Is this considered an abortion?

[mom31257]

What bugs me about this debate is that the situation presented, HELLP syndrome, is completely preventable according to the research and years of clinical experience of Dr. Tom Brewer. I would prefer that they work on improving prevention rather than relying on emergency abortion.

 

http://www.blueribbonbaby.org/

 

 

Good nutrition is not a magic formula to keep all sickness away and bad things from happening to you. I have a friend whose family eats organic, no dairy, very healthy diet, yet they have viruses and sickness much more than our family does. They have a friend who eats the same way, yet had to have one of these procedures last summer due to serious health issues the mom has with pregnancies (don't know all the details of what), but she did decide to get pregnant again and is now.

 

Good nutrition is always going to be helpful, but for that article to say the "simple answer" to preventing something from happening to you is good nutrition is almost cruel. When you are talking about a serious illness that can affect a woman emotionally for the rest of her life, there is never a simple answer.

[LibraryLover]

Yes, it would.

 

Our medical insurance is through the military. Federal dollars are not allowed to pay for any form of abortion. I had a friend who was pregnant with fraternal triplets. One of them died in utero and needed to be removed for the safety of the other two. They could not have the procedure at the military hospital, and they had to pay for the procedure out of pocket because it was still considered an abortion.

 

 

 

How horrible.

 

Why make a woman suffer so?

 

I expect more from my government.

[Oakblossoms]

Well, I am assuming they actually try to save the child. So, I would say no.

[Mrs Mungo]

Wait. What is the question? Would it be considered an abortion legally? Yes, under current legal definitions. Is it morally wrong? I would say no.

[staceyobu]

Wait. What is the question? Would it be considered an abortion legally? Yes, under current legal definitions. Is it morally wrong? I would say no.

 

Yes... I am interested in the legalities. Not so much the morals.

 

It is one thing if situations like the one I mentioned aren't even included as abortion. It's different if those cases need a judge to determine that it is okay. I'm curious as to how that sort of situation works. Maybe I should try to research how it worked prior to roe vs wade. However, our medical system and ability to care for the tiniest little ones has changed so drastically in the last several decades.

 

I guess I'm wondering if you were to make abortion illegal except for risk to the life of a mother, who determines that? Can a doctor make that call? Will a doctor be afraid to make that call because otherwise he will be charged with murder? Do you have to wait on a judge? Waiting when literally every second counts?

 

I'm trying to figure out if I agree morally with pro life politics.

[staceyobu]

I just wanted to clarify for the people who say they are "very pro-life" but would not count these scenarios as abortions. That is not the message being received or implemented by legislators. The message being received is resulting in bad policies.

 

 

This also summarizes what I am trying to figure out. It's one thing when people agree there are hypothetical situations. It's another thing to have a practice in place that accounts for such situations.

[SunnyDays]

Well, that's just it. I think putting certain restrictions on abortion law makes things more ambiguous, which isn't necessarily the intended effect. You can ask ten different people what situations to include in "legal" abortions, and you'll get ten different lists. The questions you're asking are very much part of the unknown that people fear.

[justasque]

The OP is asking about what effect pro-life legislation would have on complex medical scenarios.

 

This is a bit roundabout - bear with me.

 

We know, especially here in PA but I'm guessing in other states too, that in homeschooling law, details matter. A comma here, a word selection there, one little phrase or sentence, can be key to how a law is interpreted, regardless of how it was intended to be.

As an example, a few years back the procedures for homeschooling under our private tutor law changed when someone changed the regulations from

" …written assurance from the parent that the instructional requirements listed in this section shall be metâ€

to

"The parent shall provide written assurance that the instructional requirements listed in this section have been met.

Just that little change in verb tense, from "shall be met" to "have been met" meant that instead of one letter at the beginning of the year saying, essentially, "We're private tutoring and we will meet the requirements", there now had to be two - one in the beginning of the year saying "We're private tutoring" and one at the end saying "We met the requirements." It's not at all clear that this change was intentional or even realized by the folks who wrote the regulations.

