#emergency abortion exceptions

[hungergames2023]

SOUTH CAROLINA

The medical emergency abortion exception: a woman must be DYING before able to receive an abortion.

This is not PRO LIFE.

THIS IS NOT PRO LIFE.

[femkethefaineant]

Also, I've said this before and I'll say it again: banning abortion makes pregnancy only more dangerous. Banning abortion kills babies. We've tried this in the past.

And the assumption that pregnancy is safe leads to the assumption that any pregnancy gone awry is somehow intentionally disrupted, which then leads to wild accusations.

I'm from the Netherlands, where in 1911 a law was introduced that made it illegal to give women any treatment which could induce a miscarriage, or that could kill an unborn or recently born baby. Thus, doctors refused to do so. This led to:

1. A new profession called 'angelmaker', meaning an amateur performing an abortion illegally. Using such tried and true and obviously safe methods as stabbing the uterus with a knitting needle. Note that the number of abortions did not go down, even if we count only those proven to be intentional.

2. A wave of suspicion. Anyone who was at some point suspected to be pregnant but then ceased to be without the appearance of a living baby, was looked into. So women tried to hide their pregnancy by doing stuff pregnant people should obviously not be doing. Anyone who interacted with the pregnancy before something went wrong was held responsible for the complications. Which then led to...

3. Known pregnant people being isolated. No doctors treatment, because the doctor could be accused of murder if anything went wrong afterwards. Oftentimes the family would actually blame the doctor, because someone was going to get blamed anyway and they didn't want it to be themselves. No social network for the same reason. And then if anything went wrong anyway, or more likely because of this, there were no witnesses to prove that the woman didn't do it on purpose. There are many stories of women being denied medical care, miscarrying, then being so distraught they do something irrational (destroying the body in attempts to bring it back to life, trying to hide the body in a forest, simply running away, etc.) that would then be used as proof that the woman did, in fact, kill the baby.

So banning abortion doesn't lead only to people who want an abortion getting one anyway. It also leads to pregnant people being denied any medical care while also being stressed out and alone. It leads to anyone who even looked at a potential miscarriage to be accused of murder, regardless of whether an abortion took place or not.

Banning abortion leads only to more dead babies.

I hate when people say “I’m against abortion except for if the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother” every single pregnancy threatens the life of the pregnant person. We’ve gotten too far removed from that, taken for granted that pregnancy is safe. It is not. Pregnancy and puerperal complications have been a fairly common cause of death throughout history. Even now, maternal mortality is on the rise in the US, the maternal mortality rate varies wildly across the states and it is disproportionately higher for Black women. Being pregnant is getting more dangerous, not less dangerous.

[amaditalks]

Abortion Is On The Ballot

In ten states, there are ballot measures or questions which will be decided in the November election which will impact the future of abortion access in those states. Here’s what you need to know.

Arizona

Arizona Proposition 139 the Right to Abortion Initiative will amend the state constitution to provide for the fundamental right to abortion that the state of Arizona may not interfere with before the point of fetal viability unless justified by a compelling state interest.

To enshrine abortion rights protection in the state constitution Vote Yes

Colorado

Colorado Amendment 79, the Right to Abortion and Health Insurance Coverage Initiative will amend the state constitution to create the right to an abortion and authorize the use of public funds (Medicaid) to pay for abortion care.

To enshrine abortion rights protection in the state constitution Vote Yes

Florida

Florida Amendment 4, the Right to Abortion Initiative, will amend the state constitution to declare that "no law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider.” The current constitutional provision requiring parental consent for minors' abortions will not be affected.

To enshrine abortion rights protection in the state constitution and overturn the current six week abortion ban Vote Yes

Maryland

Maryland Question 1, the Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment, will amend the state constitution to establish a right to reproductive freedom, defined to include "the ability to make and effectuate decisions to prevent, continue, or end one's own pregnancy."

To enshrine reproductive rights protection in the state constitution Vote Yes

Missouri

Missouri Amendment 3, the Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative will amend the state constitution to provide the right for reproductive freedom, which is defined as "the right to make and carry out decisions about all matters relating to reproductive health care, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, abortion care, miscarriage care, and respectful birthing conditions," and providing that the state legislature may enact laws that regulate abortion after fetal viability.

To enshrine broad reproductive rights protection including abortion in the state constitution and overturn the current complete abortion ban Vote Yes

Montana

Montana CI-128, the Right to Abortion Initiative will create a constitutional "right to make and carry out decisions about one’s own pregnancy, including the right to abortion," and allow the state to regulate abortion after fetal viability, except when "medically indicated to protect the life or health of the pregnant patient."

To enshrine broad reproductive rights protection including abortion in the state constitution Vote Yes

Nebraska

The Nebraska Prohibit Abortions After the First Trimester Amendment will amend the state constitution to elevate the current twelve week abortion ban law to a constitutional provision with limited exceptions for medical emergencies or in cases of rape.

To prevent the current legislative abortion ban from being enshrined in the state constitution Vote No

Nevada

Nevada Question 6, the Right to Abortion Initiative will amend the state constitution to create a constitutional right to an abortion, providing for the state to regulate abortion after fetal viability, except where medically indicated to "protect the life or health of the pregnant patient."

To enshrine abortion rights protection in the state constitution Vote Yes

New York

New York Proposal 1, the Equal Protection of Law Amendment will amend the state constitution to provide that people cannot be denied rights based on their "ethnicity, national origin, age, and disability" or "sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy."

To enshrine equal rights protection for pregnant people and abortion patients in the state constitution Vote Yes

South Dakota

The South Dakota Constitutional Amendment G, the Right to Abortion Initiative will amend the state constitution to protect the right to an abortion based on a trimester framework, with no restrictions permitted in the first trimester, only limited medical need restrictions permitted in the second trimester and allowing deeper restrictions in the third trimester except "when abortion is necessary, in the medical judgment of the woman's physician, to preserve the life and health of the pregnant woman."

To enshrine abortion rights protection in the state constitution and overturn the state's current full abortion ban Vote Yes

If you live in one of these ten states and abortion rights matter to you, get registered or double check your registration and make your voting plan today. Every single vote matters significantly in amendment questions.

