Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 311629 comments on the Newsday story from Jan 22, 2008, titled Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision. In it, Newsday reports that:

Thousands of abortion opponents marched from the National Mall to the Supreme Court on Tuesday in their annual remembrance of the court's Roe v. Wade decision.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newsday.

Validated

Ardsley, NY

#307206 Aug 6, 2013
Why didn't they ask to have their baby delivered in an emergency situation vs aborting?
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
Also from that report. This was the THIRD time they asked for an abortion, when it was well known that there would be no viable baby:
"O&G Consultant 1 stated that the patient and her husband were emotional and upset when
told that a miscarriage was inevitable. The consultant stated that the patient and her
husband enquired about the possibility of using medication to induce miscarriage as they
indicated that they did not want a protracted waiting time when the outcome of miscarriage,
was inevitable.
At interview, O&G Registrar doctor 2 stated that the plan was to check the fetal heart and
that the patient had asked on the 23rd of October about termination.
O&G Consultant 1 stated that the patient and her husband were advised of Irish law in
relation to this. At interview the consultant stated “Under Irish law, if there’s no evidence of
risk to the life of the mother, our hands are tied so long as there’s a fetal heart”. The
consultant stated that if risk to the mother was to increase a termination would have been
possible, but that it would be based on actual risk and not a theoretical risk of infection “we
can’t predict who is going to get an infection”.
Validated

Ardsley, NY

#307207 Aug 6, 2013
RoSesz wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey well this is clearer but NR had m e with sepsis in the amniotic fluid ...
Of course he also cited a surgery ?????? Yesterday .
I should gave read but ruptured membranes ..imo no way to save baby .
As I already said to knit ..dying baby ..cause if sepsis or vice versa ...She didn't even think mom should get meds that COUKD HURT the a already dying baby .to Treat the s sepsis
But that blood test IF IT HAD BEEN given to the doc ..showing sepsis ..
Might have given them cause ..even under Irish law .
Dad SHOuld sue
Morally and ethically,it is wrong to kill another's life,deliberately to so call "save" another. That baby should have been delivered,worst case scenario. The wo.an died from lack of treatment. Too late treatment is what killed her,not her baby.

If you and your newborn are both starving to death,do you have a right to eat all the food left so that you don't die?. Realistically,if you die,baby dies ,right?. So,you could argue that too. You wouldn't do that. Your heart would tell you to save both no matter what.
feces for jesus

Brooklyn, NY

#307208 Aug 6, 2013
worships reality wrote:
<quoted text>
that agreemnent sorta threw you there, eh fecal boy?
wasn't expecting that one were you?
so you agree then on the fetus then right ? we don't know for sure. missed your answer.
come on...pull out of jonnycakes for a second and man up.
Reading comprehension isn't your strong point, I see.
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#307209 Aug 6, 2013
RoSesz wrote:
<quoted text>
So you think that even if they had gotten the blood test ..seen sepsis
They should NOT have given her antibiotics because it might hurt
The ALREADY DYING BABY..That was probably the CAUSE of the sepsis??
Obviously they could mot save that baby Knit ..
Going only on the KNOWN may be supposed facts ..the baby dying in the womb was the most likely cause of the sepsis
ESPECIALLY GOING BY NR AND HIS "FACTS" ..it was in the AMNIOTIC FLUID
THEY FOUND THE SEPSIS.
And she was miscarrying.
Well your way certainly would not have sAved anyone ..THRY have her NO.MEDS to hurt that baby ..happy??
Rose: "The DYING BABY was the most likely cause of the sepsis"

E. Coli infection of the chorion and amnion membranes (Chorioamnionitis) was causing the miscarriage. The baby was not causing the infection.

Had physicians looked at blood-test results when admitted to the hospital, they would have seen Savita had elevated white blood cell count (indicating infection).

Everyone assumed somebody else had analyzed the test results, so they continued on as though no infection was present. Meanwhile, the infection spread to the blood (SEPSIS). By the time the physicians diagnosed her w/ an infection, it was already in the blood stream.

