<p>“It would be awfully selfish of the mother to choose her own life over the baby’s, would it not?”</p>
<p>“Awfully selfish” to not sacrifice your own life, when you have personal desires, connections, complex thoughts, relationships, and goals…for the life of a fetus, who has none of those traits? What an absurd statement.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And what if she already has children? I thought Kennedy’s opinion was incredibly misogynistic and biased, based on an emotional review rather than a factural one. Chipping away at women’s rights to dominion over their own bodies, an essential factor in personal liberty.</p>
<p>“But in this day and age, how can any educated person (and Kennedy is educated) believe that the government knows better than I do how I might feel later??”</p>
<p>Not only extremely well educated, but smart besides. What a disappointment. </p>
<p>It’s astounding to me that anyone could look at the U.S. Congress and conclude that they are such skillful ethicists that their moral judgment should override that of women in consultation with their families, doctors, and God. I will say this: a lot of Congressmen do have personal experience with making ethical judgments they come to regret later…when they get caught. That moral paragon Tom DeLay comes to mind.</p>
<p>Berurah, I also had pre-eclampsia, which I understand is usually relieved through delivery. By the time a mother-to-be is experiencing the more serious complications, delivery can be induced. The baby may not make it, and the woman may have problems, but risk is part of every pregnancy. As far as Hannah’s points about the additional risks of delivery vs abortion, I agree up to a point. But again, there is risk associated with every pregnancy, and I think the other options are preferable to partial birth abortion. People can call this any number of names, but it doesn’t change the fact that a baby is almost fully delivered, then killed in a brutal way. The ruling doesn’t eliminate abortion – it just disallows a particularly brutal method.</p>
<p>It is not at all clear what the “mother’s life” exception will mean in practice, either. Let’s say the additional time and blood loss a Cesarean requires imposes a 1% greater risk of death on a woman in preeclampsia than an intact D & X would. Is her life at stake then? What if there’s a 5% greater risk of death? 10%? In the middle of the night, looking at one pregnant patient whose blood pressure is going up and up, how is a doctor supposed to precisely calculate the level of risk that allows him to legally provide the medical care he wants to?
To protect himself, does he have to wait till she’s at death’s door?</p>
<p>Dollars to donuts, they’re going to say that avoiding a small increased risk of maternal death doesn’t trigger the exception, because that’s really a “health” exception; every possible health problem carries some risk of death. And here’s what’s bizarre to me: Why is any increased risk of maternal death acceptable when the fetus is 100% certain to die one way or another? How is that “pro-life”?</p>
<p>"it doesn’t change the fact that a baby is almost fully delivered, then killed in a brutal way. The ruling doesn’t eliminate abortion – it just disallows a particularly brutal method. "</p>
<p>So I keep getting the vibe that you seem to think a woman actually ENJOYS having to have this procedure, as if it’s a decision made with the same concern as to whether to have a mocha or frappacino. Terrible decisions for a variety of reasons have to be made sometimes, nobody takes great joy and nobody should be considered less of anything for having to make such a hard decision. To take away a choice, even if it’s not a “nicey nicey” one, is wrong. My heart goes out to any woman that has to have this procedure. I will not heap upon their pain by projecting my values upon them.</p>
<p>Berurah, why not deliver the baby and then suck its brains out? Wouldn’t that be safer than doing it with the baby’s body still in the birth canal? Then the doctor could get a better look at the condition that made the baby likely to have a poor quality of life before crushing the skull.</p>
<p>
Wow. I think you owe me an apology, WashDad, for this DISGUSTING post directed SOLELY at ME. :(</p>
<p>BTW, sometimes, the condition for which a pregnancy is terminated after the first trimester is anencephaly. In that case, the majority of the baby’s brain is missing, so no worries there, right WashDad?? 
</p>
<p>Your rudeness in the above post was inexcusable.</p>
<p>My oldest son has had NUMEROUS conversations with me about how, in the EXTREMELY unlikely event he is rendered incapable of using the gift of his mental powers–in other words, he comes to be in a “vegetative state,” he wants me to have the strength to let him go. Would that make me a lesser person in your eyes? 
