Devastating Ban

The fact is that a D & X is IMO a valid and usually medically nessicary procedure. For example. This procedure is used when a severe disability has caused the accidential(fetus passed unassisted in-utero) or intentional(Doctor's induced the baby's passing because of a birth defect exc.) death of a fetus. Something like hydrocephalus "water on the brain" can be very serious causing BOTH the fetus AND the mother to die process. The birth defect usually isin't even detectable until well into the second trimester....meaning that an early abortion is not an option.....and a live birth resulting in a healthy functional "baby" is very rarley an option. What do you suggest? The only other option is forcing a woman to carry the pregnancy to term, make her endure a c-section (which may prevent her from having any other children) and watch that baby die soon after it is born or force her to care for a infant who will never gain conciousnes. How humane!!!! I just don't think that a woman should be doomed to death simply because her baby developed a birth defect that couldn't be detected until a D & X prodecure becomes nessicary to preserve her health and life.



The fact is that D & X's are uncommon....and when they ARE used it is usually with GOOD reason. Over 80 percent of abortions are performed in the first trimester and only about 1.5% of abortions involve "late term" procedures. So what I fear will happen....is that women who truley NEED this procedure or who find that this procedure is the BEST option for thier situation will be forced into situations where thier health and life is put at risk.



"Why Are D&X Procedures Performed?



This is a topic that is almost never discussed during public debates or on pro-life information sources:



1st Trimester: D&Xs are not performed during the first three months of pregnancy, because there are better ways to perform abortions. There is no need to follow a D&X procedure, because the fetus' head quite small at this stage of gestation and can be quite easily removed from the woman's uterus.2nd Trimester: D&Xs are very rarely performed in the late second trimester at a time in the pregnancy before the fetus is viable. These, like most abortions, are performed for a variety of reasons, including: She is not ready to have a baby for whatever reason and has delayed her decision to have an abortion into the second trimester. As mentioned above, 90% of abortions are done in the first trimester.There are mental or physical health problems related to the pregnancy. The fetus has been found to be dead, badly malformed, or suffering from a very serious genetic defect. This is often only detectable late in the second trimester.3rd Trimester: They are also very rarely performed in late pregnancy. The most common justifications at that time are: The fetus is dead.The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger.The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her.The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth. Many which fall into this category have developed a very severe form of hydrocephalus.In addition, some physicians violate their state medical association's regulations and perform elective D&X procedures - primarily on women who are suicidally depressed.



There appears to be no reliable data available on how many D&X procedures are performed for each of the above reasons.



The physician is faced with two main alternatives at this late point in pregnancy:



a hysterotomy, which is similar to a Cesarean section, ora D&X procedureA midwifery web site quotes Dr. William F. Harrison, a diplomate of the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2He wrote that "approximately 1 in 2000 fetuses develop hydrocephalus while in the womb." About 5000 fetuses develop hydrocephalus each year in the U.S. This is not usually discovered until late in the second trimester. Some cases are not severe. After birth, shunts can be installed to relieve the excess fluid on the newborn's brain. A pre-natal method of removing the excess fluid is being experimentally evaluated. However, some cases are much more serious. "It is not unusual for the fetal head to be as large as 50 centimeters (nearly 20 inches) in diameter and may contain...close to two gallons of cerebrospinal fluid." In comparison, the average adult skull is about 7 to 8 inches in diameter. A fetus with severe hydrocephalus is alive, but as a newborn cannot live for long; it cannot achieve consciousness. The physician may elect to perform a D&X by draining off the fluid from the brain area, collapsing the fetal skull and withdrawing the dead fetus. Or, he might elect to perform a type of caesarian section. The former kills a fetus before birth; the latter allows the newborn to die after birth, on its own. A caesarian section is a major operation. It does expose the woman to a greatly increased chance of infection. It "poses its own dangers to a woman and any future pregnancies." 2 Allowing a woman to continue in labor with a severely hydrocephalic fetus is not an option; an attempted vaginal delivery would kill her and the fetus.



There is evidence that the procedure is sometimes performed for other reasons: in the case of a very young pregnant woman, or a pregnancy which resulted from a rape or incest. Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop has stated that no competent physician with state-of-the-art skill in the management of high-risk pregnancies needs to perform a D&X. Of course, many physicians lack this level of skill, and so need to resort to the D&X procedure. And, even in the United States, not all women have access to good quality pre-natal care. The U.S. is the only developed country on Earth that does not have a federal universal health care program. Many pregnant women first seek medical attention when they are about to deliver.



