#fetal-maternal

[bpod-bpod]

Womb to Grow

The cells involved and the timing of their interactions occurring at the human maternal-foetal interface in the first half of pregnancy – transformation of the womb into a nurturing niche

Read the published paper here

Image from work by Shirley Greenbaum, Inna Averbukh and Erin Soon, and colleagues

Department of Pathology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

Image originally published with a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)

Published in Nature, July 2023

You can also follow BPoD on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Jessica Valenti at Abortion, Every Day:

Most of the time, I enjoy making political predictions. This one, however, makes my stomach turn: Conservatives want to do away with ‘exceptions’ for women’s lives. In fact, they’ve been laying the groundwork to eradicate the exception since Roe was overturned—though I didn’t fully piece together the move until recently, when I saw a leading anti-abortion activist refer to life-saving abortions as ‘elective.’

The short version is that they’ve been strategically redefining ‘abortion’ across law, culture and medicine, while pushing the false claim that abortion is never necessary to save a person’s life. The end game is legislation that bans abortion in all cases, mandating that doctors only end life-threatening pregnancies using c-sections or induced vaginal birth, no matter the risk to the pregnant person.  I’ll explain in detail, but please know that like most anti-abortion strategies, this one is being rolled out quietly and incrementally. In the same way that Republicans won’t pass an outright ban on contraception—instead chipping away at access until birth control is impossible to get—the plan is to methodically eradicate the exception right under our noses.  Because the idea of eliminating life-saving abortions is so radical—who would suggest such a thing?—there’s a real risk that Americans won’t notice until it’s too late. The unthinkable-ness of their extremism is protecting them. 

Redefining ‘abortion’

Abortion is a medical intervention to end a pregnancy, for any reason. But since Roe was overturned, conservatives have been trying to redefine abortion as an intention. For instance, they claim that treatment for miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies aren’t really abortions—even if the medication or procedure is identical—because these pregnancies are presumably wanted. In addition to dividing women into those who ‘deserve’ care and those who don’t, the goal is to divorce abortion from healthcare. Even though this definition has no basis in medicine or reality, Republicans have embedded it in state laws and policies anyway—often after being lobbied by anti-abortion groups.

Replacing ‘abortion’

Republicans aren’t just redefining abortion, they’re replacing it with the made-up medical term ‘maternal fetal separation.’ [...]

Claiming abortion is never medically necessary

The effort to redefine and replace “abortion” in legislation has always been about laying the groundwork for one central—and false—argument: that abortion is never medically necessary. After all, if abortion is just the intentional ending of a pregnancy, and if women with life-threatening pregnancies can just be treated with ‘maternal fetal separations,’ then all abortions can be labeled elective. That’s the goal.

Sometimes, they say this outright. This summer, for example, I reported on a paper published by anti-abortion activists Ingrid Skop and James Studnicki. They argued that “there is no disease, illness or condition for which an induced abortion has been determined to be a standard of care” and claimed there is “no justification” for health- or life-saving abortions. Instead, they suggested women can simply be given ‘separation’ procedures—in other words, c-sections. Just a few weeks ago, well-known anti-abortion activist Dr. John Bruchalski echoed that sentiment, calling life-saving abortions ‘elective.’ He said, “There are no advantages for a mother to end her pregnancy by an elective abortion, even in the most life-threatening circumstances.’” Again, the idea is that a standard abortion procedure isn’t necessary because women can be induced or forced into surgery.

This isn’t a fringe belief of random activists. Some of the country’s most prominent anti-abortion groups are on board. When the first post-Dobbs deaths were reported, for example, I noticed that major anti-abortion leaders responded by saying abortion bans allowed for life-saving care—but wouldn’t say the law allowed for life-saving abortions. Instead, they said bans allow doctors to “treat” patients or “intervene” to save lives, carefully sidestepping the word ‘abortion.’

That’s deliberate—and not just because they don’t believe abortion is medically necessary. The nation’s leading anti-abortion organizations will never say doctors can legally provide life-saving abortions because their ultimate goal is to eliminate that exception entirely. If you’re skeptical, consider this: It wasn’t so long ago that Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America (SBA-PLA) lobbied against an exception for women’s lives in Tennessee. When the state first passed its trigger ban, there was no exception for life-threatening pregnancies—just an affirmative defense mandate. That meant doctors had to break the law to provide a life-saving abortion and then defend it after the fact.

