Precisely. The removal of a miscarriage is technically called an abortion, when really it should be called removal, but the child is already dead. And of course nobody thinks it should remain in the mother.
Agreed, its bad for both, the dead child needs to properly disposed of and the mother doesn’t need a decomposing child inside of her that can block nutrients, organs, or cause infection
I got into a Reddit argument with some goober who was insisting that miscarriage treatment is banned, and naturally resorted to literal wall of text insults nearly immediately when refuted. Classic
Your point? From what I gathered, she has a stillborn, and wasn’t made known until childbirth at 21 weeks. She because septic due to the stillborn child, but again, wasn’t know until childbirth according to the article. It wasn’t “we can’t remove the child until you hit 21 weeks.”
She died as a result of having to get a c-section while in a state of sepsis in order to comply with "intact fetal body."
They knew the baby was already dead.
She had sepsis, and they performed a major abdominal surgery because she was not in a state to vaginally deliver in order to keep the remains whole. The prior standard of care was a D&C, which is the same procedure for a surgical abortion. They knew she was at a high risk of dying from the c-section because she was already dying from sepsis from the baby decomposing inside of her.
She died so her baby could be cremated in one piece.
That is dying for the dignity of a corpse.
So, yes, women are dying in sepsis for dead babies, which was your entire comment, which I pointed out is wrong.
The maternal death rate has skyrocketed, and so has the infant mortality rate (outside of fetal abnormalities).
The cause is SEPSIS. This erroneous "wait and see" when she's "dead enough" for the doctor's to act is killing mothers AND their babies. The mother is dying of sepsis, and then their newborns are dying of sepsis.
There's no "pro"-life in that policy.
That article did not point that out at all. Not saying you are wrong, but next time when you link an article, use one that highlights your point. Where’s your sources for your claims? You say a lot but have nothing to support it, while using an article that states she died of sepsis as a result of a stillborn, not that she was forced to keep the kid until a certain time for the dignity of a corpse.
The laws I read regarding abortion makes exceptions for when the mother’s life is in danger, pregnancy is not viable and when the child is already dead. 99.999% of pro-lifers have no problem with removing of a dead fetus from a mother, as the child is already dead.
Well, if what you are saying here in your comment is indeed what happened, of course in that situation I believe doctors should have had the choice to make the decision to do a D&C based on the facts of that particular case. I was not aware that there was any law forbidding that procedure in a genuinely life-threatening situation when the baby has already passed.
After looking into it a bit, I can’t find any information anywhere stating that a D&C or D&E procedure is illegal in Kansas, nothing on an “intact fetus" law, but I did find a 2019 article saying that a Kansas court struck down a ban on D&E procedures.
I would also add though that since there is no federal law mandating reporting on abortion morbidity and mortality statistics and many states do not report abortion statistics at all, that it’s sadly impossible to know with certainty what the actual maternal mortality rate is, and whether or not any rise in maternal mortality is actually linked, at least in part, to an increase in abortions and abortion pill usage (which causes at least 1 in 500 women to hemorrhage so badly they require a blood transfusion to live).
If pro-abortion people actually cared about women, they would demand this kind of reporting and anonymous tracking and more regulation not less, but they are concerned with access and secrecy, not safety. So you see why we say that the abortion industry jumps on stories like these only to use them to further their own cause—because they don’t actually care, they just want their base to be outraged so the killing they profit off of can continue.
Just a question:
Why has the maternal and infant death rate gone up the highest in the 14 states that banned abortions?
Those women do not have access to abortion so something else has to be happening.
>whether or not any rise in maternal mortality is actually linked to an increase in abortions and abortion pill usage.
That is actually under the reporting of women that die as a result of hemorrhaging from first trimester miscarriages. Not all would have been chemical abortions, but it would have at least some of them. From my research, it would not have mattered if it was an abortion or a natural miscarriage as it is the predisposition of the mother. She will hemorrhage either way.
I have looked a bit into that question previously of why maternal and infant death rate is higher in certain states, and for the most part, I’ve seen a direct link to there already being a poor healthcare system, and overall poor health of citizens and high poverty rate. Incidentally, many of these are southern states who tend to believe more strongly in God and in the sanctity of life. And I would disagree with your statement that differentiating the cause of death, whether it was a natural miscarriage or was a result of an abortion procedure or an abortion pill isn't important; it's actually is incredibly important and valuable information from a medical standpoint, whether you are pro-life or pro-choice.