A committee of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) thoroughly studied D&X procedures in 1996. They reported: "A select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure...would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman." They also determined that "an intact D&X, however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances can make this decision." Their statement was approved by the ACOG executive board on 1997-JAN-12. 3"

 

I also wanted to add that the article states that 1 in 2,000 fetuses will develope "water on the brain" that is 5,000 fetuses a year and 5,000 pregnant women who will now not be able to have this life saving procedure.

 

That's B.S. I think that women should be able to have their children however they choose, as long as it is safe for them and their child. If it's safe then who's to say how or where you do it.

On the opposite end, I can't have my tubes tied unless I am a certain age and/or have had at least one child. Yet again, my right to choose is infringed upon. Maybe not the same, but still on the same lines.

 

It IS B.S. And it's a much bigger women's rights issue than abortion, yet gets almost no press or support in comparison. If we, as women, focused our attention on areas where something CAN be done, and where the otherside has no valid argument (Why can't a woman choose where to give birth, barring high risk scenarios?) then we can gain the strength we're going for.

Peace on earth begins with birth. Not conception!

 

I agree with the ban, however, there should be a clause for mothers with health concerns

 

The law says I have to wear a seatbelt! My right to choose has been infringed upon! The law says it's illegal to kill myself! My right to choose has been infringed upon, yet again. Seems like you can't do anything these days, because they won't leave your damn right to choose alone! The fact that it's for health and safety reasons doesn't matter, because I don't have the right to choose!

 

i hate the "it's not awareness, it's reflexes" argument. i have reflexes, too.

 

http://www.healthatoz.com/healthato...althatoz/Atoz/ency/abortion_partial_birth.jsp
That's the kind of abortion they've banned.
If you're devastated with that decision, you need mental work done. I think it's a great ban and that type of abortion should NOT be legal.

 

I think that it should totally up to the mother.... it's her body, so it should be her choice. Personally I don't agree with abortions but if someone is going to do it more then likely it's for the best. If they didn't want the child in the first place the life of that child might not be as loving as if it was welcomed into the world in the first place.

I had my first young and everyone tired to get me to consider an abortion.... but there's no way i could have thrown away the life i created that easily.

 

Not that I support this ban, but did you miss this?:
"The law allows the procedure to be performed when a woman's life is in jeopardy."

I think, generally, a woman/girl should be smart enough to detect her pregnancy early enough to avoid this ban, and follow through immediately after making a decision---

but, there is always something. There is always a situation, that no one may have thought of, or considered, before making judgements on issues like these...and that's why, I think any kind of ban upon a subject matter that DOES directly involve a woman's body... should not be taken as such a black and white matter.




The problem isn't abortion, the problem is the way we handle sex in this country.

I know that there are many other cases than just teenage girls that become pregnant and have abortions... but focusing on that for a bit, did anyone ever stop to think, that the way our country portrays sex as taboo, and almost as if it's a crime...is part of the reason so many teenage girls DO become pregnant and end up having abortions?
Think about it. Most all young girls are simply afraid to talk to their parents' or an elder about sex when they're having it, because they just know they're going to get in trouble for it. And so, if they have any questions about birth control, condoms, etc. they have no one to go to with it. Not many young girls understand free clinics, and how they work, and the confidentiality...

And sex is going to happen regardless of all of this. Teenagers are going to have sex regardless of how afraid they are of their parents' yelling at them for it, they are going to have sex regardless of the other risks too, like pregnancy...

sex is nature, its human nature, and nothing can stop it, no matter how much people try to preach about making good decisions, or not having sex until marriage, or...whatever else they try to cram down your throat since the day you learn what sex is.

I guess, they've got sexual education in schools and what not... but tell me, girls, how much good did that really do you when you were in school? I know I learned a bit... except, being that it was in a class of 19 other kids, if I had a question, I wouldn't dare raise my hand in ask, as it was a bit of a personal topic to me. It's not something I felt comfortable raising my hand and just asking "Um... what do you do if a condom breaks?" or something.

It's not something I'd hesitate to ask now, at 20, but things are different when you're younger and what not...

That's a really big issue to me.

I think the focus needs to be taken off abortion, and placed onto how we are handling, and viewing sex in this country.

 

Here's what I don't get.

For someone my age, it's legal for me to have an abortion, and make a permanent decision such as...

yet, I'm not allowed to make a permanent decision to have my tubes tied...


So, they want to see the rates of abortions drop, or become illegal...
and yet, I don't have the right to choose something, that would allow me to avoid any type of mishap that might lead me to choosing to having an abortion in the first place. WTF?

 

Maybe its just me but wouldn't most complications be know about before partial birth abortion was needed? In extreme cricumstances it is the only way. Its not a desison that a woman should have to make but one that unfortuanate circumstances may force her to so it her choice no one else's.

