medical staff.
Known by most Americans for its gorgeous beaches and outstanding golf courses, South Carolina is unfortunately known to most public health professionals for its staggering rates of HIV and AIDS.
My son would have died under the Stupak Amendment. Help stop it from becoming law and ensure that you and I can make our own decisions about what is good for our families.
Progress on health reform legislation forces us to mobilize to prevent passage of the Stupak Amendment. But our next step must be to take stock of why and how we got here in the first place.
A proposed "anti-homosexuality" law blatantly disregards both international law and Uganda's Constitution, threatening freedom of speech and freedom from violence and discrimination.
Gail Collins book covers the recent revolution in women's roles without the burden of someone trying to advance feminist theory or muse on the movement from within.
The best way to be an ally and a support to anyone often starts with questions like "How can I support you?" or "What do you want and need from me in this?" Then you listen to the answers and respond accordingly.
Too attached to Edward Cullen for your feminist sensibilities? Just in time for Thanksgiving, here's an unorthodox guide to kicking the Twilight habit.
As Thanksgiving Day quickly approaches, we want to take a moment to reflect on how grateful we are for the people who help make RH Reality Check what it is today.
The Stupak furor has obscured the shocking fertility and family control provisions in current health care legislation. The House bill actually authorizes a plan to monitor the childbearing decisions and family lives of low-income women.
Revisions in Peru's Penal Code may lead to decriminalizing abortion in cases of rape or severe disability of the fetus. But conservative political and religious forces are, predictably, opposing these changes.
Rights advocates can forget that there is an entire world of potential allies out there we may be missing because we are not effectively communicating with them.
Muslim women in India are caught between the strictures of family and personal law and persistent discrimination against them as women from both the Indian government and society writ large.
Opponents and supporters of women's choices in childbearing agreed early on, in theory, to maintain the “status quo” with "abortion neutral" health care legislation. The Senate bill achieves this goal; the House bill does not.
Because of the tremendous work done in the 60s and 70s, my generation can sit around and have conversations about our feelings about abortion. But we need to remember that what matters politically is the legal right to have an abortion, without which these conversations are moot.
Since Bart Stupak tried to ban federal funding of abortion in a House
bill earlier this month, there’s been an abundance of opining articles
on the public perception of abortion. And according to two articles
published recently, the real split isn’t between red states or blue
states, but generational approaches to the issue of abortion.
Rick Warren tells Meet the Press he doesn't take "sides" in political debates; South Korea uses pro-natalist fears to restrict women's access to abortion.
The old adage "don't believe everything you hear" applies here. Anybody can say anything on the internet.
The few claims masquerading as verifiable facts in this article are quickly shown to be false. For example, the WebMD claim is false.
http://www.webmd.com/parenting/twin-twin-transfusion-syndrome
What is your source? Online sources make contradictory claims.
"In severe cases, if TTTS is not treated, there is a 60 to 100% chance that both babies can die in utero."
http://health.ucsd.edu/specialties/fetalsurgery/ttts/
With certain treatment, at least one fetus will survive in 82 percent of cases.
http://www.umm.edu/ttts/which_therapy.htm
"If the twin-to-twin transfusion is mild, full recovery is expected for both babies. However, severe cases may result in the death of a twin."
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001595.htm
"The outlook for twins with TTTS was hopeless over 20 years ago, but now we have the ability to diagnose the condition early (with ultrasound scans) and implement treatments that will ultimately lead to most of the twins surviving and being healthy."
http://www.tttsfoundation.org/help_during_pregnancy/summary.php
To which "premier fetal care center" are you referring?
See the odds listed above.
What does that claim have to do with Stupak-Pitts?
Does anyone understand this question? What are the two options to which she is referring? How does Stupak-Pitts relate to anything in the "question?"
What devastating effects of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment? It would not outlaw the procedure you underwent. Nor would it prevent you from becoming insured for it.
This article is just an attempt at contriving a compelling need for government-funded abortion. In reality, nearly all the abortion paid for by government would be purely elective and result because either a man chose to engage in sexual intercourse without being fully committed to being a good father and husband or a woman chose to engage in sexual intercourse without being fully committed to being a good mother and wife or both. Selfishness and irresponsibility are not health care and promoting them is not a good use of the nation's health care spending.
www.abortiondiscussion.com
concede the lack of organs etc?
Don't tell me,take it up with the biologists who own this site.
The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.
Dr Warren Hern, MD
That was indeed a photo of a zygote. THIS is a photo of a blastocyst.
http://www.drizzle.com/~mdavis/uploaded_images/jj_blastocyst-703867.jpg
And there's an excellent description of the week-long process of implantation here:
http://www.embryology.ch/anglais/gnidation/resumenidation01.html
Coleen-that's a photo of a blastocyst that hasn't even implanted into a uterus yet!!!
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
It's a very young person, Colleen!!!
They would have been happier in around the third century, I think.
Which is it? Medical condition or emergency? Does the woman actually have to be going to die in the next 10 minutes in order to 'deserve' an abortion? Or can reasonable medical certainty about what will happen in the easily foreseeable future allow her to qualify?
Which of those other people do you feel are entitled to the "resources that other people want"? Do you think children who require an organ transplant or a blood marrow donation to save their lives are entitled to them even if the person who is a good match objects that they don't want to donate? Should we pass laws making giving up a kidney mandatory because that child also has a "right to life"?
Yes, and in this context it is meaningless because a zygote or blastocyst has nothing resembling an organ system, developing or not.
Here's a photo of a zygote. See? No organ system, developing or not.
The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.
Dr Warren Hern, MD
But I thought the whole POINT of the ProLife movement was to take us all back to the 70's? The 1870's, that is.
It may be a 'common phrase', but it still doesn't make sense in the context in which you used it. Inspection of a zygote or blastocyst does not reveal any reasonably "exact copy" of limbs or organs nor does it show that they are 'likely to develop'. In fact, they more often than not do not develop and instead the blastocyst or zygote is flushed from the body.