[stevetoday]

Pro-Choice - Abortion Measures on The Ballot

Florida Amendment 4, the Right to Abortion Initiative A Yes vote with 60% will Establish a constitutional right to abortion until viability, with exceptions for later pregnancies. Arizona Proposition 139, Right to Abortion Initiative (2024) A "yes" vote supports amending the state constitution to provide for the fundamental right to abortion, among other provisions.

Colorado Amendment 79, Right to Abortion and Health Insurance Coverage Initiative A  "yes" vote supports creating a right to abortion in the state constitution and allowing the use of public funds for abortion. Maryland Question 1, Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment A "yes" vote supports adding a new article to the Maryland Constitution's Declaration of Rights establishing a right to reproductive freedom, defined to include "the ability to make and effectuate decisions to prevent, continue, or end one's own pregnancy."

Missouri Amendment 3, Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative A "yes" vote supports adding a fundamental right to reproductive freedom, defined to include abortion and “all matters relating to reproductive health care,” to the Missouri Constitution, among other provisions. Montana CI-128, Right to Abortion Initiative

provide a state constitutional "right to make and carry out decisions about one’s own pregnancy, including the right to abortion," and

allow the state to regulate abortion after fetal viability, except when "medically indicated to protect the life or health of the pregnant patient."

Nebraska Initiative 434, Prohibit Abortions After the First Trimester Amendment A "no" vote opposes amending the state constitution to prohibit abortions after the first trimester unless necessitated by a medical emergency or the pregnancy is a result of sexual assault or incest.

Nebraska Initiative 439, Right to Abortion Initiative A "yes" vote supports amending the state constitution to establish a right to abortion until fetal viability. Nevada Question 6, Right to Abortion Initiative A "yes" vote supports providing for a state constitutional right to an abortion, providing for the state to regulate abortion after fetal viability, except where medically indicated to "protect the life or health of the pregnant patient." New York Proposal 1, Equal Protection of Law Amendment A "yes" vote supports adding language to the New York Bill of Rights to provide that people cannot be denied rights based on their "ethnicity, national origin, age, and disability" or "sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy."

South Dakota Constitutional Amendment G, Right to Abortion Initiative A "yes" vote supports providing for a state constitutional right to abortion in South Dakota, using a trimester framework for regulation:

During the first trimester, the state would be prohibited from regulating a woman's decision to have an abortion;

During the second trimester, the state may regulate abortion, but "only in ways that are reasonably related to the physical health of the pregnant woman;" and

During the third trimester, the state may regulate or prohibit abortion, except "when abortion is necessary, in the medical judgment of the woman's physician, to preserve the life and health of the pregnant woman."

[reasonsforhope]

"Abortion will again be legal in North Dakota after a state court ruled yesterday [September 12, 2024] that the state’s near-total abortion ban is unconstitutional. The case challenging the ban was brought by the Center for Reproductive Rights and its partners on behalf of a North Dakota abortion provider and its physicians.

Abortion has been illegal in North Dakota since April 2023, when the ban took effect.   

“This is a win for reproductive freedom, and means it is now much safer to be pregnant in North Dakota,” says Meetra Mehdizadeh, staff attorney at the Center. “Hospitals and doctors no longer have their hands tied and can provide abortions to patients with complications.” 

According to the ruling, North Dakota’s abortion ban violates the state constitution due to its narrow and vague exceptions and because the ban violates the right to reproductive autonomy.  

The opinion by Judge Bruce Romanickstated, “The North Dakota Constitution guarantees each individual, including women, the fundamental right to make medical judgments affecting his or her bodily integrity, health, and autonomy, in consultation with a chosen health care provider free from government interference. This section necessarily and more specifically protects a woman’s right to procreative autonomy—including to seek and obtain a pre-viability abortion.”

[Note: In a delicious irony, this is probably one of the state constitutional amendments that passed as a "right to healthcare choice" in an effort to gut Obamacare. Whoops! Backfired! Source)

Tammi Kromenaker, Director of Red River Women’s Clinic, a plaintiff in the case, said, “Today’s decision gives me hope. I feel like the court heard us when we raised our voices against a law that not only ran counter to our state constitution but was too vague for physicians to interpret and which prevented them from providing the high-quality care that our communities are entitled to.” 

“Abortion is lifesaving health care; it should not be a crime. I look forward to a new future in North Dakota and hope our lawmakers will finally give up on their crusade to force pregnancy on people against their will,” added Kromenaker. 

The abortion ban will be enjoined in the coming days and the ruling is likely to be appealed...

The Center is currently litigating several more cases seeking to clarify the “medical emergency” exceptions under state abortion bans and to broaden the circumstances in which physicians can provide abortions. The cases were brought on behalf of physicians and dozens of women denied abortion care despite facing dangerous and severe pregnancy complications. Read about those medical exceptions cases here."

-via Center for Reproductive Rights, September 13, 2024

[destielmemenews]

"Missouri is currently enforcing a total abortion ban with exceptions for medical emergencies. The ballot measure's proposal to enshrine the right to abortion until fetal viability - typically around 24 weeks in pregnancy - drew support from 52% of Missouri voters in a St. Louis University/YouGov poll conducted from Aug. 9-16. The measure would need more than 50% support to pass."

source 1

source 2

source 3

[spacelazarwolf]

it’s 2025 no one’s being denied abortions y’all are just desperate to demonize trans women. get over yourself and admit that you’re a terf with all your “sex based oppression” bullshit

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/06/transgender-men-nonbinary-people-abortion-roe/

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Amanda Marcotte at Salon:

After the Supreme Court ended federal abortion rights in 2022, there was a robust debate between pro- and anti-choice activists over whether or not banning abortion would kill women. Pro-choicers pointed to evidence, from both history and other countries, showing that abortion bans kill women. Anti-choice activists dismissed the record and pointed to toothless "exceptions" in abortion ban laws as "proof" that women could get abortions to save their lives.  The latter argument was frustrating not just because it was wrong but was generally offered in bad faith. Anti-abortion leaders know that abortion bans kill women. They don't care. Or worse, many view dying from pregnancy as a good thing. In some cases, it's viewed as just punishment for "sinful" behavior. Other times, it's romanticized as a noble sacrifice on the altar of maternal duty. But conservatives are aware that this death fetish cuts against their "pro-life" brand. So there was a lot of empty denials and hand-waving about the inevitable — and expected — outcome of women dying. 