 

In another example, a law was passed about continuing education requirements for teachers. Regarding teachers who work as private tutors, it said

"The requirements of this section ... do not apply to a professional educator ... who provides private tutoring services as part of a home education program under section 1327.1."

Great - so private tutors are exempt, right? Unfortunately, no. This law makes absolutely no sense because private tutors in PA do not work under 1327.1 - they work under a completely different section of the law. Apparently no one who created the law bothered to learn enough about homeschooling to get the details absolutely right. So now we are all stuck with trying to figure out what the law requires, knowing that as written it makes no sense. If a district gets uppity about it, we can't rely on the law to back us up, even though it was intended to do so.

 

My point is - it's all very well speaking generally about what kinds of things ought to be allowed and what kinds ought not. However, in practice, the fine details of how the law is written make all the difference, especially in complex, rare, or unusual situations. If a bill's authors aren't thinking through all of the possibilities, or worse aren't aware of the possibilities, or even worse don't believe some possibilities even exist, a law can have very serious unintended consequences.

 

The astounding ignorance some legislators have shown about education makes me vary wary of their attempts to control homeschooling, even when they are well-meaning. Similarly, the astounding ignorance some legislators have shown about the most basic details of pregnancy make me wary of their ability to craft laws that take complex moral and medical decisions out of the hands of pregnant women and their doctors and their clergy, and squish them into laws built on simplistic political slogans and limited understanding of the many challenging situations that pregnant women may face.

 

I have no easy answers.

[Free]

I'm wondering how on earth we could ever decide who is qualified to judge in cases like this. The doctor? A judge? Really, if the choice is not to be made by the woman and her doctor, then who?

 

I think this would be the more pertinent question in this case. If abortion became illegal, then the the ability to make appropriate choices for the health of both the mother and the child are removed from the parents and handed to third parties. More doctors would refuse abortion even in emergency cases endangering more lives (as was seen in Ireland).

[Free]

Well, that's just it. I think putting certain restrictions on abortion law makes things more ambiguous, which isn't necessarily the intended effect. You can ask ten different people what situations to include in "legal" abortions, and you'll get ten different lists. The questions you're asking are very much part of the unknown that people fear.

 

Yes, exactly. I agree.

[Mrs Mungo]

This also summarizes what I am trying to figure out. It's one thing when people agree there are hypothetical situations. It's another thing to have a practice in place that accounts for such situations.

 

 

I agree. Right now, the law against using federal dollars for abortions encompasses many more cases than most people who consider themselves "pro-life" realize. But, those are the policies that the pro-life movement (which does not necessarily include all people who consider themselves pro-life) is pushing. Blanket policies are bad policies, IMO.

 

My point is - it's all very well speaking generally about what kinds of things ought to be allowed and what kinds ought not. However, in practice, the fine details of how the law is written make all the difference, especially in complex, rare, or unusual situations. If a bill's authors aren't thinking through all of the possibilities, or worse aren't aware of the possibilities, or even worse don't believe some possibilities even exist, a law can have very serious unintended consequences.

The astounding ignorance some legislators have shown about education makes me vary wary of their attempts to control homeschooling, even when they are well-meaning. Similarly, the astounding ignorance some legislators have shown about the most basic details of pregnancy make me wary of their ability to craft laws that take complex moral and medical decisions out of the hands of pregnant women and their doctors and their clergy, and squish them into laws built on simplistic political slogans and limited understanding of the many challenging situations that pregnant women may face.

I have no easy answers.

 

 

Agreed.

[Zebra]

Thank you to all the ladies who piped in about HELLP not being cured by diet. I can't even explain how ignorant this POV is. Absolutely ridiculous and cruel.

[Χά�ων]

 

I'd say most pro-choice people are pro-life. Pro-choice doesn't mean pro-abortion.

 

(I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir here!)

 

 

Yes!

