Roe v Wade struck down

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And the couple was strapped with $40,000 in medical bills.

And she never wants to get pregnant again for fear of this happening again, or something else terrible.

I read this whole article and had tears rolling down my face. My first was four when we took her to my second’s 20-week scan, and we discovered he only had one kidney. We were beside ourselves with worry and it ruined the next few weeks for us. He was fine, this is common, and he’s fine now. But for this couple to have done the same thing as we did and find no kidneys - Potter Syndrome - and have that only be the beginning of what will be a years-long nightmare - it’s unconscionable.

Sorry, I just can’t get behind how a late term abortion would have made this situation better. The baby, after 24 weeks, has to get an injection through the mother’s abdomen, directly into their heart to kill them. Then over the course of a couple days, the woman is dilated and induced and, if necessary, the baby is dismembered to fully remove. Euthanatizing (and possibly) cutting apart a baby is just a no for me. If the baby had a poor prognosis, its born and comfort care is given so the baby isn’t suffering. If it isn’t legal to euthanize a live baby after birth, it shouldn’t be legal to do that to a viable fetus in utero.

Once again, the sweet, gentle lives you coddled forced birthers must have lived.

I know one woman whose WANTED CHILD had to be dismembered in utero this way. She had placenta percreta. Do you know what that is? Of course you don’t, or, like forced birthers with ectopic pregnancies, you probably think a magic wand can fix it. But let me tell you what it is. Placenta percreta is the most severe degree of placenta accreta. Placenta percreta, is when the placenta and all its thirsty desire to burrow, to attach, to stay attached and to bring a blood supply, gets out of the uterus. In her case, it had begun to attach to her organs. She lost the pregnancy she wanted, she lost her uterus and she very nearly bled out.

Now, I’m sure in the magical women aren’t people world you live in, she should have just gone ahead and bled out in her home because the propaganda you suck back tells you so and hey, if it happens to you, you go ahead and choose certain death for yourself and your pregnancy. But do not sit there in your utter ignorance and make pronouncements like you have any clue at all.

And I hope no pregnant women are reading this right now. I’m sorry if you are. She did survive the surgery (and thank you to the blood donors who also helped save her life).

This is not an elective abortion. Plus the baby wasn’t a viable age, otherwise she would have had a c-section and the baby would have been medically supported.

No one is having election abortions in the third trimester. JFC the depths of stupidity you must plumb in your daily life to believe such nonsense is insane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And the couple was strapped with $40,000 in medical bills.

And she never wants to get pregnant again for fear of this happening again, or something else terrible.

I read this whole article and had tears rolling down my face. My first was four when we took her to my second’s 20-week scan, and we discovered he only had one kidney. We were beside ourselves with worry and it ruined the next few weeks for us. He was fine, this is common, and he’s fine now. But for this couple to have done the same thing as we did and find no kidneys - Potter Syndrome - and have that only be the beginning of what will be a years-long nightmare - it’s unconscionable.

Sorry, I just can’t get behind how a late term abortion would have made this situation better. The baby, after 24 weeks, has to get an injection through the mother’s abdomen, directly into their heart to kill them. Then over the course of a couple days, the woman is dilated and induced and, if necessary, the baby is dismembered to fully remove. Euthanatizing (and possibly) cutting apart a baby is just a no for me. If the baby had a poor prognosis, its born and comfort care is given so the baby isn’t suffering. If it isn’t legal to euthanize a live baby after birth, it shouldn’t be legal to do that to a viable fetus in utero.

Explain to me how a baby that has NO kidneys is viable.

The medical diagnosis:
https://www.health.state.mn.us/diseases/cy/renalagenesis.html#:~:text=It%20is%20often%20detected%20on,live%20only%20a%20few%20hours.

When both kidneys are absent this condition is not compatible with life. 40% of babies with bilateral renal agenesis will be stillborn, and if born alive, the baby will live only a few hours.

