Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who'll pay their hospital bills?

The mom was a nurse at Emory. Do you have proof she was uninsured?

She DIED. What insurer pays out after the enrollee has died?

Chance, you are a beautiful baby who is going to accomplish great things. Don’t ever worry about what strangers on the internet said about you, you are a wanted child and loved child.

Typical MAGA

No answers

Just thoughts and prayers

Have you at least given to a go fund me?

Says the party that is suddenly worried about this baby getting help via taxpayer funded social programs and an IEP at a public school.

And the same people who call the mother a “rotting body.”

Ugh.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who'll pay their hospital bills?

The mom was a nurse at Emory. Do you have proof she was uninsured?

She DIED. What insurer pays out after the enrollee has died?

Chance, you are a beautiful baby who is going to accomplish great things. Don’t ever worry about what strangers on the internet said about you, you are a wanted child and loved child.

Typical MAGA

No answers

Just thoughts and prayers

Have you at least given to a go fund me?

Every baby is a beautiful and every womb is sacred. F whatever happens after day 1 of life though. I especially have to laugh at the MAGAs now embracing medical malpractice suits lol.

I hope the baby is ok. If not, the family will have to deal with a lifetime of medical intervention for a special needs kid. This, in addition to not having a day in your loved one's outcome is heartbreaking.

Mom of a 28 weeker

Anonymous wrote:So I think the crux is that it's the family's decision. As stated, they never got to decide. That's what the pp are suggesting is wrong. All you crazies who suggest people taking issue with the decision to keep baby are idiots. Nobody is saying they aren't pulling for the kid, it's the moral and legal line this case crossed when the govt decided there was no option but to keep the pregnancy going no matter what!

No the family’s decision is only part of the story. Prior to the punitive new anti-abortion laws, it would be an absolute aberration for a hospital to keep a woman with a 1st trimester fetus on life support. And no medical ethics would require it - Catholic medical ethicists have spent a lot of time thinking over when heroic interventions are required and when it is moral to let nature take its course. they would never advise that the moral choice is to put the dead mother on life support. This woman is hardly the first woman to suffer braindeath while in the first trimester. The ONLY reason she was kept alive was the anti-abortion laws where the fetus trumps everything, even the dignified and natural death of the mother.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who'll pay their hospital bills?

The mom was a nurse at Emory. Do you have proof she was uninsured?

She DIED. What insurer pays out after the enrollee has died?

Chance, you are a beautiful baby who is going to accomplish great things. Don’t ever worry about what strangers on the internet said about you, you are a wanted child and loved child.

Typical MAGA

No answers

Just thoughts and prayers

Have you at least given to a go fund me?

Anonymous wrote:So I think the crux is that it's the family's decision. As stated, they never got to decide. That's what the pp are suggesting is wrong. All you crazies who suggest people taking issue with the decision to keep baby are idiots. Nobody is saying they aren't pulling for the kid, it's the moral and legal line this case crossed when the govt decided there was no option but to keep the pregnancy going no matter what!

matter.




“We want the baby. That’s a part of my daughter.

Newkirk believes her daughter’s condition could have been prevented. She told 11Alive Smith was given high-potency Tylenol during her visit to Northside but never received a CT scan that might have detected the clots earlier.
“A simple CT scan could have saved her life,” she said. “She was a 30-year-old mother chasing her dreams. It just doesn’t make sense.”

The family said they are now focused on reaching August 11 — the projected date in which Newkirk said doctors feel baby Chance can be safely delivered. After that, Newkirk said, they will have to face another painful decision about whether to remove life support.


“That’s what I have a hard time with,” she said. “But right now, the journey is for baby Chance to survive — and whatever condition God allows him to come here in, we’re going to love him just the same.”

The mom/grandma is quoted as saying that the family had a hard time deciding whether or not to remove life support from their daughter even after Chance was delivered.

They wanted Chance to be born. He’s part of their family. Part of their daughter. She had to be kept on life support for him to be born.