We now have another proof point that abortion bans are about misogyny, not "life," as the first deaths from red state abortion bans are being reported. Instead of admitting they were wrong and changing course, Republicans are behaving like guilty liars do everywhere, and destroying the evidence. In the process, they are also erasing data needed to save the lives of pregnant women across the board, whether they give birth or not.  ProPublica has published a series of articles detailing the deaths of women in Georgia and Texas under the two states' draconian abortion bans. They most recently reported the death of Porsha Ngumezi, a 35-year-old mother of two from Texas. Ngumezi suffered a miscarriage at 11 weeks but was left to bleed to death at the hospital, instead of having the failing pregnancy surgically removed. Multiple doctors in Texas confirmed that hospital staff are often afraid to perform this surgery, however, because it's the same one used in elective abortions. Rather than risk criminal charges, doctors frequently stand by and let women suffer — or die.  Ngumezi's youngest son doesn't fully understand that his mother is dead. ProPublica reported that he chases down women he sees in public who have similar hairstyles, calling for his mother. 

A day after this story was published, the Washington Post reported that the Texas maternal mortality board would skip reviewing the deaths of pregnant women in 2022 and 2023 — conveniently, the first two years after the abortion ban went into place. The leadership claims it's about speeding up the review process, but of course, many members pointed out the main effect is that "they would not be reviewing deaths that may have resulted from delays in care caused by Texas’s abortion bans." This is especially noteworthy because it's become standard after one of these reports for anti-abortion activists to blame the victims and/or the doctors, and not the bans. Christian right activist Ingrid Skop, for instance, responded to Nguzemi's death by insisting "physicians can intervene to save women’s lives in pregnancy emergencies" under the Texas law. If she really believed that, however, she would desperately want the state maternal mortality board to review this, and other cases like it, so they could come up with recommendations for hospital staff to treat women without running afoul of the law. Strop, however, is on the Texas maternal mortality board. She was likely part of the decision to refuse to look into whether women like Nguzemi might be saved. 

[...] But despite claims to be "pro-life," anti-abortion activists do not care. Instead, they are on Twitter griping about how comprehensive reproductive health care access "promotes sexual promiscuity." 

Skop also argued last year that abortion bans are justified because "promiscuous behavior declines." It's tempting to point out that all five women whose deaths have been reported by ProPublica were in long-term relationships or marriages. Three of the five planned to bring their pregnancies to term and died because they were denied miscarriage care. But that's the problem with vague terms like "promiscuous." They draw us into debates about how much women are allowed to enjoy sex before their lives are forfeited. Or how many "good girls" should die to punish the "promiscuous" ones. That is the trap of misogyny. It allows women like Lila Rose or Ingrid Skop to pretend that, if you submit to the sexist order and obey all their arbitrary rules, you'll be saved. But these laws punish all women and girls: mothers and non-mothers, wives and single women, women who've had 100 partners and those who were virgins when raped. Abortion bans make crystal clear that, to the Christian right, no woman's life is worth saving. Anyone can be sacrificed, to protect their cruel patriarchal order. 

Want more reason why abortion bans are bad for women? Republicans are working hard to destroy the evidence that abortion bans kill women.

Abortion bans have zip to do with the "sanctity of life", but are a tool for misogyny.

[truth-has-a-liberal-bias]

But once the babies are here, the state provides little help.

When she got pregnant, Mayron Michelle Hollis was clinging to stability.

At 31, she was three years sober, after first getting introduced to drugs at 12. She had just had a baby three months earlier and was working to repair the damage that her addiction had caused her family.

The state of Tennessee had taken away three of her children, and she was fighting to keep her infant daughter, Zooey. Department of Children’s Services investigators had accused Mayron of endangering Zooey when she visited a vape store and left the baby in a car.

Her husband, Chris Hollis, was also in recovery.

The two worked in physically demanding jobs that paid just enough to cover rent, food and lawyers’ fees to fight the state for custody of Mayron’s children.

In the midst of the turmoil in July 2022, they learned Mayron was pregnant again. But this time, doctors warned she and her fetus might not survive.

The embryo had been implanted in scar tissue from her recent cesarean section. There was a high chance that the embryo could rupture, blowing open her uterus and killing her, or that she could bleed to death during delivery. The baby could come months early and face serious medical risks, or even die.

But the Supreme Court had just overturned Roe v. Wade, which guaranteed the right to abortion across the United States. By the time Mayron decided to end her pregnancy, Tennessee’s abortion ban — one of the nation’s strictest — had gone into effect.

The total ban made no explicit exceptions — not even to save the life of a pregnant patient. Any doctor who violated the ban could be charged with a felony.

Women with means could leave the state. But those like Mayron, with limited resources or lives entangled with the child welfare and criminal justice systems, would be the most likely to face caring for a child they weren’t prepared for.

And so, the same state that questioned Mayron’s fitness to care for her four children forced her to continue a pregnancy that risked her life to have a fifth, one that would require more intensive care than any of the others.

Tennessee already had some of the worst outcomes in the nation when measuring maternal health, infant mortality and child poverty. Lawmakers who paved the way for a new generation of post-Roe births did little to bolster the state’s meager safety net to support these babies and their families.

In December 2022, when Mayron was 26 weeks and two days pregnant, she was rushed to the hospital after she began bleeding so heavily that her husband slipped in her blood. An emergency surgery saved her life. Her daughter, Elayna, was born three months early.

Afterward, photographer Stacy Kranitz and reporter Kavitha Surana followed Mayron and her family for a year to chronicle what life truly looked like in a state whose political leaders say they are pro-life. [...]

