Septic, liters of blood lost and on a breathing machine

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do these states want to destroy their maternal healthcare systems?

It’s biblical. I kid you not. Due to Eve’s original sin, “I will sharply increase the pain of childbirth. In pain shall you bring forth children”. Genesis 3:16. I was raised with this ash*t.

In the Cristofascist state Of the American Taliban, you have to live out Handmaid Amy and I Like Beers! belief that childbirth is supposed to be traumatic and painful. You in pain yet?

I’m the OP of this thread and thank you. I grew up in this, too. It’s like none of these people understand how visceral is the misogyny among forced birthers, and I can read easily the subtle “oof, you guys are over the top” tone in some replies (not so much in this thread, but definitely in others). Truly, it’s almost clownish how much they hate women and want to see them punished for existing and they don’t really try to hide it.

The whole forced birther movement exists to punish women, because it is rooted in a world in which women are inherently worth less than men. The cruelty is the point.

Oh yeah. I grew up in the South and stumbled into a woman's studies minor in college. Which impacted the rest of my life so much. I married someone who considered me a true equal. Was a full partner in raising kids. Supported my career as much as I supported his, etc. Which is a different thread. (And, BTW, why College terrifies Cons so much).

But as part of one class, we looked at how deliveries with no pain meds are the gold standard. The choice of “good mothers” who want what’s best for their children. And women who want an epidural or need a C-section had a “less than birth”. And in the South, I certainly had women become uncomfortable and say they were sorry that I had a C-section. I actually had people ask if I was I upset I had not had a “real birth experience”. (Nope. I mean, I came home with a beautiful baby, so no regrets here).

That was about 1990. More tha 30 years later. And 20 years after I gave birth, we can do amazing new things with pain relief, nerve stimulators, etc FFS, we have CRISPER and the COVID shot technology. But there has not been a single advancement pain relief in childcare. Because having laboring women suffer is part of Gods plan. If men gave birth, the technology would exis5 for it to be painless— and timed tp avoid major sporting events.

Today, you still have L&D nurses who try to talk women out of pain meds and epidurals. C“You can do it. Just a few more minutes”) . Because a “good mother” ( wants a medication free delivery.

A god fearing woman accepts the original sin of Eve and ( in my moms words) “offers it up”. SMDH

+1000. see also, endometriosis, which is misunderstood and ignored by far too many in the medical community

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More and more horror stories like this.

We should expect to see an exodus of families from red states to blue states in the coming years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More and more horror stories like this.

I don't doubt this happened, but I'm unclear on why the hospital thought that induction did not risk a violation, but D&E did? Either way, it's terminating the pregnancy. Is the Louisiana law written in a way that makes induction legal? Assuming there is a fetal heartbeat. Or was there no heartbeat, but the hospital lawyers were advising that they needed new compliance/documentation policies for D&E, since they are usually (but not always) for an abortion? That latter makes sense to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More and more horror stories like this.

I don't doubt this happened, but I'm unclear on why the hospital thought that induction did not risk a violation, but D&E did? Either way, it's terminating the pregnancy. Is the Louisiana law written in a way that makes induction legal? Assuming there is a fetal heartbeat. Or was there no heartbeat, but the hospital lawyers were advising that they needed new compliance/documentation policies for D&E, since they are usually (but not always) for an abortion? That latter makes sense to me.

Also ... Louisiana law says that in the health exception, "However, the physician shall make reasonable medical efforts under the circumstances to preserve both the life of the mother and the life of her unborn child in a manner consistent with reasonable medical practice." I wonder if the hospital interpreted this to require induction rather than D&E. Even though induction of a 16 week fetus is obviously going to result in death.

[Anonymous]

For everyone that wants to claim that these "aren't abortions," let's be clear that these cases are included on the medical statistics gathered on abortions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More and more horror stories like this.

I don't doubt this happened, but I'm unclear on why the hospital thought that induction did not risk a violation, but D&E did? Either way, it's terminating the pregnancy. Is the Louisiana law written in a way that makes induction legal? Assuming there is a fetal heartbeat. Or was there no heartbeat, but the hospital lawyers were advising that they needed new compliance/documentation policies for D&E, since they are usually (but not always) for an abortion? That latter makes sense to me.

Also ... Louisiana law says that in the health exception, "However, the physician shall make reasonable medical efforts under the circumstances to preserve both the life of the mother and the life of her unborn child in a manner consistent with reasonable medical practice." I wonder if the hospital interpreted this to require induction rather than D&E. Even though induction of a 16 week fetus is obviously going to result in death.

