Are Partial Birth Abortions Needed?

This case demonstrate why partial birth abortions are needed and why the decision should be left up to the woman and her doctor.

Carrie and Corey Elliott were picking out strollers when they found out the child they had tried so long to conceive had tetrasomy 22, a rare genetic abnormality. At 21 weeks of pregnancy, sonograms showed the unborn baby they had decided to call Emma was beginning to suffer kidney failure."I don't believe she was ever going to come home," said Carrie Elliott, 41. "It was just a question of, do we make it fast or drag it out and make her suffer? So we decided to terminate."The procedure doctors chose to end Elliott's pregnancy with the least risk to her health may well have been one of those Congress has banned, calling it a "partial-birth abortion." doctors who perform abortions say D&X is merely a variant of D&E, and virtually any D&E can run afoul of the law. They say the only way to be sure of not tripping the ban is to kill the fetus before removing it or to cut it out of the woman's body, both of which are riskier to the woman. Dr. Cassing Hammond, an obstetrician at Northwestern Memorial Hospital, said that if the ban goes into effect "it will put the health and lives of many of my patients at risk. I won't be able to do the procedure in the way that's safest for the patient. And I really don't want politicians in my operating room, telling me how I'm supposed to help my patients."Carrie Elliott was not a candidate for a first-trimester abortion. When she was in her third month, a test indicated a possible problem. But doctors couldn't be certain."Both my husband and I wanted the baby very much," she wrote in a brief filed with the Supreme Court, "and neither one of us was willing to terminate on a `maybe.'" By the time they knew for sure the fetus would be severely malformed and likely would not survive, she was in her fifth month. Elliott, who lives in the Southwest U.S., said the only procedure available to her was a D&E, which doctors assured her would be a "painless passing" for the fetus and the safest thing for her.

Women shouldn't have to terminate their pregnancies on a "maybe" they deserve the chance to know for sure before making a life altering decision. And they certainly shouldn't be forced to carry a child to term who will die shortly there after because they weren't willing to terminate on a maybe.

Kennedy appeared troubled throughout the session by the potential implications of the law. Would it leave few legal alternatives in cases in which a pregnancy threatens a woman's life? How frequently is a late-term procedure medically necessary? Would doctors be held criminally liable for performing emergency late-term abortions when they had no other choice?

Hopefully the justices will make the right choice and women's lives will be protected against over zealous do-gooders that would deny them the best medical treatment. Doctors must be protected from facing criminal charges for saving a woman's life, and choosing the safest medical procedure for the woman.

Anti Choice Zealots Admit They Are Against Contraceptive Use

Stem Cell Research and the Morning After Pill

Mildred Smith needs to get her facts straight. Stem cell research would be done on embryo's which would otherwise be discarded in a dumpster. Does she think it is better to throw an embryo away then use it's stem cells in scientific research that might find cures for Parkinsons Disease, Alzheimer's and a host of other malady's?

As for the morning after pill it is birth control (the morning after pill does not cause abortions, it merely prevents a pregnancy from occurring). How is using birth control hurting anyone? You can get condoms without a prescription to, so I fail to see why she is upset that women can now use birth control without a prescription.

As for abortions, allowing women access to the morning after pill without a prescription should significantly lower then number of abortions. As usual Ms. Smith has over estimated the number. According to the CDC during 1990--1997, the number of legal induced abortions gradually declined. When the same 48 reporting areas are compared, the number of abortions decreased during 1996--2001. In 2000 and 2001, even with one additional reporting state, the number of abortions declined slightly. In 2000, as in previous years, deaths related to legal induced abortions occurred rarely (less than one death per 100,000 abortions). As women gain access to better and more reliable birth control the numbers should decrease even further.

Stem Cell Research

Well those "radical" pro-lifers are at it again. (I choose to add the term radical; because some pro-life people are sane and sensible and they would shudder in horror at the idea a woman would be forced to have a C-section, appalled by the idea in vitro fertilization should be banned, and might even support steam cell research). But these radical pro-lifers are using scare tactics to halt steam cell research.

