facist law forces mom to give birth just to watch the child die 15 minutes later

[Cecilie1200]

Care, however, views the baby as an abomination, practically dead, and asserted, repeatedly, that anything was preferable to delivering it naturally.

Where ON EARTH did you read that care believes the baby was an abomination? No, YOU said that, not Care. More straw man arguments, as always.

And why do you keep referring to a mother whose water broke carrying a non viable fetus around until her body eventually decides to evacuate the uterus "natural?" What is so "natural" about this process?

Miscarriages are quite natural, if heartbreaking. This woman was in the middle of a miscarriage, and it was stopped and held in abeyance until the doctors determined that there was virtually no chance of the baby surviving. When the drugs in her system wore off, her body resumed doing what it had been doing previously. In other words, it WAS completely natural.

Yes, I do know what it means. It means it would probably die.

No, that's not what it means.
Let me google that for you

Non viable doesn't mean "probably." Lacking developed lungs is not compatible with human life.

Why don't you see if you can Google up the reason that you're more stuck on a label applied by the media - "non-viable" - than the actual diagnosis given by the doctors - virtually no chance, and EVEN IF she survived, severely disabled?

Just as it would most certainly die if they induced before the woman's body was ready to deliver the baby. Only by inducing, the mother is also jeopardized.

You keep saying moronic things like this. You're still wrong.

Labor is induced by a doctor with the same hormone the body normally produces for labor. I'd ask you to provide a scrap of proof to support what you're saying, but I have yet to see you do that in ANY thread for ANY topic to date. Is ignorance as blissful as they say?

Labor Induction

And mind you, this is talking about risks to mothers with full-term pregnancies. I can't imagine that the risks would have improved in Danielle's situation. So Allie is technically correct: it IS better to let the body work on its own, if at all possible.

 

[Cecilie1200]

this woman was NOT asking to abort her child, she just wanted to induce labor, so she could deliver her daughter....instead of having to wait....but apparently, inducing labor was against the law since this new law in Nebraska....took hold.

Yes, because they intended to do nothing whatsoever to prolong the child's life, which would make it an abortion. She can call it whatever she wants to make herself feel better, but she WAS asking for an abortion: terminate the pregnancy, resulting in the child's death. That's the definition of an abortion, like it or not.

 

[editec]

Neb. mom carried non-viable pregnancy due to law | The Associated Press | Nation | San Francisco Examiner

Danielle Deaver was about 22 weeks into her pregnancy when doctors told her she wouldn't be able to carry to term and her child would die soon after birth. Then to her surprise, she learned doctors couldn't end her non-viable pregnancy because of a new Nebraska law barring late-term abortions.

so instead of being able to painlessly end her pregnancy (that she and her doctor wanted, but couldn't) she had to wait around to birth the baby knowing that it was going to die.

another "win" for the fascist social conservatives who want to rule and ruin everyone elses lives

Disgusting.

Not just this event. but the whole anti-freedom of procreation movement.

They're Christians whose thinking is very much like the Talibani, really.

They believe the have the right to impose their religion on the rest of us.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I've been kinda curious about something for a while now concerning this. Nebraska's abortion law has an exception on the time limit for danger to the mother's life or health, right? So one presumes that if the doctors refused to induce labor, it was because they felt there was no significant risk to the mother's life or health in waiting for the miscarriage to restart and proceed on its own.

My question is, why? Why didn't they feel that leaving the baby in the uterus for a week with - what was it? Only 15% of the amniotic fluid left? - was a danger to the mother? One of the more common usages of labor inducement appears to be the mother's water breaking, and then the labor stalling out, and it's because without the amniotic fluid, there's significant risk of infection and uterine damage. So why wasn't this a concern in this case?

What am I missing here?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Okay, I have another question that has come up while I research more about this case and about Nebraska's new abortion law.

Before Danielle Deaver and baby Elizabeth appeared on the political radar, pro-abortion forces were attacking Nebraska's law because they insisted that a fetus cannot truly feel pain until 29 or 30 weeks, rather than 20. They were all over the place, screeching about the "faulty science" that fetuses can feel pain at 20 weeks.

Now here come Danielle and Elizabeth, and what do we hear? How horrible it is that Danielle couldn't get an abortion to . . . wait for it . . . spare Elizabeth's agony and suffering. Yes, I know, they're also TERRIBLY worried about how much worse it was for Danielle psychologically that her baby didn't die eight days sooner, but there's a whole lotta hollering going on about how this allegedly caused Elizabeth extra pain.

