My abortion story

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for sharing your story, OP. And I'm sorry for your loss.


But here's my abortion story: I've never needed one. And it doesn't matter if you wanted the baby or if you were raped or if it saved your life or whatever. It doesn't matter if your BC failed or if you're a "slut" or whatever, abortion is healthcare and it's a human right for women to have control over if or when they have a baby.

Let's get to work...

This.
Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:June 24, the day the Supreme Court ruled on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health,was my 40th birthday. I was able to celebrate because abortion saved my life.

In September 2020, I had my 20 week anatomy scan for a pregnancy we very much wanted. That the fetus’s kidneys and lungs were not developing, there was fluid around the heart, I had no amniotic fluid, and my placenta was severely degraded. All my doctors agreed, the only choice was to terminate my pregnancy.

Thankfully, in MD and DC, abortion up to 24 weeks was legal. Even so, I had to jump through many stressful, challenging hoops: switching doctors to a practice who would perform the procedure; navigating Hyde Amendment restrictions on my Federal employee insurance; and being alone at appointments because of Covid restrictions.

I am thankful every day that I was able to get the care I needed at a hospital with an experienced and compassionate medical team. The the doctors could not stop me from bleeding after the procedure. I went into hypovolemic shock, lost 3x the amount of blood in my body, and formed blood clots in my hand and foot. I woke up with a breathing tube in the ICU, all alone and in excruciating pain. But I was alive. I was in the ICU for 8 days.

The decision in Dobbs means that pregnant woman like me will die. Even in states that provide exception for “life of the mother,” when abortion is so severely restricted, the care is not actually available. Who gets to decide how likely it is that I’m going to die before I get the medical care I need? How will doctors be able to provide the care we need to save our lives?

All abortion is, in some way, to save the life of the mother. I share my story as one example of the repercussions of denying reproductive health care to us.

Here's what I genuinely don't understand. If this procedure is medically necessary (and I don't doubt that it is), why are only certain ob/gyns willing or able to perform it? Is it because it is so complicated to learn (I'm dubious, given the other procedures these doctors offer and the emergencies they handle)(, because it is so rare (again, not an excuse; I assume your doctors would have treated you if you had spontaneously begun to abort), or for some other reason?

You suggest it was because of abortion restrictions, so do you think it was genuinely because your doctors were afraid of performing this procedure because of legal consequences?

Obviously we are going to need some very courageous doctors who feel confident that they can defend their decisions in court if this is the case.

The same advances in technology that the pro-life side argues defends their position can also be used to argue for lack of viability.

I think however that, for most pro-lifers, they are actually just bringing up the "health of the mother" argument to try to argue that ANY limits on abortion are dangerous to women, and whether this is true or not, it immediately goes back to the "all or nothing" argument that is actually not something most Americans favor. (Most Americans are pro-choice, but many-- me included-- are uncomfortable with the idea that allowing an ob/gyn to decide when to terminate a pregnancy for health reasons could extend to allowing a woman who is twenty weeks pregnant with a healthy baby to terminate that pregnancy at a clinic where she never actually consults with her own ob/gyn. Fortunately, I think the latter is very rare, but I'm not sure that's an argument for allowing it to ever happen, and I'm not convinced it's legally impossible to distinguish between these occurrences. That is why I go back to the fact that your own doctor would not perform the procedure-- if the same people who deliver our babies had been tasked with performing abortions instead of doctors whose sole job is abortions and often never see the woman undergoing an abortion prior to or after the procedure, it seems to me women with medical issues would be safer and less affected by the nationwide debate over life. Then again, it would also make abortion a lot less accessible-- and so we have to be honest about what we really want. If what we really want is accessible abortion, for any reason, at any time, it requires a different kind of approach. Because even most pro-lifers are on our side with the health of the mother/rape/incest but most pro-choicers get uncomfortable when we begin talking about healthy babies in the second or third trimesters.

Only about 5% of US ob/gyns perform abortions. I have talked to scores of gyns about this (I work in the field) and this is mostly for personal MORAL issues vs. legal ones. While most support a woman's right to choose, they do not want the "blood on their own hands". It's not what they want to be doing day-in and day-out. And lest we criticize them, each and every one of us had the option to attend medical school/residency to learn this skill (and could start our training journey tomorrow) but yet we too chose to earn our money in less messy ways as well.

