How many actual “late term” terminations actually happen? Actual reasons?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. This is an issue for me too, OP. I’m very pro-choice in first semester and I think women should be allowed to terminate at the anatomy scan (which is not always at 20 weeks, could be 1-2 weeks later to be fair). After that point, I think abortions should be banned unless there’s a very compelling medical reason for the baby or the mother.

I also hear things like “that almost never happens! Right wing talking point!” and if that’s true, I don’t see why anyone would have a problem with a law against it. It’s either happening or it’s not. And it shouldn’t, IMO.

I read something that said the vast majority of Americans have this middle of the road, sensible view on abortion. So I don’t know why we need to choose between one extreme or the other. The crazies on both sides drive me nuts.

One extreme is "no abortions period"
The other is, it should be illegal in the third term except in the instance of the fetus or mother's life is at risk.

What are the crazies on the latter?

Yes, when Roe was the law of the land, almost all states had restrictions on abortions in the third trimester, which starts at week 27/28.

And after Roe, states like New York relaxed their restrictions on late abortion.

That is a complete lie.

There are only 2 doctors in america that actually perform 3rd tri abortions and they are 25-35k before travel costs. NO ONE is waking up one morning and chosing this.

They are the only option for women who are in dire MEDICAL need.

Stop lying. What I wrote is factually and demonstrably correct.

CBS News: New York state has enacted strong new legal protections for abortion rights. The new law, signed by Governor Andrew Cuomo on Tuesday, safeguards rights laid out in Roe v. Wade and other court rulings, including a provision permitting late-term abortions when a woman's health is endangered, The Associated Press reports. The state's previous law, which had been on the books for nearly 50 years, only permitted abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy if a woman's life was at risk.

So what’s your problem? Women aren’t choosing late-term abortions for $hits and giggles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. This is an issue for me too, OP. I’m very pro-choice in first semester and I think women should be allowed to terminate at the anatomy scan (which is not always at 20 weeks, could be 1-2 weeks later to be fair). After that point, I think abortions should be banned unless there’s a very compelling medical reason for the baby or the mother.

I also hear things like “that almost never happens! Right wing talking point!” and if that’s true, I don’t see why anyone would have a problem with a law against it. It’s either happening or it’s not. And it shouldn’t, IMO.

I read something that said the vast majority of Americans have this middle of the road, sensible view on abortion. So I don’t know why we need to choose between one extreme or the other. The crazies on both sides drive me nuts.

One extreme is "no abortions period"
The other is, it should be illegal in the third term except in the instance of the fetus or mother's life is at risk.

What are the crazies on the latter?

Yes, when Roe was the law of the land, almost all states had restrictions on abortions in the third trimester, which starts at week 27/28.

And after Roe, states like New York relaxed their restrictions on late abortion.

That is a complete lie.

There are only 2 doctors in america that actually perform 3rd tri abortions and they are 25-35k before travel costs. NO ONE is waking up one morning and chosing this.

They are the only option for women who are in dire MEDICAL need.

That's because there's no market for it because it's not been legal. Now that the left wants it to be legal, there will be a market for it and there will be providers. After all, as we are repeatedly told, they are not real babies until the mother goes into labor and they are born. So there will be no legal, social, or moral barrier to prevent people from performing or obtaining late term abortions. And many groups will perform them pro Bono to make a point, and most likely, those organizations will receive government funding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I took misoprostol for retained placenta, after delivering a healthy baby. Since the placenta is products of conception, it was technically an abortion.

Third trimester abortions are quite risky, difficult to obtain and very costly. People aren’t looking up at 29 weeks and deciding to get an abortion. I don’t think doctors would do it for that reason because the benefits wouldn’t outweigh the risks. Most maternal health complications at that point would be solved by delivering the baby.

Thx, and sorry you had to go through that complication. Sounds rough.

I checked out the Wiki on 3rd trim terminations; I don’t think there is any factual dispute they are rare.

I would like to believe 100% of them are for the correct reasons: severe malformations and serious medical risk to the mother. I am just trying to confirm what I would like to believe.

It’s really amazing how much hostility I’ve received here in this thread, even though I have been very up front about being pro choice.

I’m the PP above, and I don’t think it’s amazing. You asked a kind of stupid question, to confirm your feelings. Here’s the thing: third trimester abortions are very rare, and one answer won’t cover all possibilities for motivation.