The thing is, if Elizabeth was only 22 weeks along from conception, and they told us that a fetus has to be 29 or 30 weeks along from conception to feel pain, isn't that just a trifle inconsistent? Was there something about her leaving her mother's womb still alive that miraculously enabled her to suddenly feel pain 7 or 8 weeks before we're told she should have? Or was it the breaking of the amniotic sac that triggered this mysterious change?

Which is it, guys? Are babies able to feel pain 22 weeks into the pregnancy, and thus Elizabeth was possibly suffering, or are they not able to feel pain until 29 or 30 weeks, and thus Elizabeth wasn't suffering at all? Or is it both, depending on which one serves your agenda at the moment?

 

[BenNatuf]

What the hell is a non-viable fetus? Because my understanding was that the baby had a small percentage of a chance to survive, and that it did indeed survive as a fetus, but then died after birth. The baby had complications from not having enough amniotic fluid.

It was sick. There's no justification in killing children who are sick, and if we're talking about the well being of the mother, her medical needs were best met by allowing nature to take its course.

So I guess the argument that abortion is necessary to protect the health of the mother doesn't apply here. In this case, no risk is too great...so long as the baby dies before it takes its first breath.

And that still wouldn't have happened. If the doctors had induced labor, Danielle would have had the baby just like she did, then held her until she died, just like she did anyway. These people have their panties in a wad because the exact same thing that happened didn't happen seven days earlier, that it happened naturally instead of through deliberate intent. That's their whole frothing outrage: that Elizabeth died on her own, instead of being killed.

Why wasn't this LIVING baby given life saving medical treatment? Why was she not rushed to the ICU and given the best medical care possible? Why was she allowed to just die without medical care? Other children have survived being born at 21 weeks when given proper medical care. This baby SURVIVED the birth and dies later having been denied medical care.

 

[BrianH]

Don't you get the feeling that lots of information is deliberately left out of the story in order to make a political point? They can operate on babies in the womb these days. Why would doctors refuse to correct an abnormality that they say would cause a baby to die 15 minutes after birth? What abnormality? What about a C-section?

Exactly. I have a cousin who was probably going to die after being born. She had SEVERAL problems. Her Diaphram didn't devlop right and all of her intestines were up in her chest cavity, causing her lungs to under develop. They didn't expect her to make it after being born. BUT, they did surgery in the womb to help her after birth. Then she had several surgeries as soon as she was able. She will likely have more, but she survived!

 

[gekaap]

ask the mother to be....she's the one that said it caused her more grief...read the article in the op.

and nature would have done its thing, induced or not induced....it still would have been nature to take this girl's life.

No, we're going to ask you, because you're the one sitting here claiming that the law was somehow wrong for its requirements. You can't take a stance, then back out of justifying like that.

HEY! All of you complaining about this woman's situation, and bitching about the big bad abortion law, SHUT UP AND OPEN YOUR EYES!!!! For of the love of Athena, I've been sitting here waiting for all of you crying at the top of your lungs about this to pick up the clues I've been dropping you. But you all are so willfully ignorant about what's actually going on here, and are so obsessed with crying everyone a river, that your brains have been turned off the whole time! Too many damn biases I suppose.

Listen to yourselves on one minute bitching about late term abortion laws, then switching tracks to saying the mother wasn't asking for an abortion she was asking to induce labor. THE ANSWER IS OBVIOUS AND RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR FACES AND IS BITING YOUR NOSE, AND YOU'RE STILL NOT SEEING IT BECAUSE YOU'RE TOO BUSY BEING BLINDED BY LEFT WING PARTISAN HACKERY!

Based on the information that's provided in the article, there's no reason why this woman could NOT have had labor induced, unless the doctor felt it medically inappropriate for her. At least, the way the article present the case, this has been an example of people misapplying the law. The hospital maybe was trying to maintain an air of caution to make sure they were on the right side of the new law no matter what. I don't know. But is seems more like this woman's issue is not with the law, but with her health care providers who were misinformed about the law, and thought that the law preempted them from inducing pregnancy.

