Roe Vs. Wade

[Reality Amplifier]

I found this today while researching this cluster fuck. I found it very telling:

 

Quote from War of Words website:

In July 2003, John Roberts said these exact words to the Senate Judiciary Committee: "ROE V. WADE is the settled law of the land… There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent, as well as CASEY."

 

So to whomever said in the earlier posts that Roberts would fold, you're dead fucking wrong. He has it as PUBLIC record that he would uphold the ruling and opinion -- not only before the public but also the Senate.

I wish I could share your optimism, but I do not. Justice appointments to the Supreme Court are for the lifetime of the appointees (or until they decide they want to retire like Sandra Day O'Conner). During their confirmation hearings, a court nominee does their best to garner a slot on the court. Once on the court, there exists no mechanisim for removing them. So while Roberts did a masterful job of winning his appointment by saying what he knew people wanted before to hear so that he would win a nomination and eventual confirmation to the Supreme Court, now we'll see how well he lives up to his political promises and rhetoric. Additionally, the court may see another conservative Bush appointee in the next several years, which could further alter the political composition of the court - Justice John Paul Stevens is 85 years old, and who knows if another Justice might retire?

[jrmarlin]

I found this today while researching this cluster fuck. I found it very telling:

 

Quote from War of Words website:

In July 2003, John Roberts said these exact words to the Senate Judiciary Committee: "ROE V. WADE is the settled law of the land… There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent, as well as CASEY."

 

So to whomever said in the earlier posts that Roberts would fold, you're dead fucking wrong. He has it as PUBLIC record that he would uphold the ruling and opinion -- not only before the public but also the Senate.

I wish I could share your optimism, but I do not. Justice appointments to the Supreme Court are for the lifetime of the appointees (or until they decide they want to retire like Sandra Day O'Conner). During their confirmation hearings, a court nominee does their best to garner a slot on the court. Once on the court, there exists no mechanisim for removing them. So while Roberts did a masterful job of winning his appointment by saying what he knew people wanted before to hear so that he would win a nomination and eventual confirmation to the Supreme Court, now we'll see how well he lives up to his political promises and rhetoric. Additionally, the court may see another conservative Bush appointee in the next several years, which could further alter the political composition of the court - Justice John Paul Stevens is 85 years old, and who knows if another Justice might retire?

We shall see what happens. Until then, federal aid of any kind should be cut off for south dakota until they stop breaking the law. ironically, their biggest commerce is bacon and pork products. don't mind slaughtering pigs but mind slaughtering everything else including women's rights. well, we shall see how this ugly dye will play out.

[non conformist]

Hmmm....yeah, let's save the fetuses....unless their middle eastern, of course. We need to drop bombs on the future terrorists. It's a matter of national security!

[Cynical Realist]

I happen to think it's great. This is what America voted for and now it's coming. I can't wait for some white xian fundamentalist in SD or MS to have their 14 year old daughter raped by a mexican or black gang member.

[Eponymic]

This is just the beginning of things getting worse before they get better.

 

There has been a decline in Christian belief over the last decade or so, and they know it. So they're tightening their grip more & more. And as a result, they'll do too many outlandish things that'll open more people up to reality. Or so I hope.

 

Regardless, I think we're still in an age where people are clinging to their slim beliefs and as a result we're seeing a decline in freedoms. I just hope that things will turn around before I'm dead so I don't have to move to England just to get away from the hysteria.

[Guest Everon]

One never ending problem with the religious right - they don't THINK before they impose their hurtful and hateful ways upon the entirety. But then again, are they capable of it?

 

Consider Teresa MacVicar. At 19 weeks her "child" was diagnosed with thanatophoric dysplasia - a rare disorder that affects the growth of limbs and rib cage, which would have left the child with underdeveloped lungs and thus would be guaranteed stillborn. Under the Nazi-like regime of the RR, this woman would now be required to carry a "child" to term knowing full well certain death awaits it. That's another 5 FULL MONTHS this woman would be required to harbour her dead "child." Nice, isn't it?

 

Another woman, 7 months into her pregnancy, had an ultrasound that determined her "child" had a whole in its back and would die shortly after birth. Luckily, this woman would only have to wait 2 months, and a few days to actually witness the death of her CHILD. Nice, isn't it?

 

How about the multitude of other cases where severe birth defects are detected in various stages of pregnancy? No arms, no legs, etc. If one of these were you, would you want to live a lifetime under these conditions?

 

I won't even touch upon the incest - rape category. To force a woman to carry these to term is repulsively disgusting to me.

