#life post ectopic

[the-worst-unicorn]

July 14, 2023

I have a grain of rice in my uterus!

I had the ultrasound this morning, 6 weeks due to prior ectopic. The technician let me watch the screen, so I got to see that this pregnancy is implanted in my uterus!

Waiting on the official confirmation from my doctor's office before we tell people. Plus I want to do a cute announcement for our families (since they all have big mouths and will tell their siblings before we post on social media).

[extasiswings]

Like…the post-Dobbs horror stories about women bleeding out in hospital parking lots because they couldn’t get miscarriage treatment or getting sepsis because their care was delayed for so long etc etc are happening on an even broader scale now because there are statewide abortion bans that apply to every healthcare facility in the state and medical professionals are struggling to figure out how to provide healthcare and comply with the law, but I want to be clear that these things have been happening at Catholic hospitals for decades (see also, refusing to treat ectopic pregnancies). The ACLU has sued various Catholic hospitals on multiple occasions for refusals to provide appropriate healthcare. The Attorney General of California just recently (September 2024) sued a Catholic hospital over the following:

A 36-year-old woman was pregnant with twins when “her water broke at 15 weeks—far too early for the fetuses to survive—leaving her in excruciating pain and at high risk of developing a severe infection if treatment was delayed. According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the standard of care in such cases is to remove the fetuses in a procedure akin to an emergency abortion. One of the twins had already died. But medical staff at the Catholic hospital allegedly told [her] that because the other twin still had a detectable heartbeat, Catholic ethical rules prevented them from ending the pregnancy until [her] life was in danger.” (Link)

Sound familiar? This was California, a blue state with strong protections for reproductive rights, but happened nonetheless because it was a Catholic hospital. Thankfully, this woman was able to have her husband drive her to another hospital for care, but as the AG’s office has acknowledged, the Catholic hospital that would not treat her (or others like her that had been turned away previously) will soon be the only hospital with a labor & delivery department within hours of the area. This cannot be allowed to continue.

[anamericangirl]

Hi there!! Very supportive and grateful fellow pro-lifer here. (I've sent you inbox messages and dms before. 💛💕)

I read your recent reblog post in which you said the vast majority of pro-life people agree that abortion is necessary when the life the mother is in danger. I agreed with absolutely everything else you said in the reblog, but that gave me pause. I have a couple questions.

When you use the term abortion here, are you referring to the procedure to remove an ectopic pregnancy/embryo? Most medical professionals would call that a salpingostomy or salpingectomy. It's not an abortion. As a pro-life person, I prefer to maintain that distinction and hold the line against pro-aborts' tactic of hijacking the term abortion to additonally include things like this procedure and spontaneous miscarriages that are not abortions. They want to muddy the waters in order to try to make the case that anti-abortion law would be harmful for women experiencing these things; and in some cases with some folks they're succeeding in muddying the waters. I want to treat vocabulary as important and meaningful. I'm sure you and I could both get into explanations as to why these are not abortions if folks needed us to. An abortion inherently requires the active ending of a pre-born baby's life for that purpose. A salpingostomy to remove an ectopic pregnancy or embryo is not done with the motive to end the baby's life. The baby is in an environment that would make it dangerous for both the baby and mother for baby to continue growing there, so the procedure removes the baby from that environment. If they could save the baby they would, but this often happens much too early for that to be possible. It's a very sad loss of life, but it utterly lacks intentional killing. It's not an abortion. A miscarriage does not involve intentional human action in any way, let alone intentional taking of life. It's both tragic and spontaneous, and it's not an abortion. It is egregiously duplicitous and honestly highly disrespectful and inconsiderate for pro-aborts to try to include either miscarriage events or ectopic pregnancies under the umbrella of the term abortion. But of course we know well they don't care.

If you intend the term abortion here in a broader sense, I'd kindly encourage some research, and I offer the below short video by a doctor. Many medical professionals have tried to wave red flags and explain that abortion is never medically necessary in any health situation in which either the baby's or mother's health is in danger. Honest medical professionals with integrity will say that in any such situation, all holistic effort would be given to save the health of both mother and baby and that they would always induce labor and deliver the baby and would never even consider killing the baby inside the womb. I know folks get touchy about this because there's been so much fear-mongering about pro-life laws, and because they say we can't discuss things that medical professionals know better about. But medical professionals themselves are trying to stand up and be clear about this. The idea and claim that there are some instances in which killing the baby would save the mother is really and truly a terrible myth that has been heavily, heavily propagated for the purposes of the pro-abortion agenda. That's the truth. We have to stand up against that pervasive lie.

https://youtu.be/IfpRYxufxAM?si=vqvtiT2uyyxL8EFd

Just thought it would be great for your followers to read and think about this. You're doing great, and I stand with you and am very grateful for you!

xx fellow pro-life tumblr folk xx (We are HERE.)