Quality of life is NOTHING to scoff at, and I have NOT elaborated on my definition of that, nor will I, esp. now. :mad:</p>
<p>Good posts, Berurah and Hanna.</p>
<p>I also feel that your personal post at Berurah was inappropriate, WashDad. Stick to the facts and the arguments.</p>
<p>
PIH generally hits later in the pregnancy, true. With my oldest, I acquired it between 32-33 weeks and spent seven weeks on strict bedrest with serial ultrasonagraphy, nonstress tests, and stress tests until delivery (which was induction at 39 weeks). With my youngest, it occurred much later, and my doc was able to induce immediately, at 39 weeks. Sometimes, however, a severe case can set in before the baby is viable, and these cases can definitely threaten the life of both mother and baby.</p>
<p>~berurah</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This procedure is not used until the third trimester. If my reference was in any way inaccurate, I apologize. You seemed to be defending the use of it. If you weren’t, I apologize. If there is some sound medical reason to induce labor in a late-term pregnancy, deliver the baby’s head, and then kill the baby before its feet emerge, I apologize. </p>
<p>Characterizing this procedure as “abortion” is just sophistry. Babies this close to term are viable. Delivering the head and then killing the baby is just murder, plain and simple. </p>
<p>The issue of abortion is full of gray areas and issues on which reasonable people can have differences of opinion. Delivering a late-term baby, and then, essentially, holding the baby in the birth canal just long enough for its brains to be suctioned out so that it is called “abortion” instead of “murder” is so disingenuous that I cannot believe ANYONE believes it. If we want to support infanticide, let’s at least be honest about what we are doing.</p>
<p>On another note, you wrote:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are absolutely right. The specific procedure in question has nothing to do with protecting the health of the mother. The mother has already delivered the baby’s head in a normal manner. I am still waiting to hear what medical condition would threaten the life of the mother in the interval between the delivery of the baby’s head and the delivery of the baby’s feet. Still waiting.</p>
<p>
Oh, now I see how you could have been confused. NOT. After all, I DID make THIS statement in post # 15</p>
<p>
See, WashDad, I think I have made my position CRYSTAL CLEAR. </p>
<p>
This is incorrect. This procedure is used after 20 weeks gestation. The third trimester starts sometime around week 27.</p>
<p>~berurah</p>
<p>Until the last several posts, I was marveling at the measured spirit of dialogue that was occurring on this forum. It is often rare for a subject that for so many is so highly charged. So congratulations to many are in order.</p>
<p>For myself, I just don’t know enough, so I’m learning as we go. I am, however, on the whole very uncomfortable with legislating medical procedures. </p>
<p>Most of this will be solved when (not if, but when) we raise fetuses from test-tube to artificial machine, deciding that the so-called natural methods are barbaric.</p>
<p>“You seemed to be defending the use of it. If you weren’t, I apologize”</p>
<p>So we should only have medical procedures that make you “happy”? Or are “nice”? I think most of us here are defending the availability of choice that others seem to want to make for women. </p>
<p>I am defending the use of it as an option, a choice. While it is not pleasant or pretty, it is far better than no choice at all. </p>
<p>Quite simply, if you don’t want one Washdad, don’t have one. That’s your right. It’s your body washdad and I respect your right to choose what happens to it as you are not a piece of property that someone else owns.</p>
<p>
That is my #1 concern, as well. No matter how much judges read about a particular procedure, they will not have the ability to determine which medical procedures are safest, fastest, or most effective in any given situation. Doctors should make that call, with the say of the patient or her family, without having to weigh the risk of a lawsuit against what he/she believes, based on education and experience, is the correct course of action.</p>
<p>I’m even willing to trust the judges. (at least they’ll read the evidence, or at least are supposed to.) But the legislators? (the same ones who gave us the Patriot Act without reading it first? :eek:)</p>
<p>This is why I am vehemently opposed to laws like the Woman’s Health and Cancer Rights Act of 1998 (which MADE IT A FEDERAL LAW that insurance plans must cover breast reconstruction after mastectomy), and state laws that mandate how long a woman should be kept in the hospital after a mastectomy or after childbirth. </p>
<p>These laws were written because the big, bad insurance companies weren’t playing nice, but it seems to me it’s the medical profession that should fight the insurance companies, not our legislatures. </p>
<p>Some state laws have gotten out of hand, like covering acupuncture or nutritionists – I’m not bashing those practitioners, but why does it need to be the LAW that these things are covered? These state mandates have increased the cost of health care in many states.</p>
<p>In our state (I worked on this stuff for our state board of health), accupuncture and nutrition services are ONLY covered if specifically referred by a physician - i.e. a medical determination has been made by a medical professional that these services are medically necessary. Our experience has been that they have actually lowered the cost of health care (though not necessarily insurance prices), as what would otherwise have been prescribed would be more expensive. (This is especially true with mental health and chemical dependency services.)</p>
<p>The exception is chiropractic. They have the BIGGEST lobby outside of the docs, and had written into law that patients could self-refer (unlike accunpucture, nutrition, massage), without any diagnosis or actual treatment plan.</p>
<p>It is my understanding that premature babies have a 50% survival rate at 24 weeks gestation. I don’t understand how one baby – wanted by its parents – is worth saving at 24 weeks, and another – not wanted by its parents – is just tissue to be aborted. There’s a lack of consistency in our laws. I believe it is unfair to treat one fetus as human, and another of the same age as not.</p>
<p>There seems to be some understanding here - and I think it’s a misunderstanding - that these late-term abortions are somehow just because a baby isn’t wanted. The particular method of abortion that was banned is <em>only</em> used when the mother’s health or life is in danger. And from everything I’ve read (that didn’t come from a biased source) also indicated that most of the time, the baby has a health problem that means it is either already deceased or will not live when it is born. </p>
<p>I can understand being horrified at the description of this method, but I can’t understand why anyone thinks that women should not have the right to put their health and well-being as a top priority when making what has to be an agonizing, difficult decision. And as a woman, I’m personally offended by the misogyny in the decision - I think it’s ridiculous to suggest that women who are choosing to have abortions are doing so because they don’t know what they are doing.</p>