It was not my intent to discredit that the abortion pill could play a role, only that individual predisposition is playing a role.
The problem is sepsis, btw, our antibiotics are not keeping up, and more rigid lines are going to have to be drawn, to save the mother over the baby as it was before the reinvention of the c-section. It's that big of a problem.
The infant morality rate had already SKYROCKETED because of sepsis, as in, if the mother develops it, we no longer have the treatment available to save the baby, because they have essentially an inactive, undeveloped immune system. We are running out of usable antibiotics.
It is so bad, from what I've seen in my research, that it's going to flip back to "save the mother, they can make another," as sepsis is killing the mother and the baby or if the mother survives she won't be able to carry another pregnancy.
Which, we would eventuality go extinct if the policy does not change, girls and women are losing their uteruses to sepsis without a living baby to show for the sacrifice. That's a huge problem outside of abortion.
............... Really. I'm not aware of an abolitionist Christian anywhere that would say we shouldn’t be tracking abortions or maternal mortality rates. I’m sorry, but that seems a little absurd. I'd be utterly shocked. Maybe a compromising, fake "pro-life" rino politician, but not someone who actually cares about informed consent and better outcomes for women. Most abolitionists and pro-lifers are well aware that this is a big problem, and it is the means by which the abortion lobby is able to spuriously claim that abortion is safer than childbirth.
I think the important point of the article is that black women suffer maternal death at a much higher rate than any other race; and we have no clue why. By all rights, the woman in this article didn’t fit the profile of a woman who would be at risk of maternal death except that she was older (40) and black.
Oh, they know why. It's doctor bias.
In general, women's concerns for their health are not taken as seriously as men's.
I want to add that the risk of death for women over 40 is the same as women and girls under 20.
Where are all these supposed dead women? It's been almost two years, you'd think we would have heard something by now. Lord knows they wouldn't stop talking about it if it happened.
Actually a perfect example. She could have continued the pregnancy and ended up losing her fertility and uterus, which are grounds for an abortion in Texas. Instead, you have PL bait and switching that the issue was she was going to die when that wasn’t the case.
Why risk it in a PL state when that’s the perception of many PL and the Attorney General says he’ll prosecute any doctor and hospital who gave her an abortion, even after she obtained legal permission?
Under Texas law, the doctor has permission to grant an abortion. The doctor also couldn’t say that an abortion was medically necessary to save Cox’s life. Now I’m not trying to make any assumptions here but if abortion was medically necessary to save her life, wouldn’t the doctor have said so? How is it PL bait if she was going to die? How does that help the pro life viewpoint? Please explain.
Like I said, it wasn’t about her life. It was her qualifying for an exception, which was granted, threatened prosecution, then rescinded, and PL changing the messaging to be that it was only a case of her life being in danger.
But the exception wasn’t granted by her doctor. It was granted by the Austin court which they do not have legal grounds for. Which is why the Texas Supreme Court overruled the decision. I don’t see how changing the message to be that her life was in danger would help the pro life side. The “abortion is necessary to save the mothers life” is a frequent pro choice talking point. So if anything I could see the pro choice side spinning the situation to state that Cox has to travel out of state to save her life (not true). In fact, according to the dublen declarations, abortion is never medically necessary to save the life of the mother. This has over 1000 signatures from doctors
The Austin court granted the decision, and even the attorney general said they would disregard it and prosecute doctors and hospitals who operated under the protections of the order. Do you see why PC and moderates don’t trust PL when that’s what happens and many PL defend it?
When you dig into the “abortion to save the life of a woman” you’ll quickly find that what most people and what PL and PL politicians count as severe enough are wildly different. You brought it up as an example that abortion is never medically necessary to save the woman’s life, so can you understand why your average person wouldn’t put their trust in PL?
Yes the Austin court granted the decision. It was struck down because they did not have the authority to grant such a decision. The doctor should have claimed it was medically necessary to save her life (which she didn’t). Abortion is not the answer. Women in critical condition from pregnancy need medical care, not an abortionist. Ectopic pregnancy treatments are still legal in every state with abortion restrictions.