 

I wish there was more compassion in our society for the mothers and fathers faced with a situation like HELLP where there is no alternative instead of the pervasive view that those who have an abortion did not want the baby and opted for an abortion out of convience.

[Murphy101]

That's bc legislatures are morons.

 

There are people who are very prolife and very active in medical ethics who make a strong effort to make legislatures and citizens in general comprehend this. It's where exceptions for the life of the mother are made. Sadly, the general public is ignorant to the fact that these scenarios are what that exception refers too and that medical necessity means usually in these situations the baby won't live if it's not induced. But ignorant people think it means women purposely killing their babies.

[Murphy101]

Sigh.

 

To most prolife minds, abortion is a choice.

 

In a situation where the mother cannot carry a baby any longer and thus needs to be induced - usually there's no choice there. Unless you think letting them both die instead of inducing to give her a chance and baby a slim hope is a valid choice. The RCC does not think it is, that's why it's not even viewed as an abortion by lay terms despite medical definitions.

 

When left with no genuine choice, one does what they must to get the best odds.

 

That's also why having a Fallopian tube removed for an ectopic pregnancy is not considered anything at all on par with abortion or getting your tubes tied.

 

 

[Murphy101]

For the most part, I think if there is any way she can carry longer, a woman should do so for as long as she can to give her baby as much chance as possible.

 

And if she can't carry any longer, it's a moot issue.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

For the most part, I think if there is any way she can carry longer, a woman should do so for as long as she can to give her baby as much chance as possible.

 

And if she can't carry any longer, it's a moot issue.

 

 

I agree with this but who gets to decide. Some people want to only allow abortion when a mother's life is at risk and not when her health is at risk. So, in essence, it may end up with that sort of legislation that is ok if the woman's heart is irreparably harmed via severe heart failure (which has been known to happen) by carrying a pregnancy to full term. I do not think a judge should decide this. Only a woman and her doctor IMO.

 

Also, in some cases, it is necessary to evacuate the uterus to save the mother. These sorts of cases are listed in the medical research article I posted. There was also a case in a Catholic hospital here where a mother about 11 weeks pregnant had critical toxemia and was on the verge of dying. The only way to save this woman was through immediate termination of her pregnancy. The head of the hospital allowed it and was reprimanded by the Catholic Church for doing so:( There are several other cases in the link I provided upstream.

 

I used to be totally against all abortion since I do and still do believe that abortion is taking a human life. Then I met a woman was was raped by a gang at the age of 13 and who was horribly injured in her private area. She became pregnant. Of course, that was her child too, but I do not think I should be the one to tell her not to have an abortion. Nor do I think a woman should have to prove her case before a judge to have an abortion. I think she should be told all of her options by her doctor and allowed to make a decision. As for her being a minor, I would hope that her parents were involved and believe that there should be some mechanism for a minor to get an abortion without parental approval in extreme cases like incest or parental abuse.

 

I also abhor that some women seem to see abortion as birth control. However, I cannot see how we can legislate abortion without causing judges to come between a woman and her doctor. Instead, I believe in wide accessibility of birth control and emergency contraception. I also believe in sex education that teaches not only about birth control but also about the value of abstinence.

 

 

My 2 cents.

[SKL]

I would just point out that even now, where abortions are prohibited after a certain point of gestation, you have similar questions.

 

You also have similar questions after a baby is born alive (full-term or not) but not in perfect condition.

 

And also where someone believes the pregnant mom does not have full capacity to make the decision on her own.

 

The medical profession has been dealing with this type of problem-solving all along. A revised abortion law with "except for" coverage is not really introducing a new challenge.

 

I've never seen an abortion restriction proposal that hasn't been met with the "pro-choice" folks insisting that this would cause women and girls to die.

 

Some abortions cause women to die, and some babies to be born alive without limbs. So should we ban all abortions because occasionally they have an unintended result? Because this is the type of logic that feeds many of the pro-"choice" protests against legislative restrictions.