[dhaaruni]

Activists absolutely have the blood of American women and girls on their hands

Arkansas has a total abortion ban right now (except for a narrow exception to save the woman's life in case of "medical emergency") so a 20-week ban is infinitely better than the status quo since fewer women and girls will suffer. This isn't rocket science!!

[mariacallous]

Hi mariacallous! Some of my friends have started spouting the 'abortion is a class issue because rich women always have access to abortion' BS, and I was wondering if you had any resources/articles etc that might be helpful in convincing them. Sorry to barge into your inbox!

The notion that rich women will be fine, regardless of what the law says, is probably comforting to some. But it is simply not true.

Yes, abortion bans will disproportionately affect poor women and women of color in a country that already has appallingly high maternal mortality rates, no federal paid family leave and little support for parents who struggle to provide for their children financially. As Rebecca Traister pointed out in New York magazine, this is nothing new: The Hyde Amendment and state restrictions have already made abortion effectively inaccessible to many women without means or mobility.

But we should not lose sight of the reality that the Supreme Court decision has created a crisis for all American women. Even the richest Americans — the one-percenters and the upper middle class — will not escape the effects.

Attenuating the rights of half of the population will have systemic effects akin to climate change. Just as no amount of investment in Mars-bound space colonization, air-conditioned bunkers and private firefighting services will save the rich from terrible outcomes if the planet becomes uninhabitable, the rich cannot avoid the effects of the overturning of Roe. Residents of blue states won’t be exempt. And men who think the ban won’t affect them are mistaken; it will affect women they know and love, and it will change the political economy in which they live and operate.

The persistent myth that the wealthy will be unaffected is predicated on the vague notion that they’ll be able to find and purchase abortion pills by mail, travel to places where abortion is legal or get abortions from local providers willing to break the law.

And sure, it’s easy to imagine a scenario in which a red state one-percenter has his daughter or wife airlifted to another state for an abortion — or, potentially, for in vitro fertilization, if it becomes illegal to terminate embryos. We are accustomed to different rules and privileges for the wealthy, and witness these injustices daily. People with more money and privilege conferred by race and class — people who have access to better lawyers — experience our justice system differently. They also get better health care and pay less in taxes as a share of income. We hold the rich to a lower, not higher, standard and tacitly accept that they will get away with cheating various systems.

But the wealthiest are in for some unpleasant surprises when it comes to abortion. The scenarios in which a woman needs an abortion include medical emergencies in which any delay in treatment can have severe, even fatal, consequences — and in those circumstances abortion pills obtained by mail won’t help.

One in 50 pregnancies in the United States is ectopic, for example, in which a fertilized egg implants outside the uterus. The embryo must be removed, and delaying that treatment can result in sepsis, internal bleeding and death. Placental abruptions must be addressed immediately to avoid extensive bleeding, renal failure and even, in some instances, death.

Any woman who finds herself in either of these scenarios is not going to be able to pack her bags and go for a long drive. Even for someone with the means, an airlift to a medical facility in another state may not be quick enough to save her. She will need to be treated locally and immediately. Some of the bans going into effect around the country include medical exceptions for these situations, but if there’s any ambiguity about what the law allows, the time it takes a medical professional to consult a lawyer may be the difference between life and death.

Some states are expected to try to ban interstate travel for abortions. Bans in Texas and Oklahoma leave room for that possibility. Planned Parenthood’s Montana branch has reportedly decided that it will no longer provide medication abortions for patients from certain states where bans are in effect or in the works, citing the “rapidly changing” legal landscape. It’s also clear that many Republicans view the Roe reversal as an inroad to a total federal ban. If they gain electoral victories in 2024, this is a very likely outcome, and in that case there will be no blue state abortion clinics to travel to. Even now, the lines and waiting times at abortion clinics in safe haven states are likely to get very long.

Many people also assume the wealthy can always find a local doctor willing to perform an abortion, even in a state where it has become illegal. This seems unlikely. While some providers did flout the law and provide women with abortions before Roe in 1973, the ubiquity of digital surveillance and other mechanisms for violating the privacy of women seeking abortions have made it far more difficult for them to do so privately and safely. Trigger laws are already forcing medical professionals to consult lawyers before they provide care, and laws that criminalize abortion leave health care workers with little incentive to violate them. When faced with the prospect of prosecution or losing a medical license, how many doctors will take this risk, even when money is offered? Meanwhile, anti-choice conservatives are already working to make it harder to obtain abortion pills.

Some believe abortion bans won’t affect them because they’ll never find themselves in need of an abortion. Conservatives might imagine the typical woman who needs one fits an archetype: poor, single, liberal, promiscuous, anti-family and irresponsible. But most women who get abortions are already mothers (60 percent). Nearly half of abortion seekers live below the poverty line, but a significant portion are not poor. (Women with higher incomes have more access to contraception, but that dynamic might change if the Supreme Court follows through on Justice Clarence Thomas’s suggestion to revisit earlier rulings, including the right to contraception.) Conservative families also include teenagers and young women whose privacy, autonomy and ability to seek medical care, regardless of whether their parents approve, will be severely compromised by abortion bans.

The reality is that women from every demographic need abortions. Well-off conservative women are not immune to contraception failures, gynecological emergencies, miscarriages, incest or rape. Many women find that despite their beliefs, carrying a pregnancy to term is just not something they can go through with, for a range of reasons. Pregnancy itself can be life-threatening for women with certain existing medical conditions, and even for women who don’t have those risks, it is life-altering. The kind of person who might need or want an abortion is, put simply, any person capable of getting pregnant.

Women will die because of this — disproportionately poor and middle-class women but not just poor and middle-class women. Rich women could just as easily suffer and die, too, even those who think that they would never need an abortion or that they would never be denied essential medical care in the United States of America in 2022.

There will be other effects: Roe is a privacy law, and there are implications for the ruling outside of the issue of abortion. Forced birth will take women out of the work force in an already tight labor market. Women could be treated like criminals for having miscarriages, which are incredibly common. And women who are pregnant when their partners don’t want them to be will be more at risk for domestic violence and homicide. Individual wealth won’t prevent these outcomes, either.