Intentionally killing the baby would not treat the infection in the blood. Targeted antiobiotics treat infection in the blood. Infection was diagnosed late, and Sepsis had a stronghold before antiobiotics could control it. Likewise, it takes time to find out which bacteria is involved so that the most effective antiobiotic can be used.
feces for jesus

Brooklyn, NY

#307210 Aug 6, 2013
RoSesz wrote:
<quoted text>
And the DNA in.my belief was from Eve ..Not Lucy whatever she was,
Too bad for your belief DNA doesn't show that we are descended from your fabled Eve.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#307212 Aug 6, 2013
RoSesz wrote:
<quoted text>
It is I Agree. And this WOUKD be the same wrong is this case under Roe,.
Sorry, I don't understand. Are you saying this would have been the same situation, with the same outcome, had the Irish law been subject to Roe v Wade?
Just trying for a little clarity...
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#307213 Aug 6, 2013
RoSesz wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey well this is clearer but NR had m e with sepsis in the amniotic fluid ...
Of course he also cited a surgery ?????? Yesterday .
I should gave read but ruptured membranes ..imo no way to save baby .
As I already said to knit ..dying baby ..cause if sepsis or vice versa ...She didn't even think mom should get meds that COUKD HURT the a already dying baby .to Treat the s sepsis
But that blood test IF IT HAD BEEN given to the doc ..showing sepsis ..
Might have given them cause ..even under Irish law .
Dad SHOuld sue
Rose: "NR had me with sepsis in the amniotic fluid"

E. Coli infection of membranes...that eventually spread to the blood (i.e. Sepsis).

Rose: "Of course he also cited a surgery ?????? Yesterday ."

The type of E. Coli infection Savita had is commonly acquired in a hostpital/health care facility. I didn't realize Savita came to the hospital already having an e. coli infection. That's why I predicted she acquired it during surgery after admitted.

Infection of the membranes (amnion & chorion) can happen from bacteria introduced into the vagina during a vaginal exam (more so late in pregnancy).
feces for jesus

Brooklyn, NY

#307214 Aug 6, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes bit, I get that kinda evolution. I'm referring to the evolution that says we came from slim and lots of time.
Thanks for showing us what we already know; that you don't understand what evolution is.
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#307215 Aug 6, 2013
RoSesz wrote:
<quoted text>
Knit
You can believe the sky is red ..I really don't care .
I am NOT for abortion But I certainly am for proper treatment in a hospital .
And IF INDEED SEPSIS IN A WOMB IS FROM A DYING BABY ..they both will die if the miscarriage is NOT COMPLETE.
AGAIN NOW I AM MOSTLY GOING ON NR FACTS .
And had that had THST blood test they MOST CERTAINLY HAVE GIVEN ANTIBIOTICS TO MOM ..no matter the effect on the child .
But you think she SHOUld not even HAVE done that for her .
that's horrid
The baby was at risk of acquiring the infection from the membranes, so antiobiotics would have only helped her/him.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#307216 Aug 6, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
The baby was at risk of acquiring the infection from the membranes, so antiobiotics would have only helped her/him.
Giving the 'baby' antibiotics would have accomplished nothing - she was already miscarrying, and the infection, which she got from carrying a septic fetus, was killing her. But due to ineptitude on the part of the hospital's lab, and cowardice on the part of the administrator, she died, right along with her non-viable fetus.

She should have been given the option of an abortion, as soon as she requested information about the efficacy of one - but the hospital was far more worried about the legal and religious ramifications of killing her fetus, than the legal and financial consequences of just letting her die.

Dad's going to get rich.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#307217 Aug 6, 2013
worships reality wrote:
<quoted text>
none at all. just asked you a simple question that you seem to have a problem answering. i wonder why that is?
Because your question is unclear. I'm trying to find out what it is you want know.
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#307218 Aug 6, 2013
Katie wrote:
<quoted text>
The part where it says it begins to function at a later time.
Oh, did you think "functional circuit" meant it was functioning at 18 weeks?
You did. Admit it.
Your article clearly says a FUNCTIONAL CIRCUIT exists at 18 weeks. A FUNCTIONAL CIRCUIT doesn't mean a nonfunctioning circuit.

