posted
I'd like to pose a question. It's already been asked on this thread, but I want to explore it further.
In 3rd trimester abortions, the doctor does whatever is necessary to keep from delivering a live fetus. We've all learned that by reading the transcript Dag posted. The PPFA's own witness admits to crushing the skull of babies to prevent them being born alive, even if the cervix is dilated enough to allow the baby to be born without crushing the skull.
We also can read from the transcript that when the skull is crushed, it can result in sharp edges that may then puncture the uterus or cervix and cause harm to the mother, from slight harm with minimal bleeding up to exanguination - which is such a lovely way of saying "bleeding to death"
Why, why, why in the world, if the objection that Planned Parenthood has is that banning this procedure will cause a health risk to the mother - would they then support an unnecessary potential complication that could result in the death of the mother?
If it's not necessary to crush the skull to deliver the baby, and if crushing the skull provides a risk to the mother that could potentially cost her life - why would they support it in favor of delivering the baby live and whole and intact? It would provide less of a risk to the mom that way.
I've seen an episode of Maternity Ward on TLC where a couple learned their baby was anencephalic. A condition that will not support life,the baby has zero chance of survival outside the womb. A terribly tragic thing.
The doctors induced labor, so the woman could deliver the baby. The inducement took a long time, and her husband or boyfriend, I don't remember which asked why they couldn't just do something to end it quicker like a c-section. The doctor said that delivering the baby as naturally as possible was the safest thing for the mother.
The baby was born, and died immediately after birth.
In a 3rd trimester pregnancy, how can this procedure which exposes the mother to the risk of uterine perforation and infection (if there is any retained tissue) be any safer than an induced delivery or even a cesarean section?
In other words - can partial birth abortion EVER be medically necessary? Aren't there other procedures that are just as safe or safer for the mother that don't involve the death of the fetus?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That procedure is not the one that Planned Parenthood is defending. They're saying that the OTHER procedure being outlawed is detrimental to the mother's health because the procedure you describe can be more harmful. I discussed this in one of my previous posts:
quote: The reason Planned Parenthood chose those doctors was because they wanted to illustrate that the other procedure that was not outlawed (dilation & evacuation) could be potentially more harmful than the procedure that was outlawed (dilation & extraction). In dilation & evacuation, as the witnesses said, the fetus is pulled out with forceps. In dilation & extraction (called "partial-birth abortion"), the fetus is pulled out of the woman's body except for the head and then suction is applied to remove the brain. The fetus is then pulled the rest of the way out.
posted
Good questions, Belle. I have a feeling there may be fringe exceptions to your logic (fetus' head can't fit? speed is a factor?), but the point remains the same.
More interesting is using this information to defend or refute the claim that abortion rights are about women's rights. From the most basic standpoint, we should probably grant that the government has no right to force someone to give care at the expense of their own body. We don't make adoption illegal even though the sacrifices become "only" time & money. Thus, while I don't believe pre/post birth is relevant to the life side of the argument, it certainly represents the end of the my body side.
The troubling aspect is that "choice" seems to go a little bit farther than the body: anyone advocating abortion past the (moving) age of medical viability has to admit they want not only a choice of in or out but one of life and death -- the latter being demonstrably orthogonal. Fine, if you are willing to start arguing the "life" side of the debate (see page 2), but typical pro-choice rhetoric claims to trump those issues axiomatically.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
RRR, I don't CARE what Planned Parenthood is trying to defend.
I'm merely posing a question, and using quotes from their witness to back up what I'm saying it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the case, I'm just using those quotes as ammo for my own argument.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Richard I do maintain that a lot of pro-choice arguments are really not about women's rights.
I think the major motivating factor in keeping abortion legal for a lot of folks is money.
Case in point - if the concern is about women, and keeping them safe, then why would abortion supporters oppose a bill that requires abortion clinics to have life-saving equipment on hand in case a woman experiences a life threatening complication?
That sounds like a no-brainer. Doesn't it?
I mean, wasn't one of the arguments for legalized abortion that it's safer than back alley abortions?
