<p>This proves my point, that the AMA recognizes that these extraordinary circumstances do exist where the mother’s life can be saved only by the sacrifice of the baby. Exactly what I’ve been saying all along; however lamentable and tragic these situations may be, they do indeed exist.</p>
<p>No one was trying to argue that the situations are commonplace. The entire death rate from maternal health complications is only 17 per 100,000 or 700 a year. Way too high, but given our 4 million per year birth rate, still low enough that each of the 700 deaths is indeed out of the ordinary. </p>
<p>You were the one trying to argue the opposite: that because these situations are outside your experience, they don’t exist. Fortunately, the members of the AMA have conferences and journals where they can pool their knowledge, so that even things that rarely happen can be widely known.</p>
<p>Why is there still a debate on this issue? The Supreme Court ruled that late term abortions are legal when the mother’s life is at stake. Late term abortion on demand is not.</p>
<p>It’s still a debate because people are trying to deny the procedure to women who will die without it by insisting that these women don’t exist. The burden is going to be on the doctor and the family to prove her circumstances, and if people are already too prejudiced to listen to the facts, what hope is there?</p>
<p>What do you mean by “deny the procedure to women who will die without it by insisting that these women don’t exist.” The procedure is currently available to women if their doctor feels they will otherwise die. What those of us who oppose abortion feel is irrelevant to that decision.</p>
<p>That may be, but it’s irrelevant. Five Catholic judges cast the votes in deciding this Supreme Court case. </p>
<p>If I want to live under Catholic law, I would move to the Vatican. As I understand the Constitution of the United States, my government is not supposed to impose specific religious beliefs or policies on me. Failing that, I would at least prefer to see a range of religions determining these cases.</p>
<p>You make the assumption that this case was decided based on strictly religious reasoning. It is my understanding that it was based on an interpretation of the law, under the US Constitution. If enough people feel that the decision is not legally supportable, they can pursue legislative changes.</p>
<p>Say a doctor performs the procedure to save a woman’s life and gets arrested for it, because the DA doesn’t believe that women can die from childbirth. Suppose the twelve solid citizens on the jury can’t imagine any situation where a C-section or normal vaginal delivery won’t save the mother’s life. Now do you see the problem?</p>
<p>It’s a big difference between the general public believing that these situations are exceedingly rare and the general public believing that these situations are impossible. It’s all the more complicated when you have the meme that these situations are impossible affecting hospital policy.</p>
<p>Suppose blood transfusions were only legal if they saved someone’s life, and a widespread political faction was successful in spreading the meme that blood transfusions never save lives; that anyone who lives with a blood transfusions would have lived anyway, and anyone who died without a blood transfusion would have died anyway. Now do you see the potential problems that would cause?</p>
<p>Yeah, that’s what the Ayatollah’s say, too. Seriously, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck…</p>
<p>There’s really no other way to spin five Catholic justices reversing a prior precedent of the Supreme Court to bring it into agreement with a major Church policy. Remember, this is the same Church whose Pope advised Americans to vote Republican in the last Presidential election.</p>
<p>I’m dead serious. I am am VERY uncomfortable with any church dictating US policy.</p>
<p>“You were the one trying to argue the opposite: that because these situations are outside your experience, they don’t exist. Fortunately, the members of the AMA have conferences and journals where they can pool their knowledge, so that even things that rarely happen can be widely known.”</p>
<p>I happen to have extensive experience in this field, and I am still trying to rack my brains as to what condition the woman in Louisiana had that would make a partial birth abortion favorable for her medically over an emergency c-section. Maybe you could PM me as to what that condition could be?</p>
<p>I think that many of you would be very surprised at how widespread the feelings against abortion are. It is not only Catholics and many evangelicals that hold that belief. There are many other religious groups and non-religious individuals who are very much against it. In my world, which is full of politically liberal people, I scarcely know anyone who supports abortion. I think it has to do with “abortion stops a beating heart” and sonograms being so available. As adamant as some women are about “reproductive rights” there are so many others of all political persuasions that will vote at least partly for candidates who are against abortion. I would not be surprised if any even slightly viable Republican presidential candidate who is strongly against abortion will sweep in. Now that the Supreme Court has taken this action, this will fuel the anti-abortion troops even more.</p>
<p>Given that only 700 women a year or so die of all maternal health complications, and not all of them in Louisiana, it wouldn’t be hard to track this woman down via death certificates if I gave out that kind of information. I am not about to do anything that could lead to folks showing up on her parents’ lawn with picket signs.</p>
<p>Rather than harping on this one woman, why not focus on any one of the other 699 women a year that normal vaginal delivery and C-section couldn’t save to see if an Intact D&X might have? Or apply for a grant to study all of them? </p>
<p>Or look into cases where physicians have done Intact D&Xs in life-threatening situations (or the other procedure, where the fetus is taken out in pieces) to see if a C-section also would have resulted in the mother surviving?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, you’re attacking a strawman. I don’t think anyone in this thread has posted that they like abortions and want more of them to happen. I think pro-choice, anti-abortion describes the feelings of many of us. Others who don’t go that far might be at least pro-“the woman being allowed to survive if that’s what she wants”, anti-abortion.</p>