 

Of course, as a 41 year old man, I don't have to worry about this issue, being that I'm gay. Thus, as all of you are quite aware, I have my own share of hatred directed towards me from the IGNORANT BIGOTED ASSHOLES. I'm sorry that every American woman might now suffer from their hateful wrath.

[Amethyst]

There was an excellent editorial in my local paper on the rape/incest issue. I'll link to it.

 

Deborah Morse-Kahn: Another state's giant step backward for women

 

You are dragged into an alley by two men, beaten savagely and raped. Left alone in the dark and the rain, you huddle in a fetal position until all sounds of your attackers have faded into the night.

 

In sickness, shock and shame you crawl home and huddle in the back of a closet and shiver for hours, finally falling asleep, exhausted. The bruises are clear in the morning light. You cannot go to work and call in sick. You tell no one. And the days pass. Slowly you make your way out into the world and try to reconnect with reality. A day comes when you feel nauseated and throw up in the early morning. You are pregnant ... .

 

You are 13 and your father has been coming into your room at night for months, persuading you that he loves you and that if you loved him, too, you would let him touch you. Touching leads to intercourse. He threatens to throw you out of the house if you tell anyone. He tells you he will make you live on the streets. One day in the bathroom of your middle school you become sick and throw up in the toilet. You go to the school nurse, who wants to call your mother. You protest wildly and run out of the office. You know you are pregnant ... .

 

And you live in South Dakota. Or Mississippi. There, men in power have decided that you, victim, will have no recourse to a safe, hygienic abortion to rid you of the incubus that grows inside of you. Every day the fetus grows larger, the result of assault, treachery, lies and death threats.

 

But you live in South Dakota. Or Mississippi. And the governors of those states have endorsed bills against abortion. All abortion except to save the mother's life. The governor of Mississippi has spent some time thinking about the rape and incest exception. He says he, personally, prefers the exceptions. But it's an election year. If such a bill eliminating those humane options comes to his desk, "I suspect I'll sign it."

 

It is pointless to ask these men what they would privately arrange for their daughters or their sisters or their wives in the event of rape.

 

The issue is seen as a flag-waving moment. For God and decency we will outlaw abortion. For God's sake, where is the human decency of forcing a 13-year-old child -- a child -- into carrying a baby to term? What will we say to the tortured and raped woman lying in the dark with a torn hymen, a broken jaw and green-and-blue bruises up and down her body? That she, too, must bear the penalty of her horror?

 

"Compassionate conservatism." I am sick of the phrase. It has lost all meaning for me. I now dedicate myself to doing what I can for those women caught in a legislative hell that has no interest in their souls.

 

We will not return to the back-alley, wire-hanger abortions.

[pandora]

Do you guys that think pharmacists should be forced to dispense Plan B or other contracption also think that doctors should be forced to perform abortions and write scripts as well?

 

I am all for personal liberty when it comes to conscience. I realize this is a slipperly slope, but as long as there are safegaurds in place, we can respect both personal liberty of healthcare professionals and reproductive rights.

 

Pharmacists who refuse to dispense them should be forced to refer the patient to a pharmacy that does dispense, and verify that the pharmacy is open, reachable within a reasonable amount of time, and that the pharmacist on duty has the medication and will dispense it. This solves everyone's problems. Pharmacists that don't comply should be reprimanded or find another job. There are areas of pharmacy practice that do not involve dispensing medication.

 

I would dispense them, of course... but I respect my colleagues who feel that they don't have the right to participate in what they feel is a gross violation of their moral code. They're wrong... but we can't go around giving doctors extra priveleges just because they have the God complex. That is blatantly... unfair (couldn't think of a better word... LOL).

[Amethyst]

But it's not the same thing. The birth control prevents the baby from being conceived. Thus it does not gain life in the first place. An abortion causes the death of an already conceived baby. There is a HUGE difference between birth control and abortions.

 

Fundy logic doesn't compute. Basically, they are saying that preventing a child from being born in the first place is EEEEEVIL and a sin. By that twisted logic, all females who have had their period should be having sex constantly and having babies rather than abstaining. Note that they encourage abstinence, which also prevents babies from being born. It's just in a natural manner rather than a chemical one. But since when does fundy logic ever compute?

[jrmarlin]

There was an excellent editorial in my local paper on the rape/incest issue. I'll link to it.

 

Deborah Morse-Kahn: Another state's giant step backward for women

 

You are dragged into an alley by two men, beaten savagely and raped. Left alone in the dark and the rain, you huddle in a fetal position until all sounds of your attackers have faded into the night.