 

I will probably become unpopular by saying this, but here goes. I support a woman's right to chose, under any circumstances, until the foetus becomes viable (usually at 22 weeks of gestitation I'm told).

I also support a woman's right to chose (at any time) if the woman could be seriously harmed or killed by the pregnancy or if the child is going to be handicapped (because no one person is more valuable than any other).

This having been said, can someone explain to me why late term abortion is appropriate under other circumstances?

I repeat I'm not fundamentally opposed to abortion and I believe elected officials should pass a law legalizing it.

Incidentally, Hillary Clinton won't get the Democratic nomination I don't think.

Before anyone says I'm a guy and so "I just wouldn't get it," I'm the sole parent of 3 girls, 2 of whom are old enough to ask me to get out of their lives if they want.

 

aloneinabigbadworld,

first of all, I cant tell you what circumstance would otherwise make it appropriate, but I like to leave things open ended for those situations that anyone may not have considered... there are some things, that happen, that people just wouldn't even think of.

secondly, I think the underlying issue is rather that the right for us to choose what to do with our bodies is being taken away, day by day.

 

^ Exactly what i was thinking...

I mean, what if they take the next step and ban abortion altogether?

What a step in the wrong direction that would be!

 

Ok. I don't think THAT particular type of abortion should be legal, excepting circumstances listed above. I also don't think that the "woman decided to abort late in her pregnancy" circumstance should be a good reason to have that type of abortion. If you're all willing to carry it to term and then one day decide, after its been a while "gee, i don't want to anymore" well...too bad. It sounds cruel but c'mon.

Also, I fully fully agree that women should be allowed to give birth however they want. I don't nessisarily trust doctors, and I would be much more comfortable having my child in my own home. Hospitals freak me out. The machines are frightening too, and would just add stress upon stress to an already naturally stressful situation. Does anybody know where to check a law like that/know if WI has a law banning lay midwives? I'd like to know.

I don't think anybody but a mother and possibly her midwife/doctor to make a decision about the baby. It's a mother's responsibility, and yes, the father too. can't forget him . All I'm saying, is how can a person in washington dc make generalized decisions about women from all walks of life? It just doesn't seem logical to me.

 

Wouldn't it be more of a viable option to inform and allow women to have more options when it comes to birth control? safe sex? Couldn't they develop a male form of birth control? Taking away the entire right of a women to choose what's going to happen with her body for the equivelency of a year, is ridiculous to me. It's only going to result in various cases of hidden pregnancies, underground abortion clinics etc. The safety and well-being of many women will be at stake, not just the unborn "children/fetuses" (depending on your views) It's shaky ground for a political leader to get as involved as to deny the voting public of their rights, for the rights of "things" (sorry if that offends anyone in advance) that a debate still exists over if they are in fact human beings at certain stages..it's ballsy.

 

theyre in the midst of human testing for the male pill, last i heard (a few years til its commercially available, last i heard was 5 but that was a few months ago)

 

I know this is a womens page, but this topic is something I have always had a bug up my butt about.

I'd argue that they have enough methods to prevent pregnancy already and that Americans should stop being so schizophrenic about sex. If someone can explain the incongruity of advertisements for "male enhancement" and "mens clubs" on the television during the day, while this abortion discussion is going on, I'd appreciate it.

I'd also argue that women need to be brought up to be more assertive about how they defend their reproductive rights. Condoms are the most realistic defense in this day and age and guys who refuse to wear them need to be taken outside and slapped. Women need to insist guys wear them though and it drives me nuts when I hear about a woman who accepts a guy who won't

 

aloneinabigbadworld, I completely agree with you on America's attitude towards sex. I myself was brought up in a home where sex was completely natural, yes, something to wait for untill you're ready (both my mom and I lost our virginities at 17, and to me, that's okay. I was ready, and emotionally stable and mentally mature enough to handle it. sorry, but 12 year olds arent. but that's a different subject). In my house it was always okay to ask about sex, and our bodies. Heck, my mom walks around naked a lot, I never even gave it a second thought till high school when i had more conservative friends.

I'm sorry it drives you nuts about women not using condoms with their partners. But here's my side of that issue: It's a closeness. Granted, I'm on the pill, so that's my form of birth control, and pulling out, (even though well all know that's not necciserily effective, but then again, the birth control). I prefer not to use a condom when I have sex with my boyfriend, but what we have is no passing thing. It's a close emotional love relationship, and I prefer to feel that close to him. Also, I'll agree that a guy out and out refusing to wear one should be smacked. For us, it was a decision. Not a "hey i don't want to wear one" "okay".
Peace