It is, of course, true that the wealthy are the least vulnerable in the new post-Roe world, and this is not a requiem for them on a tiny violin. But it is important for all parties to understand that all people are going to participate in this nightmare, whether they realize it now or not. The wealthy unfortunately have an outsize influence on politics, so how much the bans harm them, inconvenience them or enrage them will most likely affect the will of politicians to vote for and maintain abortion bans.

The overturning of Roe will affect all of us. And if you are lucky enough to be wealthy, your money probably won’t shield you.

The Persistent Myth That Restricting Abortion Rights Won’t Affect the Rich

the problem is that it's a class issue, but not only in the way they think, and the point is that all women are impacted by it, but obviously some way more than others

[secularprolifeconspectus]

Later abortion is not euthanasia: a masterpost.

What – and when – are we talking about? In this post, when I refer to "later abortion", I am specifically referring to elective induced fetal demise (feticide) after 20 weeks since the mother's last missed period (22 weeks gestational age). In other words, intentionally and directly killing a baby, wholly or partly within the womb, near or after the point of development at which they could survive after birth. This is distinguished from early induction, in which the baby's death is not deliberately induced. This is often referred to as "late-term abortion", which is a colloquial misnomer as the late-term of pregnancy is exclusively 41-42 weeks.

Later abortion is not only performed for fetal anomaly or to save the mother.

Who is aborting and being aborted? In her studies (1, 2) of later abortion, pro-choice researcher Katrina Kimport found that the reasons people get later abortions are "remarkably similar" to those who get earlier abortions. Common reasons included financial issues and not knowing they were pregnant earlier. Abortionist Eleanor Drey (3) corroborates that “financial hardship” is a major compelling factor in people seeking later abortions. This means that healthy women abort healthy babies.

Further, because a later abortion can take three days, and due to the risk of uterine perforation, in an emergency medical situation it is typically safer for the mother to have an immediate labor induction. Day 1, the baby is killed and laminaria is inserted to dilate the cervix; day 2, more laminaria is inserted and labor is induced; day 3, the dead baby is delivered or extracted (9). Not to mention, in most of Europe abortion is limited before viability, and this has not prevented mothers in emergent life-threatening situations from receiving necessary medical intervention.

Later abortions do not only take place in hospitals.

Where are later abortions happening? According to AbortionFinder as of Nov. 2024, about 25 facilities in the US offer abortion after 20 weeks, and only eight facilities offer abortion after 28 weeks. Four of those eight are in Washington DC or Maryland. Only two of the eight are hospitals. Policies vary between providers and circumstances about whether or not the baby may be viewed after the procedure. Currently, the cost of an abortion at 28 weeks is $12K.

Later abortions are violent, not peaceful.

How are later abortions performed? In an induction abortion, abortionists typically induce fetal demise prior to the removal of the baby either via lethal injection (poison) or exsanguination (bleeding out) (4). For example, DuPont Clinic prefers injection (more expensive), but Washington Surgi-Clinic uses exsanguination (cheaper). In the US, typically the baby is not anesthetized. The feticide injections may be an overdose of digoxin or lidocaine (5), or potassium chloride. Digoxin may take hours to cause cardiac arrest (6). Horses are not euthanized with lidocaine without anesthesia. And potassium chloride is opposed by the Humane Society (7) and Amnesty International (8). Exsanguination is also opposed by the Humane Society (7). In a dilation and extraction abortion, babies may be directly disarticulated (dismembered) while alive.

Further, there is evidence that the fetus feels pain as early as 12 weeks (10). We even have video of a fetus reacting with expressions of pain to being stabbed with feticide (11). Here’s two fetuses after D&E abortions (12,13). And here’s two fetuses after induction abortions (14,15). And this is a video of a D&E (16).

Later abortion “donations” are baby part sales.

Why are they aborted this way? When later abortions are performed without a feticide injection, it’s sometimes to preserve their remains for research. Abortionists have even admitted to performing modified partial-birth abortions to preserve the major organs, in which the baby is pulled out alive from the cervix except for the head, then the neck is snipped and the brain is sucked out to collapse the skull (17,18). Here’s a fetus after a partial-birth abortion (19).

Women sign (often questionable) consent forms to donate the bodies of their babies to research (26). What they either don’t realize or aren’t told is that the abortion facilities will profit or gain assets from these “donations” (20). Many are also under the impression that their baby’s remains will be used to cure diseases; they would likely be dismayed to learn that their baby’s scalp was, for instance, grafted and grown onto lab rats (21).

Later abortion survivors exist.

A study by the Society for Family Planning found that up to 50% of labor induction abortions without feticide result in live birth (22). Another study by the American College of Gynecologists of abortions without feticide in the second trimester also found a 50% survival rate, but that without life-sustaining care, these babies are unlikely to live beyond a few hours (23). ACOG also published a study that found gestational weeks 20-24 survived at a rate of 21.7% (24). Years 2011-2021 saw 20.8% survive overall. Only 24.5% of survivors were admitted to the NICU and just 5.5% received palliative care. Several survivors have spoken out about their experiences (25).

I will be making a follow-up to this post with research on the alternative to later abortion in cases of fatal fetal anomaly: perinatal hospice and palliative care. Resources regarding this here.

Who Seeks Abortions at or After 20 Weeks?

Is third‐trimester abortion exceptional? Two pathways to abortion after 24 weeks of pregnancy in the United States - Kimport

Contextualizing Who has Abortions After the First Trimester - Innovating Education in Reproductive Health

Umbilical cord transection to induce fetal demise prior to second-trimester D&E abortion - PubMed

Transabdominal lidocaine to induce fetal demise: a cohort study - PubMed

Society of Family Planning Clinical Recommendation: Induction of fetal asystole before abortion Jointly developed with the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine - ScienceDirect

Humane Society International: General Statement Regarding Euthanasia Methods for Dogs and Cats

Is there a Humane Way to Execute? – Amnesty International

Induction Abortion

Reconsidering fetal pain - PubMed

The Seasoned Soup — Footage of a 12-week fetus reacting to the lethal...