 

In sickness, shock and shame you crawl home and huddle in the back of a closet and shiver for hours, finally falling asleep, exhausted. The bruises are clear in the morning light. You cannot go to work and call in sick. You tell no one. And the days pass. Slowly you make your way out into the world and try to reconnect with reality. A day comes when you feel nauseated and throw up in the early morning. You are pregnant ...

 

We will not return to the back-alley, wire-hanger abortions.

A very moving narrative. Thanks, Amethyst. Thought Reality does not agree with me, I don't think that Roberts will overturn Roe vs. Wade. Not that I am going to sit around and see what happens. I plan, like Deborah Morse-Kahn, to do everything in my power to assist all women in preserving their rights, regardless of the men in this country say.

 

They say there are more women on this planet then men... so I think this is one Pandora's box they need to close very quickly -- because rumbling is occuring... and the next president may just be a woman. A democrat at that.... But they will have no one to blame but themselves. Hilary must be kissing the ground because they have opened a pathway to her that three months ago, didn't exist.

[Amethyst]

Yeah. I think at this point, Hilary is almost a shoe-in unless something completely amazing happens, like a third party candidate actually getting in.

[jrmarlin]

Yeah. I think at this point, Hilary is almost a shoe-in unless something completely amazing happens, like a third party candidate actually getting in.

And the repulicans have no one to blame but themselves. I am sure their mothers' are so proud. Oh wait, their mothers are second class citizens so it really doesn't mean shit to them whether their mothers are proud or not.

[Luck Mermaid]

Carry a dead baby, that's actually happened. I'm too lazy but if anyone wants to look up old MS magazine articles within the past year or two, you will find a woman who's story involved being forced carry a dead fetus inside of her that she could feel sliding from one side to the other when she turned on her side to sleep because she had trouble finding someone to perform a 'late term' abortion, including people who deliberately misled her.

 

I can understand why someone would say that terminating a fetus for reasons of rape is wrong - af ter all, it's not the fetus's fault. I think a lot of people are 'on the line' and come up wi th silly solutions like 'we should have panels who decide whether or not a woman deserves the right to a safe, legal affordable abortion', merits of course will be decided on whether she's going against god, but also whether she has had too many abortions - does she think it's a form of birth control? And whether she is being selfish because she has the resources to raise a child, etc...

 

Ultimately, while in many cases think abortion is sad, I think it is ultimately something that will be happening as long as women are put into positions where they are degraded, raped, and do not have access to safe, affordable contraception and reproductive information. Many people today haven't been alive long enough to remember the septic abortion ward of the hospital where the abortions-gone-wrong were brought. I think any society that tries to control abortion rights, including 3rd term abortions, is ultimately a society that will have a high proportion of sanctioned rape (marriage rape), wife beating, class division, poverty, forced work, etc...not to mention a bunch of women who've been fo rced to carry something in their bodies that they don't want to, and a bunch of children who will be s tarving and abused and not have access to what they could otherwise.

 

But what the fu ck is the point of writing this all here? In every abortion debate the same topics come up over and over.

 

So let me say something else. If we want to defeat the enemy, we have to be christian-like. We have to smile, we have to try to avoid the tendencies we have to lash out and belittle people with our better education and vocabularies. For whites, the issue of repub vs dem is often split closely along lines of religion as well as poverty and access to education. Just because we can win an argument doesn't mean we need to be obnoxious and use our right-ness to inflict a kind of psychological bullying on others.

 

We need to offer cookies, we need to try to rebuild relationships and communities, we must offer compassion. There is a reason why christianity has so many followers and it's not just because they're popping out babies. We must adopt their motto and make it our own: Love the bigot, hate the bigotry.

[pandora]

But it's not the same thing. The birth control prevents the baby from being conceived. Thus it does not gain life in the first place. An abortion causes the death of an already conceived baby. There is a HUGE difference between birth control and abortions.

 

Fundy logic doesn't compute. Basically, they are saying that preventing a child from being born in the first place is EEEEEVIL and a sin. By that twisted logic, all females who have had their period should be having sex constantly and having babies rather than abstaining. Note that they encourage abstinence, which also prevents babies from being born. It's just in a natural manner rather than a chemical one. But since when does fundy logic ever compute?

 

 

Um, actually, no. I think I have posted this before on these boards, but I will say it again. Most women are unaware of this, so you aren't alone.