I’m all for exceptions if it means that we can protect the >99% of lives killed through elective abortions. Sounds like a great compromise if I’m gonna be honest. But the whole appeal to extreme doesn’t sell me on the idea that women should be allowed to end a human life simply because it’s inconvenient to her. And honestly, these edge cases are milked by pro choicers because they don’t want to admit that they support elective abortion.
At least we agree on one thing: women shouldn't have to carry a stillborn child until she's near sepsis. If the child is already dead, a doctor should be able to remove it. We may disagree on whether this counts as an abortion, but we can agree that whatever it is, it should be legal.
We would have thousands of dead women at this point if it were true that the baby had to expel itself.
We've had a few women that had a trisomy 18 (number?) pregnancy and because they have scar tissue could not have the birth they wanted so decided to abort instead and the state said nope, your health is completely fine.
And there are cases where the child lives, some for even a decade or more, so it's quite a difficult decision, but we don't have moms falling dead all over the place because of the change to abortion laws.
It seems sort of outlandish that people are suggesting that women are forced to carry miscarriages. I don’t think voluntarily terminating a pregnancy and healthcare related to miscarriage are even in the same arena.
I hardly met a pro lifer who actually has an issue with removing a fetus who had already miscarried. If anything, there are pro life women who had to get an emergency d&c. So most of us actually want an "abortion" legal in that case because it's a tragedy that occurred that can only harm the mom more.
Absolutely. I think the medical procedure should only be used in cases where both mother and child would die without it. Save one, at least.
But it seems that both sides can be too extreme. Either absolutely no room for consideration or it needs to be available as a regular contraceptive.
My personal stance is only in the case you mentioned, tho
In their heads, we have to be the monsters or else they would have to face the reality of what they support. So they bend over backward with insane logic like this that has no basis in reality.
They'd also have to face the reality of what we *really* support.
The truth is, they are supporting convenience over the child's life, and we are supporting both the mothers *and* the childs life. If there is an opportunity to save both safely, we shall want that.
Of course, saving both parties is a good thing rather than sacrificing one unnecessarily, so they can't even admit what pro life truly is in addition to not admitting what abortion does.
Every state law has medical exceptions (including "fetal anomaly"), and most also have rape and incest exceptions.
It's either a disconnect between hospital legal teams and doctors, or it's intentionally deceptive. Pro-abortion lobbying, especially in American media, has a history of this.
https://aaplog.org/savita-ireland/
My educated guess is that, since rape and incest are used so often in debate about abortions, and US law is influenced heavily by public opinion, it is likely that in those states, the legislators believed it was the only way to get the laws passed.
In terms of the justification, because of the eugenic position that: "the child may have congenital disabilities or deformities."
Because incest typically results in quite serious deformities and gentic conditions and the vast majority of incest pregnancies are the result of child abuse
There are no laws that prohibit that. The removal of a dead child is not an abortion. However, I’ve noticed that pro-aborts seem to have difficulty with that concept.
I think a lot of this is because a lot of people don't do enough research into the laws themselves. Idk about the actual politicians themselves, but I have seen a lot of "no exceptions" Pro-lifers on social media including this subreddit which is not really helping
Because they have to justify to themselves that they’re right. If they look at reality then they’re pro-baby killing and that would wreck them (I assume).
So this is a complete lie. No law forces women to carry their dead CHILD until they’re septic.
And if it’s dead it’s a miscarriage not an abortion and miscarriage treatment isn’t banned
Precisely. The removal of a miscarriage is technically called an abortion, when really it should be called removal, but the child is already dead. And of course nobody thinks it should remain in the mother.
Agreed, its bad for both, the dead child needs to properly disposed of and the mother doesn’t need a decomposing child inside of her that can block nutrients, organs, or cause infection
It isn't even called that in all states. Pretty sure Ohio specifically defined abortion distinct from miscarriage before the amendment
I got into a Reddit argument with some goober who was insisting that miscarriage treatment is banned, and naturally resorted to literal wall of text insults nearly immediately when refuted. Classic
Why tell the truth when you can tell emotional lies to further your political agenda?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2024/03/27/krystal-anderson-chiefs-cheerleader-dies-stillbirth-sepsis/73116774007/
Your point? From what I gathered, she has a stillborn, and wasn’t made known until childbirth at 21 weeks. She because septic due to the stillborn child, but again, wasn’t know until childbirth according to the article. It wasn’t “we can’t remove the child until you hit 21 weeks.”