Op here. Neither Reiter Hill nor Sibley MFM will perform abortions. Maybe it’s a Johns Hopkins Hospital management decision? I don’t remember if they told me why. But I had to be referred to Washington Hospital Center. In states with abortion bans, even with a “life of the mother” exemption, OBs will not perform the procedure.

As to the Hyde Amendment question- I am a federal employee so it applies to my Federal Employee Plan insurance policy.

My point is even in a liberal state with abortion access there were still many hoops to jump through. It is much harder for our sisters in states with restrictive abortion laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:June 24, the day the Supreme Court ruled on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health,was my 40th birthday. I was able to celebrate because abortion saved my life.

In September 2020, I had my 20 week anatomy scan for a pregnancy we very much wanted. That the fetus’s kidneys and lungs were not developing, there was fluid around the heart, I had no amniotic fluid, and my placenta was severely degraded. All my doctors agreed, the only choice was to terminate my pregnancy.

Thankfully, in MD and DC, abortion up to 24 weeks was legal. Even so, I had to jump through many stressful, challenging hoops: switching doctors to a practice who would perform the procedure; navigating Hyde Amendment restrictions on my Federal employee insurance; and being alone at appointments because of Covid restrictions.

I am thankful every day that I was able to get the care I needed at a hospital with an experienced and compassionate medical team. The the doctors could not stop me from bleeding after the procedure. I went into hypovolemic shock, lost 3x the amount of blood in my body, and formed blood clots in my hand and foot. I woke up with a breathing tube in the ICU, all alone and in excruciating pain. But I was alive. I was in the ICU for 8 days.

The decision in Dobbs means that pregnant woman like me will die. Even in states that provide exception for “life of the mother,” when abortion is so severely restricted, the care is not actually available. Who gets to decide how likely it is that I’m going to die before I get the medical care I need? How will doctors be able to provide the care we need to save our lives?

All abortion is, in some way, to save the life of the mother. I share my story as one example of the repercussions of denying reproductive health care to us.

Here's what I genuinely don't understand. If this procedure is medically necessary (and I don't doubt that it is), why are only certain ob/gyns willing or able to perform it? Is it because it is so complicated to learn (I'm dubious, given the other procedures these doctors offer and the emergencies they handle)(, because it is so rare (again, not an excuse; I assume your doctors would have treated you if you had spontaneously begun to abort), or for some other reason?

You suggest it was because of abortion restrictions, so do you think it was genuinely because your doctors were afraid of performing this procedure because of legal consequences?

Obviously we are going to need some very courageous doctors who feel confident that they can defend their decisions in court if this is the case.

The same advances in technology that the pro-life side argues defends their position can also be used to argue for lack of viability.

I think however that, for most pro-lifers, they are actually just bringing up the "health of the mother" argument to try to argue that ANY limits on abortion are dangerous to women, and whether this is true or not, it immediately goes back to the "all or nothing" argument that is actually not something most Americans favor. (Most Americans are pro-choice, but many-- me included-- are uncomfortable with the idea that allowing an ob/gyn to decide when to terminate a pregnancy for health reasons could extend to allowing a woman who is twenty weeks pregnant with a healthy baby to terminate that pregnancy at a clinic where she never actually consults with her own ob/gyn. Fortunately, I think the latter is very rare, but I'm not sure that's an argument for allowing it to ever happen, and I'm not convinced it's legally impossible to distinguish between these occurrences. That is why I go back to the fact that your own doctor would not perform the procedure-- if the same people who deliver our babies had been tasked with performing abortions instead of doctors whose sole job is abortions and often never see the woman undergoing an abortion prior to or after the procedure, it seems to me women with medical issues would be safer and less affected by the nationwide debate over life. Then again, it would also make abortion a lot less accessible-- and so we have to be honest about what we really want. If what we really want is accessible abortion, for any reason, at any time, it requires a different kind of approach. Because even most pro-lifers are on our side with the health of the mother/rape/incest but most pro-choicers get uncomfortable when we begin talking about healthy babies in the second or third trimesters.

Only about 5% of US ob/gyns perform abortions. I have talked to scores of gyns about this (I work in the field) and this is mostly for personal MORAL issues vs. legal ones. While most support a woman's right to choose, they do not want the "blood on their own hands". It's not what they want to be doing day-in and day-out. And lest we criticize them, each and every one of us had the option to attend medical school/residency to learn this skill (and could start our training journey tomorrow) but yet we too chose to earn our money in less messy ways as well.