 

Normal birth control (the daily kind) works in three ways: by thickening the mucus of the vagina so that sperm cannot pass, by preventing ovulation, and by preventing a FERTILIZED EGG from implanting by causing changes in the endometrial lining that prevent the egg from being able to attach. Many people consider this conception. Others don't think conception occurs until implantation. I agree-- it isn't the same as an abortion, but to those with a sensitive conscience, many women would just rather not take the chance. Both progestin-only and combo OCs can cause this abortifacient action about 10% of the time with average compliance. Even with taking the pill faithfully, it still occurs about 4% of the time. You know how when you miss a day, and the instructions say to take two the next day or some variation? That is because a higher dose of the progestin component of the OC will cause any fertilized egg to be expelled (by this mechanism).

 

The third mechanism is also how Plan B works... the higher dose ensures that this is the mechanism by which it will work.

 

I think you missed the part where I asked if doctors should be forced to write a script for birth control, assuming there are no health risks for the woman wanting to take it.

 

Carry a dead baby, that's actually happened. I'm too lazy but if anyone wants to look up old MS magazine articles within the past year or two, you will find a woman who's story involved being forced carry a dead fetus inside of her that she could feel sliding from one side to the other when she turned on her side to sleep because she had trouble finding someone to perform a 'late term' abortion, including people who deliberately misled her.

 

 

I have a hard time believing that... when a fetus dies, it is called a miscarriage (aka sponataneous abortion) before a certain age. If the body doesn't expel the baby on its own, it is common practice to induce a stillbirth. This is not under the same laws as actual abortion... if the baby is dead, it threatens the health of the mother. Necrosis develops rapidly... if this lady truly had to endure this, then she would have been seriously ill within 24 hours.

 

Edit: Just talked to my mom, who was an OB/GYN nurse, and she said that the mother willl develop DIT (actually, it's ITP... I looked it up... it isn't drug induced, it is autoimmune indueced) which leads to excessive bleeding).. so I was wrong about the necrosis, but they do induce abortion or keep the mother in the hospital for VERY close monitoring and administration of drugs that need to be monitored as well. Sorry!

[Sokudo Ningyou]

The biggest bit of hypocrisy concerning all of this anti-abortion BS is their argument that so many people want to adopt, so giving up the child for adoption instead of killing it is better. But how many of those pro-lifers have adopted children themselves? Would they, willingly, adopt a crack baby or a mentally-ill child? Ten bucks says fuck all no. Even my roomie's sister -- also adopted -- went to South Korea for an adoption. I don't think she even bothered to consider any children from around here, and they're WELS Lutheran.

 

Also: we can protect our fetuses, but blowing up Middle Eastern fetuses in the name of "saving" their country is perfectly sound reasoning.

[Luck Mermaid]

the article below is the Ms article, I don't know if the information in it confirms or conflicts with your info Pandora.

here it is:

 

This essay was nominated as a National Magazine Awards finalist. Congratulations to Martha Mendoza.

 

Between a Woman and Her Doctor

A Story About Abortion You Will Never Forget

by Martha Mendoza

 

I could see my baby's amazing and perfect spine, a precise, pebbled curl of vertebrae. His little round skull. The curve of his nose. I could even see his small leg floating slowly through my uterus.

 

My doctor came in a moment later, slid the ultrasound sensor around my growing, round belly and put her hand on my shoulder. “It’s not alive,” she said.

 

She turned her back to me and started taking notes. I looked at the wall, breathing deeply, trying not to cry.

 

I can make it through this, I thought. I can handle this.

 

I didn’t know I was about to become a pariah.

 

I was 19 weeks pregnant, strong, fit and happy, imagining our fourth child, the newest member of our family. He would have dark hair and bright eyes. He’d be intelligent and strong — really strong, judging by his early kicks.

 

And now this. Not alive?

 

I didn’t realize that pressures well beyond my uterus, beyond the too bright, too-loud, too-small ultrasound room, extending all the way to boardrooms of hospitals, administrative sessions at medical schools and committee hearings in Congress, were going to deepen and expand my sorrow and pain.

 

 

On November 6, 2003, President Bush signed what he called a “partial birth abortion ban,” prohibiting doctors from committing an “overt act” designed to kill a partially delivered fetus. The law, which faces vigorous challenges, is the most significant change to the nation’s abortion laws since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled abortion legal in Roe v. Wade in 1973. One of the unintended consequences of this new law is that it put people in my position, with a fetus that is already dead, in a technical limbo.

 

Legally, a doctor can still surgically take a dead body out of a pregnant woman. But in reality, the years of angry debate that led to the law’s passage, restrictive state laws and the violence targeting physicians have reduced the number of hospitals and doctors willing to do dilations and evacuations (D&Es) and dilations and extractions (intact D&Es), which involve removing a larger fetus, sometimes in pieces, from the womb.