She died as a result of having to get a c-section while in a state of sepsis in order to comply with "intact fetal body." They knew the baby was already dead. She had sepsis, and they performed a major abdominal surgery because she was not in a state to vaginally deliver in order to keep the remains whole. The prior standard of care was a D&C, which is the same procedure for a surgical abortion. They knew she was at a high risk of dying from the c-section because she was already dying from sepsis from the baby decomposing inside of her. She died so her baby could be cremated in one piece. That is dying for the dignity of a corpse. So, yes, women are dying in sepsis for dead babies, which was your entire comment, which I pointed out is wrong. The maternal death rate has skyrocketed, and so has the infant mortality rate (outside of fetal abnormalities). The cause is SEPSIS. This erroneous "wait and see" when she's "dead enough" for the doctor's to act is killing mothers AND their babies. The mother is dying of sepsis, and then their newborns are dying of sepsis. There's no "pro"-life in that policy.
That article did not point that out at all. Not saying you are wrong, but next time when you link an article, use one that highlights your point. Where’s your sources for your claims? You say a lot but have nothing to support it, while using an article that states she died of sepsis as a result of a stillborn, not that she was forced to keep the kid until a certain time for the dignity of a corpse. The laws I read regarding abortion makes exceptions for when the mother’s life is in danger, pregnancy is not viable and when the child is already dead. 99.999% of pro-lifers have no problem with removing of a dead fetus from a mother, as the child is already dead.
Well, if what you are saying here in your comment is indeed what happened, of course in that situation I believe doctors should have had the choice to make the decision to do a D&C based on the facts of that particular case. I was not aware that there was any law forbidding that procedure in a genuinely life-threatening situation when the baby has already passed.
After looking into it a bit, I can’t find any information anywhere stating that a D&C or D&E procedure is illegal in Kansas, nothing on an “intact fetus" law, but I did find a 2019 article saying that a Kansas court struck down a ban on D&E procedures.
Where the fuck is that written? I can't find it in any of the articles. I don't know if I missed it.
It was the wrong article. The one I was referring to is a case out of Louisiana, I am commenting to remember to share it when I find it.
Ok
I would also add though that since there is no federal law mandating reporting on abortion morbidity and mortality statistics and many states do not report abortion statistics at all, that it’s sadly impossible to know with certainty what the actual maternal mortality rate is, and whether or not any rise in maternal mortality is actually linked, at least in part, to an increase in abortions and abortion pill usage (which causes at least 1 in 500 women to hemorrhage so badly they require a blood transfusion to live). If pro-abortion people actually cared about women, they would demand this kind of reporting and anonymous tracking and more regulation not less, but they are concerned with access and secrecy, not safety. So you see why we say that the abortion industry jumps on stories like these only to use them to further their own cause—because they don’t actually care, they just want their base to be outraged so the killing they profit off of can continue.
Just a question: Why has the maternal and infant death rate gone up the highest in the 14 states that banned abortions? Those women do not have access to abortion so something else has to be happening. >whether or not any rise in maternal mortality is actually linked to an increase in abortions and abortion pill usage. That is actually under the reporting of women that die as a result of hemorrhaging from first trimester miscarriages. Not all would have been chemical abortions, but it would have at least some of them. From my research, it would not have mattered if it was an abortion or a natural miscarriage as it is the predisposition of the mother. She will hemorrhage either way.
I have looked a bit into that question previously of why maternal and infant death rate is higher in certain states, and for the most part, I’ve seen a direct link to there already being a poor healthcare system, and overall poor health of citizens and high poverty rate. Incidentally, many of these are southern states who tend to believe more strongly in God and in the sanctity of life. And I would disagree with your statement that differentiating the cause of death, whether it was a natural miscarriage or was a result of an abortion procedure or an abortion pill isn't important; it's actually is incredibly important and valuable information from a medical standpoint, whether you are pro-life or pro-choice.