Op here. Neither Reiter Hill nor Sibley MFM will perform abortions. Maybe it’s a Johns Hopkins Hospital management decision? I don’t remember if they told me why. But I had to be referred to Washington Hospital Center. In states with abortion bans, even with a “life of the mother” exemption, OBs will not perform the procedure.

As to the Hyde Amendment question- I am a federal employee so it applies to my Federal Employee Plan insurance policy.

My point is even in a liberal state with abortion access there were still many hoops to jump through. It is much harder for our sisters in states with restrictive abortion laws.

NP here and Capital Women’s Care does not either, my OB/Gyn sent me to a clinic when I needed one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I delievered twins at 20 weeks and obviously they lived only a few hours, so I am truly sympathetic to your loss. I also endured non-stop and dangerous bleeding after a different delivery. So I understand a little bit what you went through. So please understand, I don't mean to be callous or dismissive. But, I am trying to understand how the abortion saved your life. It kind of sounds like the abortion endangered your life. What would have happened had the pregnancy been left to end on its own? Yes, it would have been difficult to know you were carrying a baby that would not survive, but it may very well have been a safer decision. Sometimes in life we suffer through very sad things. I have had my share. But I don't think it's accurate to say that abortion saved your life.

I mean I’m not a doctor but all my doctors told me I would be at higher risk of placental abruption if I waited. So maybe it hastened the inevitable but at least I was already in the OR when it happened.

What it hastened, by probabaly only a few hours, was delivery. In fact, my 20-week twins were born because of placental abruption and when that happens, so does spontaneous abortion--at 20 weeks, that means delivery of babies, non-viable babies. Trust me, I held mine. They are not a sack of cells as some people like to believe. I love that OP gets all kinds of sympathy for her choice to end the pregnancy, but mine ended without a choice and all I get is argument. I asked a thoughtful question, shared my opinion--which includes believing strongly in OP's and everyone else's right to abort their pregnancies--for any reason--but it's not good enough. Evidently, you're either with them on celebrating abortion or you're against them. Got it.

I’m not sure what your objection is. You are not OP’s doctor - OP’s doctor assessed that it was unsafe to continue the pregnancy. *that is what medical choice means.* that the doctor and patient decide. the fact that you delivered at 20 weeks after an abruption has nothing at all to do with OP’s situation.

You're not reading OP's posts very closely. If you had been, you would see what I know: the abortion was worse for her than had she waited. But fine, she made a choice. She was asked questions, changed her story. My familiarity with complications extends beyond my own loss and OP either misunderstood her situation or is changing her story to make this post work. According to the facts of her original story--before she started changing it, and even to an extend afterward--abortion did not save her life.

I am sorry for your loss, but you seem really invested in attacking the OP, who also lost a baby. Maybe you should bow out.

Actually, initially, I asked OP about some clarification, after expressing sympathy. The whole entire subject of this thread is "abortion saved my life." Once I asked, with great sympathy, whether in fact the abortion saved her life, or risked it (which the OP pretty much explains), I was attached by her and many other posters. If she is going to make a specious claim, with no medical evidence, she should anticipate some questions. Not invested in attaching anybody, but OP sounds like a selfish jerk at this point, honestly. She hasn't shown an ounce of sympathy for anybody on this thread, except the one other poster who chose abortion for medical reasons. I wonder what OP's opinion on those who choose it for lifestyle reasons is.

You need to see medical evidence? She told you her doctor recommended the abortion. Why would you, a random person on the internet, need to see the evidence?

Another question: why do you assume OP's situation would be exactly like yours?

These are honest questions I am curious about, and that you should examine before going on to judge more people.

And where is YOUR medical evidence showing us that your doctor knew with 100% certainty that you would not need a termination or d&c?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I delievered twins at 20 weeks and obviously they lived only a few hours, so I am truly sympathetic to your loss. I also endured non-stop and dangerous bleeding after a different delivery. So I understand a little bit what you went through. So please understand, I don't mean to be callous or dismissive. But, I am trying to understand how the abortion saved your life. It kind of sounds like the abortion endangered your life. What would have happened had the pregnancy been left to end on its own? Yes, it would have been difficult to know you were carrying a baby that would not survive, but it may very well have been a safer decision. Sometimes in life we suffer through very sad things. I have had my share. But I don't think it's accurate to say that abortion saved your life.

I mean I’m not a doctor but all my doctors told me I would be at higher risk of placental abruption if I waited. So maybe it hastened the inevitable but at least I was already in the OR when it happened.