Where are you getting that the family wanted her to be taken off life support? An episode of a tv show?
https://www.11alive.com/a...957d97666e

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thus wasn't right. Whether the baby lives isn't the point. The decision was to forcibly keep the pregnancy viable despite family wishes. All the medical bills are borne by the family or taxpayers who should not have. We all love new life and babies are precious but you can't immorally force a baby to existence - that is what this is about. It's not hating babies and it's not suggesting anyone is rooting v their success at living. It's simply focusing on why this should not be happening and so wrong it did. You really have to look at it as a philosophical situation and not get emotional about it. A brain dead mother whose family wanted the opportunity to determine her fate despite her being pregnant was not allowed to do so and as a result has to be responsible for everything that happens - financially, emotionally, practically to this woman and her baby. I'm dead certain that anyone in this situation would have been pissed to have been told they had no choice in the matter.

Nothing you believe is borne out by the grandmother’s words.

Shameful. Quit trying to justify your own opinions with lies.

So should every body be kept alive until it rots or just pregnant mothers? isn’t an extra year of life for a 90 year old as sacred? Do you hate old people?

It’s a you problem that you see a young pregnant woman who didn’t receive proper, lifesaving medical treatment as a “rotting body.”

So I think the crux is that it's the family's decision. As stated, they never got to decide. That's what the pp are suggesting is wrong. All you crazies who suggest people taking issue with the decision to keep baby are idiots. Nobody is saying they aren't pulling for the kid, it's the moral and legal line this case crossed when the govt decided there was no option but to keep the pregnancy going no matter what!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thus wasn't right. Whether the baby lives isn't the point. The decision was to forcibly keep the pregnancy viable despite family wishes. All the medical bills are borne by the family or taxpayers who should not have. We all love new life and babies are precious but you can't immorally force a baby to existence - that is what this is about. It's not hating babies and it's not suggesting anyone is rooting v their success at living. It's simply focusing on why this should not be happening and so wrong it did. You really have to look at it as a philosophical situation and not get emotional about it. A brain dead mother whose family wanted the opportunity to determine her fate despite her being pregnant was not allowed to do so and as a result has to be responsible for everything that happens - financially, emotionally, practically to this woman and her baby. I'm dead certain that anyone in this situation would have been pissed to have been told they had no choice in the matter.

Nothing you believe is borne out by the grandmother’s words.

Shameful. Quit trying to justify your own opinions with lies.

So should every body be kept alive until it rots or just pregnant mothers? isn’t an extra year of life for a 90 year old as sacred? Do you hate old people?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who'll pay their hospital bills?

The mom was a nurse at Emory. Do you have proof she was uninsured?

She DIED. What insurer pays out after the enrollee has died?

Chance, you are a beautiful baby who is going to accomplish great things. Don’t ever worry about what strangers on the internet said about you, you are a wanted child and loved child.

that’s not what this is about.

Anonymous wrote:Thus wasn't right. Whether the baby lives isn't the point. The decision was to forcibly keep the pregnancy viable despite family wishes. All the medical bills are borne by the family or taxpayers who should not have. We all love new life and babies are precious but you can't immorally force a baby to existence - that is what this is about. It's not hating babies and it's not suggesting anyone is rooting v their success at living. It's simply focusing on why this should not be happening and so wrong it did. You really have to look at it as a philosophical situation and not get emotional about it. A brain dead mother whose family wanted the opportunity to determine her fate despite her being pregnant was not allowed to do so and as a result has to be responsible for everything that happens - financially, emotionally, practically to this woman and her baby. I'm dead certain that anyone in this situation would have been pissed to have been told they had no choice in the matter.

Nothing you believe is borne out by the grandmother’s words.

Shameful. Quit trying to justify your own opinions with lies.

Anonymous wrote:Thus wasn't right. Whether the baby lives isn't the point. The decision was to forcibly keep the pregnancy viable despite family wishes. All the medical bills are borne by the family or taxpayers who should not have. We all love new life and babies are precious but you can't immorally force a baby to existence - that is what this is about. It's not hating babies and it's not suggesting anyone is rooting v their success at living. It's simply focusing on why this should not be happening and so wrong it did. You really have to look at it as a philosophical situation and not get emotional about it. A brain dead mother whose family wanted the opportunity to determine her fate despite her being pregnant was not allowed to do so and as a result has to be responsible for everything that happens - financially, emotionally, practically to this woman and her baby. I'm dead certain that anyone in this situation would have been pissed to have been told they had no choice in the matter.