Yet, in Alabama, a proposed bill was vehemently opposed by the pro-abortion crowd. I can't find my cites with the bill's number and info - and it's getting late so I'll try to be back tomorrow with the information.
The gist of it was, the clinics should be able to provide emergency life support. Some of you may be shocked that they do not now. I know I was.
But, in this state, if you are in an abortion clinic and a doctor perforates your uterus and you begin to bleed to death they will do nothing for you except call 911 and wait for the paramedics.
They cannot give you any blood because they don't have any. They cannot provide any life saving treatments beyond basic CPR. They are not required to have crash carts, or cardiac meds.
If you have an abortion in Alabama and the doctor slips and you begin to bleed you better pray the paramedics have a short response time and can get you to the hospital quickly - that's your only chance.
Some Alabama lawmakers sought to change that. They wanted abortion providers to have some sort of safety net in place in case something goes wrong. They wanted women's lives protected.
Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion organizations opposed it and the bill never made it.
Where is the love and concern for women's lives and health in that?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The PPFA's own witness admits to crushing the skull of babies to prevent them being born alive, even if the cervix is dilated enough to allow the baby to be born without crushing the skull.
From the transcript:
quote:Q. Doctor, if a woman’s cervix was so dilated the fetus could be delivered in intact it would not be necessary to collapse the skull because the fetus could pass through the cervix, right? A. Correct. Q. But you would not allow the fetus to pass intact if the fetus were at or about 24 weeks in gestation, correct? A. Correct.
I'll go get the quotes about how the doctor would crush the baby's skull and insert the vacuum to remove the brains if you want me to, RRR but I see no reason to post something so disturbing.
From my post:
quote:We also can read from the transcript that when the skull is crushed, it can result in sharp edges that may then puncture the uterus or cervix and cause harm to the mother, from slight harm with minimal bleeding up to exanguination - which is such a lovely way of saying "bleeding to death"
From the transcript:
quote:Q. And when you are crushing the calvarium, there is the same risks that we talked about earlier, possible perforation or laceration of the cervix, the lower uterine segment, or the uterus; is that right? A. Yes. Q. And a cervical or uterine laceration, it can be relatively minor or it could be relatively severe; is that right? A. Yes. Q. If it’s severe enough, there are some cases where a woman might exsanguinate and die, right? A. Yes. Q. Can you tell us what exsanguinate means? A. To bleed to death.
Now, RRR - I don't see how I got my facts wrong - would you care to enlighten me?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Why, why, why in the world, if the objection that Planned Parenthood has is that banning this procedure will cause a health risk to the mother - would they then support an unnecessary potential complication that could result in the death of the mother?
The partial-birth abortion law didn't ban dilation & evacuation (the procedure you describe), it banned dilation & extraction.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: But, in this state, if you are in an abortion clinic and a doctor perforates your uterus and you begin to bleed to death they will do nothing for you except call 911 and wait for the paramedics.
This PDF (a scorecard from a pro-life organization) says on page 6 that
quote: Alabama defines “abortion and reproductive health centers” as “hospitals” and requires that they meet licensing requirements and minimum health and safety standards in such areas as personnel qualifications, records maintenance, admission requirements, abortion procedures, post-operative care, and infection control.
quote: The partial-birth abortion law didn't ban dilation & evacuation (the procedure you describe), it banned dilation & extraction.
So are you saying they ever encourage a woman to wait longer to abort so that the procedure would be less dangerous? In the case where the woman's health is their only concern, it seems this would be imperative. But I think they are more concerned about the chance of a viable child being born.
Have you read this whole thread?
Belle, getting back to my comments on page 1, I was saying what the implications of that article would seem to be for me. But I still feel 6 weeks is what most people would see as reasonable. Many would listen to their doctors that 10 weeks is. Many would abort before 20 weeks merely because the child has Down Syndrome My niece has it, and at least one member of the family is very frank that they would have aborted. So no one think they are shaking my cage on that subject.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: So are you saying they ever encourage a woman to wait longer to abort so that the procedure would be less dangerous?