That's point number one that you idiots should have made 20 pages ago, instead of crying "OMG IT MADE HER SAD!" Point number two is the fact that this law presents distinct deviations from establish precedents for abortion rights. Maybe you should have paid more attention to when I was talking about the law passing constitutional muster. Actually, it might not. But you were too busy being blind to even pick up on it. From the article:

It is a departure from the standard of viability, established by the 1973 landmark ruling in Roe v. Wade, which allows states to limit abortions in cases where there's a viable chance the fetus could survive outside of the womb, generally considered to be between 22 and 24 weeks.

If/when challenged in court, the state will have a high hurdle to jump to show that they have the right to pass an abortion law that covers abortion at 20 weeks of pregnancy. They'll also have issues when addressing the "pain" premise upon which the law is justified.

As I've said already in this thread, I am a strong proponent of abortion. I'm just not a raging idiot who flies off the handle over a situation and prematurely starts taking sides. And from what I've seen in this thread, everyone who was complaining about the law was doing exactly that. Hadn't bothered to spend a single moment to actually gather the information on the case, to ask themselves questions about why this was this way and that was that way. They just wanted to run to the front line of battle, guns blazing, looking like an idiot the whole way because they brought guns to an air fight. That's the kind of BS that's wrong with our politics today. Nobody wants to be bothered with actually knowing what they're talking about.

All of you pro-choice idiots who have been arguing stupidly without knowing what was going on, you just did our cause a great disservice. You're a big part of the reason why so many people continue to remain ardently against abortion. Because when you jump up on a soap box like this you really do sound like you just want to murder and mutilate babies. No wonder there are people in the anti-abortion crowd who accuse us of such! Just shut up. All of you shut up, because you've lost this argument. You lost this argument for all of us, because you were too damn stupid and blind.

 

[BenNatuf]

ask the mother to be....she's the one that said it caused her more grief...read the article in the op.

and nature would have done its thing, induced or not induced....it still would have been nature to take this girl's life.

No, we're going to ask you, because you're the one sitting here claiming that the law was somehow wrong for its requirements. You can't take a stance, then back out of justifying like that.

HEY! All of you complaining about this woman's situation, and bitching about the big bad abortion law, SHUT UP AND OPEN YOUR EYES!!!! For of the love of Athena, I've been sitting here waiting for all of you crying at the top of your lungs about this to pick up the clues I've been dropping you. But you all are so willfully ignorant about what's actually going on here, and are so obsessed with crying everyone a river, that your brains have been turned off the whole time! Too many damn biases I suppose.

Listen to yourselves on one minute bitching about late term abortion laws, then switching tracks to saying the mother wasn't asking for an abortion she was asking to induce labor. THE ANSWER IS OBVIOUS AND RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR FACES AND IS BITING YOUR NOSE, AND YOU'RE STILL NOT SEEING IT BECAUSE YOU'RE TOO BUSY BEING BLINDED BY LEFT WING PARTISAN HACKERY!

Based on the information that's provided in the article, there's no reason why this woman could NOT have had labor induced, unless the doctor felt it medically inappropriate for her. At least, the way the article present the case, this has been an example of people misapplying the law. The hospital maybe was trying to maintain an air of caution to make sure they were on the right side of the new law no matter what. I don't know. But is seems more like this woman's issue is not with the law, but with her health care providers who were misinformed about the law, and thought that the law preempted them from inducing pregnancy.

That's point number one that you idiots should have made 20 pages ago, instead of crying "OMG IT MADE HER SAD!" Point number two is the fact that this law presents distinct deviations from establish precedents for abortion rights. Maybe you should have paid more attention to when I was talking about the law passing constitutional muster. Actually, it might not. But you were too busy being blind to even pick up on it. From the article:

It is a departure from the standard of viability, established by the 1973 landmark ruling in Roe v. Wade, which allows states to limit abortions in cases where there's a viable chance the fetus could survive outside of the womb, generally considered to be between 22 and 24 weeks.

If/when challenged in court, the state will have a high hurdle to jump to show that they have the right to pass an abortion law that covers abortion at 20 weeks of pregnancy. They'll also have issues when addressing the "pain" premise upon which the law is justified.

As I've said already in this thread, I am a strong opponent of abortion. I'm just not a raging idiot who flies off the handle over a situation and prematurely starts taking sides. And from what I've seen in this thread, everyone who was complaining about the law was doing exactly that. Hadn't bothered to spend a single moment to actually gather the information on the case, to ask themselves questions about why this was this way and that was that way. They just wanted to run to the front line of battle, guns blazing, looking like an idiot the whole way because they brought guns to an air fight. That's the kind of BS that's wrong with our politics today. Nobody wants to be bothered with actually knowing what they're talking about.