Hey! Thanks so much for this and we are 100% on the same page here!

Because I've done a lot of research into the subject and listen to what doctors say, I know if a mother's life is in jeopardy during pregnancy, an abortion is never the answer. There's never a need to go in and intentionally kill the baby to save a mother's life. The mother certainly needs emergency treatment but killing the baby is never a life saving procedure. In fact, if it's an emergency situation, an abortion is likely to make it worse. She may need an early delivery but an abortion.

And I absolutely agree that it's important for this distinction to be made and the terminology is accurate.

The reason I say the vast majority of pro-lifers would agree to allowing abortion if the mother's life is in danger is because I genuinely think they would. Every time I've seen a pro-lifer questioned about it, every single one has said that is the one situation where it should be permissible. And I think that's because the vast majority of people, pro-lifers included, aren't fully educated on the different conditions that can arise and the prescribed treatments for these conditions so most don't have the knowledge of what the proper treatment is when an emergency condition arises. So even though plenty of us know abortion is not the solution even in an emergency (and more and more people are learning this) there's still a significant population that would agree to allowing abortion in these scenarios because they simply do not know what the alternative is.

So ideally, abortion would not be used in cases where the mother's life is at risk because abortion would not save the mother's life. But still, especially in debates, pro-lifers will relent to this one case in order to find common ground and address the overarching issue.

And realistically, if legislation was introduced that outlawed abortion in all cases except when the mother's life was in danger I would support it because it would drastically reduce the amount of abortions almost 100% and then the next fight would be educating people that abortion isn't needed even in those instances and getting rid of that allowance as well.

[tmblrplsdonutbanme]

I didn’t really see anyone on Radblr mentioning this, so I felt the need to bring it up. You have quite an audience, which makes this a good opportunity to educate someone who’s willing to learn.Conservatives often emphasize that anti-abortion laws still include exceptions, but they tend to overlook a very specific loophole. 'Abortion' among the general population doesn’t hold the same meaning as it does in medical contexts.In medicine, abortion is a treatment for any medical emergency that requires pregnancy termination. This includes molar pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy, pregnancies with various complications, incomplete miscarriages, etc. Miscarriage is, by definition, a spontaneous abortion.Anti-abortion legislation denies women the most basic bodily autonomy.

although i didn't realize i had such an audience- by all means, ill post

i heard something funny, that if abortion is murder than miscarriage is suicide

Yes, life is precious. But for whatever reason, a woman's body is deemed as "less precious" than a barley duel-celled zygote that can't survive without it's own immune system, simply because it has none.

if a man had a testicular teratoma, is it "worth more"? No, because "worth" doesn't exist and any attempt to assign such is an socioeconomic fallacy

which is why, when a woman has something growing inside of her against her will, an attempt to override her life and choices by negligently prioritizing the unborn clump of cells is already a failure to uphold any "value" of life.

So when pro-lifers look at abortion as anything other than a medical life-altering procedure, that is more often than not, life saving- their actions show a disdain for life -ESPECIALLY if their jurisdiction goes against the woman's wishes, and of course, her life.

[sapphosremains]

Not to go on a secularism rant, and this is just anecdotal, but I really think secularism creates massive issues with morals. A lot of atheists argue that you can have morals without religion, and sure, yes you can, but I would suggest that quite a few don't. A lot of this individualistic "you don't owe anybody anything" culture that I saw perpetuated so much on TikTok (part of the reason I ended up deleting it) is part of it. I'm thinking about this because I saw this post on Instagram (in which the creator talks about being pro-life very briefly, and honestly not in a pushy way at all), and these were the comments:

("I hope so" etc here meaning they hope she has an unwanted pregnancy)

But genuinely, and I don't have any better words for this - what the actual fuck? What on earth compels you to write a comment on a post wishing a life threatening and traumatising experience on the creator? Genuinely what the fuck. And 1,208 people agreeing. And this is Instagram! People don't comment and like comments as much as on other platforms, so this is a lot!

Even if you fundamentally disagree with her pro-life opinions, how on earth can you think that commenting wishing her something that awful is remotely appropriate?? I can't even begin to comprehend that passing through my mind.