Meanwhile, the baby and the continuation of the pregnancy poses several health risks to the mother. And the parents accumulated $40K of medical expenses after the point where the diagnosis was made. So, the mother had to endure over 3 months of health risks and additional cost for a baby that, at best, would have survived a few hours, post birth. If the parents, and especially, the mother, did not want to go through with that, why should some lawyers and politicians with no medical training have any say in her terminating that pregnancy? Because Florida banned her from having the pregnancy. She said that she and her husband did not have the money to travel out-of-state for an abortion. So instead, they were tagged with $40K of medical expenses. The only reason that they didn't lose their home and everything is because of the charity of strangers. Some reporters found her story, told it and were able to raise money through on-line giving to allow them to make payments on their medical expenses. They will be paying for this for years. Meanwhile, they will have to skimp and cut corners just to make ends meet for them and their already 4-year old son. She works as a instacart driver and her husband has a low paying job at an insurance company.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And the couple was strapped with $40,000 in medical bills.

And she never wants to get pregnant again for fear of this happening again, or something else terrible.

I read this whole article and had tears rolling down my face. My first was four when we took her to my second’s 20-week scan, and we discovered he only had one kidney. We were beside ourselves with worry and it ruined the next few weeks for us. He was fine, this is common, and he’s fine now. But for this couple to have done the same thing as we did and find no kidneys - Potter Syndrome - and have that only be the beginning of what will be a years-long nightmare - it’s unconscionable.

Sorry, I just can’t get behind how a late term abortion would have made this situation better. The baby, after 24 weeks, has to get an injection through the mother’s abdomen, directly into their heart to kill them. Then over the course of a couple days, the woman is dilated and induced and, if necessary, the baby is dismembered to fully remove. Euthanatizing (and possibly) cutting apart a baby is just a no for me. If the baby had a poor prognosis, its born and comfort care is given so the baby isn’t suffering. If it isn’t legal to euthanize a live baby after birth, it shouldn’t be legal to do that to a viable fetus in utero.

Explain to me how a baby that has NO kidneys is viable.

The medical diagnosis:
https://www.health.state.mn.us/diseases/cy/renalagenesis.html#:~:text=It%20is%20often%20detected%20on,live%20only%20a%20few%20hours.

When both kidneys are absent this condition is not compatible with life. 40% of babies with bilateral renal agenesis will be stillborn, and if born alive, the baby will live only a few hours.

Meanwhile, the baby and the continuation of the pregnancy poses several health risks to the mother. And the parents accumulated $40K of medical expenses after the point where the diagnosis was made. So, the mother had to endure over 3 months of health risks and additional cost for a baby that, at best, would have survived a few hours, post birth. If the parents, and especially, the mother, did not want to go through with that, why should some lawyers and politicians with no medical training have any say in her terminating that pregnancy? Because Florida banned her from having the pregnancy. She said that she and her husband did not have the money to travel out-of-state for an abortion. So instead, they were tagged with $40K of medical expenses. The only reason that they didn't lose their home and everything is because of the charity of strangers. Some reporters found her story, told it and were able to raise money through on-line giving to allow them to make payments on their medical expenses. They will be paying for this for years. Meanwhile, they will have to skimp and cut corners just to make ends meet for them and their already 4-year old son. She works as a instacart driver and her husband has a low paying job at an insurance company.

I forgot to add that the baby survived for 94 minutes after birth and the family underwent significant trauma over the additional 13 months she had to carry this non-viable baby including the trauma to their 4 year old son.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And the couple was strapped with $40,000 in medical bills.

And she never wants to get pregnant again for fear of this happening again, or something else terrible.

I read this whole article and had tears rolling down my face. My first was four when we took her to my second’s 20-week scan, and we discovered he only had one kidney. We were beside ourselves with worry and it ruined the next few weeks for us. He was fine, this is common, and he’s fine now. But for this couple to have done the same thing as we did and find no kidneys - Potter Syndrome - and have that only be the beginning of what will be a years-long nightmare - it’s unconscionable.