All of you pro-choice idiots who have been arguing stupidly without knowing what was going on, you just did our cause a great disservice. You're a big part of the reason why so many people continue to remain ardently against abortion. Because when you jump up on a soap box like this you really do sound like you just want to murder and mutilate babies. No wonder there are people in the anti-abortion crowd who accuse us of such! Just shut up. All of you shut up, because you've lost this argument. You lost this argument for all of us, because you were too damn stupid and blind.

A generally good post, but I've highlighted a couple things which seem to be contradictory...

You seem to be on both sides of the issue.

If you are a "strong opponent of abortion", then what is "our cause" and who the hell is the "us" being accused?

 

[AllieBaba]

So why would it be better to bring about the death of the child instead of allowing nature to do its thing?

ask the mother to be....she's the one that said it caused her more grief...read the article in the op.

and nature would have done its thing, induced or not induced....it still would have been nature to take this girl's life.

I'm not asking the mother, I'm asking you, since you are a proponent of killing babies before their time and the person who is participating in the convo.

So are you saying a mother's desires dictate all? Even if it's not a medically sound desire?

 

[BenNatuf]

I've been kinda curious about something for a while now concerning this. Nebraska's abortion law has an exception on the time limit for danger to the mother's life or health, right? So one presumes that if the doctors refused to induce labor, it was because they felt there was no significant risk to the mother's life or health in waiting for the miscarriage to restart and proceed on its own.

My question is, why? Why didn't they feel that leaving the baby in the uterus for a week with - what was it? Only 15% of the amniotic fluid left? - was a danger to the mother? One of the more common usages of labor inducement appears to be the mother's water breaking, and then the labor stalling out, and it's because without the amniotic fluid, there's significant risk of infection and uterine damage. So why wasn't this a concern in this case?

What am I missing here?

What you appear to be missing is the hospital possibly making deccissions based on CYA legal advice instead of solid medical advice.

(editted for clarity)

 

[AllieBaba]

What is cya???

I would bet money that the dr. made the choice based upon the risk to the mother, and then backed it up with the hospital legal team. Because I know for a fact that inducing labor early poses a risk to the mother. I've never heard of a dr. inducing labor just to get rid of a sick baby, unless it increases the chances of survival for the baby, because it poses a risk to the mother. If they believe it will happen naturally, they will go that route because it's a better option, medically, for the mother.

 

[AllieBaba]

I've been kinda curious about something for a while now concerning this. Nebraska's abortion law has an exception on the time limit for danger to the mother's life or health, right? So one presumes that if the doctors refused to induce labor, it was because they felt there was no significant risk to the mother's life or health in waiting for the miscarriage to restart and proceed on its own.

My question is, why? Why didn't they feel that leaving the baby in the uterus for a week with - what was it? Only 15% of the amniotic fluid left? - was a danger to the mother? One of the more common usages of labor inducement appears to be the mother's water breaking, and then the labor stalling out, and it's because without the amniotic fluid, there's significant risk of infection and uterine damage. So why wasn't this a concern in this case?

What am I missing here?

What you appear to be missing is the hospital making deccissions based on CYA legal advice instead of solid medical advice.

And you have absolutely no way of knowing if that's true or not.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

What is cya???

I would bet money that the dr. made the choice based upon the risk to the mother, and then backed it up with the hospital legal team. Because I know for a fact that inducing labor early poses a risk to the mother. I've never heard of a dr. inducing labor just to get rid of a sick baby, unless it increases the chances of survival for the baby, because it poses a risk to the mother. If they believe it will happen naturally, they will go that route because it's a better option, medically, for the mother.

CYA means Cover your ass. I dont think that's what motivated the Doctors though. I honestly believe they wanted the kid to survive. It is a messed up deal.

 

[BenNatuf]

What is cya???

I would bet money that the dr. made the choice based upon the risk to the mother, and then backed it up with the hospital legal team. Because I know for a fact that inducing labor early poses a risk to the mother. I've never heard of a dr. inducing labor just to get rid of a sick baby, unless it increases the chances of survival for the baby, because it poses a risk to the mother. If they believe it will happen naturally, they will go that route because it's a better option, medically, for the mother.

