OB-GYN group criticizes Texas abortion bills

Jul 5, 2013 Full story: KFVS12 491

The abortion bills under consideration in Texas are being denounced as a form of legislative overreach on the medical rights of women.

Full Story
Ocean56

AOL

#449 Sep 15, 2013
zef wrote:
Wrong, any woman that places a child in her uterus is responsible for that child's health until the child can safely leave her uterus. The purpose of the uterus is not so that a woman can her own private death camp. The purpose of her uterus is reproduction.
It is for EACH woman to decide what the purpose for HER uterus is, not you or anyone else. If a woman decides NOT to reproduce at all, or to stop reproducing after she has had the number of children SHE wants, that is HER decision and hers alone.

For you to imagine you have the "right" to force a woman to reproduce is obscene. Thankfully, you DON'T have that right.

Motherhood: OPTIONAL, not required.

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#450 Sep 15, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
What problem are you talking about that would cause the mother's death?
Any problem that arises that abortion could rectify. Did you not read the case in Arizona that I posted?? Here it is again!

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/22/bisho...

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,...

http://everymothercounts.org/blog/201306/case...

Dr. French says,“Usually lupus isn’t a reason to have an abortion, but pregnancy aggravates lupus and can result in life-threatening complications like kidney failure. Abortion might be advised for serious cardiac issues where changes in blood volume and increased venous return are dangerous. It might also be advised in extreme cases of severe hypertension and related conditions like preeclampsia, which even women in developed countries still die from. Some types of cancer qualify, when treatment is toxic to the fetus and/or the mother would die without prompt treatment. In cases like these, even if the mother doesn’t die in pregnancy, the health repercussions from continuing a pregnancy can last throughout her life.”
Last spring, a woman in IRELAND died from blood poisoning as a result of complicated miscarriage. In severe pain and knowing she was miscarrying, the woman asked for an abortion. The baby still had a heartbeat and though miscarriage was inevitable her request was refused. Days went by and the woman’s health deteriorated. Again she asked for and was denied an abortion. She died from massive infection and organ failure. Her husband sued for malpractice and won. Now Ireland and other countries with total abortion bans are forced to consider whether their laws are too restrictive.
Sometimes, the problem isn’t whether or not to do a medically indicated abortion. It’s how to stay out of jail. In countries with ironclad laws banning all abortions (like Ireland, Poland, El Salvador, Nicaragua and others), doctors and patients can be prosecuted for murder and imprisoned. Still, doctors perform abortions on mothers who desperately need them by finding loopholes, like burying the procedure under alternate diagnoses. For example, a woman with an ectopic pregnancy (the fetus grows in the fallopian tube) presents to the hospital with excruciating abdominal pain (as her fallopian tube swells and ruptures) and severe bleeding. Ectopic pregnancies occur in approximately 1 out of every 40 to 100 pregnancies and often they result in spontaneous miscarriage. When they don’t and the fetus continues to grow in the fallopian tube, the only way to treat this life-threatening condition is to remove the fallopian tube and fetus growing inside it. The fetus will die (and would even if the mother didn’t have her tube removed because it can’t develop outside the uterus), but the medical procedure might be documented as a laparotomy or exploratory surgery, not an abortion. If the procedure is not performed, the mother will very likely die.
In each of the countries that ban all abortions their governments and healthcare systems are strongly influenced by conservative religions whose stance is described as "pro-life." Yet the value of the unborn fetus seems to rank higher than that of the mother carrying it. It might be less devisive to consider a "pro-lives" approach rather than putting mothers and their children in opposition. On the flip side, one could argue that those against "pro-choice" policies are really fighting for "no-choice."
Ink