Sorry, I just can’t get behind how a late term abortion would have made this situation better. The baby, after 24 weeks, has to get an injection through the mother’s abdomen, directly into their heart to kill them. Then over the course of a couple days, the woman is dilated and induced and, if necessary, the baby is dismembered to fully remove. Euthanatizing (and possibly) cutting apart a baby is just a no for me. If the baby had a poor prognosis, its born and comfort care is given so the baby isn’t suffering. If it isn’t legal to euthanize a live baby after birth, it shouldn’t be legal to do that to a viable fetus in utero.

Because induction in the 2nd trimester is higher risk to the mother than abortion. Specifically higher risk of requiring a D&C for retained placenta, maternal morbidity, particularly related to infection for the mother. Do you care about the risk to the mother?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And the couple was strapped with $40,000 in medical bills.

And she never wants to get pregnant again for fear of this happening again, or something else terrible.

I read this whole article and had tears rolling down my face. My first was four when we took her to my second’s 20-week scan, and we discovered he only had one kidney. We were beside ourselves with worry and it ruined the next few weeks for us. He was fine, this is common, and he’s fine now. But for this couple to have done the same thing as we did and find no kidneys - Potter Syndrome - and have that only be the beginning of what will be a years-long nightmare - it’s unconscionable.

Sorry, I just can’t get behind how a late term abortion would have made this situation better. The baby, after 24 weeks, has to get an injection through the mother’s abdomen, directly into their heart to kill them. Then over the course of a couple days, the woman is dilated and induced and, if necessary, the baby is dismembered to fully remove. Euthanatizing (and possibly) cutting apart a baby is just a no for me. If the baby had a poor prognosis, its born and comfort care is given so the baby isn’t suffering. If it isn’t legal to euthanize a live baby after birth, it shouldn’t be legal to do that to a viable fetus in utero.

Explain to me how a baby that has NO kidneys is viable.

The medical diagnosis:
https://www.health.state.mn.us/diseases/cy/renalagenesis.html#:~:text=It%20is%20often%20detected%20on,live%20only%20a%20few%20hours.

When both kidneys are absent this condition is not compatible with life. 40% of babies with bilateral renal agenesis will be stillborn, and if born alive, the baby will live only a few hours.

Meanwhile, the baby and the continuation of the pregnancy poses several health risks to the mother. And the parents accumulated $40K of medical expenses after the point where the diagnosis was made. So, the mother had to endure over 3 months of health risks and additional cost for a baby that, at best, would have survived a few hours, post birth. If the parents, and especially, the mother, did not want to go through with that, why should some lawyers and politicians with no medical training have any say in her terminating that pregnancy? Because Florida banned her from having the pregnancy. She said that she and her husband did not have the money to travel out-of-state for an abortion. So instead, they were tagged with $40K of medical expenses. The only reason that they didn't lose their home and everything is because of the charity of strangers. Some reporters found her story, told it and were able to raise money through on-line giving to allow them to make payments on their medical expenses. They will be paying for this for years. Meanwhile, they will have to skimp and cut corners just to make ends meet for them and their already 4-year old son. She works as a instacart driver and her husband has a low paying job at an insurance company.

I forgot to add that the baby survived for 94 minutes after birth and the family underwent significant trauma over the additional 13 months she had to carry this non-viable baby including the trauma to their 4 year old son.

Stupid question :
Can she sue pro life groups to pay for this? Can a lobby be held responsible for the law enacted due to their lobbying?

Could she sue the state of Florida for duress and medical bills due to the fact that the law that is only in their state?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And the couple was strapped with $40,000 in medical bills.

And she never wants to get pregnant again for fear of this happening again, or something else terrible.