What it hastened, by probabaly only a few hours, was delivery. In fact, my 20-week twins were born because of placental abruption and when that happens, so does spontaneous abortion--at 20 weeks, that means delivery of babies, non-viable babies. Trust me, I held mine. They are not a sack of cells as some people like to believe. I love that OP gets all kinds of sympathy for her choice to end the pregnancy, but mine ended without a choice and all I get is argument. I asked a thoughtful question, shared my opinion--which includes believing strongly in OP's and everyone else's right to abort their pregnancies--for any reason--but it's not good enough. Evidently, you're either with them on celebrating abortion or you're against them. Got it.

I’m not sure what your objection is. You are not OP’s doctor - OP’s doctor assessed that it was unsafe to continue the pregnancy. *that is what medical choice means.* that the doctor and patient decide. the fact that you delivered at 20 weeks after an abruption has nothing at all to do with OP’s situation.

You're not reading OP's posts very closely. If you had been, you would see what I know: the abortion was worse for her than had she waited. But fine, she made a choice. She was asked questions, changed her story. My familiarity with complications extends beyond my own loss and OP either misunderstood her situation or is changing her story to make this post work. According to the facts of her original story--before she started changing it, and even to an extend afterward--abortion did not save her life.

I am sorry for your loss, but you seem really invested in attacking the OP, who also lost a baby. Maybe you should bow out.

Actually, initially, I asked OP about some clarification, after expressing sympathy. The whole entire subject of this thread is "abortion saved my life." Once I asked, with great sympathy, whether in fact the abortion saved her life, or risked it (which the OP pretty much explains), I was attached by her and many other posters. If she is going to make a specious claim, with no medical evidence, she should anticipate some questions. Not invested in attaching anybody, but OP sounds like a selfish jerk at this point, honestly. She hasn't shown an ounce of sympathy for anybody on this thread, except the one other poster who chose abortion for medical reasons. I wonder what OP's opinion on those who choose it for lifestyle reasons is.

You need to see medical evidence? She told you her doctor recommended the abortion. Why would you, a random person on the internet, need to see the evidence?

Another question: why do you assume OP's situation would be exactly like yours?

These are honest questions I am curious about, and that you should examine before going on to judge more people.

And where is YOUR medical evidence showing us that your doctor knew with 100% certainty that you would not need a termination or d&c?

And see? This is why women are going to die. People won't believe they needed care until they've in active organ failure or bleeding out. And by then it's too late.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, I delievered twins at 20 weeks and obviously they lived only a few hours, so I am truly sympathetic to your loss. I also endured non-stop and dangerous bleeding after a different delivery. So I understand a little bit what you went through. So please understand, I don't mean to be callous or dismissive. But, I am trying to understand how the abortion saved your life. It kind of sounds like the abortion endangered your life. What would have happened had the pregnancy been left to end on its own? Yes, it would have been difficult to know you were carrying a baby that would not survive, but it may very well have been a safer decision. Sometimes in life we suffer through very sad things. I have had my share. But I don't think it's accurate to say that abortion saved your life.

Oh please, you absolutely DID mean to be callous and dismissive and YOU KNOW IT.

OP, I'm so sorry for your loss and the trauma of what you had to go through. I hope you're okay. I appreciate your honesty and bravery in posting this, knowing that itches like the above are going to post hurtful and awful things in response. I stand with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I delievered twins at 20 weeks and obviously they lived only a few hours, so I am truly sympathetic to your loss. I also endured non-stop and dangerous bleeding after a different delivery. So I understand a little bit what you went through. So please understand, I don't mean to be callous or dismissive. But, I am trying to understand how the abortion saved your life. It kind of sounds like the abortion endangered your life. What would have happened had the pregnancy been left to end on its own? Yes, it would have been difficult to know you were carrying a baby that would not survive, but it may very well have been a safer decision. Sometimes in life we suffer through very sad things. I have had my share. But I don't think it's accurate to say that abortion saved your life.

I mean I’m not a doctor but all my doctors told me I would be at higher risk of placental abruption if I waited. So maybe it hastened the inevitable but at least I was already in the OR when it happened.

What it hastened, by probabaly only a few hours, was delivery. In fact, my 20-week twins were born because of placental abruption and when that happens, so does spontaneous abortion--at 20 weeks, that means delivery of babies, non-viable babies. Trust me, I held mine. They are not a sack of cells as some people like to believe. I love that OP gets all kinds of sympathy for her choice to end the pregnancy, but mine ended without a choice and all I get is argument. I asked a thoughtful question, shared my opinion--which includes believing strongly in OP's and everyone else's right to abort their pregnancies--for any reason--but it's not good enough. Evidently, you're either with them on celebrating abortion or you're against them. Got it.