Wynnewood, PA

#451 Sep 15, 2013
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
Any problem that arises that abortion could rectify. Did you not read the case in Arizona that I posted?? Here it is again!
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/22/bisho...
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,...
http://everymothercounts.org/blog/201306/case...
Dr. French says,“Usually lupus isn’t a reason to have an abortion, but pregnancy aggravates lupus and can result in life-threatening complications like kidney failure. Abortion might be advised for serious cardiac issues where changes in blood volume and increased venous return are dangerous. It might also be advised in extreme cases of severe hypertension and related conditions like preeclampsia, which even women in developed countries still die from. Some types of cancer qualify, when treatment is toxic to the fetus and/or the mother would die without prompt treatment. In cases like these, even if the mother doesn’t die in pregnancy, the health repercussions from continuing a pregnancy can last throughout her life.”
Last spring, a woman in IRELAND died from blood poisoning as a result of complicated miscarriage. In severe pain and knowing she was miscarrying, the woman asked for an abortion. The baby still had a heartbeat and though miscarriage was inevitable her request was refused. Days went by and the woman’s health deteriorated. Again she asked for and was denied an abortion. She died from massive infection and organ failure. Her husband sued for malpractice and won. Now Ireland and other countries with total abortion bans are forced to consider whether their laws are too restrictive.
Sometimes, the problem isn’t whether or not to do a medically indicated abortion. It’s how to stay out of jail. In countries with ironclad laws banning all abortions (like Ireland, Poland, El Salvador, Nicaragua and others), doctors and patients can be prosecuted for murder and imprisoned. Still, doctors perform abortions on mothers who desperately need them by finding loopholes, like burying the procedure under alternate diagnoses. For example, a woman with an ectopic pregnancy (the fetus grows in the fallopian tube) presents to the hospital with excruciating abdominal pain (as her fallopian tube swells and ruptures) and severe bleeding. Ectopic pregnancies occur in approximately 1 out of every 40 to 100 pregnancies and often they result in spontaneous miscarriage. When they don’t and the fetus continues to grow in the fallopian tube, the only way to treat this life-threatening condition is to remove the fallopian tube and fetus growing inside it. The fetus will die (and would even if the mother didn’t have her tube removed because it can’t develop outside the uterus), but the medical procedure might be documented as a laparotomy or exploratory surgery, not an abortion. If the procedure is not performed, the mother will very likely die.
In each of the countries that ban all abortions their governments and healthcare systems are strongly influenced by conservative religions whose stance is described as "pro-life." Yet the value of the unborn fetus seems to rank higher than that of the mother carrying it. It might be less devisive to consider a "pro-lives" approach rather than putting mothers and their children in opposition. On the flip side, one could argue that those against "pro-choice" policies are really fighting for "no-choice."
About Phoenix

It seems that only the bishop thought that the woman shouldn't have the treatment she needed. Everyone one else thought that there was an exception in Church doctrine and she was saved.

As I said before the woman in Ireland would have fallen under the same provision if she had been correctly diagnosed with blood poisoning.
Ink

Wynnewood, PA

#452 Sep 15, 2013
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
Any problem that arises that abortion could rectify. Did you not read the case in Arizona that I posted?? Here it is again!
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/22/bisho... -
Are we discussing the Church or the governments. In this country where a lifesaving abortion is legal the woman in Phoenix had her abortion in a Catholic Hospital. Only one bishop that I can see objected. Everyone else involved felt that her condition was covered under the Indirect Effect provision whereby the treatment for her condition to save her life meant the loss of the baby which nobody wanted.
Am I getting any clearer? Just because one cleric has blinders on doesn't mean all Catholics do.

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#453 Sep 15, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Are we discussing the Church or the governments. In this country where a lifesaving abortion is legal the woman in Phoenix had her abortion in a Catholic Hospital. Only one bishop that I can see objected. Everyone else involved felt that her condition was covered under the Indirect Effect provision whereby the treatment for her condition to save her life meant the loss of the baby which nobody wanted.
Am I getting any clearer? Just because one cleric has blinders on doesn't mean all Catholics do.
Now I suggest you read this:

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/22/bisho...

The Arizona story from a catholic perspective.
Ink

Wynnewood, PA

#454 Sep 15, 2013
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
Now I suggest you read this:
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/22/bisho...
The Arizona story from a catholic perspective.
I did read it and that is from the bishops perspective. The Catholic sister, the Catholic doctors and the Catholic patient disagreed with him. I believe he was quite alone in his opinion.