[...]

How they’ll do it

You won’t see states passing laws explicitly banning life-saving abortions anytime soon. Republicans are too strategic for that. Instead, they’ll use the same incremental approach they’ve employed elsewhere—chipping away bit by bit. Most egregiously, I feel certain they’ll exploit women’s suffering and deaths to do it. In fact, that tactic has already started: You might remember how anti-abortion legislators first started codifying their false definition of abortion after stories emerged of women being denied care. They claimed they were simply “clarifying” bans to address any confusion and ensure doctors knew they could treat women with ectopic pregnancies, miscarriages, or life-threatening conditions. Republicans framed these legislative tweaks as protections for women.

But let’s be clear: these people have no interest in protecting women. Their “clarifications” are a cover for the real end goal. In the coming months, I expect we’ll see even more language about ‘maternal-fetal separation’ and legislative changes framed as efforts to ‘clarify’ abortion bans—especially as more stories of women dying come to light. I suspect they might even use a specific woman’s death as justification for tweaking a state ban. At the same time, anti-abortion organizations will continue to normalize treating life-threatening pregnancies with c-sections and vaginal labor rather than traditional abortion procedures. Groups like the Charlotte Lozier Institute already explicitly recommend that emergency abortions “be done by labor induction or c-section,” falsely calling it “medically standard.” (It most certainly is not.)1

Meanwhile, Republican leaders in anti-abortion states will offer “guidance” to doctors about how to legally treat women with life-threatening pregnancies, stressing ‘separation’ procedures. All of these same groups and legislators will also spread propaganda claiming that abortion procedures like D&Cs or abortion medications are far more dangerous than c-sections or vaginal labor. Eventually, we’ll see a test case: a state where legislators pass a total abortion ban without exceptions. Because, they’ll say, abortion isn’t medically necessary anyway. As I noted earlier, when that case reaches the courts, conservative legal groups will point to years of legislation from multiple states as evidence that it’s “widely accepted” that abortion is simply an intention. And while it’s true that this strategy is a slow and quiet one, it’s important to know that it’s already unfolding. Reports show that doctors are increasingly performing c-sections on women—even when it’s too early for a fetus to survive—out of fear of breaking the law.

The conservative anti-abortion movement’s end goal is to eventually end abortion ban exceptions and deceitfully redefine the meaning of abortions.

[angelsaxis]

Pro lifers ain't saying nothing about the terrible conditions pregnant Gazan women are going through rn. Not that I'm shocked.

[loveblackculture]

[coochiequeens]

In concluding their piece, Lahl and Fell said: 'The authors' suggestion that medical providers should deviate from the principle of 'do no harm' to follow paths where the evidence indicates harm is quite shocking.""This perspective, driven more by ideology, emotions, and personal desires than by evidence, conflicts with the foundations of evidence-based medicine.'

MSU sociology professor Dr. Carla Pfeffer is slammed over scientific journal article saying trans men should be allowed to take testosterone while pregnant, despite warnings hormones may trigger severe health issues in fetuses

Dr. Carla Pfeffer published a paper alongside five other academics concerning the use of testosterone therapy during transgender pregnancy 

The sociology professor and her cohorts have since been slammed by two nurses for disregarding the safety of a fetus 'in the name of trans inclusion'

Jennifer Lahl and Kallie Fell hit back at the study, deeming one portion of it 'quite frankly, insane'

By JOE HUTCHISON FOR DAILYMAIL.COM

PUBLISHED: 10:37 EDT, 20 October 2023

A professor has been slammed over a scientific journal in which she said trans man should be allowed to take testosterone while pregnant, despite warnings it could trigger severe health issues.

Dr. Carla Pfeffer, who is not a medical doctor, penned a new paper alongside five other academics titled 'Medical uncertainty and reproduction of the 'normal': Decision-making around testosterone therapy in transgender pregnancy.

Pfeffer, who is a sociology professor at Michigan State University, argues that pregnancy care is too focused on helping women have healthy babies, and that trans men might be fine to take testosterone while pregnant.

The authors , who are sociologists, have since been accused of choosing to disregard the safety of a developing fetus 'in the name of trans inclusion'.

In a scathing response to the paper, two nurses have criticized the article saying if abiding by their take 'would land us in a vacuum devoid of medical ethics'.