 

At the same time, fewer medical schools are training doctors to do these procedures. After all, why spend time training for a surgery that’s likely to be made illegal?

 

At this point, 74 percent of obstetrics and gynecology residency programs do not train all residents in abortion procedures, according to reproductive health researchers at the National Abortion Federation. Those that do usually teach only the more routine dilation and curettage — D&C, the 15-minute uterine scraping used for abortions of fetuses under 13 weeks old.

 

Fewer than 7 percent of obstetricians are trained to do D&Es, the procedure used on fetuses from about 13 to 19 weeks. Almost all the doctors doing them are over 50 years old.

 

“Finding a doctor who will do a D&E is getting very tough,” says Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers.

 

 

My doctor turned around and faced me. She told me that because dilation and evacuation is rarely offered in my community, I could opt instead to chemically induce labor over several days and then deliver the little body at my local maternity ward. “It’s up to you,” she said.

 

I’d been through labor and delivery three times before, with great joy as well as pain, and the notion of going through that profound experience only to deliver a dead fetus (whose skin was already starting to slough off, whose skull might be collapsing) was horrifying.

 

I also did some research, spoke with friends who were obstetricians and gynecologists, and quickly learned this: Study after study shows D&Es are safer than labor and delivery. Women who had D&Es were far less likely to have bleeding requiring transfusion, infection requiring intravenous antibiotics, organ injuries requiring additional surgery or cervical laceration requiring repair and hospital readmission.

 

A review of 300 second- trimester abortions published in 2002 in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology found that 29 percent of women who went through labor and delivery had complications, compared with just 4 percent of those who had D&Es.

 

The American Medical Association said D&Es, compared to labor and delivery, “may minimize trauma to the woman’s uterus, cervix and other vital organs.”

 

There was this fact, too: The intact D&E surgery makes less use of “grasping instruments,” which could damage the body of the fetus. If the body were intact, doctors might be able to more easily figure out why my baby died in the womb.

 

I’m a healthy person. I run, swim and bike. I’m 37 years old and optimistic. Good things happen to me. I didn’t want to rule out having more kids, but I did want to know what went wrong before I tried again.

 

We told our doctor we had chosen a dilation and evacuation.

 

“I can’t do these myself,” said my doctor. “I trained at a Catholic hospital.”

 

My doctor recommended a specialist in a neighboring county, but when I called for an appointment, they said they couldn’t see me for almost a week.

 

I could feel my baby’s dead body inside of mine. This baby had thrilled me with kicks and flutters, those first soft tickles of life bringing a smile to my face and my hand to my rounding belly. Now this baby floated, limp and heavy, from one side to the other, as I rolled in my bed.

 

And within a day, I started to bleed. My body, with or without a doctor’s help, was starting to expel the fetus. Technically, I was threatening a spontaneous abortion, the least safe of the available options.

 

I did what any pregnant patient would do. I called my doctor. And she advised me to wait.

 

I lay in my bed, not sleeping day or night, trying not to lose this little baby’s body that my own womb was working to expel. Wait, I told myself. Just hold on. Let a doctor take this out.

 

I was scared. Was it going to fall out of my body when I rose, in the middle of the night, to check on my toddler? Would it come apart on its own and double me over, knock me to the floor, as I stood at the stove scrambling eggs for my boys?

 

On my fourth morning, with the bleeding and cramping increasing, I couldn’t wait any more. I called my doctor and was told that since I wasn’t hemorrhaging, I should not come in. Her partner, on call, pedantically explained that women can safely lose a lot of blood, even during a routine period.

 

I began calling labor and delivery units at the top five medical centers in my area. I told them I had been 19 weeks along. The baby is dead. I’m bleeding, I said. I’m scheduled for a D&E in a few days. If I come in right now, what could you do for me, I asked.

 

Don’t come in, they told me again and again. “Go to your emergency room if you are hemorrhaging to avoid bleeding to death. No one here can do a D&E today, and unless you’re really in active labor you’re safer to wait.”

 

 

More than 66,000 women each year in the U.S. undergo an abortion at some point between 13 and 20 weeks, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

 

The CDC doesn’t specify the physical circumstances of the women or their fetuses. Other CDC data shows that 4,000 women miscarry in their second trimester. Again, the data doesn’t clarify whether those 4,000 women have to go through surgery.

 

Here’s what is clear: Most of those women face increasingly limited access to care. One survey showed that half of the women who got abortions after 15 weeks of gestation said they were delayed because of problems in affording, finding or getting to abortion services.

