I know a few of our members have had to make the hard choice to perform late-term abortions because of medical reasons. Congress is trying to put a stop to that.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/politics/house-vote-abortion-after-20-week-ban/index.html
-
This is so, so discouraging. We terminated at 18.5 weeks for fetal anomalies and it was fortunate that the issues were detected then, rather than at my 20 week anatomy scan. The thing is, most women are terminating after 20 weeks because of problems with the baby (or mom). And most women don't find out about problems with their baby until the anatomy scan! No one wants to have a 20 week abortion. No one. I've been doing a bit of advocacy work, but I really wish I had time for more.
-
Ugh. At least it's only one chamber of Congress for now and it sounds like the Senate isn't planning on a vote anytime soon.
-
@winniebee: Right?? Most women wouldn't even discover a problem until 20 weeks, and by then it would be too late to do anything about it if this becomes a law!
@littlebug: Well that's good at least. Is this one of those bills that will need 60 votes to pass too?
-
This is so messed up. Very, very few abortions that happen after 20 weeks are a case of a woman waiting until then to say, "Oh, hey, you know what? Actually I think I'll have an abortion." The vast majority of the time it's because of a serious medical issue.
-
@MrsSCB: YES! But these lawmakers don't care about that. They just want to ban all abortions, and so starting at 20 weeks is just a stepping stone to where they really want to be. They have no compassion for the women and families that have to deal with this.
-
The House of Representatives is basically a disgrace and they clearly do not represent the will of the public.
This may seem a bit off topic but it's relevant to bills like this - the supreme court is currently reviewing a case on gerrymandering and I am anxious to see how they rule. I think much of the extreme polarization we see in politics is caused by gerrymandering (gerrymandering makes districts unbeatable by the other party which then makes the only challenge to incumbents primary challengers who are motivated to swing right/left to get votes). I think if they don't limit gerrymandering our democracy is done.
Back to this particular bill, I have to hope that again the Senate remains a saner voice that seems capable of understanding nuance and the heartbreaking reasons why someone would choose to have an abortion after 20 weeks.
-
@petitenoisette: I'm so nervous about this gerrymandering case. I completely agree with you - if they rule that partisan gerrymandering is legal, our democracy is so screwed.
-
This is terrible. I had a termination for medical reasons last year when I was just 2 days shy of 20 weeks. An issue wasn't discovered until I was 17 weeks and then with all of the additional testing it wasn't until I was over 19 weeks when we received the definitive diagnosis. Anyone who decides to terminate a pregnancy after 20 weeks is not doing it just because they changed their mind and no longer want to be pregnant. They are heartbroken women who have had to make an extremely difficult choice that nobody should ever be forced to make.
-
This is so sad.
-
You know, I consider myself almost entirely prolife, but medically-motivated late term abortions are what give me the most pause. If I don't believe in extending life support for a vegetative adult and/or I believe in honoring DNRs, it then raises the same question when facing a terminal diagnosis in utero. I don't know what I would do in such a scenario, but I understand why such a choice should probably be allowed. It frustrates me when prolife people act like fetuses / babies matter more depending on what stage they are in.... that is the antithesis of the prolife view.
Also, tangent, based on the title of the act, it focuses on eliminating late-term abortions due to fetal pain. I haven't read the text of the Act, but it just pretty much straight up bans abortions after 20 weeks, right? I imagine that the title is disingenuous, because I'm pretty sure that there are ways to minimize or eliminate pain for the fetus, aren't there?
-
This issue infuriates me, for exactly the reasons that have already been posted here.
I also saw an article that not one but two of the sponsors of this bill have been caught demanding that their mistresses get an abortion “to get this solved and get it over with so we can get on with our lives.”: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2017/10/03/this_pro_life_congressman_was_caught_telling_his_extramarital_boo_to_get.html
Complete hypocrites.
-
@Adira: @petitenoisette: I'm definitely very concerned about the gerrymandering case as well. I did read somewhere though that several Republican leaders actually signed on to the briefs, on the "against gerrymandering" side.