And like, I'm not the strongest pro-life advocate ever (firstly, I hate the term itself but that's another discussion). I have very complicated feelings around abortion, as a combination of my religious and own personal experiences. On one hand, religiously, I hate the idea that God's hand-formed life is being killed. As @idylls-of-the-divine-romance always says, the total abolition of death as a weapon. I totally agree. On the other hand, I struggle, because I think that access to abortion is really important, and the bans being considered around the world at the moment create really difficult grey areas/possible bans on crucial healthcare such as removal of ectopic pregnancies and removal of deceased foetuses, which is really dangerous for women, and creates really dangerous situations where women are forced to have illegal and dangerous abortions. Anyway, I won't get further into this, but you can see how conflicted I am. I'm not coming at this from 'never say anything against pro life!!!!!!!', I'm coming at this from possibly a similar angle to these commenters. And still, what on earth.

And this is part of a larger thought process in people celebrating the LA fires, or the death of the insurance CEO. Like are these potentially horrible people? Yes. But oml just because you disagree with someone, or even if they are genuinely an abhorrent person, doesn't mean that you can wish death or destruction on them, or rejoice in the destruction of their life... like that's still a nasty thing to do even if they're a nasty person... that's still an immoral thing to say/do...

And I think this acceptance of 'I can say despicable things because I don't agree with them' or 'I can say horrible things because their morals don't align with mine' comes from this 'I don't owe anyone anything' attitude - 'I don't anyone anything, even kindness'. YES YOU DO!!!!! You owe people basic respect at the very least, and that really does include not wishing awful things on people. Yeah, so I think this 'I don't owe anyone anything' attitude is a very secular one, and I've seen a definite rise in this attitude with secularisation.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Jessica Valenti at Abortion, Every Day:

It’s been three years since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, splitting the country into two Americas—one where abortion is still legal, and another a worsening reproductive police state.

In that new country of second-class citizens, we’ve seen women forced to carry nonviable pregnancies to term and beg for help as they go septic. We’ve watched miscarriage patients get arrested while raped children and cancer patients are denied care. Rather than working to reduce this suffering, Republican lawmakers are floating restrictions on women’s right to travel and laws to jail abortion patients for life. Conservatives’ punitive approach has driven up the maternal and infant mortality rate, shuttered labor and delivery wards, and forced doctors to flee to states where they can practice without fear of prosecution. What anti-abortion policies haven’t done, however, is reduce abortion. In fact, since the end of Roe, the annual number of abortions in the U.S. has risen to over 1 million—the highest number in over a decade. That’s because no matter how hard conservatives push and punish, people who want abortions will—for the most part—get them. It’s that disconnect that most defines the last three years: Conservatives desperate to codify a worldview that women actively oppose.

Over 80% of Americans don’t want the government involved in abortion in any way, including the majority of Republicans. Even voters in states with bans want abortion to be legal. Abortion rights’ incredible popularity—which has only grown since the end of Roe—has conservative lawmakers and activists playing pretend: They tell Americans that they’re not really banning abortion, and that their policies help women and families. When that doesn’t work, they chip away at democracy so voters won’t have a choice regardless. The one positive constant over the last three years, though, has been the incredible power and resilience of the abortion rights movement: Even with dwindling funds and the threat of prison hanging over their heads, abortion organizations, funds, providers, and activists have been relentless. They’re in every community in every state, there to ensure that the people who need care will be able to get it. (There’s a reason abortion numbers didn’t go down!) I’ve been lucky enough to write about this movement—and what they’re up against—since the end of Roe. To give you all a bird’s-eye view of what America looks like under abortion bans, I’ve outlined three areas of impact: Medical, Legal, and Cultural. [...]

Medical Impact

Horror stories started rolling out immediately after the end of Roe: Miscarrying women left to bleed for days at home or in hospital parking lots. Patients with life-threatening pregnancies forced into c-sections or hysterectomies rather than given abortions. Ectopic pregnancies bursting, fallopian tubes removed, women dying. I’ve written about more stories than I could ever recount here, though there are a few that will never leave me: The pregnant mother of five with cervical cancer who begged a hospital panel for chemotherapy, telling doctors that she wanted to live for the “kids she already had.” They said no. Samantha Casiano, forced to carry a nonviable pregnancy in Texas, vomiting on the stand while testifying about watching her daughter’s pained last breaths. The Louisiana doctor who recounted her patient “screaming, not from pain but from the emotional trauma” after being forced to vaginally deliver a nonviable fetus at 16 weeks, rather than being given a standard abortion procedure. Amber Nicole-Thurman. Adriana Smith.