Yee gads..........

“GOD SO LOVED US”

Since: Aug 08

He Gave His SON,JESUS Christ

#307219 Aug 6, 2013
Validated wrote:
Why didn't they ask to have their baby delivered in an emergency situation vs aborting? <quoted text>
At seventeen weeks?? It was,in process of miscarriage .

“GOD SO LOVED US”

Since: Aug 08

He Gave His SON,JESUS Christ

#307220 Aug 6, 2013
Validated wrote:
<quoted text>Morally and ethically,it is wrong to kill another's life,deliberately to so call "save" another. That baby should have been delivered,worst case scenario. The wo.an died from lack of treatment. Too late treatment is what killed her,not her baby.
If you and your newborn are both starving to death,do you have a right to eat all the food left so that you don't die?. Realistically,if you die,baby dies ,right?. So,you could argue that too. You wouldn't do that. Your heart would tell you to save both no matter what.
You are correct ..they SHOULD HAVE delivered the baby ..But they saw any help in delivering it as abortion..

And had THRY seen the blood tests. They would have known she was septic..

Dying baby ..miscarriage. septic womb according even yo NR

THEY SHOuld have induced ..delivered...as they finally did I think.. too late

Unless you believe NR ORIGINALLY saying she had surgery

“GOD SO LOVED US”

Since: Aug 08

He Gave His SON,JESUS Christ

#307221 Aug 6, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
The baby was at risk of acquiring the infection from the membranes, so antiobiotics would have only helped her/him.
Well knit said medicine can hurt the baby ..

They needed t o deliver THaT child ...dying or not
In order to save at least one of them .

Plus the last report says the membranes were already ruptured.

Dying baby ..sepsis in womb with already ruptured ..mom miscarriage
Membranes,..please ..dying humans,Decay. Deliver the child a already

I've seen it first hand decaying technically alive person..
It's,disgusting ..I n s use a womb. Septic

if you are a doctor ..as somebody said .
Letting mom die like that saved No one .

Had they gotten that blood test on time ..well we never will know !!!
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#307222 Aug 6, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny how you (as usual) ignore what you dont like in the report, including this:
We considered that the patient’s condition involved prolonged rupture of membranes, which
is associated with increasing risk of infection with the progress of time....
Delaying adequate treatment including expediting delivery in a clinical situation where there
is prolonged rupture of the membranes and increasing risk to the mother can, on occasion,
be fatal.
The investigation team is aware that clinical circumstances can and have arisen in Ireland
where a termination of pregnancy is an appropriate and necessary clinical step in the
medical treatment and care of a patient.
What you DID post, included (key causal agent #2) the FAILURE of the option of abortion. Their recommendation for that is as follows:
"Recommendation 4b.
There is immediate and urgent requirement for a clear statement of the legal context in which
clinical professional judgement can be exercised in the best medical welfare interests of
patients. There is a parallel immediate requirement for clear and precise national clinical
guidelines to meaningfully assist the clinical professionals who have the responsibility, often
in circumstance of rapid deterioration or emergency, as to how to exercise their clinical
professional judgement in a particular case. We recommend that the clinical professional
community, health and social care regulators, and the Oireachtas consider the law including
any necessary constitutional change and related administrative, legal and clinical guidelines
in relation to the management of inevitable miscarriage in the early second trimester of a
pregnancy including with prolonged rupture of membranes and where the risk to the mother
increases with time from the time that membranes were ruptured including the risk of
infection. These guidelines should include good practice guidelines in relation to expediting
delivery for clinical reasons including medical and surgical termination based on available
expertise and feasibility consistent with the law.We recognise that such guidelines must be consistent with applicable law and that the
guidance so urged may require legal change."
Pay attention to that last two sentences No Relevance. "These guidelines should include good practice guidelines in relation to expediting
delivery for clinical reasons including medical and surgical termination. We recognise that such guidelines must be consistent with applicable law and that the
guidance so urged may require legal change. < SHORTENED FOR SPACE >
Yes, her membranes ruptured (her water broke). They gave her the antibiotic vancomycin prophylactically (i.e. to help prevent an infection from occuring). Problem is, she ALREADY HAD an infection. Clincal exam was negative for infection, BUT intake blood test showed elevated neutrophils & white blood cells. Nobody followed up on these initial blood tests.

