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

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, when Trump claims that Democrats support abortion "up to and even beyond the ninth month" and suggests that this includes the "execution" of babies after birth, is he lying?

He sure is. He is incapable of telling the truth.

[Anonymous]

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.

it’s because when they law gets involved in deciding what a “very compelling reason” is, you end up with women going septic in the parking lot while the hospital lawyers argue.

[Anonymous]

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.

If there are only 2 doctors nationwide who will perform third trimester abortions do the math. How many do you think they could do in one day.

[Anonymous]

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.

it’s because when they law gets involved in deciding what a “very compelling reason” is, you end up with women going septic in the parking lot while the hospital lawyers argue.

I see what you’re saying and I think it’s a cynical view and also not one that plays out in all the other countries in the world that have sensible restrictions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FWIW my understanding is that most countries in Europe and around the world that we could consider to be similar to us in quality of life and culture do have a middle of the road, sensible view on abortion. They almost always ban late term abortions (beyond point of viability) without serious medical reasons, and they allow early term abortions without question.

I don’t know why we can’t do that too!

Europe has large loopholes on the post-viability abortion bans. Vast majority of them allow abortion past their legislated deadlines for any fetal abnormalities, mental health of mother, physical health of mother, viability of fetus, etc.

You can drive a truck through the European loopholes.

Oh, and they also have universal health coverage that PAYS for the abortion. So cost is not an issue in Europe. And - unlike in the US - you find out you're pregnant quite quickly because of universal health coverage. If you're poor in Europe, you can get an abortion very quickly because you're informed; there's no cost or knowledge reason for waiting late.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, when Trump claims that Democrats support abortion "up to and even beyond the ninth month" and suggests that this includes the "execution" of babies after birth, is he lying?

The issue is that democrats have been against banning ANY abortions, including the week that they should be giving birth. There is literally no agreement that a certain time is unacceptable. Until that happens, people on the right will claim that democrats support abortions up until the point of birth because that’s what people conclude when you allow something.

Of course, allow is not the same as support. But still, why are we allowing it, if we all claim to not support it, and it’s causing so much trouble politically? It seems like it would unite us if we could just make a sensible law and then only the true extremists on both sides would have a problem.

Given that the term abortion means the early ending of a pregnancy (intentional or not) can you please explain what an “abortion” after birth means? How does that work to end a pregnancy a week after the pregnancy ended? Thanks for clarifying.

Obviously abortion after birth doesn’t make sense. But if you’ve had any kids, you know that the baby can come any time within a few week period, even beyond what doctors consider a full term baby. I guess that’s what those people are referring to. Like what’s the difference between executing a baby outside the mom or aborting a baby inside the mom when it’s literally the exact same baby?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, when Trump claims that Democrats support abortion "up to and even beyond the ninth month" and suggests that this includes the "execution" of babies after birth, is he lying?

The issue is that democrats have been against banning ANY abortions, including the week that they should be giving birth. There is literally no agreement that a certain time is unacceptable. Until that happens, people on the right will claim that democrats support abortions up until the point of birth because that’s what people conclude when you allow something.

Of course, allow is not the same as support. But still, why are we allowing it, if we all claim to not support it, and it’s causing so much trouble politically? It seems like it would unite us if we could just make a sensible law and then only the true extremists on both sides would have a problem.

Given that the term abortion means the early ending of a pregnancy (intentional or not) can you please explain what an “abortion” after birth means? How does that work to end a pregnancy a week after the pregnancy ended? Thanks for clarifying.

Sorry misread your post.

The reason some Democrats want politicians to keep their hands off women’s pregnancies is that most politicians are not ob’s.

If there’s a situation where a baby is at 40 weeks and is dead or dying and there’s some catastrophic situation where a D&E is the safest way to remove the baby without harming the mother’s health and future fertility don’t you think that should be a choice for the woman to make without politicians breathing down her neck?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FWIW my understanding is that most countries in Europe and around the world that we could consider to be similar to us in quality of life and culture do have a middle of the road, sensible view on abortion. They almost always ban late term abortions (beyond point of viability) without serious medical reasons, and they allow early term abortions without question.