I’m not sure what your objection is. You are not OP’s doctor - OP’s doctor assessed that it was unsafe to continue the pregnancy. *that is what medical choice means.* that the doctor and patient decide. the fact that you delivered at 20 weeks after an abruption has nothing at all to do with OP’s situation.

You're not reading OP's posts very closely. If you had been, you would see what I know: the abortion was worse for her than had she waited. But fine, she made a choice. She was asked questions, changed her story. My familiarity with complications extends beyond my own loss and OP either misunderstood her situation or is changing her story to make this post work. According to the facts of her original story--before she started changing it, and even to an extend afterward--abortion did not save her life.

I am sorry for your loss, but you seem really invested in attacking the OP, who also lost a baby. Maybe you should bow out.

Actually, initially, I asked OP about some clarification, after expressing sympathy. The whole entire subject of this thread is "abortion saved my life." Once I asked, with great sympathy, whether in fact the abortion saved her life, or risked it (which the OP pretty much explains), I was attached by her and many other posters. If she is going to make a specious claim, with no medical evidence, she should anticipate some questions. Not invested in attaching anybody, but OP sounds like a selfish jerk at this point, honestly. She hasn't shown an ounce of sympathy for anybody on this thread, except the one other poster who chose abortion for medical reasons. I wonder what OP's opinion on those who choose it for lifestyle reasons is.

You need to see medical evidence? She told you her doctor recommended the abortion. Why would you, a random person on the internet, need to see the evidence?

Another question: why do you assume OP's situation would be exactly like yours?

These are honest questions I am curious about, and that you should examine before going on to judge more people.

And where is YOUR medical evidence showing us that your doctor knew with 100% certainty that you would not need a termination or d&c?

And see? This is why women are going to die. People won't believe they needed care until they've in active organ failure or bleeding out. And by then it's too late.

Yes, and also as I believe has been pointed out, most doctors will risk letting the woman get close to death to perform an abortion because they’re going to want to avoid criminal penalties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Abortion is one of those things you can be fully, 100 percent against - until you need one. My catholic best childhood friend was against abortion rights until she got pregnant at 19. She got an abortion.

This x 1,000, 000

I grew up Catholic and going to Catholic schools. The first person I knew to have an abortion was a very pro life and had participated in rallies with our church and had actually cried tears while talking about the issue with others. When she got pregnancy as a freshman in college her first thought was to have an abortion which she did. She didn’t regret it. She still attends church, married has kids.

I absolutely believe a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy. But then again, I also absolutely believe that a person has a right to refuse vaccines. And the absolute right to refuse any and/or all medical interventions and medications. (as long as they are a legal competent adult) It’s their body, their life, their choice. I absolutely don’t support most pro choice organizations because they don’t believe these things. If you say “my body, my choice” but believe it only aligns with this one issue, then you don’t really believe it and I can understand why pro life proponents don’t take you seriously.

Reproductive choices don't make anyone else sick. The choice to not get your kids the typical childhood vaccinations has made other people sick. With the original variant of the Covid pandemic, vaccinations absolutely protected those around us. And throughout the pandemic, unvaccinated people have caused stress on the health care system.

There's a huge difference between vaccination and abortion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:June 24, the day the Supreme Court ruled on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health,was my 40th birthday. I was able to celebrate because abortion saved my life.

In September 2020, I had my 20 week anatomy scan for a pregnancy we very much wanted. That the fetus’s kidneys and lungs were not developing, there was fluid around the heart, I had no amniotic fluid, and my placenta was severely degraded. All my doctors agreed, the only choice was to terminate my pregnancy.

Thankfully, in MD and DC, abortion up to 24 weeks was legal. Even so, I had to jump through many stressful, challenging hoops: switching doctors to a practice who would perform the procedure; navigating Hyde Amendment restrictions on my Federal employee insurance; and being alone at appointments because of Covid restrictions.

I am thankful every day that I was able to get the care I needed at a hospital with an experienced and compassionate medical team. The the doctors could not stop me from bleeding after the procedure. I went into hypovolemic shock, lost 3x the amount of blood in my body, and formed blood clots in my hand and foot. I woke up with a breathing tube in the ICU, all alone and in excruciating pain. But I was alive. I was in the ICU for 8 days.