<p>“Again, you’re attacking a strawman. I don’t think anyone in this thread has posted that they like abortions and want more of them to happen. I think pro-choice, anti-abortion describes the feelings of many of us. Others who don’t go that far might be at least pro-“the woman being allowed to survive if that’s what she wants”, anti-abortion.”</p>
<p>“Prochoice-antiabortion” is an oxymoron. If you then want to mandate that abortions are only going to be done to save the life of the mother, the abortion rate would plummet. My guess is that 5 to 10 years from now, that will be the law in many if most all states.</p>
<p>Spoken like a member of the radical right. Please read the quote that sjmom posted, and you’ll get a better understanding of the issue at least by some people. A person can feel that abortion is wrong and still support a woman’s right to choose it. </p>
<p>Or are you going to insist that these people don’t exist either?</p>
<p>Since you referred to causes of pregnancy related deaths, here again is the MMWR from the CDC in 2003 that speaks to the causes:</p>
<p>“The leading causes of pregnancy-related death were embolism (20%), hemorrhage (17%), and pregnancy-induced hypertension (16%) (Table 3). Although the percentages of all pregnancy-related deaths attributable to these causes have gradually decreased in the previous two decades, the percentage of deaths attributable to cardiomyopathy increased from 6% in 1991 to 9% in 1999. However, this increase was not statistically significant. Deaths attributable to other medical conditions have significantly increased from 14% in 1991 to 20% in 1999 (p<0.05). Deaths attributable to other medical conditions consist primarily of cardiovascular problems (34%), pulmonary problems (11%), and neurologic or neurovascular problems (7%). The leading causes of death differed by pregnancy outcome (Table 3). The leading causes of death among women who died after a live birth were embolism (21%), pregnancy-induced hypertension (19%), and other medical conditions (17%). Among women whose pregnancies ended in a stillbirth, the leading causes of death were hemorrhage (21%) (from abruptio placenta and uterine rupture), pregnancy-induced hypertension (20%), and infection (19%). Hemorrhage accounted for 221 (93%) of 237 deaths associated with ectopic pregnancies. Among women whose pregnancies ended in a spontaneous or induced abortion, infection was the cause of death for 34% of the women, followed by hemorrhage (22%) and other medical conditions (16%). Women who were still pregnant (undelivered) at the time of death most frequently died from other medical conditions (e.g. cardiovascular and neurologic problems) (34%) and embolism (25%), mostly thrombotic.”</p>
<p>I don’t see that partial birth abortions generally would aid in these cases. Swift delivery of the fetus by c-section may, especially in the case of pregnancy-induced hypertension. Hemorrhage is a tough one, usually occurring after delivery, and if the bleeding is completely uncontrolled, then an emergency hysterectomy may save the mother. Embolism generally is unpredictable, but the usual precautions post-delivery or post c-section can help. That and cardiomyopathy are the toughest ones to control.</p>
<p>Interesting that infection and hemorrhage are the most common causes of death after abortions.</p>
<p>Actually, I am politically moderate and support the women’s movement. I simply have seen so many sonograms in my life of fetuses that are alive, and so many beautiful babies, that I cannot stand the thought of stopping their beating hearts. I can understand trying to save the life of the mother, but really, that is a fairly rare cause for abortions. I believe that once a woman is pregnant, she (and her partner if available) should take the responsibility for that child. There is a safety net in this country for children. And if women don’t feel it is sufficient than the “pro-choicers” can also work to widen the resources for pregnant women who choose to take their pregnancies to term.</p>
<p>Has anyone said that it would aid generally? I think the AMA’s position is that it’s extraordinary, not general. Please don’t keep attacking this strawman.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interesting that you chose not to distinguish between spontaneous abortions (also known as miscarriages) and induced abortion.</p>
<p>Or that you fail to mention that the death rate for induced abortion is much lower than for complications of pregnancy and delivery.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>BTW, the women who died from other medical conditions wouldn’t be counted in the maternal death rate. Those deaths are on top of the 700 a year or so who die from complications of pregnancy or childbirth.</p>
<p>I am only quoting from the CDC about deaths after spontaneous and induced abortions, which they combine statistically. I did not write the MMWR, it is a government publication, put out by the CDC.</p>
<p>I am not attacking anyone, only expressing my opinion, which I do think is shared by lots of people. It is not based on religion, by the way, just on my own experiences. I do not belong to any organizations, do not march or write politicians. I just am here with my opinions, which I have a right to have!</p>
<p>Exactly my point. When the MMWR wrote about it, they specified “spontaneous and induced abortions.” You chose only to say “abortion.” That was what I was questioning, the way you chose to present it differently than the MMWR did.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The fault isn’t with the pro-choice movement.</p>
<p>In my experience, the people who are most vocal in the anti-choice movement usually also oppose efforts to expand resources for women and children because it upsets their notion of patriarchical authority and traditional family structure. </p>
<p>I am not suggesting that all people in the anti-choice movement are against women and children having a more equitable access to resources. But a significant number of them are.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You may not be a radical right winger, but you sure argue like one. Pretending that your rights are in question just because someone disagrees with you is a common tactic of theirs, especially on CC. (All the more silly here, because no one has rights on a private message board but the owners). </p>
<p>Please point me to where someone tried to get your posts taken down or you banned for posting your opinions, and I’ll believe that somehow your rights are so threatened that they need a positive assertion. </p>
<p>The First Amendment does not give anyone the right to universal acclaim for his speech or a right to universal agreement with it.</p>