The ballot measure, known as the Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures initiative, would amend the state constitution to permit all stem-cell research allowed under federal law. That would include research using stem cells taken from fertilized eggs left over from in vitro fertilization treatments and stem cells created in the lab by cloning a patient’s own cells.
Supporters say the regenerative capacity of early ( also called embryonic ) stem cells holds the potential to cure diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, spinal injuries and a host of other chronic conditions.

Opponents, led by the Catholic Church and other abortion opponents, argue that both the fertilized eggs and the cloned cells are humans who are killed when the stem cells are extracted.

You would think that people that claim to care about life would be in favor of research to cure diabetes, Parkinson's disease, spinal injuries and other chronic conditions.

Mother Punished for Not having C-Section

In Utah, a woman serves 18 months' probation for child endangerment after refusing to undergo a Caesarean section to save her twins, one of whom died.

This is ridiculous! Why should a woman have to have surgery that she doesn't want? A Caesarean section is major surgery with risk to both the Mother and the baby. Since it's the Mother's body shouldn't SHE be the one to decide if she wants to take the risk of a C-section or deliver naturally? And shouldn't she be free to make the decision without having to worry about being sent to jail for choosing not to have a C-section?

And this isn't an isolated incident.
Amber Marlowe anticipated an easy delivery when she went into labor on January 14, 2004. But after a routine ultrasound, doctors at Wilkes-Barre General Hospital, in Pennsylvania, decided that the baby--at what looked like 13 pounds--was too big to deliver vaginally and told her that she needed to have a cesarean. The mom-to-be, however, wasn't convinced: After all, she'd given birth to her six previous kids the natural way, including other large babies. And monitoring showed that the fetus was in no apparent distress.
After she said no to surgery, doctors spent hours trying to change her mind. When that didn't work, the hospital went to court, seeking an order to become her unborn baby's legal guardian. A judge ruled that the doctors could perform a "medically necessary" c-section against the mom's will, if she returned to that hospital. Meanwhile, she and her husband checked out against the doctors' advice and went to another hospital, where she later gave birth vaginally to a healthy 11-pound girl. "When I found out about the court order, I couldn't believe the hospital would do something like that. It was scary and very shocking," says Marlowe. "All this just because I didn't want a c-section."
Yet hospitals in at least a dozen states have obtained court orders to compel unwilling women to undergo this major abdominal surgery. And while Marlowe was able to escape the scalpel, other patients were operated on-- despite their verbal or even physical resistance. In a tragic 1984 case, staff at a Chicago hospital forcibly tied a pregnant Nigerian woman who had declined a c-section to her hospital bed with leather wrist and ankle restraints. The woman objected to the surgery because she planned to return to Nigeria where the operation wasn't readily available, and she rightfully worried about health risks, including a ruptured uterus, if she became pregnant again and had another child vaginally back home. As she screamed for help and frantically tried to free herself, doctors, with a judge's permission, wheeled her off to the O.R. to perform the procedure.
Years ago, a Washington, D.C., hospital got a court order to perform a c-section on Angela Carder, who was gravely ill with cancer. Since the mom was in such poor health, the hospital's doctors believed that delivering the 26-week fetus immediately would give it a better chance of survival than waiting for a natural delivery. The result? Carder and her baby both died soon after the operation.

Why do pregnant have less rights then anyone else? You can't be legally compelled to undergo any other medical procedure for the benefit of another person. "You don't have to donate your kidney, your bone marrow, or your blood, even if someone else might die without it," explains Howard Minkoff, M.D., chair of obstetrics and gynecology at Maimonides Medical Center, in Brooklyn, New York, and coauthor (with Paltrow) on an analysis of the Rowland case published in the December 2004 issue of Obstetrics and Gynecology. You also can't be prosecuted for murder if you refuse. "So why should c-sections be any different?" the doctor adds. "That's saying pregnant women have fewer rights than anyone else, including a fetus."

A sensible letter about fetus' rights appeared in the Meridian Star today.

Living off the government and condemning your children to poverty is selfish.

I am appalled that Terry Herrington thinks it is selfish for a woman to get an education. Does he think it is equally selfish for a man to get an education?