I don’t know why we can’t do that too!

Europe has large loopholes on the post-viability abortion bans. Vast majority of them allow abortion past their legislated deadlines for any fetal abnormalities, mental health of mother, physical health of mother, viability of fetus, etc.

You can drive a truck through the European loopholes.

Oh, and they also have universal health coverage that PAYS for the abortion. So cost is not an issue in Europe. And - unlike in the US - you find out you're pregnant quite quickly because of universal health coverage. If you're poor in Europe, you can get an abortion very quickly because you're informed; there's no cost or knowledge reason for waiting late.

That’s a fair point I hadn’t thought of, and I’d support free pregnancy tests here FWIW. In addition to free contraception.

[Anonymous]

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.

There is a law against it. There is a federal law against infanticide if a fetus is born alive, which is what you are talking about if the fetus survives outside the womb. If there are fetal abnormalities that are not compatible with life, then the baby would be given comfort care. If the issue is the health of the mother, then if everybody does survive it’s a happy story.

No one is going around murdering healthy infants in a medical setting.

There are obviously tragic instances of infanticide or baby abandonment. But really, abortion late in a pregnancy means the situation is dire. That’s why the best people to make these decisions are the pregnant woman and her medical providers.

The government has no business making medical decisions.

[Anonymous]

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.

“Late” does not equal third trimester. “Late term” which OP correctly put in quotes is not a medical term for abortions in the third trimester or post viability.

[Anonymous]

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

If only we could leave politics out of this altogether and trust the patients and their doctors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FWIW my understanding is that most countries in Europe and around the world that we could consider to be similar to us in quality of life and culture do have a middle of the road, sensible view on abortion. They almost always ban late term abortions (beyond point of viability) without serious medical reasons, and they allow early term abortions without question.

I don’t know why we can’t do that too!

Europe has large loopholes on the post-viability abortion bans. Vast majority of them allow abortion past their legislated deadlines for any fetal abnormalities, mental health of mother, physical health of mother, viability of fetus, etc.

You can drive a truck through the European loopholes.

Oh, and they also have universal health coverage that PAYS for the abortion. So cost is not an issue in Europe. And - unlike in the US - you find out you're pregnant quite quickly because of universal health coverage. If you're poor in Europe, you can get an abortion very quickly because you're informed; there's no cost or knowledge reason for waiting late.

That’s a fair point I hadn’t thought of, and I’d support free pregnancy tests here FWIW. In addition to free contraception.

Here's France's laws. Lots of loopholes to the 14 week (actually 16 weeks) ban:

Abortion in France is legal upon request until 14 weeks after conception (16 weeks after the pregnant woman's last menstrual period). Abortions at later stages of pregnancy up until birth are allowed if two physicians certify that the abortion will be done to prevent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; a risk to the life of the pregnant woman; or that the child will suffer from a particularly severe illness recognized as incurable.
...
Since 1982, much of the costs of abortions are taken in charge by the French social security system, which allows women in France to access abortion free of charge.

There's no reason to get a late term abortion in France, because your medical care and the abortion itself is free of charge to the woman. And the late-term abortion ban has loopholes for medical reasons.

How sane and rational!

[Anonymous]

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.

There is a law against it. There is a federal law against infanticide if a fetus is born alive, which is what you are talking about if the fetus survives outside the womb. If there are fetal abnormalities that are not compatible with life, then the baby would be given comfort care. If the issue is the health of the mother, then if everybody does survive it’s a happy story.

No one is going around murdering healthy infants in a medical setting.

There are obviously tragic instances of infanticide or baby abandonment. But really, abortion late in a pregnancy means the situation is dire. That’s why the best people to make these decisions are the pregnant woman and her medical providers.

The government has no business making medical decisions.

This post is really misleading. I read about how they perform later term abortions (beyond “take this pill and you will miscarry” early abortions) because like OP, I was curious, and it’s actually not the case that the babies are delivered in a peaceful way and then left to die. I read that their heads are punctured while they are inside the mother and/or they are dismembered while inside the mother. It is horrific and it’s what got me from being completely pro choice to pro choice only before viability except in special circumstances the way I am now.