Ángel – PAAU

Holly – PAAU

Christopher X – PAAU

Phoenix – PAAU

Excerpt from Eclipse of Reason

Texas Planned Parenthood Can “Pull Off A Leg, Or Two” To Hide Partial-Birth Abortions To Sell Fetal Body Parts

Special Report: Partial-Birth Abortion at Planned Parenthood

Harriet – PAAU

Select Investigative Panel  of the Energy & Commerce Committee 

Development of humanized mouse and rat models with full-thickness human skin and autologous immune cells

Labor induction abortion in the second trimester - Contraception

Fetal Survival in Second-Trimester Termination of Pregnancy Without Feticide

Second-trimester abortion and risk of live birth

Abortion Survivors Network

BREAKING: “Viable Nonanomalous” 6-Month-Old Fetuses Sold From Planned Parenthood Abortions to University of California, New Documents Show

[literaryvein-reblogs]

greensick

adjective /ˈɡriːnsɪk/ /ˈɡrinˌsɪk/

in pathology: refers to chlorosis (an iron-deficiency anemia formerly common in adolescent girls that may impart a greenish tint to the skin)

earliest known evidence is from 1605, in a translation by Joshua Sylvester, poet and translator

notes from: Lovesickness and Gender in Early Modern English Literature by Lesel Dawson

One of the aspects of women's lovesickness which has caused the most confusion is its relation to three other female maladies: hysteria, green sickness, and uterine fury. Although many critics assume that lovesickness is a version of one or several of these illnesses, lovesickness, hysteria, green sickness, and uterine fury are understood as separate maladies in the early modern period, with their own unique set of symptoms, stereotypical sufferers, and cultural associations. There is, however, an exception. When a woman's lovesickness develops into full-scale madness (as in the case of Ophelia), her illness is frequently seen to be related to her virginity and menstrual cycle and is thus represented as being similar to uterine disorders.

Green sickness, also known as the white fever, the disease of virgins, and from the 17th century onwards chlorosis, was thought to be an exclusively female malady, which was caused by suppressed menses and seed (also called sperm, or sperma).

Women afflicted with green sickness are held to exhibit a variety of symptoms: they are pale or badly coloured, have puffy faces and bodies, and suffer from headaches, nausea, impaired respiration, heart palpitations, and a racing pulse. They also have strange appetites, either craving odd and unusual food (a symptom known as pica) or having no appetite whatsoever. The absence of menstruation, however, remained the illness’s defining symptom. Women who were labelled as ‘green sick’ but who subsequently menstruated were rediagnosed as having an ‘obstruction of the spleen’.

Although a variety of remedies could be suggested (including phlebotomy, physical activity, a change of diet and various medicines), sexual intercourse was thought to be the most effective cure as it would open up the veins of the womb, releasing the trapped menses and seed. Young women who were believed to be green sick were thus advised to get married as soon as possible. As Helen King writes in her study of green sickness, ‘the cure for the disease of virgins was to cease to be a virgin’.

Contemporary theorists have sometimes tried to discover the ‘real’ malady behind green sickness. Clearly it has some affinity to what we now call premenstrual tension, and in later periods it is increasingly associated with anaemia and eating disorders. However, given the fact that the chief symptom of green sickness is the absence of menstruation, the condition that it most clearly resembles is pregnancy. In fact, it seems likely that, in certain circumstances, women disguised unwanted pregnancies as green sickness, an illness which simultaneously provided a justification for a speedy marriage. Once married, the hidden pregnancy could then be ‘discovered’, retrospectively confirming the doctor’s original diagnosis of green sickness; within this context, pregnancy would appear as the cure of the woman’s puffiness, nausea, exhaustion, and disorderly appetites, rather than their cause. Alternatively, women who were pregnant, but who claimed to be green sick, could ask doctors for the means with which to provoke menstruation, seeking remedies which would in effect cause an abortion.

Of the three uterine disorders, green sickness is the malady most relevant to lovesickness. Like lovesickness, green sickness is associated with a young woman’s emerging sexual appetites, emphasizing a woman’s readiness for marriage and providing a rationale for her contrary, unsettled emotions. The discourse surrounding green sickness also provides an alternative, negative way in which to imagine a woman’s virginity, countering Petrarchan and Neoplatonic traditions which grant virginity an elevated ethical and spiritual meaning. As such, green sickness reinforces the MISOGYNISTIC VIEW that women are fundamentally incomplete without men, suggesting that a woman’s virginity, rather than being the sign and source of her rational self-mastery, is an unnatural state prone to illness.

Green sickness furnished writers with a negative way in which to view virginity, allowing predominately male writers to denigrate overly chaste maidens as sickly or ‘stale’.

In Fletcher and Massinger’s The Elder Brother (1637), Lewis’s derogatory reference to green sickness as a debilitating illness associated with inexperienced young women is the standard way in which the illness is viewed in the early modern period. There are, however, some exceptions. Edward Herbert of Cherbury and Thomas Carew write poems that prettify the malady, depicting it as an erotic innocence that guarantees the woman’s sexual purity. Their poems portray green sickness as a state of sexual ripeness, which enhances the woman’s ethical status as well as her physical allure.

If green sickness reveals the peak of a woman’s sexual development, it also warns how quickly this ripeness will transform into rottenness if the sick virgin will not submit herself to her lover’s cure.

“If you have not died in the womb, or fallen prey to infant mortality, or to a young girl's greensickness, or to the dangers of childbirth, or if persistent pregnancies and perennial breeding have not worn you to a shadow, and you have not dwindled into a premature grave, then if war, sickness, accident or disease all keep their distance, your chances may be strong for a long life.” ― Elspeth Marr, Aunt Epp's Guide for Life: Miscellaneous Musings of a Victorian Lady

Elspeth Marr (1871-1947)—also known as Aunt Epp—was the great-great-Aunt of author Christopher Rush, who only knew her for two brief years before her death. She lived in the Kingom of Fife, Scotland, where she wrote copious letters and diaries to an unnamed "young girl" in her life. Those documents, which remained undiscovered for years, form the basis of Aunt Epp's Guide for Life.