But it’s more than individual horror stories that make up America’s post-Roe health crisis—it’s the domino effect set off by abortion bans. Reproductive health care providers are fleeing anti-abortion states. Idaho, for example, has lost nearly a quarter of its OBGYNs and over half of its maternal fetal medicine specialists. That exodus has forced multiple hospitals to shutter their maternity wards—expanding the state’s maternal health care desert in the process. Now, some women have to drive hours just to reach a hospital where they can give birth.

Recruiting new doctors to fill that gap is increasingly difficult: The president of the Idaho Hospital Association says potential employees tell him they’re not willing to work in a state that criminalizes physicians. “Physicians are kind of scared to practice here,” one Idaho fellowship director told state legislators.

[...] Of course women are twice as likely to die during pregnancy in states with abortion bans. The two Americas created by abortion bans don’t just determine your rights—but your life. In fact, the Gender Equity Policy Institute (GEPI) found that Texas’ maternal mortality rate is now 155% higher than California’s. To no one’s surprise, Black mothers are also over three times more likely than white mothers to die in states that have banned abortion. And while maternal mortality in pro-choice states has dropped 21%, that doesn’t mean they’re immune to the fallout from Dobbs. Doctors there are overwhelmed with out-of-state patients—many of them seriously ill. [...]

Living in a pro-choice state also doesn’t guarantee you’ll be able to obtain care. Religious hospitals refuse to provide birth control and abortion—even in emergencies. I’ll never forget the miscarrying California woman who was discharged with a bucket and towels “in case something happens in the car.” In some pro-choice ‘havens’, like Washington, religious institutions make up over 40% of the state’s hospital beds. That market dominance can be deadly: A report from National Nurses United (NNU) found that when the Catholic health system giant Ascension entered a community, for example, the maternal mortality rate skyrocketed. States with so-called ‘viability’ limits also prevent the most vulnerable patients from accessing care. There are only a handful of states that allow abortion in the third trimester, and even fewer where clinics actually offer that care. You may notice a trend: Abortion bans are most likely to impact the most marginalized Americans—patients in the most complicated and difficult circumstances.

Three years after the infamous Dobbs ruling, abortion bans have contributed to lots more harm.

[a-d-nox]

web of wyrd: the outer numbers and the types of death / near death experiences you may have that year

tw: drugs/alcohol, murder, suicide, war, and other incidents where death may occur.

the outer rim of the wyrd web foretells the themes of our year ahead. today i will be covering some types of deaths that may occur around you or to you! i know that's scary (feel free to scroll), but i was asked in my discord about death markers in the outer rim. 13 isn't what we are looking for when it comes to death; i can make an argument for every single number/card and what type of death may occur. i would like to also say that i believe death is possible any given day. to predict death and believe you know exactly when you will die is flawed thinking because nothing is certain - no one can 100% know when and where. this is hypothetical - that being said, these are basic premises; in no way does one number mean a single thing. each number can mean different things - multiple things. your lack of a number correlated with an experience below does not mean to minimize your experience with the topics; these are simply my observations (observations are not destined/fated to be true, they are simply possibilities / increased odds).

paid reading options: astrology menu & cartomancy menu

enjoy my work? help me continue creating by tipping on ko-fi or paypal. your support keeps the magic alive!

so let's get to it!

1: the magician

coercive activities / peer pressure

house fire

poison

2: the high priestess

coercive activities / peer pressure

3: the empress

childbirth

ectopic pregnancy

4: the emperor

battle/war

physical assault

5: the hierophant

a plot against you by your own people

ritual sacrifice

6: the lovers

surgery

7: the chariot

battle/war

car accident

8: strength

animal attack

illness

old age

9: the hermit

frostbite

illness

old age

suicide

10: wheel of fortune

freak accident

suicide

12: the hanged man

hanging

suicide

13: death

death row

execution

14: temperance

hypothermia

poisoning

15: devil

during a sex act

house fire

murder

old age

overdose / asphyxiation

surgery

16: the tower

a fall from a high heights

head trauma

in a storm

17: the star

hypothermia

illness

surgery

18: the moon

animal attack

suicide

20: judgment

being resuscitated

near death experience

suffocation

21: the world

watching someone close to you die / nearly die making you realize the fragility of life

22: the fool

dangerous recreational activities

a fall

on a trip/traveling

have ideas for new content? please use my “suggest a post topic” button!

return to nox's guide to metaphysics

return to the masterlist of the web of wyrd

© a-d-nox 2023 all rights reserved

[sailingfireshipz]

https://www.tumblr.com/sailingfireshipz/785568546948349952/theyve-talked-about-kelly-moving-to-ofi-the

Why do even saying that Stella would have to sacrifice her career? Is it 19th century? Woman can have a baby and work, yeah she probably will stay at home a little, it’s called maternity leave, but why would she sacrifice her career? Or why would Kelly do that?