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#455 Sep 15, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I did read it and that is from the bishops perspective. The Catholic sister, the Catholic doctors and the Catholic patient disagreed with him. I believe he was quite alone in his opinion.
NO, you did not read it, the catholic church disallows abortion in all circumstances requiring a pregnant woman to die if abortion is the only way to save her. Keep ignoring that reality. Keep dancing.
Ink

Wynnewood, PA

#456 Sep 15, 2013
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
NO, you did not read it, the catholic church disallows abortion in all circumstances requiring a pregnant woman to die if abortion is the only way to save her. Keep ignoring that reality. Keep dancing.
I am sorry, that just isn't true. I am sure that St Joseph's Hospital isn't the only Catholic hospital where a pregnant woman's life has beeen saved even if her baby's isn't.

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#457 Sep 16, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I am sorry, that just isn't true. I am sure that St Joseph's Hospital isn't the only Catholic hospital where a pregnant woman's life has beeen saved even if her baby's isn't.
Perhaps in the past, but going forward the CC is not interested in saving the mothers life. They state it quite clearly. More reading:

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2013/07/ab...

Inasmuch as abortion is the willful taking of the life of the unborn, we are not permitted to do it even to save the life of the mother. Indeed, we are never permitted to commit any sin, for whatever praiseworthy motive. In addition, it is hard to imagine any case in which the death of an unborn child, considered in itself, would save the life of the mother.

Unfortunately, however, given a chance to correct its earlier slip, the magazine compounded the difficulty by asserting that “the Church teaches that the mother must be saved.” No, strictly speaking, this is not true either; such a very tough medical decision is normally a matter of the mother’s choice, and I am familiar with no teaching of the Orthodox Church that would oblige a mother’s conscience to value her own life over her child’s. The mother’s life is not intrinsically of greater value than the child’s, and every mother known to me, if the choice were ineluctable, would value her child’s life above her own.

http://catholicism.about.com/b/2010/01/22/rea...

From the very beginning, the Church has answered, "No." While saving the life of the mother is undoubtedly good, we cannot do evil that good may come of it, and the taking of an innocent human life is objectively evil.

There are situations, of course, in which the life of the child might be lost while attempting to save the life of the mother. As long as the death of the child is not intended but is an unfortunate side effect of the attempt to save the life of the mother, the action is not objectively evil. For instance, if the administration of a necessary medication were to result in a spontaneous abortion, that would fall under the principle of "double effect." The abortion was a result of the medication, but it was not the intended result.

But abortion itself—a direct assault on the unborn child—can never fall under the principle of double effect, because the intention of the abortion is to end the life of the child. That is true even if that intention is only the means to the end of saving the life of the mother.
Ocean56

AOL

#458 Sep 16, 2013
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps in the past, but going forward the CC is not interested in saving the mothers life. They state it quite clearly. More reading:
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2013/07/ab...
Inasmuch as abortion is the willful taking of the life of the unborn, we are not permitted to do it even to save the life of the mother. Indeed, we are never permitted to commit any sin, for whatever praiseworthy motive. In addition, it is hard to imagine any case in which the death of an unborn child, considered in itself, would save the life of the mother.
Unfortunately, however, given a chance to correct its earlier slip, the magazine compounded the difficulty by asserting that “the Church teaches that the mother must be saved.” No, strictly speaking, this is not true either; such a very tough medical decision is normally a matter of the mother’s choice, and I am familiar with no teaching of the Orthodox Church that would oblige a mother’s conscience to value her own life over her child’s. The mother’s life is not intrinsically of greater value than the child’s, and every mother known to me, if the choice were ineluctable, would value her child’s life above her own.
http://catholicism.about.com/b/2010/01/22/rea...
From the very beginning, the Church has answered, "No." While saving the life of the mother is undoubtedly good, we cannot do evil that good may come of it, and the taking of an innocent human life is objectively evil.
There are situations, of course, in which the life of the child might be lost while attempting to save the life of the mother. As long as the death of the child is not intended but is an unfortunate side effect of the attempt to save the life of the mother, the action is not objectively evil. For instance, if the administration of a necessary medication were to result in a spontaneous abortion, that would fall under the principle of "double effect." The abortion was a result of the medication, but it was not the intended result.
But abortion itself—a direct assault on the unborn child—can never fall under the principle of double effect, because the intention of the abortion is to end the life of the child. That is true even if that intention is only the means to the end of saving the life of the mother.
Thanks for finding and sharing this, Morgana. Assuming that Ink bothers to read all of the information provided here, it will be very hard for her to dance around THAT. But I have no doubt whatsoever that she'll keep trying.
zef

