Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The day of the MRI finally arrived. She was 35 weeks, 0 days. By the end of it, Kate and her husband had the hardest answers they’ve ever received.
Their daughter had moderate to severe Dandy-Walker malformation. But that wasn’t the only diagnosis; Laurel also had a brain condition in which fluid builds up in the ventricles, eventually developing into hydrocephalus and possibly crushing her brain. She had a congenital disorder too, in which there was complete or partial absence of the broad band of nerve fibers joining the two hemispheres of the brain.
Advertisement
What this meant was Laurel was expected to never walk, talk, or swallow. That was if she survived birth.
Kate asked her doctor: “What can a baby like mine do? Sleep all the time?”
“Babies like yours are not generally comfortable enough to sleep,” the neurologist said.
“That is when it became very clear what I wanted to do,” she says. “The MRI really ruled out the possibility of good health for my baby.”
She had to go to Colorado to get the procedure because Massachusetts only allows abortion after 24 weeks for "the life of the mother." Her life was not at risk, but for her family, an abortion was the kindest, most heartbreaking choice she could make. They traveled across the country and paid $20,000 for a procedure that they believed was giving their very-much wanted, very-much planned daughter her best chance - even if that chance meant death rather than a short, painful life.
In the next story, the fetus had a lymphangioma that had grown out of her neck, impacting her face, eyes, and lungs. It was so big and fast growing that it even forced her tongue out of her mouth. The family found out and was able to have an abortion right before the 24 week mark. Had they carried to term, the baby wouldn't have lived, but they also would have dealt with the crushing emotional impact of living for another 2 or 3 months with comments from people who have no idea that a baby will never be coming home from the hospital when they see a pregnant woman standing before them. Most states would not have allowed an exception for a late-term abortion in this case. Thankfully, now New York does.
We've known all along this has been the goal of the abortion industry and their allies. They aren't satisfied with a common sense consensus whereby this tragedy is allowed in the first trimester, but no, must celebrate it and demand it be legal and free right up until dilation.
And they employ any number of euphemisms, instead of calling it what it is: infanticide.
Funny how it puts a different spin on things when we hear "the rest of the story".
The requirements she proposes to be lifted sound reasonable to me. The bill really isnt to allow abortions up until birth now is it.
Todd Gilbert, the Republican House majority leader, questioned Tran about the bill during a hearing Monday. He asked Tran if a woman who has physical signs she is about to give birth could request an abortion if a physician said it could impair her "mental health."
"Where it’s obvious that a woman is about to give birth. She has physical signs that she is about to give birth. Would that still be a point at which she could request an abortion if she was so-certified -- she’s dilating," he asked.
“Mr. Chairman, that would be ... a decision that the doctor, the physician and the woman would make at that point,” Tran replied.
“I understand that,” Gilbert replied. “I’m asking if your bill allows that.”
This is absolutely disgusting and everyone defending it should be ashamed of themselves
Virginia Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam couldn’t precisely answer whether he supports abortion until birth and suggested an infant could be born and then the mother and doctor could discuss what should happen next, in a Wednesday morning interview.
“If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother,” Northam said in a WTOP interview.
This is absolutely disgusting and everyone defending it should be ashamed of themselves
Virginia Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam couldn’t precisely answer whether he supports abortion until birth and suggested an infant could be born and then the mother and doctor could discuss what should happen next, in a Wednesday morning interview.
“If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother,” Northam said in a WTOP interview.
Yes, a dying infant. The parents get to decide whether to keep the baby comfortable or use measures to prolong the baby’s life for hours, days, or weeks. That’s what every parent of a dying child gets the “privilege” of doing. What do you think should be done differently? Should it be up to you? Some random lawmaker?
Todd Gilbert, the Republican House majority leader, questioned Tran about the bill during a hearing Monday. He asked Tran if a woman who has physical signs she is about to give birth could request an abortion if a physician said it could impair her "mental health."
"Where it’s obvious that a woman is about to give birth. She has physical signs that she is about to give birth. Would that still be a point at which she could request an abortion if she was so-certified -- she’s dilating," he asked.
“Mr. Chairman, that would be ... a decision that the doctor, the physician and the woman would make at that point,” Tran replied.
“I understand that,” Gilbert replied. “I’m asking if your bill allows that.”
Tran replied: “My bill would allow that, yes.”
Yes I listened to that. Then I listened to a video showing Tran outlining what the bill consisted of before he questioned her. Then I read the points of the actual bill. The intent of this bill is not to allow abortions up until birth. It may be so that the bill does not prevent them in unique circumstances.
Which is why, this bill puzzles me. I think context, term and condition matters, I couldn't find the term and condition in this article. If no American doctors would perform late term abortion when the woman and the baby are all perfectly healthy, why passing such a bill?
As for now,the "law" says even after fetal viability, states may not prohibit abortions “necessary to preserve the life or health” of the woman;
“health” in this context includes physical and mental health; Although the vast majority of states restrict later-term abortions, many of these restrictions have been struck down. Most often, courts have voided the limitations because they do not contain a health exception; contain an unacceptably narrow health exception; or do not permit a physician to determine viability in each individual case, but rather rely on a rigid construct based on specific weeks of gestation or trimester.
So even for now, late term abortion is not 100% illegal if the woman and baby's health is in jeopardy.
That is why I wonder why passing such a law is even necessary? Maybe posters here can explain this bill for us a little.
The law pertains to situations where either the mother or the fetus is not healthy. For example, in the case of intrauterine infections both mother and fetus may be sick. To treat the infection, the uterus must be emptied. Doing so may result in a fetus that is delivered breathing and with a heartbeat but that has sepsis that does not respond to treatment. The law would protect the doctor against a charge of performing an illegal abortion. It also places the decision about how to manage the complication in the hands of the parents with the counsel of the physician.
The anti-abortion folks here are trying to insist that the law will allow abortion on demand during labor. That will not happen because no one who delivers babies is going to do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981
sounds pretty reasonable to me.
Have to say, my sister's own pregnancy traumatized me. Without going into great details, man, I don't blame the women, it must be a tough choice getting an abortion late term!
It is a terrible choice to have to make, and the families who are making those choices wanted the pregnancy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96
Isn't it funny how Democrats are now endorsing policies that just a few short years ago they were calling Conservatives crazy for predicting Democrats would soon be endorsing?
That's why we don't trust them when they call for "common sense gun laws" and say "no one wants to take your guns"..........(yet)
What's next?
Retroactive abortion?
""Sorry Billy, but motherhood's just not working out for me like I planned"......
Abortion on demand during full term labor is not going to happen. No one who delivers babies would do it. It is a hypothetical based solely on antiabortion sentiment.
I don't have a firm opinion either way on this bill(I haven't read it and others are reading different things out of it) but I would caution lawmakers to ensure that they don't create any new loopholes that a future Kermit Gosnell could jump through to justify his despicable actions. It sounds like some think this bill will just create some leeway that applies to very specific, rare and tragic circumstances, but in their zeal to do that they may open us up to all sorts of unforeseen consequences.
Aside from your premise being absurd, do you think doctors would actually agree to do the procedure on a healthy mom and fetus?
Here's a clue: No, they would not.
Since they wouldn't perform the abortions, and since no woman would ever be so selfish as to want one, you should have no issue with such abortions being illegal.
Just pure evil. The leftists don't even try to hide who they are anymore.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
