Somebody has to read the place so that you folks don't have to. I've been wondering lately about what they'd do when confronted with the tragic reality of all those cases, inasmuch as they're not frivolously undertaken at all.
As a commenter at another site (Balloon Juice) stated, these were pregnancies that were wanted and welcomed, until the nightmarish reality was presented to these mothers, these families.
Nothing matters to these people. Not the raw, emotional wreckage that can destroy family bonds, not the crushing financial hardship that this sort of birth entails even for the insured in our society with "the best, greatest medical care in the world". All this, even though it is now obvious that these third term abortions weren't being performed on the sort of perfectly formed, blond, blue eyed cherubs that they'd been led to believe had been occurring via Operation Rescue propaganda.
No, they don't acknowledge the decades long campaign of astroturfery and lies by Randall Terry, "Father" Frank Pavone, his "Priests" for Life and their merry band of fellow liars.
New Attention on Late-Term Abortions
Under Kansas law, an abortion can be performed after a fetus is viable only if the doctor performing the procedure and an independent physician agree that the woman's life is at risk or that continuing the pregnancy would cause "substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function." When Susan Fitzgerald went in for a routine ultrasound near the end of her pregnancy, she was expecting good news. Instead, she was stunned to learn that the fetus had a rare condition that left his bones so brittle he would live less than a day. "It was unbelievable," Fitzgerald said. "You think by the third trimester you're home free. It was devastating." Desperate to end the pregnancy, she flew from her home in New England to Wichita, where George Tiller was one of the few doctors in the country willing to perform an abortion so late in a pregnancy. "It was very difficult, but I knew it was the most humane thing I could do for my baby," Fitzgerald said. "It was absolutely the right thing to do. I'm just so grateful that Dr. Tiller was there for me." _____________________ "The latest patient was a case where the fetus had no brain at all, would never take a breath on its own. That was probably just a few weeks before delivery," said LeRoy Carhart, a Bellevue, Neb., doctor who worked with Tiller, in an interview this week. "Her doctor knew the problem all along but just never told her."
...
Okay, I posted this because the article went to the trouble of saying what the Kansas law is, and then proceed to highlight two cases that do not seem to meet the criteria of that law.
Why does the media do that? Do they think their readers will not notice?
Does anyone know exactly what the Kansas law is who and can tell me ... Is it as simply written as stated in the article? What exactly ARE the criteria?
I believe the cases cited are devastatingly sad, but they do not seem to meet the KS law to me. The babies' situations as cited are "late 3rd term" and will die anyway. If that's true, why kill them? Why not just deliver them either through induced labor or C-section and then let the babies live out their natural life, even if it's only a few hours, a few days or a week?
I don't believe there is a law that hospitals are required to take extraordinary measures to keep a baby alive (tubes, pumps, ventilation, etc) ... just palliative care. Anyone know?
1 posted on Saturday, June 06, 2009 12:43:41 PM by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]
Lorianne, do your fellow conservatives*spit* plan to write checks for this, to pay for the extensive counseling and pay for this fruitless medical care in order to keep these families out of bankruptcy in our "for profit" dominated health system?
Or do your fellow conservatives*spit* plan to help the hospital bill collectors get every dime possible out of these "evil sluts who chose to have sex and who need consequences", all so that big bonuses can be paid out to health provider CEOs?
And Lorianne, I'll point out that the current batch of restrictions were written by your sort of astroturfing gasbags who don't give a warm spit about women.
To: Lorianne
This is a very sad story - that a mother would have the idea in her head that it was more humane to have her baby aborted late in pregnancy than to have the baby born - does she think the baby has no nerves or feeling while he is in the womb and that perhaps it may hurt to be aborted? It was not more humane for the baby - she wanted the easy way out so she would not to have to deal with the emotions of witnessing her terminally ill child - very, very, very sad - heartbreaking.
2 posted on Saturday, June 06, 2009 12:52:53 PM by jacjmm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
Fuck you and your fake pity, conservative*spit*. Words can't express the thoughtlessness of the extent of the emotional sacrifice that this person deems necessary to appease a psychotic theology.
To: Lorianne
Yes, that’s incredible.
And I never understand that you’re going to die very soon, let’s kill you now theory either. It’s so clearly to make things better or easier for the survivors, and yet it is always portrayed as some kind of compassion.
The best take on this is the Monty Python Black Death sketch when the son is trying to put his father on the cart filled with dead bodies and the old man protests "I’m not dead yet!"
6 posted on Saturday, June 06, 2009 1:23:55 PM by jocon307
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
Again, pull out your checkbook, conservative. Pull it out and start fucking writing. Put your money where your mouth is.
To: Lorianne
I don’t understand this; I seriously do not understand -— if the baby will/might die, they can’t wait just a little longer so that they don’t murder him/her????
I’m going to vomit.
10 posted on Saturday, June 06, 2009 1:45:26 PM by Borax Queen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
...
To: Mr Ramsbotham
well, if that same eskimo woman thought her own death wasn’t enough to stretch the food supply out long enough for the rest, she might also take a small child with her, or a sick one...I’m guessing. I never read this I’m only hypothesizing that it seems logical.
So now in this example, wouldn’t the mother be guilty of deciding who should live and who should die? I don’t have kids btw. This is purely a hypothetical for me.
11 posted on Saturday, June 06, 2009 1:48:10 PM by mamelukesabre (Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum (If you want peace prepare for war))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]
BTW, Ramsbotham is somebody's sockpuppet, and frequently does a theater of the absurd. My belief in his related story is about zero.
Anyhow, this is how they've reacted when the reality was put forward ahead of the lie.
In another thread, they're predicting some sort of acquittal for Roeder.
If any of you have daughters, imagine the sort of America where a trembling, sobbing woman is forced to give birth to an infant that won't survive long, will be in agony for the time they do survive, and the expenses for which will crush a family's economic future for a lifetime all while causing medical billing departments to rub their hands together with glee.
That's future in a pro-life America. Grinning psychopaths congratulating mothers of the dead on the sacrifice of their emotions, their family future and their financial future on the altar of a diseased theology.
UPDATE FROM COMMENTS:
I don't have to imagine what (1+ / 0-)
it is like to witness a woman giving birth to a doomed child. I did - only the baby had already expired and labor was induced. The poor woman was in very hard labor and knew that when it was over, her baby was dead anyway. It was something that no one in the room - the patient, the nurses, the doctors, and definitely not me - seemed able to deal with. It's all good to have these lovely theories, but they shatter when reality hits. Dead and doomed babies aren't some air-brushed made-for-Christian-television movies where everyone weeps a little and prays a little then hugs and smiles because the baby is with God.
by myrealname on Sat Jun 06, 2009 at 03:39:39 PM EDT
[ Reply to This | Recommend ]
Thank you, myrealname. Reality always trumps the fantasy, "Juno" (and to some extent "Saved") notwithstanding.