Los Angeles, CA

#459 Sep 16, 2013
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
It is for EACH woman to decide what the purpose for HER uterus is, not you or anyone else. If a woman decides NOT to reproduce at all, or to stop reproducing after she has had the number of children SHE wants, that is HER decision and hers alone.
For you to imagine you have the "right" to force a woman to reproduce is obscene. Thankfully, you DON'T have that right.
Motherhood: OPTIONAL, not required.
Your lunatic obsession with killing babies with abortion is disturbingly obtuse. All people have the right to life, however young the victims that you choose to kill might be, or however omnipotent you think you are does not change the fact that all people have the right to life.
Any woman that places a child in her uterus is responsible for that child's health until that child can safely leave her uterus. The purpose of the uterus is not so that a woman can have her own private death camp. The purpose of her uterus is reproduction.
Motherhood is not an option, motherhood is a state of being. An individual either is a mother, or an individual is not a mother.

motherhood
noun
1. the state of being a mother; maternity.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mother...
Ink

Wynnewood, PA

#461 Sep 16, 2013
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for finding and sharing this, Morgana. Assuming that Ink bothers to read all of the information provided here, it will be very hard for her to dance around THAT. But I have no doubt whatsoever that she'll keep trying.
I read it and I am still telling you that the child might be lost in an attempt to save the mother's life even in Catholic Hospitals. With today's technology it is rare to have to make that choice fortunatly.

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#462 Sep 17, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I read it and I am still telling you that the child might be lost in an attempt to save the mother's life even in Catholic Hospitals. With today's technology it is rare to have to make that choice fortunatly.
You are willfully ignoring abortion to save the life of the mother, even though you have been given circumstances such as the case in Ireland and Arizona. You simply cannot admit that the CC will purposely allow the mother to die when she can be saved. Thats OK, we understand brainwashing and misogyny. Fetus worshippers do not consider the incubator/woman/girl to be of importance as pointed out in the case in ireland:

While trying to explain to Mrs Halappanavar, a Hindu of Indian origin, why she could not have her pregnancy terminated Ann Maria Burke, the hospital’s midwife manager told her it was “because Ireland is a Catholic country”.
Despite evidence of septicaemia and her worsening condition, doctors refused to consider terminating the pregnancy for another 48 hours until after the foetal heartbeat stopped and there was a spontaneous miscarriage, a delay that led to a life-threatening deterioration in Mrs Halappanavar’s health.
Four days later, on 28 October 2012, she died, one week after being admitted to hospital.
During the health service investigation into the death, an unnamed doctor told investigators that even in a case of “inevitable miscarriage”, such as Mrs Halappanavar’s, Irish doctors had to put the welfare of the foetus before possible risks to the mother’s life.
Following this evidence, Dr Arulkumaran concluded that the consultant believed that her hands were tied by Ireland’s abortion law, leaving doctors helpless to save the mother if it meant aborting an unviable foetus.
“If it was my case I would have terminated the pregnancy,” he said.“The consultant clearly thought that the risk to the mother had not crossed the point where termination was allowable in Irish law.”
On the same day as the report, Ireland published a draft new legislation aimed at clarifying rules that allow abortions in exceptional cases where doctors deem it necessary to save a woman’s life.
Abortion is currently illegal in Ireland, which has Europe’s strictest anti-abortion laws, except if there is clear medical threat to the mother’s life and under the new bill Irish doctors with “conscientious objections” will be allowed to refuse to carry out terminations.
Enda Kenny, the Irish prime minister, has received a barrage of insults over the legislation.
“I am getting medals, scapulars, plastic foetuses, letters written in blood, telephone calls,” he told the Irish parliament on Wednesday.
“I am now being branded around the country as being a murderer, and that I am going to have on my soul the death of 20 million babies.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/eur...

.
Ink

Wynnewood, PA

#463 Sep 17, 2013
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
NO, you did not read it, the catholic church disallows abortion in all circumstances requiring a pregnant woman to die if abortion is the only way to save her. Keep ignoring that reality. Keep dancing.
Why do you insist on being so stubborn? It seems that the bishop acted alone and rejected any other opinion.

https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/moral...
Ink

Wynnewood, PA

#464 Sep 17, 2013
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
NO, you did not read it, the catholic church disallows abortion in all circumstances requiring a pregnant woman to die if abortion is the only way to save her. Keep ignoring that reality. Keep dancing.
I know you want to believe the worst but from your own link you can see that Ann Maria Burke the hospital's midwife manager made a bad call.