The decision in Dobbs means that pregnant woman like me will die. Even in states that provide exception for “life of the mother,” when abortion is so severely restricted, the care is not actually available. Who gets to decide how likely it is that I’m going to die before I get the medical care I need? How will doctors be able to provide the care we need to save our lives?

All abortion is, in some way, to save the life of the mother. I share my story as one example of the repercussions of denying reproductive health care to us.

Here's what I genuinely don't understand. If this procedure is medically necessary (and I don't doubt that it is), why are only certain ob/gyns willing or able to perform it? Is it because it is so complicated to learn (I'm dubious, given the other procedures these doctors offer and the emergencies they handle)(, because it is so rare (again, not an excuse; I assume your doctors would have treated you if you had spontaneously begun to abort), or for some other reason?

You suggest it was because of abortion restrictions, so do you think it was genuinely because your doctors were afraid of performing this procedure because of legal consequences?

Obviously we are going to need some very courageous doctors who feel confident that they can defend their decisions in court if this is the case.

The same advances in technology that the pro-life side argues defends their position can also be used to argue for lack of viability.

I think however that, for most pro-lifers, they are actually just bringing up the "health of the mother" argument to try to argue that ANY limits on abortion are dangerous to women, and whether this is true or not, it immediately goes back to the "all or nothing" argument that is actually not something most Americans favor. (Most Americans are pro-choice, but many-- me included-- are uncomfortable with the idea that allowing an ob/gyn to decide when to terminate a pregnancy for health reasons could extend to allowing a woman who is twenty weeks pregnant with a healthy baby to terminate that pregnancy at a clinic where she never actually consults with her own ob/gyn. Fortunately, I think the latter is very rare, but I'm not sure that's an argument for allowing it to ever happen, and I'm not convinced it's legally impossible to distinguish between these occurrences. That is why I go back to the fact that your own doctor would not perform the procedure-- if the same people who deliver our babies had been tasked with performing abortions instead of doctors whose sole job is abortions and often never see the woman undergoing an abortion prior to or after the procedure, it seems to me women with medical issues would be safer and less affected by the nationwide debate over life. Then again, it would also make abortion a lot less accessible-- and so we have to be honest about what we really want. If what we really want is accessible abortion, for any reason, at any time, it requires a different kind of approach. Because even most pro-lifers are on our side with the health of the mother/rape/incest but most pro-choicers get uncomfortable when we begin talking about healthy babies in the second or third trimesters.

Only about 5% of US ob/gyns perform abortions. I have talked to scores of gyns about this (I work in the field) and this is mostly for personal MORAL issues vs. legal ones. While most support a woman's right to choose, they do not want the "blood on their own hands". It's not what they want to be doing day-in and day-out. And lest we criticize them, each and every one of us had the option to attend medical school/residency to learn this skill (and could start our training journey tomorrow) but yet we too chose to earn our money in less messy ways as well.

A lot of them are also worried about the risk to their personal safety given the unfortunate tendency of lunatic “pro-lifers” to murder abortion providers. But that’s a little less palatable to say aloud.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thanks to all who shared their stories. I don't think that can be easy. Thanks, OP.

I am pro-life.

I do not have strong feelings about the Supreme Court decision other than that it seems, from a legal perspective, reasonable.

I know a good number of people (including myself and one sibling and an adopted niece) who would not be here if our mom had not chosen life. Our mom couldn't really afford us. Her relationship choices were not good. Our grandparents urged her to abort because they believed her struggles as a single mom raising mixed race kids would be too great.

I want to join forces with the pro-choice side because I live in the real world; I hear and reflect on the stories like yours OP and others. But can we find a way to do it in a way (and I think, OP, you did) that allows choice while not elevating abortion as THE choice. I don't speak for any kind of movement, but I do know that 20% of people who go to pregnancy crisis centers (the kind many abortion advocates hate) go on to choose abortion anyway.

I know many people here perhaps hate people like me, think I'm stupid and ignorant, think it's not worth even talking to someone like me. But I just wanted to offer my appreciation of your generosity in sharing difficulty stories and offer my own perspective.

I don't know anyone that is pro-choice that says it is THE CHOICE, I'm not sure where you are getting that idea from, but it's wrong. No one is forcing anybody to have abortions.