-
I don't think this will make it through the senate. The House of Representatives are coo coo. @Adira: do you have to have a link to something discussing this Gerrymandering case? You always have good links
-
@PeaceLily: I'm so so sorry.
@DesertDreams88: I read the text - it basically bans all abortions after 20 weeks except if the pregnancy would endanger the mother's life or in the cases of rape or incest. And all the late-terms abortions that I know of, they give the fetus something to essentially kill it peacefully and then the mother has to pass the fetus.
-
@arosebyany: Here you go, assuming you can access WaPo:
-
@Adira: ugh, just as I expected. Totally dishonest title. Yay for supposedly Christian Republicans.
-
@DesertDreams88: I was raised prolife and have the same feelings as you.
And as someone raised Catholic/ pro life, I used to be anti late term termination as well, until I actually learned more about it. It drives me insane that they would focus on this, when these, for the most part, are very wanted fetuses whose mothers have to make a heart breaking choose for the sake of that fetus. It's the precise opposite of the abortions they claim to want to stop (women who "simply" don't want to be pregnant).
And to label it about fetal pain? What about the mothers who choose termination to avoid a lifetime of pain for their unborn babies?
And this is barely even news with everything else going on.
-
@arosebyany: This is the article I read yesterday which reminded me about the case: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/03/us/politics/gerrymandering-supreme-court-wisconsin.html
-
Because it's SO much better for babies with issues that are incompatible with life to be born and suffer. WTF is wrong with people to force this $hit on families that are already suffering enough.
-
@periwinklebee: Ugh the hypocrisy. I can't. And I don't wish this on anyone, but I guess none of them have ever experienced the heartache and devastation of finding out your baby has seriously medical complications at 20 weeks
-
@snowjewelz: I'm sure they just care what their constituents who are most likely to show up to vote in primaries think, and have never even stopped to think how devastating it is to learn that your baby has severe medical complications. This goes back to the gerrymandering issue mentioned above, as these are probably the most extreme voters...
-
Completely infuriating.
Oh, and don't forget too that they want to cut health care too, so once the baby is born they don't actually care at all. Plus they failed to reauthorize the Children's Health Insurance Program, so...
-
@nana87: that's what I was thinking.
-
@Adira: not sure if you listen to podcasts, but 538 is doing a podcast series on gerrymandering that is being released next month I think. They released one episode of it last week specifically because of the case in Wisconsin. The one dated 9/28/17
https://fivethirtyeight.com/tag/politics-podcast/ -
I just feel like I'm being punched in the gut day after day. This is NOT the country that I want to live in. These representatives are NOT speaking for me. This president does NOT represent the vast majority of the USA.
Its all very hard to watch unravel. -
@Adira: @petitenoisette: thanks ladies
-
This makes me so angry. Pushing the limit back a whole month before the limit of viability is garbage. Furthermore, I don't believe any woman should have to justify her choice to a legislator! This is just more of the backward slide on women's rights in this country.
-
It has been hard for me to listen to the news lately. I terminated at 28 weeks due to severe abnormalities with my son. He was very wanted and hoped for, and it was devastating to have him be so sick. But these arguments to eliminate these options are misleading, and in many cases, outright lies. For example, I was pretty thoroughly out of it during the days of the procedure, including induction of labor. While I was on painkillers, my baby would also have been pretty sedated, and I believe I would have known if he was in pain at any point. I know this was my experience, and not everyone's is the same, but the care I received was respectful and considerate, of my baby, my husband, and me. That said, many later-term abortions are not for medical reasons. The Guttmacher Institute's research seems to point to ACCESS as the main reason abortions don't happen before 20 weeks, both financial and geographic. Some places have only one abortion provider in the whole state. So yeah, if you don't want late-term abortions, we actually need to make sure abortions are more available to women, not less. ARGH. OK, sad, grief-driven rant over.
-
@Academicsocialite:
I'm so sorry for your loss.
Reply
Subscribe to our newsletter
- Google Plus
- Stumbleupon
- Twitter
- Facebook
- Pinterest
- Favorite0
29 comments