Textbook Case 101 why politicians shouldn't be legislating medical procedures - this is just way too vague. Any decent General Counsel can come up with 15 potential ambiguities and points of clarification required in just that bit of text.

The fact that we have lawyers in the maternity ward deciding courses of medical treatment is pure insanity. I thought Republicans hated lawyers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More and more horror stories like this.

I don't doubt this happened, but I'm unclear on why the hospital thought that induction did not risk a violation, but D&E did? Either way, it's terminating the pregnancy. Is the Louisiana law written in a way that makes induction legal? Assuming there is a fetal heartbeat. Or was there no heartbeat, but the hospital lawyers were advising that they needed new compliance/documentation policies for D&E, since they are usually (but not always) for an abortion? That latter makes sense to me.

Also ... Louisiana law says that in the health exception, "However, the physician shall make reasonable medical efforts under the circumstances to preserve both the life of the mother and the life of her unborn child in a manner consistent with reasonable medical practice." I wonder if the hospital interpreted this to require induction rather than D&E. Even though induction of a 16 week fetus is obviously going to result in death.

Textbook Case 101 why politicians shouldn't be legislating medical procedures - this is just way too vague. Any decent General Counsel can come up with 15 potential ambiguities and points of clarification required in just that bit of text.

The fact that we have lawyers in the maternity ward deciding courses of medical treatment is pure insanity. I thought Republicans hated lawyers?

Omg...who wants to be involved in all that when you are struggling with such a difficult issue?

I wonder if there will be type of insurance product or service offered for women that want to deliver in blue states.

There will definitely be some type of underground railroad of "marthas" to help women that want to get an abortion.

There is a network of people that want to help women that want to carry their pregnancies and cannot stay home for whatever reason.

A pro choice network will assist either choice

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More and more horror stories like this.

I don't doubt this happened, but I'm unclear on why the hospital thought that induction did not risk a violation, but D&E did? Either way, it's terminating the pregnancy. Is the Louisiana law written in a way that makes induction legal? Assuming there is a fetal heartbeat. Or was there no heartbeat, but the hospital lawyers were advising that they needed new compliance/documentation policies for D&E, since they are usually (but not always) for an abortion? That latter makes sense to me.

If theres is a heart beat the MD cannot stop it as part of the procedure, The fetus’ heart must naturally stops while it is being born, or as soon as it’s born. With a D&C, the medical procedure stops the heart. It’s the difference between “killing” the fetus and having the fetus die on ins own during childbirth. Just like with ectopics. If there is still a heartbeat, you must wait, even if the tube ruptures. Or remove the tube with the fetus and allow the fetus to die immediately (and imperil mom’s future fertility.

It ‘s considered murder by Catholinas punless the fetus has a “natural death”.

I’m was raised Catholic, and that was the thought then.

Again: in pain shall you bring forth children. The goal isn’t to make it easier, safer or less dangerous for the mom. .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More and more horror stories like this.

I don't doubt this happened, but I'm unclear on why the hospital thought that induction did not risk a violation, but D&E did? Either way, it's terminating the pregnancy. Is the Louisiana law written in a way that makes induction legal? Assuming there is a fetal heartbeat. Or was there no heartbeat, but the hospital lawyers were advising that they needed new compliance/documentation policies for D&E, since they are usually (but not always) for an abortion? That latter makes sense to me.

Also ... Louisiana law says that in the health exception, "However, the physician shall make reasonable medical efforts under the circumstances to preserve both the life of the mother and the life of her unborn child in a manner consistent with reasonable medical practice." I wonder if the hospital interpreted this to require induction rather than D&E. Even though induction of a 16 week fetus is obviously going to result in death.

Textbook Case 101 why politicians shouldn't be legislating medical procedures - this is just way too vague. Any decent General Counsel can come up with 15 potential ambiguities and points of clarification required in just that bit of text.

The fact that we have lawyers in the maternity ward deciding courses of medical treatment is pure insanity. I thought Republicans hated lawyers?

Omg...who wants to be involved in all that when you are struggling with such a difficult issue?

I wonder if there will be type of insurance product or service offered for women that want to deliver in blue states.

There will definitely be some type of underground railroad of "marthas" to help women that want to get an abortion.

There is a network of people that want to help women that want to carry their pregnancies and cannot stay home for whatever reason.

A pro choice network will assist either choice

That's an interesting point. Women who actually want to have children may need to go to a blue state so they have a better chance at a successful pregnancy and access to medical care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More and more horror stories like this.

