Woman charged with felony for having a stillbirth

[Anonymous]

If you fear the risks of induction and the legal consequences of a DnC, why not do a c section?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel for her. The last thing I’d want after giving birth (and a stillbirth at that) is to engage with any human, especially police officers. She must have been exhausted and emotionally distraught.

She went to an appointment with her hairdresser.

You've obviously never worked with victims of trauma before--or even done a basic google search on common trauma responses.

But besides all of that, I don't care if she left her home, hopped on a train and joined the Rockettes kickline at Radio City. It is insane to put a woman in jail for this alleged 'crime'.

“At one point, a physician advised Ms Watts that she should have her labour induced, a procedure that amounted to an abortion and would cause her to deliver the fetus but also put her at “significant risk” of death, according to those records obtained by the Associated Press.“

So the doctors at the hospital wanted to induce her and give her the abortion she needed, but she left the hospital.

Good lord you typed this out in the middle of your screed and don’t even seem to realize what you are saying.

Being induced for l&d which could put you at significant risk for death is NOT the same thing as getting a D&C which is fast and safer.

Are you this clueless about everything? Please share with us your near death experience giving birth or miscarrying

How is giving birth in a toilet, by yourself, safer?

A D&C is not giving birth in a toilet by yourself. Are you always this clueless?

I’m saying giving birth into a toilet isn’t safer than being in a hospital. She left AMA and birthed on her own. I’m asking how that’s safer. If the hospital was going to induce labor one would think that was far safer than doing it on your own.

“At one point, a physician advised Ms Watts that she should have her labour induced, a procedure that amounted to an abortion and would cause her to deliver the fetus but also put her at “significant risk” of death, according to those records obtained by the Associated Press.“

Exactly. So if delivering the fetus put her at a high risk of death, why did she leave and do it on her own? If there is a high risk of death involved wouldn’t you want to be at a hospital?

Are you dense? They weren't scheduling the procedure.

They didn't because some religious freak shows feel like they need to insert themselves into all women's healthcare decisions. That is exactly why she didn't get the care that she required.

Mind your own F-ing uterus, religious nutters.

They told her she needed to be induced. How is that not offering her medical care? If she left of course they didn’t schedule a procedure.

The standard of care would have been D&C not an induction. Anyone who has been induced knows how painful that is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you fear the risks of induction and the legal consequences of a DnC, why not do a c section?

Spoken like a clueless man

[Anonymous]

They also told her that being induced could kill her! Did I read that right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you fear the risks of induction and the legal consequences of a DnC, why not do a c section?

Spoken like a clueless man

No, I am a pro choice woman and I donated to her GFM. It's a sincere question. Please school me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel for her. The last thing I’d want after giving birth (and a stillbirth at that) is to engage with any human, especially police officers. She must have been exhausted and emotionally distraught.

She went to an appointment with her hairdresser.

You've obviously never worked with victims of trauma before--or even done a basic google search on common trauma responses.

But besides all of that, I don't care if she left her home, hopped on a train and joined the Rockettes kickline at Radio City. It is insane to put a woman in jail for this alleged 'crime'.

“At one point, a physician advised Ms Watts that she should have her labour induced, a procedure that amounted to an abortion and would cause her to deliver the fetus but also put her at “significant risk” of death, according to those records obtained by the Associated Press.“

So the doctors at the hospital wanted to induce her and give her the abortion she needed, but she left the hospital.

Good lord you typed this out in the middle of your screed and don’t even seem to realize what you are saying.

Being induced for l&d which could put you at significant risk for death is NOT the same thing as getting a D&C which is fast and safer.

Are you this clueless about everything? Please share with us your near death experience giving birth or miscarrying

How is giving birth in a toilet, by yourself, safer?

A D&C is not giving birth in a toilet by yourself. Are you always this clueless?

I’m saying giving birth into a toilet isn’t safer than being in a hospital. She left AMA and birthed on her own. I’m asking how that’s safer. If the hospital was going to induce labor one would think that was far safer than doing it on your own.

“At one point, a physician advised Ms Watts that she should have her labour induced, a procedure that amounted to an abortion and would cause her to deliver the fetus but also put her at “significant risk” of death, according to those records obtained by the Associated Press.“

Exactly. So if delivering the fetus put her at a high risk of death, why did she leave and do it on her own? If there is a high risk of death involved wouldn’t you want to be at a hospital?

Are you dense? They weren't scheduling the procedure.

They didn't because some religious freak shows feel like they need to insert themselves into all women's healthcare decisions. That is exactly why she didn't get the care that she required.

Mind your own F-ing uterus, religious nutters.

They told her she needed to be induced. How is that not offering her medical care? If she left of course they didn’t schedule a procedure.

The standard of care would have been D&C not an induction. Anyone who has been induced knows how painful that is.

Are you an obgyn? How are you familiar with the standard of care in her particular case?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you fear the risks of induction and the legal consequences of a DnC, why not do a c section?