I read this whole article and had tears rolling down my face. My first was four when we took her to my second’s 20-week scan, and we discovered he only had one kidney. We were beside ourselves with worry and it ruined the next few weeks for us. He was fine, this is common, and he’s fine now. But for this couple to have done the same thing as we did and find no kidneys - Potter Syndrome - and have that only be the beginning of what will be a years-long nightmare - it’s unconscionable.

Sorry, I just can’t get behind how a late term abortion would have made this situation better. The baby, after 24 weeks, has to get an injection through the mother’s abdomen, directly into their heart to kill them. Then over the course of a couple days, the woman is dilated and induced and, if necessary, the baby is dismembered to fully remove. Euthanatizing (and possibly) cutting apart a baby is just a no for me. If the baby had a poor prognosis, its born and comfort care is given so the baby isn’t suffering. If it isn’t legal to euthanize a live baby after birth, it shouldn’t be legal to do that to a viable fetus in utero.

Explain to me how a baby that has NO kidneys is viable.

The medical diagnosis:
https://www.health.state.mn.us/diseases/cy/renalagenesis.html#:~:text=It%20is%20often%20detected%20on,live%20only%20a%20few%20hours.

When both kidneys are absent this condition is not compatible with life. 40% of babies with bilateral renal agenesis will be stillborn, and if born alive, the baby will live only a few hours.

Meanwhile, the baby and the continuation of the pregnancy poses several health risks to the mother. And the parents accumulated $40K of medical expenses after the point where the diagnosis was made. So, the mother had to endure over 3 months of health risks and additional cost for a baby that, at best, would have survived a few hours, post birth. If the parents, and especially, the mother, did not want to go through with that, why should some lawyers and politicians with no medical training have any say in her terminating that pregnancy? Because Florida banned her from having the pregnancy. She said that she and her husband did not have the money to travel out-of-state for an abortion. So instead, they were tagged with $40K of medical expenses. The only reason that they didn't lose their home and everything is because of the charity of strangers. Some reporters found her story, told it and were able to raise money through on-line giving to allow them to make payments on their medical expenses. They will be paying for this for years. Meanwhile, they will have to skimp and cut corners just to make ends meet for them and their already 4-year old son. She works as a instacart driver and her husband has a low paying job at an insurance company.

I forgot to add that the baby survived for 94 minutes after birth and the family underwent significant trauma over the additional 13 months she had to carry this non-viable baby including the trauma to their 4 year old son.

Yeah it’s like the ghouls on this thread didn’t even read the article.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And the couple was strapped with $40,000 in medical bills.

And she never wants to get pregnant again for fear of this happening again, or something else terrible.

I read this whole article and had tears rolling down my face. My first was four when we took her to my second’s 20-week scan, and we discovered he only had one kidney. We were beside ourselves with worry and it ruined the next few weeks for us. He was fine, this is common, and he’s fine now. But for this couple to have done the same thing as we did and find no kidneys - Potter Syndrome - and have that only be the beginning of what will be a years-long nightmare - it’s unconscionable.

Sorry, I just can’t get behind how a late term abortion would have made this situation better. The baby, after 24 weeks, has to get an injection through the mother’s abdomen, directly into their heart to kill them. Then over the course of a couple days, the woman is dilated and induced and, if necessary, the baby is dismembered to fully remove. Euthanatizing (and possibly) cutting apart a baby is just a no for me. If the baby had a poor prognosis, its born and comfort care is given so the baby isn’t suffering. If it isn’t legal to euthanize a live baby after birth, it shouldn’t be legal to do that to a viable fetus in utero.

Explain to me how a baby that has NO kidneys is viable.

The medical diagnosis:
https://www.health.state.mn.us/diseases/cy/renalagenesis.html#:~:text=It%20is%20often%20detected%20on,live%20only%20a%20few%20hours.

When both kidneys are absent this condition is not compatible with life. 40% of babies with bilateral renal agenesis will be stillborn, and if born alive, the baby will live only a few hours.