 

No surprise there; abortion is not readily available in 86 percent of the counties in the U.S.

 

Although there are some new, early diagnostic tests available, the most common prenatal screening for neural tube defects or Down syndrome is done around the 16th week of pregnancy. When problems are found — sometimes life-threatening problems — pregnant women face the same limited options that I did.

 

 

At last I found one university teaching hospital that, at least over the telephone, was willing to take me.

 

“We do have one doctor who can do a D&E,” they said. “Come in to our emergency room if you want.”

 

But when I arrived at the university’s emergency room, the source of the tension was clear. After examining me and confirming I was bleeding but not hemorrhaging, the attending obstetrician, obviously pregnant herself, defensively explained that only one of their dozens of obstetricians and gynecologists still does D&Es, and he was simply not available.

 

Not today. Not tomorrow. Not the next day.

 

No, I couldn’t have his name. She walked away from me and called my doctor.

 

“You can’t just dump these patients on us,” she shouted into the phone, her high-pitched voice floating through the heavy curtains surrounding my bed. “You should be dealing with this yourself.”

 

Shivering on the narrow, white exam table, I wondered what I had done wrong. Then I pulled back on my loose maternity pants and stumbled into the sunny parking lot, blinking back tears in the dazzling spring day, trying to understand the directions they sent me out with: Find a hotel within a few blocks from a hospital. Rest, monitor the bleeding. Don’t go home — the 45-minute drive might be too far.

 

The next few days were a blur of lumpy motel beds, telephone calls to doctors, cramps. The pre-examination for my D&E finally arrived. First, the hospital required me to sign a legal form consenting to terminate the pregnancy. Then they explained I could, at no cost, have the remains incinerated by the hospital pathology department as medical waste, or for a fee have them taken to a funeral home for burial or cremation.

 

They inserted sticks of seaweed into my cervix and told me to go home for the night. A few hours later — when the contractions were regular, strong and frequent — I knew we needed to get to the hospital. “The patient appeared to be in active labor,” say my charts, “and I explained this to the patient and offered her pain medication for vaginal delivery.”

 

According to the charts, I was “adamant” in demanding a D&E. I remember that I definitely wanted the surgical procedure that was the safest option. One hour later, just as an anesthesiologist was slipping me into unconsciousness, I had the D&E and a little body, my little boy, slipped out.

 

Around his neck, three times and very tight, was the umbilical cord, source of his life, cause of his death.

 

 

This past spring, as the wild flowers started blooming around the simple cross we built for this baby, the Justice Department began trying to enforce the Bush administration’s ban and federal courts in three different cities heard arguments regarding the new law.

 

Doctors explained that D&Es are the safest procedure in many cases, and that the law is particularly cruel to mothers like me whose babies were already dead.

 

In hopes of bolstering their case, prosecutors sent federal subpoenas to various medical centers, asking for records of D&Es. There’s an attorney somewhere, someday, who may poke through the files of my loss.

 

I didn’t watch the trial because I had another appointment to keep — another ultrasound. Lying on the crisp white paper, watching the monitor, I saw new life, the incredible spine, tiny fingers waving slowly across my uterus, a perfect thigh.

 

Best of all, there it was, a strong, four-chamber heart, beating steady and solid. A soft quiver, baby rolling, rippled across my belly.

 

“Everything looks wonderful,” said my doctor. “This baby is doing great.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

responding to another quote "I happen to think it's great. This is what America voted for and now it's coming. I can't wait for some white xian fundamentalist in SD or MS to have their 14 year old daughter raped by a mexican or black gang member. "

 

Not all gang members are rapists, and not all rapists are gang members. But regardless, I would ac tually feel very, very sorry for the poor innocent child who'd be born into that family. And as a mixed-race person, trust me when I say I'd be sorry for them. I'd be all for re-locating the child in infancy, which the mother's friends and family might agree is for the best, the child can always reconnect with their roots when they are at a safer, older age.

[pandora]

Hmmm.... while I am no doctor and I can't speak to why they did what they did, I am unsure of why they did not do the D and E. The baby was dead. It was not an abortion... she could have been at serious risk for DIT... she shouldn't have been sent home. But since her body induced the miscarriage on its own, perhaps that is why... or perhaps they saw evidence that she would miscarry soon and decided to let it be. I suspect that is the case. Perhaps they also did blood tests for ITP and it came back negative and they just didn't tell her about this risk because of that. (Perhaps the doc noted that she was already dilated... that is what they did with me when I had a miscarriage, and since I didn't want to pay for a D and C, they sent me home with ergot and I let it happen naturally.) Maybe the laws are different in her state (which is ridiculous... why would they make it a crime to remove an already dead baby? That's just retarded.