No, I'm not. I'm saying that in the lawsuit that the quotes from the initial post were from, Planned Parenthood was showing that out of the two abortion procedures available in the 2nd trimester, the one left legal was the one that was potentially more dangerous. I have no idea whether they would encourage a woman to wait or not. And it wouldn't be less dangerous if she did wait. With this law, they can't ever perform the less dangerous procedure.
posted
Belle, if you can prove to me that private offices that perform procedures all need to have the same life saving equipment, then I would agree with you that abortion clinics should have it too. But I'm fairly certain that my father's office doesn't have such equipment even though they perform colonoscopies and endoscopies daily.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
I assure you that there are fatal risks in colonoscopies and endoscopies. There were perforations in 1.96/1000 colonoscopies in one study. For endoscopies, "Between 0.1-0.2% of complications considered directly related to the procedure resulted in morbidity and 0-0.7% were fatal."
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Abortions, when successful, are 100% fatal.
quote:if you can prove to me that private offices that perform procedures all need to have the same life saving equipment, then I would agree with you that abortion clinics should have it too.
I don't get it-- why OPPOSE safety precautions, Suneun?
Can you clarify this stance?
[ April 20, 2004, 01:11 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The question is, are they being fair? Are they asking every office in which potentially fatal procedures are done to have this equipment? If so, then I support it.
But if it's trying to single out one type of operation that may not be any more dangerous than another, then I can see where there would be opposition. The costs of adding such equipment, training, and resources are likely quite high. If you're saying only Type A needs this equipment, then you're burdening one segment for political gain, not necessarily to help the patient.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also found it kind of odd that pro-"choice" advocates in Oregon opposed legislation that required a medical form that outlined the risks and procedures of the abortion, something that was required for every other elective surgery and a 24 hour cooling off period between the decision and the operation.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I asked whether or not private offices needed to have the same extensive life saving equipment. If they do, all good. But I'm not convinced they do.
Many, many procedures are done in private offices. Can they all provide blood or life saving treatments beyond basic CPR? Have crash carts and cardiac meds?
I made a conditional question and you're arguing as if you knew the answer to the question without providing the answer.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm shocked to hear that offices doing conscious sedation, or surgical procedures such as colonoscopies, wouldn't at least have a crash cart with code meds and a defibrillator. In fact, I just don't believe it. MY office has a crash cart about 15 feet from this computer I'm using and we don't do anything more invasive than vaccinations here.
Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
A defibrilator is on a crash cart, Sunenun, in our regular doctor's office. To get any test more invasive than a Pap smear or to even to get a Rhogam shot when I'm pregnant, I've had to go to the hospital or the woman's clinic that is in a wing off the hospital.
posted
Thanks for the personal evidence, but that's not what i'm looking for. I'm looking for a federal law that states what all medical offices need to have. If they're all required to have life saving equipment, then I totally support extending that to all clinics/offices that do procedures.
What I'm saying is, I haven't figured out whether or not it's illegal to not have these devices in a private office doing procedures. So far, I found on allnurses.com a thread about crash carts which seemed to imply it was optional. Surely an important thing to have, but not illegal to not have it.
Therefore, I reiterate: Saying that every office and clinic that performs any surgical procedures should have X devices is great. Saying that a specific type of clinic must while ignoring the others is mainly political in nature and I could see why some people would be opposed to it.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you recognize the difference between having teeth extracted and extracting a fetus from INSIDE SOMEONE'S BODY?
I see the differences. I can understand why there would need to be more precautions in the second case.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is basically a curved knife they are sticking in your body to scrape the baby off the uterus.
If what you want is a law that would require any clinic that performs a similarly invasive procedure to have a crash cart, I'm not opposed to that.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I assure you that there are fatal risks in colonoscopies and endoscopies. There were perforations in 1.96/1000 colonoscopies in one study. For endoscopies, "Between 0.1-0.2% of complications considered directly related to the procedure resulted in morbidity and 0-0.7% were fatal."
Wait, let me make sure I have the facts straight.
1.96/1000 colonoscopies result in perforations?
0-0.7% of complications related to endoscopies are fatal?
That doesn't actually give me any numbers, does it? What percent of the perforations from the colonoscopy result in death? And what percentage of endoscopies have complications? Aren't the numbers from the colonoscopies and endoscopies unrelated?