[MeghanL]

Lawmakers in Georgia & Utah are trying to make miscarriages illegal as well..because of the medical term spontaneous abortion. Not to mention those that are trying to make it an abortion to use any kind of birth control.

I see quite a few problems with a blanket "abortions are illegal under any circumstances for any reason" legislature. Regardless of political party, I pray most of my fellow women feel the same way!

[MercyA]

For those who say they are pro-life but don't think abortion should be legislated--can you see that there seems to be a logical inconsistency in your beliefs? I assume that you *are* in full support of laws which forbid killing children *after* they are born. In that case, we are also legislating morality; we are saying that it is wrong to kill an innocent human being.

 

I see only four differences between an unborn child and a born child: size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependence. Which of those differences makes it acceptable to kill the unborn child, but not the born one?

 

Is a small child less human than a large adult?

Is a less developed toddler less human than a more developed adolescent?

Does our environment determine our humanness? Am I less human in an oxygen tent?

What about our dependency? A newborn is entirely dependent on adults for the sustaining of their life. Left alone, they will die. Does that give us the right to kill them?

 

To me, it makes no logical sense to say that you are opposed to abortion because it is the taking of an innocent human life, but then say people should still have the legal right to do it. If you are opposed to killing children *after* their birth, then, please, either be consistent, or be willing to say exactly what it is about the unborn that causes them to be unworthy of legal protection.

[Mrs Mungo]

Lawmakers in Georgia & Utah are trying to make miscarriages illegal as well..because of the medical term spontaneous abortion. Not to mention those that are trying to make it an abortion to use any kind of birth control.

I see quite a few problems with a blanket "abortions are illegal under any circumstances for any reason" legislature. Regardless of political party, I pray most of my fellow women feel the same way!

 

 

For those not familiar with the issues with the Georgia law:

http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2011/mar/02/liberal-blogger/liberal-blogger-says-abotion-bill-could-affect-mis/

[SKL]

I agree with this but who gets to decide. Some people want to only allow abortion when a mother's life is at risk and not when her health is at risk. So, in essence, it may end up with that sort of legislation that is ok if the woman's heart is irreparably harmed via severe heart failure (which has been known to happen) by carrying a pregnancy to full term. I do not think a judge should decide this. Only a woman and her doctor IMO.

 

Also, in some cases, it is necessary to evacuate the uterus to save the mother. These sorts of cases are listed in the medical research article I posted. There was also a case in a Catholic hospital here where a mother about 11 weeks pregnant had critical toxemia and was on the verge of dying. The only way to save this woman was through immediate termination of her pregnancy. The head of the hospital allowed it and was reprimanded by the Catholic Church for doing so:( There are several other cases in the link I provided upstream.

 

I used to be totally against all abortion since I do and still do believe that abortion is taking a human life. Then I met a woman was was raped by a gang at the age of 13 and who was horribly injured in her private area. She became pregnant. Of course, that was her child too, but I do not think I should be the one to tell her not to have an abortion. Nor do I think a woman should have to prove her case before a judge to have an abortion. I think she should be told all of her options by her doctor and allowed to make a decision. As for her being a minor, I would hope that her parents were involved and believe that there should be some mechanism for a minor to get an abortion without parental approval in extreme cases like incest or parental abuse.

 

I also abhor that some women seem to see abortion as birth control. However, I cannot see how we can legislate abortion without causing judges to come between a woman and her doctor. Instead, I believe in wide accessibility of birth control and emergency contraception. I also believe in sex education that teaches not only about birth control but also about the value of abstinence.

 

 

My 2 cents.

 

 

The whole point of making laws (particularly laws to protect humans from the acts of other humans) is that something comes between the would-be deciders to stop an act from taking place.

 

Since child abuse laws involve the law coming between parent and child, should we get rid of those too?