Women are more then uteri and they should be free to reach their full potential. It should be up to the woman if that potential includes a university degree and a professional career. Certainly getting knocked up and dropping out of school at 15 should not be held up as a laudable goal. Women and children deserve better then that.

Personally I find living off welfare selfish. According to the Welfare Reform Academy “Never-married mothers not only go on welfare in greater numbers than divorced women, but they also stay on longer. While divorced women typically use welfare as a temporary measure until they get back on their feet, unmarried mothers become trapped in long-term welfare dependency. In a study of welfare mothers, Nicholas Zill, formerly of Child Trends, Inc., and his colleagues found that 43 percent of long- term AFDC recipients were 17 years old or younger at the time of their first birth, compared to 25 percent of short-term recipients. An out-of- wedlock birth to a young mother seems to be a direct path to long-term poverty and welfare dependency. ”

And what happens to the children of these unwed Mother’s. According to Professor James Q. Wilson of Malibu California, “among white children, those living with unwed mothers were much more likely to become delinquent, and this remained true even after the researcher held constant family income. Among all children, those with an unwed mother were twice as likely to spend time in jail, as were those with two parents even after the researchers held constant family income. In predominately African American communities, the rate of violent crime is more closely correlated with family structure than with race. To avoid poverty in this country, you need do only three things: finish high school, marry before having a child, and produce the first child after the age of twenty. William Galston, formerly an adviser to President Clinton, has shown that only 8 percent of the families who do this are poor while 79 percent who fail to do this are poor.”

Getting an education doesn’t make a woman selfish it makes her SMART. Living off the government and condemning your children to poverty is selfish.

Allow Women to Decide for Themselves

First off Abraham Smith is misleading people. The majority of abortions occur in the first trimester. The few late term abortions that do take place are usually done for medically reasons, involving the health and welfare of the Mother. And it?s because of ANTI-CHOICE advocates like Mr. Smith that women are often denied access to the morning after pill that would make abortions unnecessary.

Mr. Smith touts adoption as the only CHOICE a woman should have if an unwanted pregnancy occurs. But why should a woman have to give up nine months of her life to please the Mr. Smith?s of this world? Having the baby and keeping it or putting it up for adoption doesn?t offer a woman an alternative to an unwanted pregnancy, with either of these so called choices she is still pregnant.

Obviously since Mr. Smith is a man he will never know the terror, violation and humiliation of being raped, thus it is easy for him to say that women should just be forced to endure carrying their rapist baby for nine months.

If Mr. Smith truly wanted to end abortions he would work to insure that health insurance covered birth control, that all women had access to cheap, reliable birth control and he would make sure that all women who needed it had access to the morning after pill. If he truly cared about children he would work to ensure that the children currently in the system waiting to be adopted had loving homes to go to. http://www.mdhs.state.ms.us/fcs_adoptall.html

Unlike Mr. Smith claims there are a LOT of gray areas when it comes to abortion. The best choice for a civilized world is to allow women and their doctors to decide what is best for them without government interference

Women Owe it to Themselves to Get an Education

Michelle Frazier (March 15th) states “. I had my son at 15, and I would not change a thing; he will be 16 soon and we have done just fine.” I am happy that solution to an unwanted pregnancy worked for her, but each woman is different and deserves to be able to choose the solution that is best for her.

I also have to question how fine she and her son are doing in light of Hank Bounds column Lack of Diploma is costly. According to Mr. Bounds “Male and females students with low academic achievements are twice as likely to become parents. Dropping out of school and earning low wages becomes a self-perpetuating cycle. Students from low-income families have a dropout rate of 10 percent, students from middle-income families have a dropout rate of 5.2 percent and only 1.6 percent of students from high-income families drop out of school, according to the National Dropout Prevention Center”

While money isn’t everything, certainly those women who choose not to have a baby at 15, and opt to continue their educations should be applauded not held up to scorn. In today’s world having a university degree is mandatory in order to get a decent paying job. Today many women must support themselves without the help of a husband. Women owe it to themselves to get the best education possible in order to compete in today’s job market.