The point that I take from your story is that your mother had a choice and she made the one that made the most sense for her. You, OF ALL PEOPLE, should be thrilled that she had and made the choice that was right for her personal and medical situation. Why would you want to take that choice away from anybody?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As OP mentioned and others, we need to stop the illusion that late maternal age (after 35) is low risk, it's not we should be having our children in late 20s or early 30s. The vast majority of defects and issues are from late material age pregnancies.

Irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:June 24, the day the Supreme Court ruled on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health,was my 40th birthday. I was able to celebrate because abortion saved my life.

In September 2020, I had my 20 week anatomy scan for a pregnancy we very much wanted. That the fetus’s kidneys and lungs were not developing, there was fluid around the heart, I had no amniotic fluid, and my placenta was severely degraded. All my doctors agreed, the only choice was to terminate my pregnancy.

Thankfully, in MD and DC, abortion up to 24 weeks was legal. Even so, I had to jump through many stressful, challenging hoops: switching doctors to a practice who would perform the procedure; navigating Hyde Amendment restrictions on my Federal employee insurance; and being alone at appointments because of Covid restrictions.

I am thankful every day that I was able to get the care I needed at a hospital with an experienced and compassionate medical team. The the doctors could not stop me from bleeding after the procedure. I went into hypovolemic shock, lost 3x the amount of blood in my body, and formed blood clots in my hand and foot. I woke up with a breathing tube in the ICU, all alone and in excruciating pain. But I was alive. I was in the ICU for 8 days.

The decision in Dobbs means that pregnant woman like me will die. Even in states that provide exception for “life of the mother,” when abortion is so severely restricted, the care is not actually available. Who gets to decide how likely it is that I’m going to die before I get the medical care I need? How will doctors be able to provide the care we need to save our lives?

All abortion is, in some way, to save the life of the mother. I share my story as one example of the repercussions of denying reproductive health care to us.

Here's what I genuinely don't understand. If this procedure is medically necessary (and I don't doubt that it is), why are only certain ob/gyns willing or able to perform it? Is it because it is so complicated to learn (I'm dubious, given the other procedures these doctors offer and the emergencies they handle)(, because it is so rare (again, not an excuse; I assume your doctors would have treated you if you had spontaneously begun to abort), or for some other reason?

You suggest it was because of abortion restrictions, so do you think it was genuinely because your doctors were afraid of performing this procedure because of legal consequences?

Obviously we are going to need some very courageous doctors who feel confident that they can defend their decisions in court if this is the case.

The same advances in technology that the pro-life side argues defends their position can also be used to argue for lack of viability.

I think however that, for most pro-lifers, they are actually just bringing up the "health of the mother" argument to try to argue that ANY limits on abortion are dangerous to women, and whether this is true or not, it immediately goes back to the "all or nothing" argument that is actually not something most Americans favor. (Most Americans are pro-choice, but many-- me included-- are uncomfortable with the idea that allowing an ob/gyn to decide when to terminate a pregnancy for health reasons could extend to allowing a woman who is twenty weeks pregnant with a healthy baby to terminate that pregnancy at a clinic where she never actually consults with her own ob/gyn. Fortunately, I think the latter is very rare, but I'm not sure that's an argument for allowing it to ever happen, and I'm not convinced it's legally impossible to distinguish between these occurrences. That is why I go back to the fact that your own doctor would not perform the procedure-- if the same people who deliver our babies had been tasked with performing abortions instead of doctors whose sole job is abortions and often never see the woman undergoing an abortion prior to or after the procedure, it seems to me women with medical issues would be safer and less affected by the nationwide debate over life. Then again, it would also make abortion a lot less accessible-- and so we have to be honest about what we really want. If what we really want is accessible abortion, for any reason, at any time, it requires a different kind of approach. Because even most pro-lifers are on our side with the health of the mother/rape/incest but most pro-choicers get uncomfortable when we begin talking about healthy babies in the second or third trimesters.

Are you stupid? It's not willing to perform, it's CAPABLE OF PERFORMING. Aborting at 24 weeks is very different from aborting at 9 weeks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks to all who shared their stories. I don't think that can be easy. Thanks, OP.

I am pro-life.

I do not have strong feelings about the Supreme Court decision other than that it seems, from a legal perspective, reasonable.

I know a good number of people (including myself and one sibling and an adopted niece) who would not be here if our mom had not chosen life. Our mom couldn't really afford us. Her relationship choices were not good. Our grandparents urged her to abort because they believed her struggles as a single mom raising mixed race kids would be too great.