Spoken like a clueless man

No, I am a pro choice woman and I donated to her GFM. It's a sincere question. Please school me.

C section slices right into your body. It is surgery for crying out loud.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel for her. The last thing I’d want after giving birth (and a stillbirth at that) is to engage with any human, especially police officers. She must have been exhausted and emotionally distraught.

She went to an appointment with her hairdresser.

You've obviously never worked with victims of trauma before--or even done a basic google search on common trauma responses.

But besides all of that, I don't care if she left her home, hopped on a train and joined the Rockettes kickline at Radio City. It is insane to put a woman in jail for this alleged 'crime'.

“At one point, a physician advised Ms Watts that she should have her labour induced, a procedure that amounted to an abortion and would cause her to deliver the fetus but also put her at “significant risk” of death, according to those records obtained by the Associated Press.“

So the doctors at the hospital wanted to induce her and give her the abortion she needed, but she left the hospital.

Good lord you typed this out in the middle of your screed and don’t even seem to realize what you are saying.

Being induced for l&d which could put you at significant risk for death is NOT the same thing as getting a D&C which is fast and safer.

Are you this clueless about everything? Please share with us your near death experience giving birth or miscarrying

How is giving birth in a toilet, by yourself, safer?

A D&C is not giving birth in a toilet by yourself. Are you always this clueless?

I’m saying giving birth into a toilet isn’t safer than being in a hospital. She left AMA and birthed on her own. I’m asking how that’s safer. If the hospital was going to induce labor one would think that was far safer than doing it on your own.

“At one point, a physician advised Ms Watts that she should have her labour induced, a procedure that amounted to an abortion and would cause her to deliver the fetus but also put her at “significant risk” of death, according to those records obtained by the Associated Press.“

Exactly. So if delivering the fetus put her at a high risk of death, why did she leave and do it on her own? If there is a high risk of death involved wouldn’t you want to be at a hospital?

Are you dense? They weren't scheduling the procedure.

They didn't because some religious freak shows feel like they need to insert themselves into all women's healthcare decisions. That is exactly why she didn't get the care that she required.

Mind your own F-ing uterus, religious nutters.

They told her she needed to be induced. How is that not offering her medical care? If she left of course they didn’t schedule a procedure.

The standard of care would have been D&C not an induction. Anyone who has been induced knows how painful that is.

Are you an obgyn? How are you familiar with the standard of care in her particular case?

Because that is what the doctors at the hospital recommended for her. As anyone who has been following this story and reading about it would know.

Hospital ethics board sat around arguing whether to allow them to do it. Because of Ohio’s laws

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you fear the risks of induction and the legal consequences of a DnC, why not do a c section?

Spoken like a clueless man

No, I am a pro choice woman and I donated to her GFM. It's a sincere question. Please school me.

C section slices right into your body. It is surgery for crying out loud.

Yes, I have had a V and C and also a DnC for early miscarriage. If my options are a potentially deadly induction or a potentially illegal DnC, I think I'd want a C section. The baby is already doomed and will not survive a C section either at that age. But if the doctor does a C section at least s/he can demonstrate that they tried to save the mother and the fetus. They can go through the expensive, pointless motions of trying to save the fetus to satisfy the Republican inquisition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you fear the risks of induction and the legal consequences of a DnC, why not do a c section?

Spoken like a clueless man

Spoken like a demented sexless alien.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you fear the risks of induction and the legal consequences of a DnC, why not do a c section?

Spoken like a clueless man

No, I am a pro choice woman and I donated to her GFM. It's a sincere question. Please school me.

C section slices right into your body. It is surgery for crying out loud.

Yes, I have had a V and C and also a DnC for early miscarriage. If my options are a potentially deadly induction or a potentially illegal DnC, I think I'd want a C section. The baby is already doomed and will not survive a C section either at that age. But if the doctor does a C section at least s/he can demonstrate that they tried to save the mother and the fetus. They can go through the expensive, pointless motions of trying to save the fetus to satisfy the Republican inquisition.

I cannot wrap my head around anyone saying “just do a c section” as if it’s a walk in the park.

And there are only so many c sections a body can have. What if this woman wants to have a child. If you have one c section it more likely leads to have another.

It’s disgusting that women’s lives are so little valued.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you fear the risks of induction and the legal consequences of a DnC, why not do a c section?

Spoken like a clueless man

No, I am a pro choice woman and I donated to her GFM. It's a sincere question. Please school me.

C section slices right into your body. It is surgery for crying out loud.

Yes, I have had a V and C and also a DnC for early miscarriage. If my options are a potentially deadly induction or a potentially illegal DnC, I think I'd want a C section. The baby is already doomed and will not survive a C section either at that age. But if the doctor does a C section at least s/he can demonstrate that they tried to save the mother and the fetus. They can go through the expensive, pointless motions of trying to save the fetus to satisfy the Republican inquisition.