What Savita needed were specific antiobiotics for the localized infection she ALREADY HAD. IMMEDIATELY.

They did everything correctly had Savita not had an infection. She had an infection of her membranes, and a different plan of care would have prevented infection from becoming systemic (bacteremia...infection of blood....sepsis).

By the time they diagnosed Savita w/ an infection, it had already spread throughout body via her blood.

“GOD SO LOVED US”

Since: Aug 08

He Gave His SON,JESUS Christ

#307223 Aug 6, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Giving the 'baby' antibiotics would have accomplished nothing - she was already miscarrying, and the infection, which she got from carrying a septic fetus, was killing her. But due to ineptitude on the part of the hospital's lab, and cowardice on the part of the administrator, she died, right along with her non-viable fetus.
She should have been given the option of an abortion, as soon as she requested information about the efficacy of one - but the hospital was far more worried about the legal and religious ramifications of killing her fetus, than the legal and financial consequences of just letting her die.
Dad's going to get rich.
Again ..wiTH calling it abortion abortion and yes I know it's medically correct ..But think about it

In that COUNTRY with Those laws against abortion per se

First if they had gotten the blood test with sepsis ..they would have DELIVERED the baby ..yes early ..But no need to kill it first ..just get it out ..
OR COMPLETED the miscarriage .

IMO not ABORTION that is illegal .

Semantics screwed it up along with the rest of the incompetence .

Just MO

“GOD SO LOVED US”

Since: Aug 08

He Gave His SON,JESUS Christ

#307224 Aug 6, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Rose: "The DYING BABY was the most likely cause of the sepsis"
E. Coli infection of the chorion and amnion membranes (Chorioamnionitis) was causing the miscarriage. The baby was not causing the infection.
Had physicians looked at blood-test results when admitted to the hospital, they would have seen Savita had elevated white blood cell count (indicating infection).
Everyone assumed somebody else had analyzed the test results, so they continued on as though no infection was present. Meanwhile, the infection spread to the blood (SEPSIS). By the time the physicians diagnosed her w/ an infection, it was already in the blood stream.
Intentionally killing the baby would not treat the infection in the blood. Targeted antiobiotics treat infection in the blood. Infection was diagnosed late, and Sepsis had a stronghold before antiobiotics could control it. Likewise, it takes time to find out which bacteria is involved so that the most effective antiobiotic can be used.
But THRY did not look at the test ..She was septic ..having a miscarriage ..I did nit say stab the baby and get it out..But finish ..induce the rest of the miscarriage .

Sorry NR this one was a,real.mess ..AND IF MOM DIES BABY DIES.

Baby was in that womb ..ruptured membranes needs to come out if Sep s is in th e womb ..which it was .

And the dying baby COUKD have indeed caused THAT.

I am never for killing babies just to kill them ...But letting mom die ??? To try to save a,septic baby in a septic womb ..deliver it .

If it cries let.mom hold it ..And, pray if as he wants ..But it WAS,DYING on its way out of the womb anyway NR.

based in the varying facts..thecothercatheists day you said s he had surgery .