Meanwhile, the baby and the continuation of the pregnancy poses several health risks to the mother. And the parents accumulated $40K of medical expenses after the point where the diagnosis was made. So, the mother had to endure over 3 months of health risks and additional cost for a baby that, at best, would have survived a few hours, post birth. If the parents, and especially, the mother, did not want to go through with that, why should some lawyers and politicians with no medical training have any say in her terminating that pregnancy? Because Florida banned her from having the pregnancy. She said that she and her husband did not have the money to travel out-of-state for an abortion. So instead, they were tagged with $40K of medical expenses. The only reason that they didn't lose their home and everything is because of the charity of strangers. Some reporters found her story, told it and were able to raise money through on-line giving to allow them to make payments on their medical expenses. They will be paying for this for years. Meanwhile, they will have to skimp and cut corners just to make ends meet for them and their already 4-year old son. She works as a instacart driver and her husband has a low paying job at an insurance company.

I forgot to add that the baby survived for 94 minutes after birth and the family underwent significant trauma over the additional 13 months she had to carry this non-viable baby including the trauma to their 4 year old son.

Yeah it’s like the ghouls on this thread didn’t even read the article.

They never do, because if they did, they would probably have some reservations about the horse apples they’ve been shoveling, some of them for decades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And the couple was strapped with $40,000 in medical bills.

And she never wants to get pregnant again for fear of this happening again, or something else terrible.

I read this whole article and had tears rolling down my face. My first was four when we took her to my second’s 20-week scan, and we discovered he only had one kidney. We were beside ourselves with worry and it ruined the next few weeks for us. He was fine, this is common, and he’s fine now. But for this couple to have done the same thing as we did and find no kidneys - Potter Syndrome - and have that only be the beginning of what will be a years-long nightmare - it’s unconscionable.

Sorry, I just can’t get behind how a late term abortion would have made this situation better. The baby, after 24 weeks, has to get an injection through the mother’s abdomen, directly into their heart to kill them. Then over the course of a couple days, the woman is dilated and induced and, if necessary, the baby is dismembered to fully remove. Euthanatizing (and possibly) cutting apart a baby is just a no for me. If the baby had a poor prognosis, its born and comfort care is given so the baby isn’t suffering. If it isn’t legal to euthanize a live baby after birth, it shouldn’t be legal to do that to a viable fetus in utero.

Should this happen to you, you’re free to make a different choice if you disagree that early termination is the best for everyone involved. Deborah was not permitted to make the choice that she thought was best for her family.

[Anonymous]

Also this:

If the baby had a poor prognosis, its born and comfort care is given so the baby isn’t suffering.

is what the guy who messed up Roe has been lying about and calling “post birth abortions” for nine years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also this:

If the baby had a poor prognosis, its born and comfort care is given so the baby isn’t suffering.

is what the guy who messed up Roe has been lying about and calling “post birth abortions” for nine years.

Exactly.
Comfort care for terminally ill newborns was the entire point of Ralph Northam's comment that Trump and others managed to twist into "post-birth abortions".
Northam was a pediatric neurologist prior to becoming governor, so I am sure he had more knowledge and expertise in that area than Trump and had likely seen exactly the type of terminal diagnoses that would make a family choose such comfort/palliative care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And the couple was strapped with $40,000 in medical bills.

And she never wants to get pregnant again for fear of this happening again, or something else terrible.

I read this whole article and had tears rolling down my face. My first was four when we took her to my second’s 20-week scan, and we discovered he only had one kidney. We were beside ourselves with worry and it ruined the next few weeks for us. He was fine, this is common, and he’s fine now. But for this couple to have done the same thing as we did and find no kidneys - Potter Syndrome - and have that only be the beginning of what will be a years-long nightmare - it’s unconscionable.

Sorry, I just can’t get behind how a late term abortion would have made this situation better. The baby, after 24 weeks, has to get an injection through the mother’s abdomen, directly into their heart to kill them. Then over the course of a couple days, the woman is dilated and induced and, if necessary, the baby is dismembered to fully remove. Euthanatizing (and possibly) cutting apart a baby is just a no for me. If the baby had a poor prognosis, its born and comfort care is given so the baby isn’t suffering. If it isn’t legal to euthanize a live baby after birth, it shouldn’t be legal to do that to a viable fetus in utero.