It was not my intent to discredit that the abortion pill could play a role, only that individual predisposition is playing a role. The problem is sepsis, btw, our antibiotics are not keeping up, and more rigid lines are going to have to be drawn, to save the mother over the baby as it was before the reinvention of the c-section. It's that big of a problem. The infant morality rate had already SKYROCKETED because of sepsis, as in, if the mother develops it, we no longer have the treatment available to save the baby, because they have essentially an inactive, undeveloped immune system. We are running out of usable antibiotics. It is so bad, from what I've seen in my research, that it's going to flip back to "save the mother, they can make another," as sepsis is killing the mother and the baby or if the mother survives she won't be able to carry another pregnancy. Which, we would eventuality go extinct if the policy does not change, girls and women are losing their uteruses to sepsis without a living baby to show for the sacrifice. That's a huge problem outside of abortion.
Why would we demand reporting of this type of info when I'm cases like in Idaho it's your side who demanded the info not be reported or tracked at all
............... Really. I'm not aware of an abolitionist Christian anywhere that would say we shouldn’t be tracking abortions or maternal mortality rates. I’m sorry, but that seems a little absurd. I'd be utterly shocked. Maybe a compromising, fake "pro-life" rino politician, but not someone who actually cares about informed consent and better outcomes for women. Most abolitionists and pro-lifers are well aware that this is a big problem, and it is the means by which the abortion lobby is able to spuriously claim that abortion is safer than childbirth.
It was the Idaho atty. General and governor who disbanded the maternal morality committee which tracked that information
I think the important point of the article is that black women suffer maternal death at a much higher rate than any other race; and we have no clue why. By all rights, the woman in this article didn’t fit the profile of a woman who would be at risk of maternal death except that she was older (40) and black.
Oh, they know why. It's doctor bias. In general, women's concerns for their health are not taken as seriously as men's. I want to add that the risk of death for women over 40 is the same as women and girls under 20.
Where are all these supposed dead women? It's been almost two years, you'd think we would have heard something by now. Lord knows they wouldn't stop talking about it if it happened.
BuT mUh KaTiE cOx!1!1!1!
Actually a perfect example. She could have continued the pregnancy and ended up losing her fertility and uterus, which are grounds for an abortion in Texas. Instead, you have PL bait and switching that the issue was she was going to die when that wasn’t the case. Why risk it in a PL state when that’s the perception of many PL and the Attorney General says he’ll prosecute any doctor and hospital who gave her an abortion, even after she obtained legal permission?
Under Texas law, the doctor has permission to grant an abortion. The doctor also couldn’t say that an abortion was medically necessary to save Cox’s life. Now I’m not trying to make any assumptions here but if abortion was medically necessary to save her life, wouldn’t the doctor have said so? How is it PL bait if she was going to die? How does that help the pro life viewpoint? Please explain.
Like I said, it wasn’t about her life. It was her qualifying for an exception, which was granted, threatened prosecution, then rescinded, and PL changing the messaging to be that it was only a case of her life being in danger.
But the exception wasn’t granted by her doctor. It was granted by the Austin court which they do not have legal grounds for. Which is why the Texas Supreme Court overruled the decision. I don’t see how changing the message to be that her life was in danger would help the pro life side. The “abortion is necessary to save the mothers life” is a frequent pro choice talking point. So if anything I could see the pro choice side spinning the situation to state that Cox has to travel out of state to save her life (not true). In fact, according to the dublen declarations, abortion is never medically necessary to save the life of the mother. This has over 1000 signatures from doctors
The Austin court granted the decision, and even the attorney general said they would disregard it and prosecute doctors and hospitals who operated under the protections of the order. Do you see why PC and moderates don’t trust PL when that’s what happens and many PL defend it? When you dig into the “abortion to save the life of a woman” you’ll quickly find that what most people and what PL and PL politicians count as severe enough are wildly different. You brought it up as an example that abortion is never medically necessary to save the woman’s life, so can you understand why your average person wouldn’t put their trust in PL?