Sources: 1 2 3 4

[deathmetalunicorn1]

Yandere Shiva family, Buddha, Apollo, and Loki house in love with their married best friends goddess. But here is the gist, the darling is getting fed up with her husband but she hides it well, even from them. But however, it would seem as though during the holidays cracks are beginning to show because the darling is about to hit the wall. Because sweetheart is just tired of unreciprocated and underappreciated Labor that comes with marriage or just a relationship in general.

Forgetting important events, fragilent promises that hardly get fulfilled ( Ex: was asked numerous times to plan her birthday and promised he would. Darling had to cancel her invite list since he fell through on his promise. ), being emotionally and mentally detached to her health concerns ( Ex: that being her overall well-being and infertility issues ), being pissed off when you aren't informed of things when you likely don't care about it( Ex: darling had to get an emergency abortion because of how dangerous the pregnancy she had at the time was, and it emotionally and physically drained her majorly. And yes the Yandere was there for both the procedure and when her husband blew up at her ), being even more pissy when your needs aren't met but can't even do the barest of bare minimum ( Ex: was asked to go get her meds; she still healing btw, he didn't get them. But later on he did ask if they can have sex, mind you darling isn't well enough to do that and you didn't even get her medicine. The darling obviously refused and gave him the reasons, and yet says " Well, your mouth still works right. ". This sparks an argument and yes the yanderes are present for this too. ), and just many more reasons ( and even more examples... ) as to why she's over it but those are the most recent.

By the holidays she has been ran thin too the last thread, and this is secretly her husbands last chance to redeem himself and revive the magic in their marriage. But like may things he fell through just as the darling is fell into the wall too. The darling swiftly and secretly makes a quick trip to Hera, get divorce papers from and blessing from her to proceed further, and neatly wraps them up as a lovely gift for her soon to be ex. So you can imagine the surprising ( or really unsurprising.. ) ' gift ' he got at Jesus's birthday party ( he's another friend of hers but not as close as the yanderes ). So what are the the Yanderes going to do on this unFORTUNATE turn of events, how are they going to react.

P.S the darling is the Goddess of Festivities, craft, home, beauty, and magic.

I’ll be doing all of this except for the miscarriage part- that’s too sad, but I will have something to make up for that part.

-You couldn’t help but smile as your husband was holding the present from you on his lap, it looked perfect, with beautiful wrapping paper and bows, it looked like something you would see in a magazine!

-It was a Christmas party you were having with all your friends, including (Love), who your husband didn’t like because he could see how (Love) looked at you, wanting you for his own, but you were a loyal person, you wouldn’t cheat, unlike him.

-Your husband had changed over the years you had been married to him, going from a sweet and kind man to someone that nobody in their right mind would marry- he cheated on you several times, gaslit you into forgiving him, and was an absolute pig to you! Not to mention he never remembered your anniversary or your birthday, but he expected to be treated like a king on his birthday and if he didn’t get that he would pout and lament at having such a heartless wife when you did everything for him.

-It wasn’t fair that such a wonderful person like you was being treated so poorly!

-(Love) knew this well, after you had been rushed to the hospital after one of your ovaries ruptured, your husband had ignored your cries for help, telling you that you were being too noisy, and (Love) rushed to your side when you called him for help.

-While you were in the hospital your husband came, demanding to know when you were coming home to cook and clean for him, as it was your job as his wife to take care of him, while you were still recovering from surgery.

-When you were finally home, despite being on strict bed rest orders, including no sexy time, your husband just whined and complained, saying you were being so selfish for not giving him what he wanted.

-You had friends over, including (Love) who were helping around the house while you were still healing, something you were grateful for, but your husband just complained, saying you were going to get lazy and was complaining that you weren’t doing your wifely duties in pleasuring him.

-You had snapped at him, surprising him, “One of my ovaries just popped, it’s like one of your balls popping- would you want to have sex while you’re in pain?” (Love) had been surprised by your anger, but your husband dug himself even deeper, “Well you have a mouth, don’t you?”

-(Love) enjoyed punching your husband that day, putting him in his place while screaming at him for treating you in such a way and for a while your husband did treat you better, afraid of (Love’s) wrath.

-When you were finally recovered and found him in bed with yet another nymph, you decided enough was enough and you went to Hera, telling her what happened, begging for her help with getting a divorce.

-Hera knew of what happened from (Love) who had been so furious about your husband’s actions that she had your divorce ready in minutes.

-However, you didn’t give it to your husband right away, you wanted to embarrass him like how he embarrassed you and you laid your plan in motion, gift wrapping the divorce papers.

-Now it was finally the day, and you could barely contain your excitement as your husband was admiring the lovely gift as you beamed, “That’s from me- I worked really hard on it!”

-(Love) was heartbroken, seeing you doing so much for someone who doesn’t cherish you as your husband looked smug, trying to rub it in the faces of everyone, especially (Love), “That’s my Y/N- always treating her husband how she should!”

-He opened the gift in front of everyone and instead of seeing a wonderful gift, his face fell as he picked up the divorce papers, which were already processed and signed by Hera.

-He looked over at you and you beamed brightly, standing up with your hands on your hips, “That’s right- I’m no longer your wife- you selfish, arrogant, stuck-up, pathetic excuse of a man! Merry Christmas! Enjoy your divorce papers!”

-Jaws dropped all around, eyes wide as they all realized what you did, but instead of feeling embarrassed of seeing something like this, your friends all immediately cheered, embarrassing your ex-husband even more as they all congratulated you for dropping a loser like him.

-You felt proud and happy, but also still a bit nervous as he looked up at you, trying to get your pity, “Y/N why are you doing this? How could you be so cruel?!”

-Your eyes were sharp and cold, “I’m cruel? You never remember my birthday, you ignore my concerns, you ignored me when I was in the hospital then embarrassed me in front of my friends, you never help out, you constantly cheat on me then act like it was my fault that you cheated- plus you’re a pig and you can’t take care of yourself! So why do you think I’m doing this?!”

-(Love) was on cloud nine, about ready to swoop in to snatch you away to love you until the end of eternity when your ex shot up, going to threaten you again when a new voice spoke up, “Sit down.” He turned, going to yell only to meet the sharp eyes of Hera who immediately had him melting into his seat, terrified of her.

