Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 310654 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.

feces for jesus

Westbury, 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

West Lafayette, IN

#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

West Lafayette, IN

#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

Huntington, IN

#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

Huntington, IN

#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

Huntington, IN

#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.”

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#307227 Aug 6, 2013
If a person begins a major hemorrhage and they can't find the source, that patient is doomed. Exsanguination is a common cause of death. Terminal cancer--the patient is doomed. And so on.

Funny how enamored you are of modern medicine...until a pregnant woman utilizes it in a way ou dislike.
Corgi lover wrote:
<quoted text>No one ever is doomed. If we thought that,many people would have died that are living now through modern medicine. If A doctor told a family to just give up, well he wouldn't be a good doctor, would he.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#307228 Aug 6, 2013
Which is frigging well impossible.

BTW--the canyon is STILL eroding:
http://www.nps.gov/grca/naturescience/geologi...
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe the grand canyon was either formed in a few hours or few days at most, AS THE WATER LEFT.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#307229 Aug 6, 2013
I love how entire conversations fly over your head.
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
I love how you guys plan on killing the dead.:)
You guys watch to much tv.
sassy JM

Lake Grove, NY

#307230 Aug 6, 2013
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
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.”
So basically this womans life and that of her child,was doomed?
No Relativism

Huntington, IN

#307231 Aug 6, 2013
RoSesz wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
The baby came out on own within the 48 hour window hoped for after membranes ruptured. Conservative management was proper....but for medical staff missing infection at admission (& its subsequent spread into blood).

An abortion procedure early on likely would have spread infection to blood.

Abortion procedure after agressive sepsis set in would not have addressed sepsis (which is what killed Savita).

Pound your abortion drums, but it is just noise. The reality is, your pointing the finger at the wrong issues related to Savita's death.

And.

That won't help women and babies in the future..........
sassy JM

Lake Grove, NY

#307232 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.
I agree! Prior to birth, proabort women would justify killing thsir child to save their own life,whereas after birth, they would take a bullet for their child.

Well, not all.:/
No Relativism

Huntington, IN

#307233 Aug 6, 2013
grumpy wrote:
<quoted text>If nothing else, it makes an excellent case for a lawsuit.
You're absolutely correct.

Not from the perspective of "denied abortion," but from the standpoint of missed diagnosis and subsequent delay in adequate treatement.

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.

Wethersfield Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 39 min RoxLo 1,346,827
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 3 hr Mothra 57,267
News Rabid raccoon bites Bridgeport man 15 hr BPT 1
News Teacher's Aide At Berlin High Arrested (May '07) Feb 7 Never 7
News Dr. Reardon's Depravity (Dec '07) Feb 7 I hate Haig Shahv... 20
News PA casinos luck out during recession (Mar '09) Feb 3 indict steve wynne 3
News Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) Feb 1 rabbee yehoshooah... 72,023
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Wethersfield Mortgages