 

Or is there something special about doctors that puts them above the law? Abortion doctors have been in the news for doing some pretty horrible things, including negligently causing women's deaths. Doctors need to be subject to laws. They need to be (and are) trained to interpret the laws and know where their decisionmaking begins and ends. Will mistakes still happen? Yes, occasionally, but that's not a reason to give a doctor limitless power.

 

You ask "who gets to decide." The whole point of a law is to make things clear so every decision doesn't get made on a case-by-case basis. Some decisions, yes; there will be exceptions for the things described in the posts above. But leaving it wide open? That would mean going back to killing fully viable babies just for the convenience of the mother (and the bankroll of the abortionist). The vast majority of Americans believe that is wrong. If we can't legislate this, why legislate any moral matter?

[mom31257]

The man who introduced the law in GA is dead. I don't think that legislation has been continued by anyone else.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

For those who say they are pro-life but don't think abortion should be legislated--can you see that there seems to be a logical inconsistency in your beliefs? I assume that you *are* in full support of laws which forbid killing children *after* they are born. In that case, we are also legislating morality; we are saying that it is wrong to kill an innocent human being.

 

I see only four differences between an unborn child and a born child: size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependence. Which of those differences makes it acceptable to kill the unborn child, but not the born one?

 

Is a small child less human than a large adult?

Is a less developed toddler less human than a more developed adolescent?

Does our environment determine our humanness? Am I less human in an oxygen tent?

What about our dependency? A newborn is entirely dependent on adults for the sustaining of their life. Left alone, they will die. Does that give us the right to kill them?

 

To me, it makes no logical sense to say that you are opposed to abortion because it is the taking of an innocent human life, but then say people should still have the legal right to do it. If you are opposed to killing children *after* their birth, then, please, either be consistent, or be willing to say exactly what it is about the unborn that causes them to be unworthy of legal protection.

 

I do not see any inconsistency in my position at all. I see my position as a well thought out nuanced position based on the fact that life is not always black and white. There are cases where is is necessary to end a pregnancy to save a woman's life or health. I do not think it is wrong to save the woman. I do not want to see judges coming between a woman and her doctor. This link has several of them listed:

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2636458/

 

 

As another example, I believe murder is wrong in general. However, I do believe if someone is trying to kill you and you cannot run away, then if in defending yourself, you end up killing someone then it is defensible. Same thing with stealing. Stealing is generally wrong IMO. However, if one is starving and there is no other way to obtain food, then stealing would not be wrong in this case. So, to me things are not always black and white.

[Free]

To me, it makes no logical sense to say that you are opposed to abortion because it is the taking of an innocent human life, but then say people should still have the legal right to do it. If you are opposed to killing children *after* their birth, then, please, either be consistent, or be willing to say exactly what it is about the unborn that causes them to be unworthy of legal protection.

 

From a pro-choice perspective this comes down to a mother's choice and her right to her body. Should a person be forced to use her body to grow another human against her will?

[MercyA]

From a pro-choice perspective this comes down to a mother's choice and her right to her body. Should a person be forced to use her body to grow another human against her will?

 

The problem is simply that there is another human being to consider; the mother's body isn't the only one in question. There's no avoiding that. As I asked before, what difference between the unborn child and the born child makes the former unworthy of legal protection?

 

And to answer your question--I don't believe anyone ever has a moral right to intentionally kill another innocent human being. Parents of born children are also "forced" to care for them, by law.

[Mrs Mungo]

I think this is moving into a very political discussion of the type not allowed on the board. The OP asked a very specific, non-partisan question. If it continues in a political vein, then it will likely get deleted (or so my experience tells me).

[Free]

...what difference between the unborn child and the born child makes the former unworthy of legal protection?

 

The unborn child uses the mother's body for life sustenance. A mother should be able to choose whether she wants to allow her body to be used for this purpose or not.

 

The born child has bodily integrity of her own. The point at which a child can sustain herself outside the womb, she gains the legal right to her own body.