My record has a 40 week abortion in it, but it’s not because I didn’t want to deliver a baby. How could anyone possibly quantify this type of situation in a graph, along with the other reasons woman seek third trimester abortions? There are maybe a few hundred of these rare cases per year, and lawmakers should not ever try to draw lines for these complex medical issues based on anyone’s feelings. Sorry to be so blunt, but F your feelings. I’m going to get whatever medical is needed, and other women should have the same autonomy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. This is an issue for me too, OP. I’m very pro-choice in first semester and I think women should be allowed to terminate at the anatomy scan (which is not always at 20 weeks, could be 1-2 weeks later to be fair). After that point, I think abortions should be banned unless there’s a very compelling medical reason for the baby or the mother.

I also hear things like “that almost never happens! Right wing talking point!” and if that’s true, I don’t see why anyone would have a problem with a law against it. It’s either happening or it’s not. And it shouldn’t, IMO.

I read something that said the vast majority of Americans have this middle of the road, sensible view on abortion. So I don’t know why we need to choose between one extreme or the other. The crazies on both sides drive me nuts.

One extreme is "no abortions period"
The other is, it should be illegal in the third term except in the instance of the fetus or mother's life is at risk.

What are the crazies on the latter?

Yes, when Roe was the law of the land, almost all states had restrictions on abortions in the third trimester, which starts at week 27/28.

And after Roe, states like New York relaxed their restrictions on late abortion.

That is a complete lie.

There are only 2 doctors in america that actually perform 3rd tri abortions and they are 25-35k before travel costs. NO ONE is waking up one morning and chosing this.

They are the only option for women who are in dire MEDICAL need.

Stop lying. What I wrote is factually and demonstrably correct.

CBS News: New York state has enacted strong new legal protections for abortion rights. The new law, signed by Governor Andrew Cuomo on Tuesday, safeguards rights laid out in Roe v. Wade and other court rulings, including a provision permitting late-term abortions when a woman's health is endangered, The Associated Press reports. The state's previous law, which had been on the books for nearly 50 years, only permitted abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy if a woman's life was at risk.

So what’s your problem? Women aren’t choosing late-term abortions for $hits and giggles.

Why not, though? Why aren't they?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I took misoprostol for retained placenta, after delivering a healthy baby. Since the placenta is products of conception, it was technically an abortion.

Third trimester abortions are quite risky, difficult to obtain and very costly. People aren’t looking up at 29 weeks and deciding to get an abortion. I don’t think doctors would do it for that reason because the benefits wouldn’t outweigh the risks. Most maternal health complications at that point would be solved by delivering the baby.

Thx, and sorry you had to go through that complication. Sounds rough.

I checked out the Wiki on 3rd trim terminations; I don’t think there is any factual dispute they are rare.

I would like to believe 100% of them are for the correct reasons: severe malformations and serious medical risk to the mother. I am just trying to confirm what I would like to believe.

It’s really amazing how much hostility I’ve received here in this thread, even though I have been very up front about being pro choice.

I’m the PP above, and I don’t think it’s amazing. You asked a kind of stupid question to confirm your feelings. Here’s the thing: third trimester abortions are very rare, and one answer won’t cover all possibilities for motivation.

My record has a [b]40 week abortion in it, but it’s not because I didn’t want to deliver a baby. How could anyone possibly quantify this type of situation in a graph, along with the other reasons woman seek third trimester abortions? There are maybe a few hundred of these rare cases per year, and lawmakers should not ever try to draw lines for these complex medical issues based on anyone’s feelings. Sorry to be so blunt, but [/b]F your feelings[b]. I’m going to get whatever medical is needed, and other women should have the same autonomy.

Any fecking questions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article discusses 3 women who had abortions. The first woman had hers at 35 weeks - she had to got to Colorado. Read it to understand why this happens.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/18/late-term-abortion-experience-donald-trump

The day of the MRI finally arrived. She was 35 weeks, 0 days. By the end of it, Kate and her husband had the hardest answers they’ve ever received.

Their daughter had moderate to severe Dandy-Walker malformation. But that wasn’t the only diagnosis; Laurel also had a brain condition in which fluid builds up in the ventricles, eventually developing into hydrocephalus and possibly crushing her brain. She had a congenital disorder too, in which there was complete or partial absence of the broad band of nerve fibers joining the two hemispheres of the brain.