-Hera turned to you, her icy façade melting as she beamed at you, “Congratulations on your divorce Y/N!” you thanked her warmly as she turned back to your ex, threatening him to never go near you again.

-(Love) quickly slid up to you, beaming brightly, “Are you okay Y/N? Do you need anything?” you saw that he looked elated, and you couldn’t help but smile, taking his arm in yours, “Yes actually- I am in need of a date to the Christmas ball tonight. I wonder who I should take?”

-(Love) grinned down at you, hearing your tease as you and your friends all left your ex’s house, as you had already moved out without your ex realizing, mainly because he wasn’t paying attention as (Love) escorted you to your temporary home, as he was going to wife you yesterday, but he needed to be patient, at least until the end of the party to ask you, he was hoping that you will say yes!

-Your ex was left on the couch, alone, completely stunned that he had lost you- it was all his fault for the way he treated you- he was to blame as he cried bitterly into his hands. He had to win you back!

-It was going to be impossible however, seeing as (Love) wasn’t going to let him ever approach you again, he was never going to hurt you again, (Love) made this silent promise to you.

[anamericangirl]

Two quick questions, hopefully you don't get these all the time:

What exceptions, if any, would exist in your ideal abortion ban (incest, rape, life/health of mother, etc.)?

How do miscarriages weight for you, morally? Should criminal charges (child neglect, murder, etc) be considered in any/some/all cases of miscarriage?

Before I knew much about abortion, I supported exceptions to abortion in cases where the mother’s life was at risk and thought she should be treated as necessary, even if that included abortion because of the mother doesn’t live, neither will the baby.

Now, however, since learning more about abortion, my ideal ban would include no exceptions because abortion is never, ever needed. Children who are conceived through rape and incest are just as valuable and have the same right to life as children who are not conceived through rape and incest. We should not kill babies because their mother was raped. The person who deserves punishment here is the rapist and mother needs emotional and financial support and thorough medical care. Killing the baby does not solve any issues or remove any trauma.

There is no time when a mothers life is threatened that abortion is the appropriate treatment. When that happens it’s a medical emergency and she should be seen at a hospital and not an abortion clinic. Those cases are usually treated by delivering the baby alive early through an induced labor or c-section. The baby still might not live, but the procedure is not intended to kill them. There are no cases where the treatment needed is to brutally and intentionally kill the baby.

That being said, I would support any abortion bans that included those exceptions because all the things you mentioned are incredibly rare reasons for obtaining abortions and that would still ban nearly 100% of abortions.

Miscarriages should be treated like tragedies they are. That is a baby dying through natural causes, not because someone intentionally murdered them. It’s the difference between someone dying because they were shot in the head and someone dying of cancer. We don’t give criminal charges to parents who lose kids to cancer so why would we do that for miscarriages? There is no crime in a miscarriage. Unless there is reason to believe the miscarriage was caused by something like illegal drugs there’s no reason to do anything from a legal standpoint.

It’s the difference between murder and a natural death.

[reasonsforhope]

"Bria Peacock chose a career in medicine because the Black Georgia native saw the dire health needs in her community — including access to abortion care.

Her commitment to becoming a maternal health care provider was sparked early on when she witnessed the discrimination and judgment leveled against her older sister, who became a mother as a teen. When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, Peacock was already in her residency program in California, and her thoughts turned back to women like her sister.

“I knew that the people — my people, my community back home — was going to be affected in a dramatic way, because they’re in the South and because they’re Black,” she said.

But even though Peacock attended the Medical College of Georgia, she’s doing her obstetrics and gynecology residency at the University of California-San Francisco, where she has gotten comprehensive training in abortion care.

“I knew as a trainee that’s what I needed,” said Peacock, who plans to return to her home state after her residency.

Ever since the Supreme Court decision, California has worked to become a sanctuary for people from states where abortion is restricted. In doing so, it joins 14 other states, including Colorado, New Mexico, and Massachusetts. Now, it’s addressing the fraught issue of abortion training for medical residents, which most doctors believe is crucial to comprehensive OB-GYN training.

A law enacted in September [2023] makes it easier for out-of-state trainees to get up to 90 days of in-person training under the supervision of a California-licensed doctor. The law eliminated the requirement for a training license and also permitted training at programs such as Planned Parenthood that are affiliated with accredited medical schools.

“By allowing physician residents to come to California, where there are more opportunities for abortion training, and by allowing them to be reimbursed for this work, we’re sending a message that abortion care is health care and an essential part of physician training,” said Lisa Folberg, CEO of the California Academy of Family Physicians, which supported the bill.

The question of how to provide complete OB-GYN training promises to become more urgent as the effects of abortion bans on medical education becomes clear: 18 states restrict or ban abortion to the point of effectively stripping 20% of OB-GYN medical residents of the opportunity to get abortion training, according to the Ryan Residency Training Program in Abortion and Family Planning. That’s 1,354 residents this year out of 5,962 OB-GYN residents nationwide.

The restrictions in some cases aim to reach beyond state borders, spooking medical students and residents who fear hostility from anti-abortion groups and right-wing legislators...

Pamela Merritt, executive director of Medical Students for Choice, pointed to a Kansas law that requires repayment of state medical school scholarships — with 15% interest — if residents perform abortions or work in clinics that perform them, except in cases of rape, incest, or a medical emergency.

Doctors point out that abortion training is not just about ending pregnancies. Peacock recalled a patient who started hemorrhaging badly shortly after a healthy delivery. Peacock and her team at UCSF performed a dilation and curettage — a procedure commonly used to terminate pregnancy.

“If we did not have that skill set, and the patient continued to bleed, it could have been life-taking,” said Peacock, chief OB-GYN resident at UCSF...

Peacock, for her part, is adamant about returning to Georgia, where abortions are banned after six weeks. “I’m still going to provide abortions, whether that’s in Georgia or I need to fly to a different state and work in abortion clinics for a week out of the month,” she said. “It would definitely be a big part of my work.”"

-via The 19th, January 2, 2024