Even the Catholic hospital my mom worked at allowed for a D and E when the baby was no longer alive.

Another thing.... SEAWEED? Was she not being treated by a regular allopathic hospital? I know it can be used to induce an abortion... I think some enzyme it produces causes the cervix to expand. But most regular hospitals aspire to use manufactured drugs for this.

 

Thanks for posting that. I can't really tell what they did from her description either... I suspect the doctors weren't forthright in telling her everthing they noticed and tested for. Since it sounds like the baby died quickly in utero and it was caught early, her risk of ITP was a lot lower than if the baby had been dead for a few days.

[lothartx]

the article below is the Ms article, I don't know if the information in it confirms or conflicts with your info Pandora.

here it is:

 

This essay was nominated as a National Magazine Awards finalist. Congratulations to Martha Mendoza.

 

Between a Woman and Her Doctor

A Story About Abortion You Will Never Forget

by Martha Mendoza

 

<Snip>

 

Best of all, there it was, a strong, four-chamber heart, beating steady and solid. A soft quiver, baby rolling, rippled across my belly.

 

“Everything looks wonderful,” said my doctor. “This baby is doing great.”

 

 

 

Wow, this very same type of event happened a close friend of my wife. Her fourth pregnancy, a boy, died inutero due to the umbilical cord wrapping around his neck. I don't remember the exact details since it was 9 years ago, but I think they did an emergency C-Section and then I thought it was called a D&E to remove the remenants of the placenta. This is exactly why Roe vs. Wade should not be overturned. The mother should be allowed to make the choice in such circumstances. Not a fundy xtian idiot thinking god is talking to them to save all the fetuses. I'm a guy and this still hacks me off to no end.

[pandora]

the article below is the Ms article, I don't know if the information in it confirms or conflicts with your info Pandora.

here it is:

 

This essay was nominated as a National Magazine Awards finalist. Congratulations to Martha Mendoza.

 

Between a Woman and Her Doctor

A Story About Abortion You Will Never Forget

by Martha Mendoza

 

<Snip>

 

Best of all, there it was, a strong, four-chamber heart, beating steady and solid. A soft quiver, baby rolling, rippled across my belly.

 

“Everything looks wonderful,” said my doctor. “This baby is doing great.”

 

 

 

Wow, this very same type of event happened a close friend of my wife. Her fourth pregnancy, a boy, died inutero due to the emblical cord wrapping around his neck. I don't remember the exact details since it was 9 years ago, but I think they did an emergency C-Section and then I thought it was called a D&E to remover the remenants of the placenta. This is exactly why Roe vs. Wade should not be overturned. The mother should be allowed to make the choice in such circumstances. Not a fundy xtian idiot thinking god is talking to them to save all the fetuses. I'm a guy and this still hacks me off to no end.

 

Sometimes it is very hard to tell if the ub cord is wrapped... ultrasounds don't give perfect visuals because things can be blocked and the images are someitmes hard to decipher. Unless they did direct tests on the fetus to see if it was alive (looking for heartbeat, movement, etc) then they usually can't know until the day of delivery. Also, the UB cord can wrap suddenly as the baby moves around and changes positions to prepare for delivery. This is also a possibility with your wife and the lady in the article (and a friend of mine that had the same thing happen).

[jrmarlin]

The real problem with this whole ProLife crap is they believe that only teenagers that acted irresponsible during sex are the ones that get abortions.

 

And nothing could be further from the case. In fact, that is very wrong indeed. Most people do not use abortion as a "contraception method." A lot of times, the woman has a plethora of other reasons. I will tell you this, if a woman decides to have an abortion because she is 1) not emotionally mature enough to handle a child or / and 2) can not support the child, I certainly would never fault her for making a responsible, adult decision. I couldn't find fault in that no matter whether abortion is legal or illegal. That just makes practical sense.

 

Another thing is that most people seeking to have children but can't, usually go to fertility clinics in order to conceive their own or another country because that's en vogue right now. Seldom do they adopt children from foster care...

 

But then again, the Fundies didn't think that part of the situation. They believe the "money fairey" will pay for these mandatory children.

[Amethyst]

 

Um, actually, no. I think I have posted this before on these boards, but I will say it again. Most women are unaware of this, so you aren't alone.