[Dmmetler]

One of the books which was helpful to me after my son's birth/death was one written for professionals on helping women deal with reproductive crisis, including stillbirth, miscarriage, induced premature delivery for medical reasons, ectopic pregnancy, and abortion. It bothered me to no end that Abortion was listed on the cover-but what they were considering abortion was abortion when the mother wanted the pregnancy-abortion due to discovering, for example, that the baby was anacephalic, or had a 100% fatal genetic condition which would lead to a short, painful life, or due to illness in the mother.

 

One of the big things was that, in societies where abortion is seen as equivalent to murder, mother's who's delivery was not 100% natural-that is, she didn't miscarry or have the baby stillborn with little or no medical intervention, the first thing you have to deal with is the mother's guilt and feelings that she killed her baby-and the fact that, even if friends/family are supportive, she's going to get those messages from society, so that every day she's dealing not only with the grief and loss of a child, but that she feels that she doesn't have the RIGHT to grieve. Because abortion has been painted as a "choice", she feels that she made that choice, even if, rationally, there WAS no choice. This applies even when a D&C was done when a baby was already dead-because of the way abortion has been painted. Psychologically, it's considered one of the worst forms of death to get over-on the par with what police officers or military personnel go through when they discover they shot someone who wasn't guilty.

 

And even on this thread, when no one has come out and said that "No, it's wrong", I'm feeling that same surge of guilt. Which is what leads to a lot of women NOT admitting to a lost child-or saying that their baby was stillborn instead of explaining the medical side of things-and then feeling guilty for lying.

 

I made a conscious decision, about a decade ago, to not deny my son's life and death-that by letting my story be known, maybe I could do my small part in helping to make people understand why this view is so damaging and that it IS real, that it can happen to them, that it can happen to one they know and love. That no woman is immune from the risk. But it also means that I frequently end up dealing with that grief and pain, yet again. And it hurts. For me this cannot, will never be a philosophical discussion. And it shouldn't be for any woman. Because ultimately, your life can change, just as quickly as mine did. And it's never the same, ever again.

[MercyA]

The point at which a child can sustain herself outside the womb, she gains the legal right to her own body.

 

Born infants, like unborn children, *cannot* sustain themselves outside the womb. They *still* require sustenance from adults. Do they therefore have no right to legal protection?

[staceyobu]

...

[staceyobu]

....

[Free]

Born infants, like unborn children, *cannot* sustain themselves outside the womb. They *still* require sustenance from adults. Do they therefore have no right to legal protection?

 

Yes, children require adults to care for them. It does not *have* to be the child's mother if she does not want to be a parent. She can give a child up for adoption for example.

 

Any person should not be obliged to use their body as a life support system against their will. If a (born) child is suffering from a condition (hypothetically speaking) where she needs to be connected to another person to survive, the parent is not obligated by law to connect themselves to the child, even if it means imminent death of the child. Why should this be different for an unborn child?

[Free]

Please dont derail my thread..... I'm specifically asking if anti-abortion laws would cover the scenario I posed and if they do who decides whether or not to make the exception. If you want to debate the morals start a thread for that! You are going to get mine killed!

 

Oh! I just saw this now. Sorry, I will keep quiet :o .

[MercyA]

Please dont derail my thread. I did not ask if abortion was moral...If you want to debate the morals start a thread for that! You are going to get mine killed!

 

Oh! I just saw this now. Sorry, I will keep quiet :o .

 

Also bowing out, at the OP's request.

[GoVanGogh]

One of the books which was helpful to me after my son's birth/death was one written for professionals on helping women deal with reproductive crisis, including stillbirth, miscarriage, induced premature delivery for medical reasons, ectopic pregnancy, and abortion. It bothered me to no end that Abortion was listed on the cover-but what they were considering abortion was abortion when the mother wanted the pregnancy-abortion due to discovering, for example, that the baby was anacephalic, or had a 100% fatal genetic condition which would lead to a short, painful life, or due to illness in the mother.