I don't doubt this happened, but I'm unclear on why the hospital thought that induction did not risk a violation, but D&E did? Either way, it's terminating the pregnancy. Is the Louisiana law written in a way that makes induction legal? Assuming there is a fetal heartbeat. Or was there no heartbeat, but the hospital lawyers were advising that they needed new compliance/documentation policies for D&E, since they are usually (but not always) for an abortion? That latter makes sense to me.

Also ... Louisiana law says that in the health exception, "However, the physician shall make reasonable medical efforts under the circumstances to preserve both the life of the mother and the life of her unborn child in a manner consistent with reasonable medical practice." I wonder if the hospital interpreted this to require induction rather than D&E. Even though induction of a 16 week fetus is obviously going to result in death.

Textbook Case 101 why politicians shouldn't be legislating medical procedures - this is just way too vague. Any decent General Counsel can come up with 15 potential ambiguities and points of clarification required in just that bit of text.

The fact that we have lawyers in the maternity ward deciding courses of medical treatment is pure insanity. I thought Republicans hated lawyers?

Omg...who wants to be involved in all that when you are struggling with such a difficult issue?

I wonder if there will be type of insurance product or service offered for women that want to deliver in blue states.

There will definitely be some type of underground railroad of "marthas" to help women that want to get an abortion.

There is a network of people that want to help women that want to carry their pregnancies and cannot stay home for whatever reason.

A pro choice network will assist either choice

That's an interesting point. Women who actually want to have children may need to go to a blue state so they have a better chance at a successful pregnancy and access to medical care.

The internet is riddled with anecdotes of women who have decided against starting new pregnancies. It’s just too unsafe and the risks are just too high.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More and more horror stories like this.

I don't doubt this happened, but I'm unclear on why the hospital thought that induction did not risk a violation, but D&E did? Either way, it's terminating the pregnancy. Is the Louisiana law written in a way that makes induction legal? Assuming there is a fetal heartbeat. Or was there no heartbeat, but the hospital lawyers were advising that they needed new compliance/documentation policies for D&E, since they are usually (but not always) for an abortion? That latter makes sense to me.

Also ... Louisiana law says that in the health exception, "However, the physician shall make reasonable medical efforts under the circumstances to preserve both the life of the mother and the life of her unborn child in a manner consistent with reasonable medical practice." I wonder if the hospital interpreted this to require induction rather than D&E. Even though induction of a 16 week fetus is obviously going to result in death.

Textbook Case 101 why politicians shouldn't be legislating medical procedures - this is just way too vague. Any decent General Counsel can come up with 15 potential ambiguities and points of clarification required in just that bit of text.

The fact that we have lawyers in the maternity ward deciding courses of medical treatment is pure insanity. I thought Republicans hated lawyers?

Omg...who wants to be involved in all that when you are struggling with such a difficult issue?

I wonder if there will be type of insurance product or service offered for women that want to deliver in blue states.

There will definitely be some type of underground railroad of "marthas" to help women that want to get an abortion.

There is a network of people that want to help women that want to carry their pregnancies and cannot stay home for whatever reason.

A pro choice network will assist either choice

That's an interesting point. Women who actually want to have children may need to go to a blue state so they have a better chance at a successful pregnancy and access to medical care.

The internet is riddled with anecdotes of women who have decided against starting new pregnancies. It’s just too unsafe and the risks are just too high.

+1. Add me to those numbers. Got a bisalp after RBG died. I wasn’t necessarily opposed to more kids, but pregnancy has a non-zero chance of killing me, and even if I survived I couldn’t risk a permanently disabled baby this late in my life when I had other kids to think of.

But even though I took measures to protect myself, I’m not going to stop fighting for women who didn’t. I still believe in choice, and that means to the choice to start a family even in wartime. Those women deserve if not the best care, then at least the medically accepted standard of care. Not some Christofacist’s conception of biblical revenge for the sin of Eve or whatever superstitious primitive nonsense they believe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More and more horror stories like this.

I don't doubt this happened, but I'm unclear on why the hospital thought that induction did not risk a violation, but D&E did? Either way, it's terminating the pregnancy. Is the Louisiana law written in a way that makes induction legal? Assuming there is a fetal heartbeat. Or was there no heartbeat, but the hospital lawyers were advising that they needed new compliance/documentation policies for D&E, since they are usually (but not always) for an abortion? That latter makes sense to me.

Also ... Louisiana law says that in the health exception, "However, the physician shall make reasonable medical efforts under the circumstances to preserve both the life of the mother and the life of her unborn child in a manner consistent with reasonable medical practice." I wonder if the hospital interpreted this to require induction rather than D&E. Even though induction of a 16 week fetus is obviously going to result in death.