I agree however I've seen quite a few comments in which people are saying stella should move from active duty immediately or that this will make her rethink her career because she doesn't want to leave their kid an orphan. Its also a very popular trope used in shows/movies where the kids a teens & you see the mom having a full blow identity crisis because they gave up their life/career to raise their kids & now their kids are older & they don't know what to do or they don't recognize who they are anymore.

Also that's exactly what they did to Gabby with her pregnancy & then Louie. She immediately went to OFI & then with Louie, she gave up being a firefighter...

Valid concern & thought to have however I think its very one-sided & rooted in a bit of unconscious misogyny that the moment Stella finds out she's pregnant she's the only one forced to have these thoughts & potentially make these sacrifices.

I am 100% against Stella immediately stepping away from active duty & feeling like she has to either sacrifice or pivot away from her career just because she's pregnant & they're going to have a baby...

Like i mentioned in previous posts. A good chunk of who Stella is is being a firefighter. She's said it so many times & for the life of me I can't reconcile why she'd be the only one forced to give it up or give it up sooner than what she would have to if she can safely continue to do it. Women are capable of working as long as the proper precautions are taken & in place, so I hope they let us see that.

Also from a career standpoint again that is based in the concept that when the baby comes the stereotypical response to that is for the woman to decide to step away or give up her career to raise the kids. All I'm saying is IF the writers chose to go that route, I'd hope they'd make Kelly contemplate just as hard IF not harder because, like I mentioned, he has had a FULL CAREER.

He could have been captain, Battalion Chief, over at OFI, the academy, and now even ATF years ago, but he's turned them down. Stella has not had those same opportunities so why not flip the script & show Kelly taking a backseat if it allows Stella to continue to pursue the career she loves while also giving her peace of mind that their kid isn't going to be left alone?

I also think its a bit of uncharted waters for OC because we've never fully seen how they could handle pregnancy amongst its first responders. Kim stayed on active duty and had a miscarriage. Gabby immediately went to OFI and had an ectopic pregnancy.

So we have no point of reference. Stella would essentially be the first. I'm not including MED in this because compared to Fire & PD Med is relatively low impact in terms of "perceived danger". Its also in that "safe category" of jobs people are ok with pregnant women having. Just like most people want to see Stella go to Ambo because it's considered "safer" more acceptable than to see her running towards a burning building.

Its the 21st century, so why has it taken them 14 years to finally show us a pregnant & working firefighter on this show? Because prior to Stella, it was only men who were showcased.

No, it's not the 19th century. However, a lot of these TV execs/showrunners seem to be stuck there because it should have never taken this long to see something that's a REALITY for every pregnant/working firefighter. They rarely, if ever, see themselves fully represented on these shows.

[broadway-karkat]

ModKat here with a brief life update and why I’m not recording so many songs lately (cw miscarriage, hospital, medical stuff, illness)

After I posted the song “Save Us”, I got news that my sister was in the hospital. She had an ectopic pregnancy and unfortunately miscarried the baby. She lost one of her ovaries in the process and also they found a 6cm unidentified mass in her other ovary which they managed to take out without hurting the ovary (it could be the start of a cancer). After that she got a pneumonia and was being treated in the hospital, but she was leaking fluid from the surgery spot so the doctors opened her up again to find what was wrong and her appendix had bursted. Level 3 (?) or something. They literally had to take her organs out to clean them before the infection spread, but it did anyway and she had sepsis in her entire body, landing her in the ICU for around a week and a half. She’s at home now recovering, but I have no fucking clue how in the hell we’re gonna afford those medical bills.

After that, mi abuelo (my grandpa) had shortness of breath and was also sent to the hospital. They found out he had 3 heart attacks in succession and his heart arteries are… well, pretty much all clogged up, and they intubated him while in the ICU waiting for the family OK to do the heart surgery on him. Abuelo is a ticking time bomb regarding his heart. We all talked and gave the go ahead and the surgery was a success. Anyway, he’s not breathing through a tube anymore but he did get pneumonia and is being treated for that. But he also currently has some fluid building up around his lungs and it’s not looking good.

I’ve been absent because my entire family is taking turns to stay with abuelo, including myself. I’ve spent the last 3 days in the hospital with him, playing chess (very slowly because his motor function is pretty bad rn), reading to him, and trying my best to distract him from the hospital setting. I am scheduled to stay with him tomorrow night (as in actually sleep in the hospital), but I had a severe stomach ache yesterday and my mom is worried that I might be spreading myself too thin, but I know it’s from anxiety so I calmed her down, and I’ll keep an eye on my own body.