Saying that 0-0.7% of complications related to endoscopies are fatal doesn't tell me how many. What if only one in a million endoscopies have complications? I'm sure that's unrealistic, but there's no way to tell from your post. Or am I reading it wrong?
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, Amka, you guys are missing Suneun's point.
Many private offices perform various types of procedures. Many of these procedures may or may not have morbidity rates similar to mother fatality rates from abortion complications (lets set aside the issue of the status of a fetus; if you think it's a life, then this whole safety argument is moot, since fatalities are an inevitable consequence, so why even put forth a safety issue as support?).
State laws likely vary quite a bit on the required safety devices for medical offices, and the actual reality of it is likely that certain facilities are more up to code than others (loosely based on the socioeconomic climate of the area, I bet). So here is the thing, if the law is requiring abortion clinics to buy possibly quite costly equipment for procedures that have comparable complications to other medical procedures that are performed in facilities that are not required to have the same equipment, then I think we can agree that this is largely a political move to cause abortion doctors to go out of business since some may stop doing the abortions to avoid buying the equipment, right?
That is what Suneun is saying, I think. Abortion doctors are [EDIT: possibly] being singled out in a way that may cause many of them to be forced, financially, to stop performing abortions, without actually outlawing it. This legislation is only fair if other facilities with similar are REQUIRED to have it as well. Sure, maybe 99% of these facilities have the equipment anyway, but they aren't required to, so likewise neither should abortion clinics. I don't think this is weird, or crazy, or irrational. It's the equivalent of an amusement ride operator having different height requirements based on whether he/she liked the person trying to get on the ride.
Of course, this is all irrelevant if you think the fatality rate is high, because of your belief of fetus personhood. So if that is the case, each side is arguing past each other.
quote: This legislation is only fair if other facilities with similar are REQUIRED to have it as well. Sure, maybe 99% of these facilities have the equipment anyway, but they aren't required to, so likewise neither should abortion clinics.
But if 99% of other facilities can have them, then why wouldn't abortion clinics be able to afford them?
I know that wasn't exactly accurate, but it doesn't seem like making the abortion clinics have that equipment would cause them to stop practicing. Are you sure that's the reason they want the clinics to have them?
And, yes, if abortion clinics are forced to have them, then any other clinics with comparable fatality stats should as well.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no problem with all clinics that perform procedures where a knife is scraped around in someone's insides being required to have a crash cart.
There's a trend here of ignoring safety for the purpose of making a political point. I don't like it.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
PSI, honestly? I bet it's because in many states being an abortion doctor doesn't pay all that well, and there is likely enough stigma that they can get associated with a medical group to help share costs. That's just one possibility.
afr, I figured many people here would have that response as I was writing that. It's still an underhanded way of going about it.
quote: Financial In 2001, the average cost of an abortion at 10 weeks was $372. For low-income and younger women, gathering the necessary funds for the procedure often causes delays. Compounding the problem is the fact that the cost of abortion rises with gestational age: in 2001, the cost of an abortion performed at 16 weeks gestation was $774 and $1,179 at 20 weeks. For various reasons, most patients pay for abortions out-of-pocket. For example, in 2001, only 26 percent of patients received services billed directly to public or private insurance (Henshaw & Finer, 2003). For some, these costs can pose significant barriers to access.
From Planned Parenthood's website. $372 dollars to pop in and have a chemical abortion? That's pretty expensive.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat, that's nice imagery to use; a good self-righteously comfortable image. Of course, if that knife scraping is no more dangerous than a colonoscopy to a patient (setting aside the personhood issue, since that makes the safety issue completely nonsensical), why are abortion clinics being targeted by the law?