“We want the baby. That’s a part of my daughter.

Newkirk believes her daughter’s condition could have been prevented. She told 11Alive Smith was given high-potency Tylenol during her visit to Northside but never received a CT scan that might have detected the clots earlier.
“A simple CT scan could have saved her life,” she said. “She was a 30-year-old mother chasing her dreams. It just doesn’t make sense.”

The family said they are now focused on reaching August 11 — the projected date in which Newkirk said doctors feel baby Chance can be safely delivered. After that, Newkirk said, they will have to face another painful decision about whether to remove life support.


“That’s what I have a hard time with,” she said. “But right now, the journey is for baby Chance to survive — and whatever condition God allows him to come here in, we’re going to love him just the same.”

The mom/grandma is quoted as saying that the family had a hard time deciding whether or not to remove life support from their daughter even after Chance was delivered.

They wanted Chance to be born. He’s part of their family. Part of their daughter. She had to be kept on life support for him to be born.

Where are you getting that the family wanted her to be taken off life support? An episode of a tv show?
https://www.11alive.com/article/news/health/update-pregnant-mom-brain-dead-life-support-baby-update/85-1b691c47-dff7-438f-9054-58957d97666e

Anonymous wrote:Thus wasn't right. Whether the baby lives isn't the point. The decision was to forcibly keep the pregnancy viable despite family wishes. All the medical bills are borne by the family or taxpayers who should not have. We all love new life and babies are precious but you can't immorally force a baby to existence - that is what this is about. It's not hating babies and it's not suggesting anyone is rooting v their success at living. It's simply focusing on why this should not be happening and so wrong it did. You really have to look at it as a philosophical situation and not get emotional about it. A brain dead mother whose family wanted the opportunity to determine her fate despite her being pregnant was not allowed to do so and as a result has to be responsible for everything that happens - financially, emotionally, practically to this woman and her baby. I'm dead certain that anyone in this situation would have been pissed to have been told they had no choice in the matter.

The family never said they wanted her taken off life support.

On Monday, Newkirk shared that her unborn grandson — whom the family has named Chance — is continuing to grow.

The baby is actually doing better than the last time I met with the doctors,” she said.

Newkirk explained Smith is receiving steroids and nutrition through a PICC line. She added that baby Chance's heartbeat is strong and that he's measuring slightly above average in weight for his gestational age.

“He has his toes, arms, limbs — everything is forming,” she said. “We're just hoping he makes it.”

We didn’t have a choice or a say about it,” she said. “We want the baby. That’s a part of my daughter. But the decision should have been left to us — not the state.”

https://www.11alive.com/article/news/health/update-pregnant-mom-brain-dead-life-support-baby-update/85-1b691c47-dff7-438f-9054-58957d97666e

Thus wasn't right. Whether the baby lives isn't the point. The decision was to forcibly keep the pregnancy viable despite family wishes. All the medical bills are borne by the family or taxpayers who should not have. We all love new life and babies are precious but you can't immorally force a baby to existence - that is what this is about. It's not hating babies and it's not suggesting anyone is rooting v their success at living. It's simply focusing on why this should not be happening and so wrong it did. You really have to look at it as a philosophical situation and not get emotional about it. A brain dead mother whose family wanted the opportunity to determine her fate despite her being pregnant was not allowed to do so and as a result has to be responsible for everything that happens - financially, emotionally, practically to this woman and her baby. I'm dead certain that anyone in this situation would have been pissed to have been told they had no choice in the matter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who'll pay their hospital bills?

The mom was a nurse at Emory. Do you have proof she was uninsured?

She DIED. What insurer pays out after the enrollee has died?

Chance, you are a beautiful baby who is going to accomplish great things. Don’t ever worry about what strangers on the internet said about you, you are a wanted child and loved child.