What this meant was Laurel was expected to never walk, talk, or swallow. That was if she survived birth.

Kate asked her doctor: “What can a baby like mine do? Sleep all the time?”

“Babies like yours are not generally comfortable enough to sleep,” the neurologist said.

I don’t think I’d chose abortion in that scenario but I cannot really say I think it should be outlawed.

She chose an abortion because the baby was not going to survive, and would be in pain and distress for his entire short life because his brain was so malformed.

The story of another woman who had a 3rd trimester abortion due to her child also having brain abnormalities incompatible with life:

We learned that because of the severe brain anomalies, our baby would have had on-going seizures 70% of the time. And that was best case scenario. Our daughter would lack the physical coordination to suck, swallow, feed, walk, talk or know her environment—if she survived birth at all. The sonogram already showed the baby was not swallowing. And in hindsight, I believe her constant, non-stop movements—movements that I so lovingly joked about throughout the pregnancy as being payback for having a calm, easy-going first child—were the result of spasms caused by the brain abnormalities.

If we had carried our baby to term, we would have needed a resuscitation order in place prior to giving birth as she was incapable of living without significant medical assistance.

We did not want our daughter to exist solely because of machines. We did not want to bring a child into this world that would only be here in a vegetated state, if at all. For our baby, for our son, and for our family, my husband and I made the heartbreaking decision to terminate the pregnancy. We did what I believe was the most loving, humane act a parent could do—put an end to our baby’s suffering.

Because I was late in my pregnancy, I had to travel to Colorado to one of a handful of facilities in the U.S. that provides later abortion care. It was awful to go through the hell of ending my very much wanted and loved pregnancy and to have to do it across the country, so far from my home and loved ones.

https://prochoice.org/statement-of-dana-weinstein-on-harmful-impact-of-smith-bill/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If half of abortions occurring in the second trimester, after 20 weeks, are the result of not having the funds to get an abortion, then you definitely aren’t paying for a 20,000 plus procedure in the third trimester.

This is the real issue. People are getting abortions late for reasons OTHER than birth defects or health of mother.

OP again. This is the claim I’d like to fact-check.

How many third-trimester terminations are for reasons OTHER THAN birth defects or physical health of the mother?

No has answered that yet.

DP I think the simple answer to your question is that nobody knows because nobody is keeping track of this data.

OP again. Thx.

Sadly, people littered this thread with political statements even after I said not to. And while some information has been shared (thx again), we still do not have facts, which makes debating this kinda pointless.

My guess is you are probably right: no one is keeping track of this data.

If so, there really is no reliable answer to my question: how many third-trimester terminations are purely elective.

Unless someone can post some actual data in answer to my question, there’s no longer much point to anyone posting (again: stop posting political responses! This is about ascertaining basic facts. That’s all).

You are such a troll!!
The answer to your question is:
Vanishingly small. My research indicates about 148 over a twelve year period, most for fetal abnormalities or health of the mother. The remainder unreported, but believed the same.

Link?

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/health_policy/mortality-records-mentioning-termination-of-pregnancy.htm

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. This is an issue for me too, OP. I’m very pro-choice in first semester and I think women should be allowed to terminate at the anatomy scan (which is not always at 20 weeks, could be 1-2 weeks later to be fair). After that point, I think abortions should be banned unless there’s a very compelling medical reason for the baby or the mother.

I also hear things like “that almost never happens! Right wing talking point!” and if that’s true, I don’t see why anyone would have a problem with a law against it. It’s either happening or it’s not. And it shouldn’t, IMO.

I read something that said the vast majority of Americans have this middle of the road, sensible view on abortion. So I don’t know why we need to choose between one extreme or the other. The crazies on both sides drive me nuts.

One extreme is "no abortions period"
The other is, it should be illegal in the third term except in the instance of the fetus or mother's life is at risk.

What are the crazies on the latter?

Yes, when Roe was the law of the land, almost all states had restrictions on abortions in the third trimester, which starts at week 27/28.

And after Roe, states like New York relaxed their restrictions on late abortion.

That is a complete lie.

There are only 2 doctors in america that actually perform 3rd tri abortions and they are 25-35k before travel costs. NO ONE is waking up one morning and chosing this.

They are the only option for women who are in dire MEDICAL need.