“If it was my case I would have terminated the pregnancy,” he said.“The consultant clearly thought that the risk to the mother had not crossed the point where termination was allowable in Irish law.”
On the same day as the report, Ireland published a draft new legislation aimed at clarifying rules that allow abortions in exceptional cases where doctors deem it necessary to save a woman’s life.
Abortion is currently illegal in Ireland, which has Europe’s strictest anti-abortion laws, except if there is clear medical threat.

Obviously she didn't understand the law and a woman died because of that.

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#465 Sep 17, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I know you want to believe the worst but from your own link you can see that Ann Maria Burke the hospital's midwife manager made a bad call.
“If it was my case I would have terminated the pregnancy,” he said.“The consultant clearly thought that the risk to the mother had not crossed the point where termination was allowable in Irish law.”
On the same day as the report, Ireland published a draft new legislation aimed at clarifying rules that allow abortions in exceptional cases where doctors deem it necessary to save a woman’s life.
Abortion is currently illegal in Ireland, which has Europe’s strictest anti-abortion laws, except if there is clear medical threat.
Obviously she didn't understand the law and a woman died because of that.
But they certainly new about the foetus heartbeat....didn't they? Being good catholics and all....
Ink

Wynnewood, PA

#467 Sep 18, 2013
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
But they certainly new about the foetus heartbeat....didn't they? Being good catholics and all....
She made a bad call and was ignorant of the Irish law and the Church Law.

“Define Necessity”

Since: Mar 13

FOR YOURSELF

#469 Sep 18, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
She made a bad call and was ignorant of the Irish law and the Church Law.
Do you think she should be prosecuted for malpractice as a result of her 'bad call'?

Do you think obstetricians who perform abortions should be prosecuted as serial killers?

Do you think women who seek or obtain an abortion, for any reason of which you don't approve, should be prosecuted for attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and/or pre-meditated murder?

Do you think miscarriage should be investigated as homicide?

Do you think any of those convicted should receive, or be eligible for, the death penalty?
zef

Los Angeles, CA

#470 Sep 18, 2013
dedbebbies wrote:
<quoted text>Do you think she should be prosecuted for malpractice as a result of her 'bad call'?
Do you think obstetricians who perform abortions should be prosecuted as serial killers?
Do you think women who seek or obtain an abortion, for any reason of which you don't approve, should be prosecuted for attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and/or pre-meditated murder?
Do you think miscarriage should be investigated as homicide?
Do you think any of those convicted should receive, or be eligible for, the death penalty?
During the Weimar Republic, discussion led to a reduction in the maximum penalty for abortion, and in 1927 — by a court's decision — to the legalization of abortion in cases of grave danger to the life of the mother. In 1943, the penalties for abortion were increased again and providing an abortion to an "Aryan" woman became a capital offense.

“Define Necessity”

Since: Mar 13

FOR YOURSELF

#471 Sep 18, 2013
zef wrote:
<quoted text>
During the Weimar Republic, discussion led to a reduction in the maximum penalty for abortion, and in 1927 — by a court's decision — to the legalization of abortion in cases of grave danger to the life of the mother. In 1943, the penalties for abortion were increased again and providing an abortion to an "Aryan" woman became a capital offense.
I'm asking about Ink's opinion, in 2013. I already know you're stuck in the early 1940s, you time warped freaky Nazi.

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.

Texas Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr Sunshine 49,190
As Statewide Smoking Ban Burns Out in Capitol, ... 2 hr generalsn1234567 1
US to start talks with Cuba to normalize full d... 3 hr Retired SOF 86
Life on oil rig hard but lucrative (Apr '12) 6 hr Me Raza 127
Texas open carry is shooting itself in the foot 16 hr Donny Brook 6
Murders up, but El Paso still safe, Texas lawma... Thu Justifiable Redrum 7
Convicted Robber With Long History Sentenced to... (Apr '09) Dec 17 shayla 6
More from around the web