Textbook Case 101 why politicians shouldn't be legislating medical procedures - this is just way too vague. Any decent General Counsel can come up with 15 potential ambiguities and points of clarification required in just that bit of text.

The fact that we have lawyers in the maternity ward deciding courses of medical treatment is pure insanity. I thought Republicans hated lawyers?

Omg...who wants to be involved in all that when you are struggling with such a difficult issue?

I wonder if there will be type of insurance product or service offered for women that want to deliver in blue states.

There will definitely be some type of underground railroad of "marthas" to help women that want to get an abortion.

There is a network of people that want to help women that want to carry their pregnancies and cannot stay home for whatever reason.

A pro choice network will assist either choice

That's an interesting point. Women who actually want to have children may need to go to a blue state so they have a better chance at a successful pregnancy and access to medical care.

The internet is riddled with anecdotes of women who have decided against starting new pregnancies. It’s just too unsafe and the risks are just too high.

I wouldn't even want to visit a red state if I was pregnant, neither would my DH. He loves me too much. I guess husbands of pregnant women in red states don't care as much for their wives, sisters, daughters...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do these states want to destroy their maternal healthcare systems?

It’s biblical. I kid you not. Due to Eve’s original sin, “I will sharply increase the pain of childbirth. In pain shall you bring forth children”. Genesis 3:16. I was raised with this ash*t.

In the Cristofascist state Of the American Taliban, you have to live out Handmaid Amy and I Like Beers! belief that childbirth is supposed to be traumatic and painful. You in pain yet?

I’m the OP of this thread and thank you. I grew up in this, too. It’s like none of these people understand how visceral is the misogyny among forced birthers, and I can read easily the subtle “oof, you guys are over the top” tone in some replies (not so much in this thread, but definitely in others). Truly, it’s almost clownish how much they hate women and want to see them punished for existing and they don’t really try to hide it.

The whole forced birther movement exists to punish women, because it is rooted in a world in which women are inherently worth less than men. The cruelty is the point.

Oh yeah. I grew up in the South and stumbled into a woman's studies minor in college. Which impacted the rest of my life so much. I married someone who considered me a true equal. Was a full partner in raising kids. Supported my career as much as I supported his, etc. Which is a different thread. (And, BTW, why College terrifies Cons so much).

But as part of one class, we looked at how deliveries with no pain meds are the gold standard. The choice of “good mothers” who want what’s best for their children. And women who want an epidural or need a C-section had a “less than birth”. And in the South, I certainly had women become uncomfortable and say they were sorry that I had a C-section. I actually had people ask if I was I upset I had not had a “real birth experience”. (Nope. I mean, I came home with a beautiful baby, so no regrets here).

That was about 1990. More tha 30 years later. And 20 years after I gave birth, we can do amazing new things with pain relief, nerve stimulators, etc FFS, we have CRISPER and the COVID shot technology. But there has not been a single advancement pain relief in childcare. Because having laboring women suffer is part of Gods plan. If men gave birth, the technology would exis5 for it to be painless— and timed tp avoid major sporting events.

Today, you still have L&D nurses who try to talk women out of pain meds and epidurals. C“You can do it. Just a few more minutes”) . Because a “good mother” ( wants a medication free delivery.

A god fearing woman accepts the original sin of Eve and ( in my moms words) “offers it up”. SMDH

I don't know. I gave birth three times and all three times not only was I offered an epidural multiple times, but there was a definite push to have it earlier rather than later. I haven't at all experienced any pressure to avoid medication.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do these states want to destroy their maternal healthcare systems?

It’s biblical. I kid you not. Due to Eve’s original sin, “I will sharply increase the pain of childbirth. In pain shall you bring forth children”. Genesis 3:16. I was raised with this ash*t.

In the Cristofascist state Of the American Taliban, you have to live out Handmaid Amy and I Like Beers! belief that childbirth is supposed to be traumatic and painful. You in pain yet?

I’m the OP of this thread and thank you. I grew up in this, too. It’s like none of these people understand how visceral is the misogyny among forced birthers, and I can read easily the subtle “oof, you guys are over the top” tone in some replies (not so much in this thread, but definitely in others). Truly, it’s almost clownish how much they hate women and want to see them punished for existing and they don’t really try to hide it.

The whole forced birther movement exists to punish women, because it is rooted in a world in which women are inherently worth less than men. The cruelty is the point.