 

Normal birth control (the daily kind) works in three ways: by thickening the mucus of the vagina so that sperm cannot pass, by preventing ovulation, and by preventing a FERTILIZED EGG from implanting by causing changes in the endometrial lining that prevent the egg from being able to attach. Many people consider this conception. Others don't think conception occurs until implantation. I agree-- it isn't the same as an abortion, but to those with a sensitive conscience, many women would just rather not take the chance. Both progestin-only and combo OCs can cause this abortifacient action about 10% of the time with average compliance. Even with taking the pill faithfully, it still occurs about 4% of the time. You know how when you miss a day, and the instructions say to take two the next day or some variation? That is because a higher dose of the progestin component of the OC will cause any fertilized egg to be expelled (by this mechanism).

 

The third mechanism is also how Plan B works... the higher dose ensures that this is the mechanism by which it will work.

 

I think you missed the part where I asked if doctors should be forced to write a script for birth control, assuming there are no health risks for the woman wanting to take it.

 

Doesn't make a difference to me. It's still not the same as an abortion. And I still think fundies are being hypocritical by encouraging abstinence. And I didn't miss that part, I disagreed with you because it isn't the same thing.

 

I respect you as a person but I really am very pro-choice, and there isn't much that's going to change my mind short of brand new scientific evidence coming out on the subject or a life-changing event.

[pandora]

 

Um, actually, no. I think I have posted this before on these boards, but I will say it again. Most women are unaware of this, so you aren't alone.

 

Normal birth control (the daily kind) works in three ways: by thickening the mucus of the vagina so that sperm cannot pass, by preventing ovulation, and by preventing a FERTILIZED EGG from implanting by causing changes in the endometrial lining that prevent the egg from being able to attach. Many people consider this conception. Others don't think conception occurs until implantation. I agree-- it isn't the same as an abortion, but to those with a sensitive conscience, many women would just rather not take the chance. Both progestin-only and combo OCs can cause this abortifacient action about 10% of the time with average compliance. Even with taking the pill faithfully, it still occurs about 4% of the time. You know how when you miss a day, and the instructions say to take two the next day or some variation? That is because a higher dose of the progestin component of the OC will cause any fertilized egg to be expelled (by this mechanism).

 

The third mechanism is also how Plan B works... the higher dose ensures that this is the mechanism by which it will work.

 

I think you missed the part where I asked if doctors should be forced to write a script for birth control, assuming there are no health risks for the woman wanting to take it.

 

Doesn't make a difference to me. It's still not the same as an abortion. And I still think fundies are being hypocritical by encouraging abstinence. And I didn't miss that part, I disagreed with you because it isn't the same thing.

 

I respect you as a person but I really am very pro-choice, and there isn't much that's going to change my mind short of brand new scientific evidence coming out on the subject or a life-changing event.

 

I realize it isn't the same thing. Do you think doctors should be forced to write scripts for Plan B and oral contraception if they feel that it is a violation of their conscience?

[Amethyst]

 

I realize it isn't the same thing. Do you think doctors should be forced to write scripts for Plan B and oral contraception if they feel that it is a violation of their conscience?

 

You mean give prescriptions? It depends upon the state law, but if the state law says they have to, then yes. It's a type of medication and part of their job.

 

If I decided that I didn't like working for my company because among other things, they sold military products that could potentially harm people (they do, actually), I couldn't just refuse to do my job. They'd fire me and hire someone else to take my place. Why should medication be any different?

[pandora]

 

I realize it isn't the same thing. Do you think doctors should be forced to write scripts for Plan B and oral contraception if they feel that it is a violation of their conscience?

 

You mean give prescriptions? It depends upon the state law, but if the state law says they have to, then yes. It's a type of medication and part of their job.

 

If I decided that I didn't like working for my company because among other things, they sold military products that could potentially harm people (they do, actually), I couldn't just refuse to do my job. They'd fire me and hire someone else to take my place. Why should medication be any different?

 

I understand your point... but in healthcare, patients have the freedom to move around to different pharmacies, doctors, etc... this is the key difference.

 

As for docs, states laws do not say they have to. Do you suggest changing the law so that they have to?

[jrmarlin]

You know whatelse is sad about this whole issue? Is the backdoor politicing going on.. Everyone is so preoccupied with the war that these little things slip through the cracks -- and people don't protest until the dye has been cast because they didn't see it coming.

 

I think politicians who feed on times like this are leeches. Mike Rounds is no better than a common slug.

 

I just can't even imagine being the most hated man in America and having all that bad "thought" and "energy" going at you at once. Man, I am surprised he hasn't bursted into flames.