That is my opinion. Hope dad sues.
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#307225 Aug 6, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
From Page 69:
"Key Causal Factor 2:
Failure to offer all management options to a patient experiencing inevitable miscarriage of an
early second trimester pregnancy where the risk to the mother increased with time from the
time that membranes were ruptured.
The investigation team is aware that clinical circumstances can and have arisen in Ireland
where a termination of pregnancy is an appropriate and necessary clinical step in the
medical treatment and care of a patient.
The records and interviews confirmed that - from the time of her admission, up to the
morning of the 24th of October - the management plan for the patient was to “await events”
and to monitor the fetal heart in case an accelerated delivery might be possible once the fetal
heart stopped.
(in other words - they did nothing)
By 00.30hrs on the 23rd of October, 24 hours had elapsed since the spontaneous rupture of
the patient’s membranes. Clinical evidence within the literature suggests that the risk of
infection in the uterus increases after 24 hours and the balance of risks between conservative management and intervention is therefore changed. This means that the clinical
situation needs constant review and the probable need for termination increases with time.
At approximately 07.00 hrs on the 24th of October, SHO 2 documented his/her impression
that the patient was suffering from Chorioamnionitis and possible sepsis. Once sepsis is
present, fetal demise is certain and the risk to the mother of developing severe sepsis with its
sequelae of serious morbidity and high mortality increases.
The investigation team considers that here was an apparent over-emphasis on the need not
to intervene until the fetal heart stopped together with an under-emphasis on the need to
focus appropriate attention on monitoring for and managing the risk of infection and sepsis in
the mother.
"...under-emphasis on the need to
focus appropriate attention on monitoring for and managing the risk of infection and sepsis in
the mother."

Agreed.

Savita vomited a couple times (sign of infection in later term pregnancies) which was ignored. When she finally vomited bile, her vital signs were beginning to also show abnormalities (increased heart rate, fever, low blood pressure...)

Sepsis had set in.

The scramble to get ahead of the sepsis ensued. But, it was too late. Organ system failure.....ultimately dying of heart failure.
No Relativism

Chicago, IL

#307226 Aug 6, 2013
RoSesz wrote:
<quoted text>
Well knit said medicine can hurt the baby ..
They needed t o deliver THaT child ...dying or not
In order to save at least one of them .
Plus the last report says the membranes were already ruptured.
Dying baby ..sepsis in womb with already ruptured ..mom miscarriage
Membranes,..please ..dying humans,Decay. Deliver the child a already
I've seen it first hand decaying technically alive person..
It's,disgusting ..I n s use a womb. Septic
if you are a doctor ..as somebody said .
Letting mom die like that saved No one .
Had they gotten that blood test on time ..well we never will know !!!
Aborting Savita's baby would not have cured the sepsis. Sepsis is infection within the blood system. She didn't need a prophylactic oral antibiotic vancomycin, she needed broad spectrum antibiotics delivered intraveniously. Stat.

After Savita's membranes broke, she needed to be monitored closely EVERY FOUR HOURS. The physician stopped by twice after her water broke and found her asleep both times. S/he did not assess her, but decided to let her sleep.

"Do an abortion!"

Here's the problem: Had Savita's doctors realized she had a localized E.Coli infection of her membranes, they would have realized surgery risked spreading the infection systemically (i.e. Sepsis).

Savita and her husband were from India. Dr. Hema Divakar, President-elect of the Federation of Obstetric and Gynaecological Societies of India speaking to the Hindu Times said:

“Delay or refusal to terminate the pregnancy does not in itself seem to be the cause of death. Even if the law permitted it, it is not as if her life would have been saved because of termination. Severe septicaemia with disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), a life-threatening bleeding disorder which is a complication of sepsis, major organ damage and loss of the mother’s blood due to severe infection, is the cause of death in Savita’s case. This is what seems to have happened and this is a sequence which cannot be reversed just by terminating the pregnancy.”

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jackson-Heights Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Mets talkback (Dec '07) 2 min jimi-yank 41,541
Yankee talk back 4, or is it 5 (Aug '08) 14 min jimi-yank 332,127
Drop a Word, Add a Word (Jan '10) 1 hr rainmaker2016 15,187
Kate Wiegel atlantic city public defender a fil... 1 hr Plottmasteram 1
Topix Human Sexuality Forum Discontinued 2 hr Jennifer 58
HILLARY will be THE BEST PRESIDENT EVER (Dec '14) 2 hr NEMO RINO Republican 11,974
News Clinton vs Trump: battle of the New Yorkers 3 hr barefoot2626 126

Jackson-Heights Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Jackson-Heights Mortgages