Oh yeah. I grew up in the South and stumbled into a woman's studies minor in college. Which impacted the rest of my life so much. I married someone who considered me a true equal. Was a full partner in raising kids. Supported my career as much as I supported his, etc. Which is a different thread. (And, BTW, why College terrifies Cons so much).

But as part of one class, we looked at how deliveries with no pain meds are the gold standard. The choice of “good mothers” who want what’s best for their children. And women who want an epidural or need a C-section had a “less than birth”. And in the South, I certainly had women become uncomfortable and say they were sorry that I had a C-section. I actually had people ask if I was I upset I had not had a “real birth experience”. (Nope. I mean, I came home with a beautiful baby, so no regrets here).

That was about 1990. More tha 30 years later. And 20 years after I gave birth, we can do amazing new things with pain relief, nerve stimulators, etc FFS, we have CRISPER and the COVID shot technology. But there has not been a single advancement pain relief in childcare. Because having laboring women suffer is part of Gods plan. If men gave birth, the technology would exis5 for it to be painless— and timed tp avoid major sporting events.

Today, you still have L&D nurses who try to talk women out of pain meds and epidurals. C“You can do it. Just a few more minutes”) . Because a “good mother” ( wants a medication free delivery.

A god fearing woman accepts the original sin of Eve and ( in my moms words) “offers it up”. SMDH

I don't know. I gave birth three times and all three times not only was I offered an epidural multiple times, but there was a definite push to have it earlier rather than later. I haven't at all experienced any pressure to avoid medication.

I saw an opinion piece shortly before Hobbs during the formula shortage basically advocating for women to leave the workforce to nurse their babies. In the article, use of epidurals in labor was mentioned as a cause of insufficient milk supply.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do these states want to destroy their maternal healthcare systems?

It’s biblical. I kid you not. Due to Eve’s original sin, “I will sharply increase the pain of childbirth. In pain shall you bring forth children”. Genesis 3:16. I was raised with this ash*t.

In the Cristofascist state Of the American Taliban, you have to live out Handmaid Amy and I Like Beers! belief that childbirth is supposed to be traumatic and painful. You in pain yet?

I’m the OP of this thread and thank you. I grew up in this, too. It’s like none of these people understand how visceral is the misogyny among forced birthers, and I can read easily the subtle “oof, you guys are over the top” tone in some replies (not so much in this thread, but definitely in others). Truly, it’s almost clownish how much they hate women and want to see them punished for existing and they don’t really try to hide it.

The whole forced birther movement exists to punish women, because it is rooted in a world in which women are inherently worth less than men. The cruelty is the point.

Oh yeah. I grew up in the South and stumbled into a woman's studies minor in college. Which impacted the rest of my life so much. I married someone who considered me a true equal. Was a full partner in raising kids. Supported my career as much as I supported his, etc. Which is a different thread. (And, BTW, why College terrifies Cons so much).

But as part of one class, we looked at how deliveries with no pain meds are the gold standard. The choice of “good mothers” who want what’s best for their children. And women who want an epidural or need a C-section had a “less than birth”. And in the South, I certainly had women become uncomfortable and say they were sorry that I had a C-section. I actually had people ask if I was I upset I had not had a “real birth experience”. (Nope. I mean, I came home with a beautiful baby, so no regrets here).

That was about 1990. More tha 30 years later. And 20 years after I gave birth, we can do amazing new things with pain relief, nerve stimulators, etc FFS, we have CRISPER and the COVID shot technology. But there has not been a single advancement pain relief in childcare. Because having laboring women suffer is part of Gods plan. If men gave birth, the technology would exis5 for it to be painless— and timed tp avoid major sporting events.

Today, you still have L&D nurses who try to talk women out of pain meds and epidurals. C“You can do it. Just a few more minutes”) . Because a “good mother” ( wants a medication free delivery.

A god fearing woman accepts the original sin of Eve and ( in my moms words) “offers it up”. SMDH

I don't know. I gave birth three times and all three times not only was I offered an epidural multiple times, but there was a definite push to have it earlier rather than later. I haven't at all experienced any pressure to avoid medication.

I saw an opinion piece shortly before Hobbs during the formula shortage basically advocating for women to leave the workforce to nurse their babies. In the article, use of epidurals in labor was mentioned as a cause of insufficient milk supply.

Ha! My kids were drinking milk like it was water from a firehose. The woo around childbirth has gotten completely out of control. I don’t blame women for wanting to reclaim control, they have very valid reasons for it especially given the treatment their moms and grandmas faced, but an undercurrent of misogyny really is running through the whole thing.