I want to join forces with the pro-choice side because I live in the real world; I hear and reflect on the stories like yours OP and others. But can we find a way to do it in a way (and I think, OP, you did) that allows choice while not elevating abortion as THE choice. I don't speak for any kind of movement, but I do know that 20% of people who go to pregnancy crisis centers (the kind many abortion advocates hate) go on to choose abortion anyway.

I know many people here perhaps hate people like me, think I'm stupid and ignorant, think it's not worth even talking to someone like me. But I just wanted to offer my appreciation of your generosity in sharing difficulty stories and offer my own perspective.

I don't know anyone that is pro-choice that says it is THE CHOICE, I'm not sure where you are getting that idea from, but it's wrong. No one is forcing anybody to have abortions.

The point that I take from your story is that your mother had a choice and she made the one that made the most sense for her. You, OF ALL PEOPLE, should be thrilled that she had and made the choice that was right for her personal and medical situation. Why would you want to take that choice away from anybody?

I’m op. By accepting the Supreme Court decision as reasonably you admit that women and doctors should have the right to make decisions about womens bodies and that decision should be left up to states. Which means that the government gets to decide whether people like me live or die.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks to all who shared their stories. I don't think that can be easy. Thanks, OP.

I am pro-life.

I do not have strong feelings about the Supreme Court decision other than that it seems, from a legal perspective, reasonable.

I know a good number of people (including myself and one sibling and an adopted niece) who would not be here if our mom had not chosen life. Our mom couldn't really afford us. Her relationship choices were not good. Our grandparents urged her to abort because they believed her struggles as a single mom raising mixed race kids would be too great.

I want to join forces with the pro-choice side because I live in the real world; I hear and reflect on the stories like yours OP and others. But can we find a way to do it in a way (and I think, OP, you did) that allows choice while not elevating abortion as THE choice. I don't speak for any kind of movement, but I do know that 20% of people who go to pregnancy crisis centers (the kind many abortion advocates hate) go on to choose abortion anyway.

I know many people here perhaps hate people like me, think I'm stupid and ignorant, think it's not worth even talking to someone like me. But I just wanted to offer my appreciation of your generosity in sharing difficulty stories and offer my own perspective.

I don't know anyone that is pro-choice that says it is THE CHOICE, I'm not sure where you are getting that idea from, but it's wrong. No one is forcing anybody to have abortions.

The point that I take from your story is that your mother had a choice and she made the one that made the most sense for her. You, OF ALL PEOPLE, should be thrilled that she had and made the choice that was right for her personal and medical situation. Why would you want to take that choice away from anybody?

I’m op. By accepting the Supreme Court decision as reasonable you believe that women and doctors should NOT have the right to make decisions about womens bodies and that decision should be left up to states. Which means that the government gets to decide whether people like me live or die.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Abortion is one of those things you can be fully, 100 percent against - until you need one. My catholic best childhood friend was against abortion rights until she got pregnant at 19. She got an abortion.

This x 1,000, 000

I grew up Catholic and going to Catholic schools. The first person I knew to have an abortion was a very pro life and had participated in rallies with our church and had actually cried tears while talking about the issue with others. When she got pregnancy as a freshman in college her first thought was to have an abortion which she did. She didn’t regret it. She still attends church, married has kids.

I absolutely believe a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy. But then again, I also absolutely believe that a person has a right to refuse vaccines. And the absolute right to refuse any and/or all medical interventions and medications. (as long as they are a legal competent adult) It’s their body, their life, their choice. I absolutely don’t support most pro choice organizations because they don’t believe these things. If you say “my body, my choice” but believe it only aligns with this one issue, then you don’t really believe it and I can understand why pro life proponents don’t take you seriously.

Reproductive choices don't make anyone else sick. The choice to not get your kids the typical childhood vaccinations has made other people sick. With the original variant of the Covid pandemic, vaccinations absolutely protected those around us. And throughout the pandemic, unvaccinated people have caused stress on the health care system.

There's a huge difference between vaccination and abortion.

I see what you're saying, but I agree with PP that nobody should be able to force anybody else to vaccinate. That doesn't mean unvaccinated kids have a right to go to public schools, or that somebody who is unvaccinated has a right to a particular job, etc. But no, I would never force anybody to get vaccinated. And I'm sure you agree, I just want to point out to PP that supporting a vaccine mandate and opposing abortion restrictions doesn't involve irreconcilable ideas about bodily autonomy.