The baby wasn't sick. The MOTHER couldn't carry to term and the doctors according to the story based their "medical opinion" on a questionable reading of THE LAW that smacks of lawyerly Cover Your Ass BS.

 

[BenNatuf]

What is cya???

I would bet money that the dr. made the choice based upon the risk to the mother, and then backed it up with the hospital legal team. Because I know for a fact that inducing labor early poses a risk to the mother. I've never heard of a dr. inducing labor just to get rid of a sick baby, unless it increases the chances of survival for the baby, because it poses a risk to the mother. If they believe it will happen naturally, they will go that route because it's a better option, medically, for the mother.

CYA means Cover your ass. I dont think that's what motivated the Doctors though. I honestly believe they wanted the kid to survive. It is a messed up deal.

Did they? Then why didn't they rush the kid to the ICU for the best medical care it could be provided? Other children have survived birth with proper medical care at less than even the 23 weeks this baby got.

 

[BenNatuf]

I've been kinda curious about something for a while now concerning this. Nebraska's abortion law has an exception on the time limit for danger to the mother's life or health, right? So one presumes that if the doctors refused to induce labor, it was because they felt there was no significant risk to the mother's life or health in waiting for the miscarriage to restart and proceed on its own.

My question is, why? Why didn't they feel that leaving the baby in the uterus for a week with - what was it? Only 15% of the amniotic fluid left? - was a danger to the mother? One of the more common usages of labor inducement appears to be the mother's water breaking, and then the labor stalling out, and it's because without the amniotic fluid, there's significant risk of infection and uterine damage. So why wasn't this a concern in this case?

What am I missing here?

What you appear to be missing is the hospital making deccissions based on CYA legal advice instead of solid medical advice.

And you have absolutely no way of knowing if that's true or not.

You did notice the words "APPEAR to be missing" didn't you?

BTW, you also have no way of knowing it's not true.

It APPEARS that it could be.

 

[BrianH]

What is cya???

I would bet money that the dr. made the choice based upon the risk to the mother, and then backed it up with the hospital legal team. Because I know for a fact that inducing labor early poses a risk to the mother. I've never heard of a dr. inducing labor just to get rid of a sick baby, unless it increases the chances of survival for the baby, because it poses a risk to the mother. If they believe it will happen naturally, they will go that route because it's a better option, medically, for the mother.

CYA means Cover your ass. I dont think that's what motivated the Doctors though. I honestly believe they wanted the kid to survive. It is a messed up deal.

Did they? Then why didn't they rush the kid to the ICU for the best medical care it could be provided? Other children have survived birth with proper medical care at less than even the 23 weeks this baby got.

That's right. There have been children born before who weren't given a day to live by doctors opinions, but lived to be full grown adults.

 

[AllieBaba]

What is cya???

I would bet money that the dr. made the choice based upon the risk to the mother, and then backed it up with the hospital legal team. Because I know for a fact that inducing labor early poses a risk to the mother. I've never heard of a dr. inducing labor just to get rid of a sick baby, unless it increases the chances of survival for the baby, because it poses a risk to the mother. If they believe it will happen naturally, they will go that route because it's a better option, medically, for the mother.

The baby wasn't sick. The MOTHER couldn't carry to term and the doctors according to the story based their "medical opinion" on a questionable reading of THE LAW that smacks of lawyerly Cover Your Ass BS.

The baby was suffering from complications caused by insufficient amniotic fluid; and they are significant.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

What is cya???

I would bet money that the dr. made the choice based upon the risk to the mother, and then backed it up with the hospital legal team. Because I know for a fact that inducing labor early poses a risk to the mother. I've never heard of a dr. inducing labor just to get rid of a sick baby, unless it increases the chances of survival for the baby, because it poses a risk to the mother. If they believe it will happen naturally, they will go that route because it's a better option, medically, for the mother.

CYA means Cover your ass. I dont think that's what motivated the Doctors though. I honestly believe they wanted the kid to survive. It is a messed up deal.

Did they? Then why didn't they rush the kid to the ICU for the best medical care it could be provided? Other children have survived birth with proper medical care at less than even the 23 weeks this baby got.

This child had no lungs. The poor girl was doomed. Her lungs were so undeveloped that a respirator would have done her no good. She was not meant for this world and any action short of direct intervention by God would have been an act in futility. The article explains it. It is just a sad story. And sadly, just the way things are. We live and we die.