You have it backwards. Killing the baby in the 2nd trimester is far more compassionate to the baby. The baby was diagnosed with a fatal defect that would allow it to live just a few hours AT MOST after birth. In the womb, the baby can be given the injection that will kill it quickly and without suffering. Instead, this stupid law has the baby continue to gestate for 13 more weeks, during which, it has no kidneys and no amniotic fluid. There is no medical evidence that a baby that is gestating without amniotic fluid is not suffering. And being born for 94 minutes with a body that cannot sustain life while the body fills with toxins that the non-existent kidneys cannot filter out of the body. So, essentially it is born, and is slowly poisoned to death 94 minutes instead of having an injection that kills it within single minutes.

This stupid law forces the family into financial hardship, forces them to endure the trauma of knowing the mother is carrying a dying baby and that a child has to watch their sibling growing in their mother and that it dies when it was born rather than dying before it was born. And the mother is at risk for many health conditions due to carrying the baby, ones that she might avoid had she had the D&C 13 weeks earlier. And finally, the family sustained $40K worth of unnecessary medical expenses that they would not have incurred. Had it not been for the generosity of strangers on the Internet, this family would have lost their home and been cast into poverty and possibly bankruptcy with no way to recover due to the bills. They couldn't afford to travel out of state to get an abortion, they definitely could not afford $40K worth of medical expenses.

So, your logic caused the worst of both worlds. The terrible situation for the family AND the suffering of the baby that you thought would be avoided. You're either heartless, cruel, or both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And the couple was strapped with $40,000 in medical bills.

And she never wants to get pregnant again for fear of this happening again, or something else terrible.

I read this whole article and had tears rolling down my face. My first was four when we took her to my second’s 20-week scan, and we discovered he only had one kidney. We were beside ourselves with worry and it ruined the next few weeks for us. He was fine, this is common, and he’s fine now. But for this couple to have done the same thing as we did and find no kidneys - Potter Syndrome - and have that only be the beginning of what will be a years-long nightmare - it’s unconscionable.

Sorry, I just can’t get behind how a late term abortion would have made this situation better. The baby, after 24 weeks, has to get an injection through the mother’s abdomen, directly into their heart to kill them. Then over the course of a couple days, the woman is dilated and induced and, if necessary, the baby is dismembered to fully remove. Euthanatizing (and possibly) cutting apart a baby is just a no for me. If the baby had a poor prognosis, its born and comfort care is given so the baby isn’t suffering. If it isn’t legal to euthanize a live baby after birth, it shouldn’t be legal to do that to a viable fetus in utero.

You have it backwards. Killing the baby in the 2nd trimester is far more compassionate to the baby. The baby was diagnosed with a fatal defect that would allow it to live just a few hours AT MOST after birth. In the womb, the baby can be given the injection that will kill it quickly and without suffering. Instead, this stupid law has the baby continue to gestate for 13 more weeks, during which, it has no kidneys and no amniotic fluid. There is no medical evidence that a baby that is gestating without amniotic fluid is not suffering. And being born for 94 minutes with a body that cannot sustain life while the body fills with toxins that the non-existent kidneys cannot filter out of the body. So, essentially it is born, and is slowly poisoned to death 94 minutes instead of having an injection that kills it within single minutes.

This stupid law forces the family into financial hardship, forces them to endure the trauma of knowing the mother is carrying a dying baby and that a child has to watch their sibling growing in their mother and that it dies when it was born rather than dying before it was born. And the mother is at risk for many health conditions due to carrying the baby, ones that she might avoid had she had the D&C 13 weeks earlier. And finally, the family sustained $40K worth of unnecessary medical expenses that they would not have incurred. Had it not been for the generosity of strangers on the Internet, this family would have lost their home and been cast into poverty and possibly bankruptcy with no way to recover due to the bills. They couldn't afford to travel out of state to get an abortion, they definitely could not afford $40K worth of medical expenses.