I will keep y’all updated, and will try to record a song between today and tomorrow (not sure how long the mixing is going to take); System Of A Down did a concert here in Brazil yesterday in a venue right next to my house (the Autódromo) so I put my head out the window and could listen to the entire show. Next song is going to be a cover of “Lonely Day” ❤️

Thank you for your patience and understanding, I love you all 🫶

-ModKat

[batboyblog]

A 25-year-old Texas woman was put in grave danger when doctors refused to treat her ectopic pregnancy, a harrowing example of the life-and-death stakes in the post-Roe world. Kelsi Norris-De La Cruz was excited to carry her first child, but learned that she likely had an ectopic pregnancy, meaning her pregnancy was inviable and she could be at risk of death if her fallopian tube ruptured. Norris-De La Cruz needed emergency surgery to terminate the ectopic pregnancy, which is protected under Texas’ near-total abortion ban, but she says multiple physicians at Texas Health Arlington Memorial Hospital refused to treat her, telling her the pregnancy could be viable and sending her home to wait. One of them wouldn’t answer when the young woman’s mother directly asked him if this had to do with the state’s restrictive abortion law. Norris-De La Cruz was ultimately treated by another doctor—after the pregnancy had already started to rupture—who was shocked that she had been turned away the first time. A spokesperson for Texas Health said: “Treatment decisions are individualized based on a patient’s clinical condition and we believe the care provided to the patient in this case was appropriate.”

This is the future Republicans want for everyone in America, if they win in November they will enact a national abortion ban and scare the shit out of doctors all across the country leading to thousands of cases just like this every year. The Biden Administration has taken a number steps to try to protect access including issuing guidelines requiring hospitals to preform emergency abortions no regardless of state laws but if Trump is reelected those guidelines will go away day one and situations like this will get much more common as doctors will be stripped of federal legal protection in emergency situations and become more fearful of state laws.

[the-worst-unicorn]

July 13, 2022

Well June was exciting. I hit my breaking point at work and decided the day I was going to put in my two weeks. Then I went on vacation for a week and half - anniversary trip. We were out for IUI that month due to my right ovary getting ready to release, since I don't have a right tube there is a note on my file saying left side only.

So I get back, put in my two weeks. Go about my days. I have a bit of abdominal soreness, but I didn't work out much on vacation and did weightlifting twice that first week back. I was expecting my period on the first, but it's always been a bit wonky (see infertility caused by anovulation). On the 6th, I figure it's probably another cyst or a polyp so I'll need to call my doctor. But decide to take a pregnancy test to rule it out.

Y'all, I'm pregnant.

So my first week without work (I left without a job lined up) I instead have appointments. Blood work on Monday and Wednesday looked good, hcg is on track for how far along I am. I go in for an ultrasound tomorrow. Hopefully the gestational sack will be in my uterus. 🤞

Like the amount of disbelief last week was so strong. We had our first round of IUI in May, and that resulted in a chemical pregnancy (egg and sperm joined, but quickly reached failure point). And then to realize that it was right side in June, we just figured we were out and it didn't matter what we did or didn't do. But it's sinking in now, especially since I'm starting to experience some nausea.

The random nausea is making my plan for this week difficult, and I'm still trying to figure out what my body wants. The default is to just grab some crackers but that doesn't always work. So today I made myself a strawberry and mango smoothie with coconut milk. It helped a bit when the nausea started to creep up while making lemon curd. I have another batch of orange curd to make later, so I'm hoping I can get it under control quickly.

But despite the nausea, as of this moment, I have not actually puked. So I'm considering that a win.

[rapeculturerealities]

Texas hospital refused to treat woman’s life-threatening ectopic pregnancy - The Washington Post

https://archive.is/2024.02.23-173510/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/02/23/texas-woman-ectopic-pregnancy-abortion/

Kelsie Norris-De La Cruz tried not to cry as the doctor in the emergency room delivered one of the most frightening diagnoses a pregnant woman can receive.

The 25-year-old college senior was told she likely had an ectopic pregnancy, a highly dangerous condition where the embryo implants outside of the uterus. Without immediate treatment, the fallopian tube can rupture — and the patient can die.

The law that has prohibited abortions in Texas since Roe v. Wade was overturned now explicitly allows doctors to treat ectopic pregnancies. But when doctors at Texas Health Arlington Memorial Hospital evaluated Norris-De La Cruz last week, they refused to terminate the pregnancy, saying there was some chance the pregnancy was still viable, Norris-De La Cruz recalled. Instead, they advised her and her mother to go home and wait, according to medical records reviewed by The Washington Post.