Dr Carla Pfeffer, pictured here, published a paper alongside five other academics concerning the use of testosterone therapy during transgender pregnancy

The sociology professor and her cohorts have since been slammed by two nurses for disregarding the safety of a fetus 'in the name of trans inclusion'

Authors Jennifer Lahl and Kallie Fell, who is the Executive Director at The Center for Bioethics and Culture, published a response to the paper titled: 'Is There a Doctor in the House?'

In it, they said: 'The authors argue that 'gendered' pregnancy care is too focused on helping women have healthy babies, and that it might be okay for transmen to continue taking testosterone during pregnancy despite the known health risks to the fetus and effects on its normal development. 

'This is, quite frankly, insane.'

In the paper, Pfeffer and her fellow colleagues had studied 70 international trans individuals and 22 health care providers who focus on trans people. 

Their paper says: 'We argue that in the context of lacking and uncertain medical evidence (HRT with testosterone during pregnancy and chest feeding) in a highly gendered treatment context (pregnancy and lactation care), both patients and providers tend to pursue precautionary, offspring-focused treatment approaches.'

In response, Lahl and Fell say the findings are flawed as only biologically fertile human females possess the attributes for pregnancy and childbirth. 

The two label this 'a simple biological reality', saying that pregnancy care isn't 'gendered' at all. 

According to the Mayo Clinic, testosterone may cause birth defects if a pregnant woman comes into contact with it. 

Lahl and Fell also added: 'The concerns raised by Pfeffer and colleagues focus on the modern treatment approach physicians take, which they deem excessively 'precautionary' and 'offspring-focused.' 

Kal Fell, front, and Jennifer Lahl, background, published a response to the paper titled: 'Is There a Doctor in the House?'

'Fortunately, caring for the child and the mother are neither mutually exclusive nor zero-sum. 

'In situations where a woman aspires to become pregnant and commits to motherhood, physicians can provide care that optimizes outcomes for both parties while minimizing potential harm. 

'If a woman chooses to continue a pregnancy, doesn't the developing fetus also have a right to the four principles of medical ethics?'

'In such cases, the physician is duty-bound to care for both the child and the mother.'

One health care provider also told researchers: 'I think if you choose to have a pregnancy and your female hormone levels would be already so high that testosterone probably wouldn't even mentally help.

'If you're producing breast milk and you couldn't be without testosterone for mental health, if you couldn't deal without testosterone, then you probably shouldn't be pregnant.'

In concluding their piece, Lahl and Fell said: 'The authors' suggestion that medical providers should deviate from the principle of 'do no harm' to follow paths where the evidence indicates harm is quite shocking. 

'This perspective, driven more by ideology, emotions, and personal desires than by evidence, conflicts with the foundations of evidence-based medicine.'

[brooklynbornhaitian]

THE MOTHER WIT CONFERENCE - HOME

[fetusuae]

Maternal Fetal Medicine Doctor in Alain

Mother and Fetus Medical Group is the best option for expecting mothers who are looking for a reputable and experienced Maternal Fetal Medicine doctor in Al Ain. With a team of highly qualified and specialized doctors, the clinic provides comprehensive care for both mother and baby throughout all stages of pregnancy, from preconception to postpartum.

The Maternal Fetal Medicine doctor at Mother and Fetus Medical Group in Al Ain is an expert in the field of high-risk pregnancies, complicated obstetrics, and fetal medicine. They offer personalized care and treatment plans tailored to the unique needs of each patient, ensuring the best possible outcomes for both mother and baby.

Expecting mothers can trust the Maternal Fetal Medicine doctor at Mother and Fetus Medical Group in Al Ain to provide the highest quality of care, utilizing state-of-the-art technology and the latest medical advances. They are committed to providing a compassionate and supportive environment for their patients, with a focus on promoting the health and well-being of both mother and baby.

[alex51324]

So I read this article a few days ago, and I have been haunted by it ever since.

This young woman, Nevaeh, had an "oops" pregnancy. As you may have already guessed, she was from a Christian background--her name, "Heaven," spelled backwards, is popular in Evangelical circles. She, "believed abortion was morally wrong," and "didn’t care whether the government banned it," since she wouldn't have chosen to have one anyway.

Instead, she decided to carry the pregnancy to term and raise the baby, with the support of her mother and her boyfriend, the baby's father. Her boyfriend, the baby's father, gave her a diamond promise ring, and she picked out a name--Lillian--and planned a baby shower.