I cannot wrap my head around anyone saying “just do a c section” as if it’s a walk in the park.

And there are only so many c sections a body can have. What if this woman wants to have a child. If you have one c section it more likely leads to have another.

It’s disgusting that women’s lives are so little valued.

I am the PP you are talking about. My vaginal delivery was HORRIBLE. It left me with lifelong consequences. For baby # 2 I insisted on a C and it was so much less traumatizing. So I have an unusual perspective. But again, if the options are:
dangerous induction
dangerous miscarriage at home
persecution for a DnC
Or a C section to remove my dying or dead fetus,

I know which one I would choose.

Not that we should be faced with these choices, but here we are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you fear the risks of induction and the legal consequences of a DnC, why not do a c section?

Spoken like a clueless man

No, I am a pro choice woman and I donated to her GFM. It's a sincere question. Please school me.

C section slices right into your body. It is surgery for crying out loud.

Yes, I have had a V and C and also a DnC for early miscarriage. If my options are a potentially deadly induction or a potentially illegal DnC, I think I'd want a C section. The baby is already doomed and will not survive a C section either at that age. But if the doctor does a C section at least s/he can demonstrate that they tried to save the mother and the fetus. They can go through the expensive, pointless motions of trying to save the fetus to satisfy the Republican inquisition.

I've been induced for a V delivery, had a C-section and a D&C for miscarriage at 12 weeks. Easy decision for me, I'd rather have 'potentially illegal' D&C (performed by medical professionals, of course) than an induction or a C-section. But only the induction was mentioned to Brittany and she waited in that hospital for 8 hours and still received no treatment. Even if she had been induced, she would still need a D&C in order to ensure there was no fetal material remaining - which is what happened after she went to the hospital (for the 3rd time) after completing the miscarriage at home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you fear the risks of induction and the legal consequences of a DnC, why not do a c section?

Spoken like a clueless man

No, I am a pro choice woman and I donated to her GFM. It's a sincere question. Please school me.

C section slices right into your body. It is surgery for crying out loud.

Yes, I have had a V and C and also a DnC for early miscarriage. If my options are a potentially deadly induction or a potentially illegal DnC, I think I'd want a C section. The baby is already doomed and will not survive a C section either at that age. But if the doctor does a C section at least s/he can demonstrate that they tried to save the mother and the fetus. They can go through the expensive, pointless motions of trying to save the fetus to satisfy the Republican inquisition.

I cannot wrap my head around anyone saying “just do a c section” as if it’s a walk in the park.

And there are only so many c sections a body can have. What if this woman wants to have a child. If you have one c section it more likely leads to have another.

It’s disgusting that women’s lives are so little valued.

I am the PP you are talking about. My vaginal delivery was HORRIBLE. It left me with lifelong consequences. For baby # 2 I insisted on a C and it was so much less traumatizing. So I have an unusual perspective. But again, if the options are:
dangerous induction
dangerous miscarriage at home
persecution for a DnC
Or a C section to remove my dying or dead fetus,

I know which one I would choose.

Not that we should be faced with these choices, but here we are.

Would much rather have the “illegal” D&C and then see what consequences are. Wouldn’t even have to think twice about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how the forced-birthers are now clinging to the narrative that her wrongdoing was actually leaving the hospital …

This entire thread shows how divided people are and dogmatic about their beliefs. They can’t see nuance or consider another point of view. The pro lifers automatically assume she was in the wrong and the pro choices jump to the conclusion she didn’t do anything wrong at all and the event was just like their miscarriage. Really the truth is likely somewhere in the middle. The lack of medical care is concerning and it’s also concerning someone found a foot stuck in her toilet.

Most likely she has severe mental health issues since she’s telling people there is a body in a bucket in her backyard.

Most sane people don’t refer to second trimester fetal remains as “a body”.

Did the hospital give her a body bag to put it in if she passed it at home?

What was otherwise available to her for placing what she thought were fetal remains in? A bucket seems as good a container as anything else. Would you have preferred a paper bag? A baking pan? A shoebox? Please enlighten us what women are supposed to do with the bloody remnants of a pregnancy. Because most of us don’t know. I flushed mine down the toilet.

Unborn babies have bodies, they are developing humans.



This baby was 21 weeks old when born, and survived. The baby in this case was a week older.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.goodmorningamerica.com/amp/family/story/miracle-baby-born-21-weeks-heads-home-hospital-74848084

This woman tried to flush her baby down the toilet, but the baby’s body was too big and he or she became stuck in the toilet. The police who investigated found the baby’s body stuck in the toilet. The mother has scooped blood and feces into the bucket so she hide the fact she had given birth.

The hospital had admitted her twice before and she signed herself out if the hospital against her doctor’s orders. They made sure she was aware she needed medical care and could likely die if she left. She left anyway.