Norris-De La Cruz ultimately received emergency surgery about 24 hours later at a different hospital in the area, at which point her ectopic pregnancy had already started to rupture. The OB/GYN who performed the procedure said that, if Norris-De La Cruz had waited much longer, she would have been “in extreme danger of losing her life.”

[lupa-von-wolf]

I very rarely make serious posts on here, but this is a very serious one, and I need it to be shared as quickly as possible.

Friday, June 28th, the US Supreme Court overturned Chevron. What this means is that the Supreme Court will now have ANY and ALL power over any decision that has any generalizations that has come through congress. Previously this has been delegated to federal agencies that specialize in these generalizations, such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Occupational Heath and Savety Administration (OSHA), the Federal Avian Administration (FAA), just to name a few.

Previously, the levels of harmful objects found in food, such as rat droppings or pesticides, were monitored and maintained by the FDA, going forward it will be up to the Supreme Court to decide what these levels will be.

And this is only exacerbated by the fact that the Supreme Court has also made it legal to bribe them into deciding in your favor (as long as the "tip" comes after the decision). They've made it legal to be bought by corporations so they can turn a blind eye to the safety hazards that they'll be allowing.

The vote for overturning Chevron AND the "tipping" decision were both 6-3, with all 6 conservative justices voting in tandem, 3 of which were appointed by Trump during his presidency.

This election is more important than just "I'm going to show how I feel about the state of things by not voting." Rights and safeties are deteriorating before our very eyes.

Trans people are going to be forcefully detransitioned, and in the state of Florida, the state officials can rip apart families if *anyone* in the house is trans. Being trans in the state of Florida, if there are children present, is considered a sex crime, which can be punishable by execution. Trump has already stated that he wants to eliminate term limits if he wins again, and make it so he can't be removed from office. He wants to force the country into a theocracy and is complete against abortions, no matter what, including loss of life, ectopic pregnancies, or impregnation by rape or incest.

Refusing to vote, or choosing to vote for Kennedy is choosing to vote for genocide. It's choosing to vote for Trump, because we all know each and every one of his cultists is showing up. It's choosing to vote for the death and annihilation of your friends, your family, and America.

Yes, Biden is fucking terrible. But he's not Trump.

[tommyboweinabowtie]

About Spencer's One Ball

okay first of all disclaimer: I know that for some people this post will seem too much and I'm aware, but to be clear, all I used was what Spencer talked about publicly in videos, mostly in the 2 truths 1 lie with Tommy, everything else is Medicine and Science and statistics. I did not have access to anything else like medical records or anything related.

Also important here: I am a certified doctor, I know I just be silly online but I studied medicine and I happen to be in pediatrics, one of the few specialties that would deal with said diagnosis, so since the first time I saw that video it got me wondering exactly what kind of "condition" it would be, I was curious, so I decided to research. And bring my research findings here.

Keep in mind english is not my first language, but I tried to be clear and simple.

"Having only one ball" medical term would be "monorchism", or "monorchidism". That means only one testicle in the scrotum. (Trivia no one asked for: everything related to testicles has "orchid" in its name, the plant is also called that because it has a scrotum-looking thing in its roots). Having only one ball later in life usually means surgery or injury, but as he said, not the case.

In the video he says he was born with only one testicle. So he didn't say he had any testis removed, or that it was somewhere else, just that he only had one. Okay keep that in mind. Let's understand first how normally a testicle develops. A healthy embrio is sexually indifferent at first, the Y chromosome has a gene that makes it develop testicles instead of ovaries. That happens inside the abdomen, below the kidneys, and when the testis cells are developed, they produce an hormone that will supress other "female" anatomy. This hormone is also responsible for the descend of the testis into the scrotum. This descend happens after the seventh month of gestation. So until then the testicles are inside the abdomen. About 3% of XY term babies are born without 1 or 2 testicles in their scrotum. That's calles cryptorchidism ("hidden testicle"). It is more common in premature babies and babies with conditions such as down syndrome. More than half is unilateral. So when a baby is born doctors examine it and see if the testicles are inside their ballsack, if not, usually (80%) within the first year it has a "delayed" descent. If it is not in the scrotum, maybe the doctor sees it somewhere else, close, right above it. Little image to show where it can be found:

So directly from the simplified words from wikipedia: A testis absent from the normal scrotal position may be:

Anywhere along the "path of descent" from high in the posterior abdomen to the inguinal ring

In the inguinal canal

Ectopic, having "wandered" from the path of descent, usually outside the inguinal canal and sometimes even under the skin of the thigh, the perineum, the opposite scrotum, or the femoral canal

Undeveloped (hypoplastic) or severely abnormal (dysgenetic)

Missing (also see anorchia).