That's because there's no market for it because it's not been legal. Now that the left wants it to be legal, there will be a market for it and there will be providers. After all, as we are repeatedly told, they are not real babies until the mother goes into labor and they are born. So there will be no legal, social, or moral barrier to prevent people from performing or obtaining late term abortions. And many groups will perform them pro Bono to make a point, and most likely, those organizations will receive government funding.

You are just making sh—- up. Please join us in the real world. “The left” wants women to have full access to needed medical care. That’s it. The barrier to women having an elective abortion in the third trimester… is women. They don’t make the choice to do that.

[Anonymous]

^ and I will add women don’t choose that for the same reasons prisons aren’t filled with women. For the same reasons wars aren’t started by women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I took misoprostol for retained placenta, after delivering a healthy baby. Since the placenta is products of conception, it was technically an abortion.

Third trimester abortions are quite risky, difficult to obtain and very costly. People aren’t looking up at 29 weeks and deciding to get an abortion. I don’t think doctors would do it for that reason because the benefits wouldn’t outweigh the risks. Most maternal health complications at that point would be solved by delivering the baby.

Thx, and sorry you had to go through that complication. Sounds rough.

I checked out the Wiki on 3rd trim terminations; I don’t think there is any factual dispute they are rare.

I would like to believe 100% of them are for the correct reasons: severe malformations and serious medical risk to the mother. I am just trying to confirm what I would like to believe.

It’s really amazing how much hostility I’ve received here in this thread, even though I have been very up front about being pro choice.

I’m the PP above, and I don’t think it’s amazing. You asked a kind of stupid question to confirm your feelings. Here’s the thing: third trimester abortions are very rare, and one answer won’t cover all possibilities for motivation.

My record has a [b]40 week abortion in it, but it’s not because I didn’t want to deliver a baby. How could anyone possibly quantify this type of situation in a graph, along with the other reasons woman seek third trimester abortions? There are maybe a few hundred of these rare cases per year, and lawmakers should not ever try to draw lines for these complex medical issues based on anyone’s feelings. Sorry to be so blunt, but [/b]F your feelings[b]. I’m going to get whatever medical is needed, and other women should have the same autonomy.

Any fecking questions?

Did you read my previous post?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. This is an issue for me too, OP. I’m very pro-choice in first semester and I think women should be allowed to terminate at the anatomy scan (which is not always at 20 weeks, could be 1-2 weeks later to be fair). After that point, I think abortions should be banned unless there’s a very compelling medical reason for the baby or the mother.

I also hear things like “that almost never happens! Right wing talking point!” and if that’s true, I don’t see why anyone would have a problem with a law against it. It’s either happening or it’s not. And it shouldn’t, IMO.

I read something that said the vast majority of Americans have this middle of the road, sensible view on abortion. So I don’t know why we need to choose between one extreme or the other. The crazies on both sides drive me nuts.

One extreme is "no abortions period"
The other is, it should be illegal in the third term except in the instance of the fetus or mother's life is at risk.

What are the crazies on the latter?

Yes, when Roe was the law of the land, almost all states had restrictions on abortions in the third trimester, which starts at week 27/28.

And after Roe, states like New York relaxed their restrictions on late abortion.

That is a complete lie.

There are only 2 doctors in america that actually perform 3rd tri abortions and they are 25-35k before travel costs. NO ONE is waking up one morning and chosing this.

They are the only option for women who are in dire MEDICAL need.

That's because there's no market for it because it's not been legal. Now that the left wants it to be legal, there will be a market for it and there will be providers. After all, as we are repeatedly told, they are not real babies until the mother goes into labor and they are born. So there will be no legal, social, or moral barrier to prevent people from performing or obtaining late term abortions. And many groups will perform them pro Bono to make a point, and most likely, those organizations will receive government funding.

You are an absolute and dangerous clown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. This is an issue for me too, OP. I’m very pro-choice in first semester and I think women should be allowed to terminate at the anatomy scan (which is not always at 20 weeks, could be 1-2 weeks later to be fair). After that point, I think abortions should be banned unless there’s a very compelling medical reason for the baby or the mother.

I also hear things like “that almost never happens! Right wing talking point!” and if that’s true, I don’t see why anyone would have a problem with a law against it. It’s either happening or it’s not. And it shouldn’t, IMO.