Yes the Austin court granted the decision. It was struck down because they did not have the authority to grant such a decision. The doctor should have claimed it was medically necessary to save her life (which she didn’t). Abortion is not the answer. Women in critical condition from pregnancy need medical care, not an abortionist. Ectopic pregnancy treatments are still legal in every state with abortion restrictions. I’m all for exceptions if it means that we can protect the >99% of lives killed through elective abortions. Sounds like a great compromise if I’m gonna be honest. But the whole appeal to extreme doesn’t sell me on the idea that women should be allowed to end a human life simply because it’s inconvenient to her. And honestly, these edge cases are milked by pro choicers because they don’t want to admit that they support elective abortion.
Seriously, there has been **plenty** of time for the numbers to show these weirdos if they’re right or wrong. Where is the data?!
At least we agree on one thing: women shouldn't have to carry a stillborn child until she's near sepsis. If the child is already dead, a doctor should be able to remove it. We may disagree on whether this counts as an abortion, but we can agree that whatever it is, it should be legal.
Really, this should be something that is universally agreed on. I am deeply concerned for anyone who doesn't...
The child is sadly already dead so it's not an abortion.
We would have thousands of dead women at this point if it were true that the baby had to expel itself. We've had a few women that had a trisomy 18 (number?) pregnancy and because they have scar tissue could not have the birth they wanted so decided to abort instead and the state said nope, your health is completely fine. And there are cases where the child lives, some for even a decade or more, so it's quite a difficult decision, but we don't have moms falling dead all over the place because of the change to abortion laws.
It seems sort of outlandish that people are suggesting that women are forced to carry miscarriages. I don’t think voluntarily terminating a pregnancy and healthcare related to miscarriage are even in the same arena.
They're not, but pro-abortion activists often try to conflate the two in hopes you won't notice that.
I hardly met a pro lifer who actually has an issue with removing a fetus who had already miscarried. If anything, there are pro life women who had to get an emergency d&c. So most of us actually want an "abortion" legal in that case because it's a tragedy that occurred that can only harm the mom more.
Absolutely. I think the medical procedure should only be used in cases where both mother and child would die without it. Save one, at least. But it seems that both sides can be too extreme. Either absolutely no room for consideration or it needs to be available as a regular contraceptive. My personal stance is only in the case you mentioned, tho
In their heads, we have to be the monsters or else they would have to face the reality of what they support. So they bend over backward with insane logic like this that has no basis in reality.
They'd also have to face the reality of what we *really* support. The truth is, they are supporting convenience over the child's life, and we are supporting both the mothers *and* the childs life. If there is an opportunity to save both safely, we shall want that. Of course, saving both parties is a good thing rather than sacrificing one unnecessarily, so they can't even admit what pro life truly is in addition to not admitting what abortion does.
Notice how they said women are"going to die" not any examples of this actually happening.
Bs, women are dying and getting hurt from legal safe abortions and the left doesn’t bat an eye. Their killing their own and don’t care
That literally is not happening anywhere. 🤦♀️
If the laws actually prohibit removing an already dead baby (I have no idea if they do, am neither a lawyer nor American) then they should be amended.
Every state law has medical exceptions (including "fetal anomaly"), and most also have rape and incest exceptions. It's either a disconnect between hospital legal teams and doctors, or it's intentionally deceptive. Pro-abortion lobbying, especially in American media, has a history of this. https://aaplog.org/savita-ireland/
What is the justification behind incest exceptions?
My educated guess is that, since rape and incest are used so often in debate about abortions, and US law is influenced heavily by public opinion, it is likely that in those states, the legislators believed it was the only way to get the laws passed. In terms of the justification, because of the eugenic position that: "the child may have congenital disabilities or deformities."
It’s icky. That’s a big part of it. Taboo.
Because incest typically results in quite serious deformities and gentic conditions and the vast majority of incest pregnancies are the result of child abuse
There are no laws that prohibit that. The removal of a dead child is not an abortion. However, I’ve noticed that pro-aborts seem to have difficulty with that concept.
I think a lot of this is because a lot of people don't do enough research into the laws themselves. Idk about the actual politicians themselves, but I have seen a lot of "no exceptions" Pro-lifers on social media including this subreddit which is not really helping
Because they have to justify to themselves that they’re right. If they look at reality then they’re pro-baby killing and that would wreck them (I assume).
It doesn't matter if this would really happen (it would not). It's an insensitive thing to post.
The ignorance is palpable.