So if we can't find the testicle in the first few months, we usually ask for an ultrasound, to see if it is inside the abdomen and to search if there's any intersex characteristics, or other conditions, associated. If it is found, usually there's a surgery, either to place the testicle where it is supposed to be, or to remove it. Why not just leave it inside, or forget about it? Well, undescended testicles have a higher chance of testicular cancer. So it either has to be in the scrotum to keep it in check with self-exam and ultrasounds, or completely removed.

Spencer never mentioned a surgery, and they talked about surgeries and procedures in that episode. He'd probably have talked about it. So I don't think he had ectopic or undescended testicle.

The abnormal testicle also rules out because he would have said it was deformed or something. Not that he was born without it.

So that leaves us with anorchia. Or in his case, monorchia. (He has one normal right testicle there, the left one is missing.)

If you look for this terms you will find mostly genetical disorders, or like intersex individuals with other health issues associated. I don't think that's his case.

So what I think it is, is a condition called "Vanishing testes syndrome" or "testicular regression syndrome". It results in anorchia or monorchia. It is kinda rare, less that 5% of those with cryptorchidism. To make it simple, the embrio develops the testicle, but something happend with it along the way before the baby is born, like a torsion, or ischemia, and it "dies" or stops developing, leading to a baby without the testicle. It is more common to happen to the left testicle. The individuals usually delevop a completelly tyical male phenotype, as seems to be Spencer's case as well. (Unless the regression is bilateral and happens too early in the pregnancy, leading to lack of testosterone, but thats less usual). Some doctors and scientists recommend a surgical approach to remove the small scar tissue and remnants (0-16% of studied cases have like a tiny amount of live testicular cells in the scar tissue wherever the testicle died) to avoid potential testicular cancer as well, but it was never documented, so it is not needed, it depends on the attending doctor.

Also some patients may want to have a prosthesis implanted, for cosmetic purposes, but also not needed.

Let's just trust that Spencer was cared for by good doctors that did whatever testing it was needed and got to the most likely diagnosis.

So that was my wild research You can officially read the paper about this condition here: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3459158/

I have more commentary about smosh health conditions and stuff, this one just was more in my field and also spiked my curiosity, i just needed to. But like about Tommy CPR thing, Shayne drowning, probably more stuff i can't remember now. Let me know if any of you would like to see more lol.

[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.

[prolifeproliberty]

Hello! I think I remember that you had a really good post (or at least resources) on the difference between abortion and removal of stillborn/miscarried children but I can’t seem to find it. Would you be able to link it? Thanks! <3 :)

I am always terrible at finding my old posts unless people rediscover and reblog them again lol

Maybe someone else will be able to find it and link it, but in the meantime I can try to recreate some of it!

The most important thing here is the legal definition of abortion. Some medical language will use abortion to refer to any stopping of pregnancy - whether intentional or unintentional. This definition is absolutely useless for a discussion of the ethics of induced abortion, and is used by abortion supporters to cloud the issue.

That’s why literally every piece of abortion-restricting legislation is very careful to define what it is that is being restricted or banned - the intentional, direct killing of a preborn human child.

Since so many states have passed either outright bans or significant restrictions, it’s important to look at specific laws in specific states for examples.

For example, here is the legal definition of abortion in Texas (emphasis mine):

"Abortion" means the act of using or prescribing an instrument, a drug, a medicine, or any other substance, device, or means with the intent to cause the death of an unborn child of a woman known to be pregnant. The term does not include birth control devices or oral contraceptives. An act is not an abortion if the act is done with the intent to:

(A) save the life or preserve the health of an unborn child;

(B) remove a dead, unborn child whose death was caused by spontaneous abortion; or

(C) remove an ectopic pregnancy.

Note that the law specifically states that removing a child who has died and removing an ectopic pregnancy are not abortions, and therefore are not impacted by any abortion ban or restriction.

Also note (A) - delivering a child early to save the child’s life is not an abortion, even though the pregnancy could be said to be “aborted,” or stopped prematurely - the important point is whether the abortionist is trying to kill the child.

TL;DR: Any doctor who says they can’t remove an ectopic pregnancy (a child who cannot survive with current medical technology and poses a danger to the mother) or a child who has died in the womb because of an abortion ban is either ignorant or willfully deceiving their patients - and in either case should not be trusted to provide medical care.