 

One of the big things was that, in societies where abortion is seen as equivalent to murder, mother's who's delivery was not 100% natural-that is, she didn't miscarry or have the baby stillborn with little or no medical intervention, the first thing you have to deal with is the mother's guilt and feelings that she killed her baby-and the fact that, even if friends/family are supportive, she's going to get those messages from society, so that every day she's dealing not only with the grief and loss of a child, but that she feels that she doesn't have the RIGHT to grieve. Because abortion has been painted as a "choice", she feels that she made that choice, even if, rationally, there WAS no choice. This applies even when a D&C was done when a baby was already dead-because of the way abortion has been painted. Psychologically, it's considered one of the worst forms of death to get over-on the par with what police officers or military personnel go through when they discover they shot someone who wasn't guilty.

 

And even on this thread, when no one has come out and said that "No, it's wrong", I'm feeling that same surge of guilt. Which is what leads to a lot of women NOT admitting to a lost child-or saying that their baby was stillborn instead of explaining the medical side of things-and then feeling guilty for lying.

 

I made a conscious decision, about a decade ago, to not deny my son's life and death-that by letting my story be known, maybe I could do my small part in helping to make people understand why this view is so damaging and that it IS real, that it can happen to them, that it can happen to one they know and love. That no woman is immune from the risk. But it also means that I frequently end up dealing with that grief and pain, yet again. And it hurts. For me this cannot, will never be a philosophical discussion. And it shouldn't be for any woman. Because ultimately, your life can change, just as quickly as mine did. And it's never the same, ever again.

 

:grouphug:

I talk very openly about my HELLP experience for the same reason.

The majority of people have no clue what a woman is dealing with they lose control of their body with HELLP.

For me, I was/am dealing with so much guilt that I couldn't sustain a pregnancy. Add to that, I had no control over any medical decisions at that point. I wasn't even aware that they had taken the baby until 12 hours later.

My exprerience has totally changed my POV on pregnany-related topics, including abortion.

We opted to never try another pregnancy, but I lived in fear for many years (until menopause) about what would happen if I accidently became pregnant.

I had already seen numerous specialists and they all agreed that I would need to spend the entire pregnancy in the hospital for constant monitoring. I could never understand the logistics of that for our family - an entire pregnancy in the hospital wired up to monitors? I do know what I personally would do, but would I expect my sister, my neighbor, my friend to do the same?

I have had many conversations over the years with my (Catholic) OB about this very thing in the years since. She has told me that it is something she, too, struggles with. She talks very openly with me about what happened to my pregnancy, that it was the fastest case of HELLP she had ever - has ever - seen. But she stands firm in the fact that she took an oath to the save the patient first and foremost and in a medical emergancy, that is always the mother not the unborn child. I really have no idea how laws would be written to go around that.

Laws could affect whether a woman would go forward with a pregnancy once they have had HELLP (odds increase with each pregnancy after first HELLP pregnancy) but after that - it would be a medical emergency situation where taking the baby would be the only way to save the mother's life.

[msrift]

Well, in this particular case, even if the legislature didn't see it as an abortion, the hospital administration might not allow it.

 

My first pregnancy ended in miscarriage at 14 weeks. Diagnosed late on a Friday afternoon, we scheduled a D&E at an off-site surgical center for Monday morning as it was not an emergent situation. That all changed Saturday night. I began hemorrhaging (actually passed out from blood loss) and my husband called for the on-call doctor to meet us at the nearest ER. There they again confirmed miscarriage, tried to stabilize my dangerously low blood pressure, prepped me for surgery, wheeled me into the procedure room...and then waited. The doctor explained that the hospital doesn't normally allow abortions on site so we had to wait for administration approval. (Side note: This was a hospital that was only loosely affiliated with a religious group. In my area, there are about 10 hospitals, only 2 of which are non-religious, and they are both on the other side of the metro.)

[bobbeym]

 

I guess I'm wondering if you were to make abortion illegal except for risk to the life of a mother, who determines that? Can a doctor make that call? Will a doctor be afraid to make that call because otherwise he will be charged with murder? Do you have to wait on a judge? Waiting when literally every second counts?