On the day of the baby shower, she felt unwell, then developed a fever and began vomiting. Her mother took to her to the ER, where she was given a prescription for antibiotics and sent home. A few hours later, she felt even worse, and her mother took her to the other hospital in their town, which had an obstetric emergency room. They did some tests, including checking the fetal heart rate, and told her the baby was fine. The gave her IV fluids and antibiotics, recorded her increasing fever, fast pulse, and high fetal heart rate, and sent her home again. She had to be taken out to the car in a wheelchair, because her pain was so bad.

A few hours later, she started bleeding, and they went back to the hospital with the obstetric emergency department. There, a different doctor did an ultrasound and was unable to find a fetal heartbeat.

Under Texas law, a medical practitioner faces up to 99 years in prison for performing any intervention that ends a fetal heartbeat. So, at this point, the doctors were free to treat her like a seriously ill human being, and not an ambulatory vessel for a life more valuable than her own--however, they hadn't recorded the first ultrasound. To ensure they could demonstrate compliance with the law, the doctor ordered a second one.

Somehow, that ended up taking about an hour and a half, during which time Neveah's condition got worse. By the time the second ultrasound was done, and the doctor was able to order a D&C to remove the deceased fetus, she was too weak to sign the release forms--her mother had to sign for her.

Before they got her into the operating room, she was dead.

If they were going to make an exception for anybody, they would have made one for her: a pro-life, Christian girl, who responded to her unplanned pregnancy by getting excited about becoming a mom. Who was not just unwell, not just in danger, but actually dying when she was refused care.

The Texas fetal heartbeat law does have an exception when the mother's life is at immediate risk. However, the Texas Attorney General has made clear--and several Trump-appointed judges have backed him up--to Texas doctors that they will be charged with homicide if he, who has no medical credentials whatsoever, disagrees with their professional judgment that a procedure which ended a fetal heartbeat was necessary to safe the life of the mother. That's why the doctor needed that second ultrasound.

That's probably why the other two doctors sent Nevaeh home: they couldn't be accused of an intervention that ended the fetal heartbeat, if they didn't intervene.

The leopards that eat people's faces, like all predators, go for the most vulnerable members of the herd. The guy up front on the podium, getting rich off bloviating about how leopards just have to eat a person's face from time to time, he's safe--not because of any loyalty on the part of the leopards, but because others in the group are softer targets.

Like I said, I'd been haunting me.

The Shirley Exception

[thenotsolittlemisspeculiar]

⚠️ C/W: Abortion

34 Weeks

(Source)

[mehmetyildizmelbourne-blog]

How Can Sonio.ai Transform the Healthcare Industry?

I present my independent review of an AI-based healthcare solution, which is making a global impact and bringing us a step closer to Medicine 3.0 by documenting the transcript of an interactive podcast. Dear Subscribers, For those who haven’t met me yet, coming from a science and technology background for over four decades, I am dedicated to keeping technologists, health scientists, and…

[ingenes-institute]

Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units (MFMU) Network

Ingenes offers specialized care through its maternal-fetal medicine unit, focusing on the health of both mother and baby during high-risk pregnancies. The clinic provides comprehensive services, including prenatal testing, ultrasounds, and management of pregnancy complications. Ingenes' team of experienced specialists is dedicated to ensuring the best possible outcomes for both mother and child, offering personalized care and close monitoring throughout pregnancy.

[aurawomen]

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Aurawomen (@aurawomen_)

[dynamichealthinsights]

The Silent Storm: How Stress Impacts Pregnancy Health

Pregnancy is a remarkable journey, a time of immense joy and anticipation as a new life blossoms within. Yet, amidst the excitement, it’s crucial to acknowledge that pregnancy can also be a period of heightened stress and anxiety. While some stress is a natural part of life, excessive or chronic stress during pregnancy can cast a shadow over this beautiful experience, impacting both the mother’s…

[loveblackculture]

[townpostin]

Pregnant Woman Left Unattended for 27 Hours at MGM Hospital

Fetus dies in womb; treatment begins after BJP leader’s intervention A pregnant woman was neglected for 27 hours at MGM Hospital, Kolhan’s largest government medical facility. JAMSHEDPUR – A pregnant woman from Turamdih faced severe neglect at MGM Hospital, lying on the maternity ward floor for 27 hours. The expectant mother arrived at MGM Hospital on Wednesday morning, only to be left without…

[mommunity]