I read something that said the vast majority of Americans have this middle of the road, sensible view on abortion. So I don’t know why we need to choose between one extreme or the other. The crazies on both sides drive me nuts.

One extreme is "no abortions period"
The other is, it should be illegal in the third term except in the instance of the fetus or mother's life is at risk.

What are the crazies on the latter?

Yes, when Roe was the law of the land, almost all states had restrictions on abortions in the third trimester, which starts at week 27/28.

And after Roe, states like New York relaxed their restrictions on late abortion.

That is a complete lie.

There are only 2 doctors in america that actually perform 3rd tri abortions and they are 25-35k before travel costs. NO ONE is waking up one morning and chosing this.

They are the only option for women who are in dire MEDICAL need.

That's because there's no market for it because it's not been legal. Now that the left wants it to be legal, there will be a market for it and there will be providers. After all, as we are repeatedly told, they are not real babies until the mother goes into labor and they are born. So there will be no legal, social, or moral barrier to prevent people from performing or obtaining late term abortions. And many groups will perform them pro Bono to make a point, and most likely, those organizations will receive government funding.

You aholes can’t have it both ways.
I thought New York and California were leftist states that let women “abort their fetuses after birth”. Just a few posts up some RWNJ is complaining about abortion on demand in NY.
So if that’s what the blue states are doing NOW… why haven’t women just been lining up to do it? Surely you could be pointing to the millions of women making this choice.
Because as of now there are only a few hundred of these procedures scheduled yearly.
So which is it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ and I will add women don’t choose that for the same reasons prisons aren’t filled with women. For the same reasons wars aren’t started by women.

- except the Falklands war.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^^ also, can we please leave politics out of this for now? Please? Just looking to understand the facts here.

Why are people unable to comprehend plain English?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article discusses 3 women who had abortions. The first woman had hers at 35 weeks - she had to got to Colorado. Read it to understand why this happens.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/18/late-term-abortion-experience-donald-trump

The day of the MRI finally arrived. She was 35 weeks, 0 days. By the end of it, Kate and her husband had the hardest answers they’ve ever received.

Their daughter had moderate to severe Dandy-Walker malformation. But that wasn’t the only diagnosis; Laurel also had a brain condition in which fluid builds up in the ventricles, eventually developing into hydrocephalus and possibly crushing her brain. She had a congenital disorder too, in which there was complete or partial absence of the broad band of nerve fibers joining the two hemispheres of the brain.

What this meant was Laurel was expected to never walk, talk, or swallow. That was if she survived birth.

Kate asked her doctor: “What can a baby like mine do? Sleep all the time?”

“Babies like yours are not generally comfortable enough to sleep,” the neurologist said.

I don’t think I’d chose abortion in that scenario but I cannot really say I think it should be outlawed.

She chose an abortion because the baby was not going to survive, and would be in pain and distress for his entire short life because his brain was so malformed.

The story of another woman who had a 3rd trimester abortion due to her child also having brain abnormalities incompatible with life:

We learned that because of the severe brain anomalies, our baby would have had on-going seizures 70% of the time. And that was best case scenario. Our daughter would lack the physical coordination to suck, swallow, feed, walk, talk or know her environment—if she survived birth at all. The sonogram already showed the baby was not swallowing. And in hindsight, I believe her constant, non-stop movements—movements that I so lovingly joked about throughout the pregnancy as being payback for having a calm, easy-going first child—were the result of spasms caused by the brain abnormalities.

If we had carried our baby to term, we would have needed a resuscitation order in place prior to giving birth as she was incapable of living without significant medical assistance.

We did not want our daughter to exist solely because of machines. We did not want to bring a child into this world that would only be here in a vegetated state, if at all. For our baby, for our son, and for our family, my husband and I made the heartbreaking decision to terminate the pregnancy. We did what I believe was the most loving, humane act a parent could do—put an end to our baby’s suffering.

Because I was late in my pregnancy, I had to travel to Colorado to one of a handful of facilities in the U.S. that provides later abortion care. It was awful to go through the hell of ending my very much wanted and loved pregnancy and to have to do it across the country, so far from my home and loved ones.

https://prochoice.org/statement-of-dana-weinstein-on-harmful-impact-of-smith-bill/

In her place I would not have placed the resuscitation order. I would have wanted comfort care only and let nature take its course.