So, your logic caused the worst of both worlds. The terrible situation for the family AND the suffering of the baby that you thought would be avoided. You're either heartless, cruel, or both.

One of my cousins had a baby that was born with very poorly developed lungs. That poor little thing slowly suffocated to death, gasping for air for hours. Decades later, the image of their suffering child is etched into both the parents' brains, and they have truly never gotten over it.

There are fates worse than death. Slowly being poisoned to death by one's own body, or choking to death would be among them. Not to mention, watching one's child suffer needlessly. PP either doesn't know or doesn't care that suffering cannot always be alleviated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And the couple was strapped with $40,000 in medical bills.

And she never wants to get pregnant again for fear of this happening again, or something else terrible.

I read this whole article and had tears rolling down my face. My first was four when we took her to my second’s 20-week scan, and we discovered he only had one kidney. We were beside ourselves with worry and it ruined the next few weeks for us. He was fine, this is common, and he’s fine now. But for this couple to have done the same thing as we did and find no kidneys - Potter Syndrome - and have that only be the beginning of what will be a years-long nightmare - it’s unconscionable.

Sorry, I just can’t get behind how a late term abortion would have made this situation better. The baby, after 24 weeks, has to get an injection through the mother’s abdomen, directly into their heart to kill them. Then over the course of a couple days, the woman is dilated and induced and, if necessary, the baby is dismembered to fully remove. Euthanatizing (and possibly) cutting apart a baby is just a no for me. If the baby had a poor prognosis, its born and comfort care is given so the baby isn’t suffering. If it isn’t legal to euthanize a live baby after birth, it shouldn’t be legal to do that to a viable fetus in utero.

Explain to me how a baby that has NO kidneys is viable.

The medical diagnosis:
https://www.health.state.mn.us/diseases/cy/renalagenesis.html#:~:text=It%20is%20often%20detected%20on,live%20only%20a%20few%20hours.

When both kidneys are absent this condition is not compatible with life. 40% of babies with bilateral renal agenesis will be stillborn, and if born alive, the baby will live only a few hours.

Meanwhile, the baby and the continuation of the pregnancy poses several health risks to the mother. And the parents accumulated $40K of medical expenses after the point where the diagnosis was made. So, the mother had to endure over 3 months of health risks and additional cost for a baby that, at best, would have survived a few hours, post birth. If the parents, and especially, the mother, did not want to go through with that, why should some lawyers and politicians with no medical training have any say in her terminating that pregnancy? Because Florida banned her from having the pregnancy. She said that she and her husband did not have the money to travel out-of-state for an abortion. So instead, they were tagged with $40K of medical expenses. The only reason that they didn't lose their home and everything is because of the charity of strangers. Some reporters found her story, told it and were able to raise money through on-line giving to allow them to make payments on their medical expenses. They will be paying for this for years. Meanwhile, they will have to skimp and cut corners just to make ends meet for them and their already 4-year old son. She works as a instacart driver and her husband has a low paying job at an insurance company.

I forgot to add that the baby survived for 94 minutes after birth and the family underwent significant trauma over the additional 13 months she had to carry this non-viable baby including the trauma to their 4 year old son.

Yeah it’s like the ghouls on this thread didn’t even read the article.

They never do, because if they did, they would probably have some reservations about the horse apples they’ve been shoveling, some of them for decades.

It’s willful ignorance.

They have their narrative and are sticking to it. Facts be damned.

[Anonymous]

Gouls indeed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Gouls indeed.

Yeah I read this this morning. It’s long and a crazy story, worth a read. I don’t think really applies here - because of the circumstances of the case the same thing could have happened to her pre-Dobbs as well as post-Dobbs.