 

I'm trying to figure out if I agree morally with pro life politics.

 

I work for a 3-hospital healthcare system and have sat on both the Ethics and Bylaws Committees in the past. The individual doctors and hospitals here aren't going to make the call legally; it would go through the proper channels to a judge to make the decision in the hypothetical scenario. I would imagine most hospital facilities would work in a similiar manner.

 

We've had time-is-critical events occur that require judicial approval (blood transfusions for Jehovah Witness children comes to mind) and even though it's fast tracked, it can still take several hours from the time the situation is identified to the time when the approval is granted and the hospital notifies the doctor to go ahead.

 

Although I'm pro-life with exception to mom's life or rape/incest, I would honestly choose for our country to remain pro-choice rather than see a day when both the life of mom and baby are lost because nobody would make a decision to think for themselves.

[staceyobu]

 

I work for a 3-hospital healthcare system and have sat on both the Ethics and Bylaws Committees in the past. The individual doctors and hospitals here aren't going to make the call legally; it would go through the proper channels to a judge to make the decision in the hypothetical scenario. I would imagine most hospital facilities would work in a similiar manner.

 

We've had time-is-critical events occur that require judicial approval (blood transfusions for Jehovah Witness children comes to mind) and even though it's fast tracked, it can still take several hours from the time the situation is identified to the time when the approval is granted and the hospital notifies the doctor to go ahead.

 

Although I'm pro-life with exception to mom's life or rape/incest, I would honestly choose for our country to remain pro-choice rather than see a day when both the life of mom and baby are lost because nobody would make a decision to think for themselves.

 

 

Interesting job. I would love to do that. So, you think my scenario would fall under the abortion category and not just a preterm delivery?

[bobbeym]

 

Interesting job. I would love to do that. So, you think my scenario would fall under the abortion category and not just a preterm delivery?

 

 

I think that as long as the spouse or parent (or whomever had legal right to do so) gave informed consent to the surgery, it would be considered an emergency preterm delivery. Mom would be the patient, not the baby, and the purpose of the surgery would be to save Mom's life. Only upon delivery, viable or not, would the baby become a patient to be treated medically as the situation called for. Comfort care would probably be given to a pre-24 week fetus and the family allowed to grieve the natural, if unexpected, death of the baby.

 

If there was discord among the family and the doctors (e.g., Dad saying to save the baby, not Mom, but didn't have legal documentation indicating that was Mom's wishes), then the Ethics Chair would be called to decide whether a quorum was needed to decide whether judicial intervention should be requested to override the family with the express purpose of a medical need to save the life/health of the patient (aka mom).

 

I don't think that legally it would fall into an abortion category within the ethical framework of our organization.

 

I was only the committee coordinator, but the Ethics Committee was one of my most difficult groups to work with. I recall several of the quorums that I had to convene were very tough cases. It really made me consider scenarios that might never occur in my life and how I'd handle them.

[LucyStoner]

 

I'm not sure I understand why this would be considered an abortion. The baby died on its own. The other two babies were not supposed to be harmed. How is this an abortion?

 

Because legislators are politicking and not thinking when they pass laws that impinge on the medical decisions of those utilizing federally funded health programs.

[goldberry]

The man who introduced the law in GA is dead. I don't think that legislation has been continued by anyone else.

 

It was interesting and applicable to read that article, however. It shows that regardless of what the "intentions" are, the wording of legislation is extremely important and can have unintended consequences. I think it definitely speaks to what the OP is asking.

 

Special thanks to those who have shared their personal experiences. :grouphug: Your stories are heart-touching and thought-provoking.

[BlueTaelon]

As a HELLP survivor I would consider it a preterm birth before viability. I was terrified of getting HELLP again with preg #2 but thankfully all I got was HG :glare: I don't care for abortions (my objection is how they are done) but I don't think its up to anyone but the women to decide.