Now you can question the point of whether an abortion is safer or more dangerous than a colonoscopy (or any other medical procedure); the more pertinent question, however, is how are safety requirements for abortion procedures compared to medical procedures with similar complication/fatality rates? The answer to that (which has yet to be answered on either side here) will determine if the opponents of the law are/were wacky or sane.
posted
All right, that was my kneejerk reaction. I guess if someone were going to have an abortion, they'd be much better having a qualified doctor do it for them than trying to do it themselves. Having abortion doctors go out of business isn't going to make people suddenly decide not to have abortions.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait,a moment to say that the $372 could have been used for the suction-type abortion, too. Still pretty expensive. I'm thinking of prices of comparable surgeries, and abortions don't even require you be knocked out, which is often a large chunk of the cost in other surgeries.
AFR- Should we make abortion accessable and legal for everyone just because a few loo-loo's out there are willing to try it with a kitchen knife?
posted
Actually compared to most surgical procedures it is quite cheap. It cost more to have warts removed from my foot then that, though I wasn't paying out of pocket.
You know I was anesthestized but not with the nasty generals anesthetics like in the hospital at the podiatrist while the wart removal was happening and I don't know whether they had a crash cart avaliable or not. I know the anesthesiologist was an independent contractor.
So yes I think mandatory crash carts everywhere would be a good thing, but like Suneun says it should be applied by a fair standard.
posted
Dude, quick anecdote about general anesthesia:
When I had surgery recently, I went under. I remembered everything until right about when they wheeled me into the OR. I later assumed that the anesthesia they gave me had the effect of making me forget the last few mintues before the injection. Out of curiosity, I asked the doctor if I had said anything during that time. Apparently I said this:
"Ah! It burns! It burns, make it STOP! Oh God!"
o_O
And I have a pretty high tolerance for pain. (Not to mention I don't normally use the Lord's name in vain, not even when I was in labor.) It immediately made me think of somec. It's kind of creepy, and makes me not want to have surgery ever again.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
I just don't think that's a really effective solution. I'm strongly opposed to abortion--it's one issue that I will budge very little on. I would very much like to see abortion end, but I don't think the path to that lies in putting abortion clinics out of business. The solution would come through a large shift away from the "me first" mentality that puts the mother's comfort ahead of all other considerations. Then the abortion clinics would go out of business naturally due to lack of demand.
(I think of abortion clinics as nice, relaxing places with the cheeriness of a normal doctor's office where the mother is welcomed, reassured, her choice reaffirmed, while something terrible and monstrously inhumane is quickly done to her child.)
It would be wonderful if not having a facility for getting an abortion performed would cause the mother to choose another alternative like adoption, or I guess even sacrifice. But taking the facilities away is only going to make many people mad without solving much.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bok: Thanks. That's the pont I was trying to get across. Apparently still failing at that.
Abortions cost money. You may think it's an absurd amount. But that money has to pay for MANY people who are there in the office. When I volunteered, there were about 4 nurses, one registered nurse, three secretaries, two counselors, a lab tech, a doctor, and an anaesthesiologist. Getting sedation costs more, of course (something like the difference of $350 and $450).
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:how are safety requirements for abortion procedures compared to medical procedures with similar complication/fatality rates?
Does that statement sound funny to anyone else? Or, what other medical procedures have an almost 100% fatality rate?
Posts: 3056 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Bok, Suneune-- I got the point-- I'm just incredulous that you're standing by it.
One of the things we hear screamed at pro-abortion rights rallies is that if abortion is outlawed, then women will be forced to perform abortions on themselves with coat hangers. Back alley abortions will become the norm.
And yet, for all their concern about women's health, here are pro-abortion activists actively opposing a measure that could help save a woman's life-- because they're afraid that it is a measure intended to put abortion clinics out of business.
Do you catch the hypocrisy of such a stance?
As far as funding for abortion clinics that need it-- well, pro-abortion activists are always telling anti-abortion activists to pony up for childcare for the children they want to save; let pro-abortion activists do the same for the clinics they want to save.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"because they're afraid that it is a measure intended to put abortion clinics out of business"
Before moving on, will you concede, Scott, that it IS exactly such a measure? Heck, I'm anti-abortion, myself, and I'm even willing to recognize that.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Only the first 3 or 4 points are pertinent. The rest is irrelevent.
-Bok
PS- Sorry about my snippy reply, kat, I realized when I reread it later that you weren't trying to use emotionally charged imagery to inflame.
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
