Follow Save the 1
Showing posts with label fetal anomaly. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fetal anomaly. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 21, 2017
South Carolina, Eugenic Abortion and the Ugly Side of Pro-Life Politics, by Sarah-St. Onge
South Carolina, Eugenic Abortion, and the Ugly Side of Pro-Life Politics
Last month, South Carolina's legislature passed and the Governor signed the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, banning late-term abortions beginning at 20 weeks post-fertilization (or 22 weeks LMP) on the basis that unborn children experience pain and that the State has "a compelling state interest in protecting the lives of unborn children from the stage at which substantial medical evidence indicates that they are capable of feeling pain."
The legislature even explained that children with fetal anomalies experience pain: "Substantial evidence indicates that children born missing the bulk of the cerebral cortex, those with hydranencephaly, nevertheless experience pain." Hydranencephaly is often labelled as a "fatal fetal abnormality" or "incompatible with life." However, the legislature inexplicably included an exception to the late-term abortion ban in the case of "fetal anomaly," which the legislation defines as: "in reasonable medical judgment, the unborn child has a profound and irremediable congenital or chromosomal anomaly that, with or without the provision of life-preserving treatment, would be incompatible with sustaining life after birth."
There's no further definition of "incompatible with sustaining life after birth." So how long would the child's predicted lifespan have to be in order to be protected? For hydranencephaly, the oldest documented person still living is 33 years old. So if you can live till 33 with a disorder, it's okay to kill you while you suffer pain? Why is pain even relevant? Those with congenital analgesia are incapable of feeling pain, but don't they have a right to life? And what if the doctors were wrong in their diagnoses? The statute has a reporting requirement, but no mention of autopsies to determine whether the child actually had any disorder, and no cause of action is created legislatively to permit parents to sue doctors who were wrong. Therefore, the doctors' have no disincentive to push for an abortion.
The legislature even explained that children with fetal anomalies experience pain: "Substantial evidence indicates that children born missing the bulk of the cerebral cortex, those with hydranencephaly, nevertheless experience pain." Hydranencephaly is often labelled as a "fatal fetal abnormality" or "incompatible with life." However, the legislature inexplicably included an exception to the late-term abortion ban in the case of "fetal anomaly," which the legislation defines as: "in reasonable medical judgment, the unborn child has a profound and irremediable congenital or chromosomal anomaly that, with or without the provision of life-preserving treatment, would be incompatible with sustaining life after birth."
There's no further definition of "incompatible with sustaining life after birth." So how long would the child's predicted lifespan have to be in order to be protected? For hydranencephaly, the oldest documented person still living is 33 years old. So if you can live till 33 with a disorder, it's okay to kill you while you suffer pain? Why is pain even relevant? Those with congenital analgesia are incapable of feeling pain, but don't they have a right to life? And what if the doctors were wrong in their diagnoses? The statute has a reporting requirement, but no mention of autopsies to determine whether the child actually had any disorder, and no cause of action is created legislatively to permit parents to sue doctors who were wrong. Therefore, the doctors' have no disincentive to push for an abortion.
But the passage of this law was hailed as a win for the pro-life movement. Pro-life organizations couldn't start tossing the confetti in the air fast enough.
Except that this isn't a pro-life law. It's a pro-choice law with restrictions. When you write a late-term abortion law with exceptions, you are writing a law giving your blessing for late-term abortion under certain circumstances -- in essence stating there are acceptable reasons for killing babies late in pregnancy.
As I worked my way through the quagmire of comment threads on major pro-life sites and their social media pages, I contributed a few comments of my own, mainly explaining that this law was discriminatory because it failed to protect the most vulnerable. My opinion was wholeheartedly, and sometimes vehemently, opposed by people who claimed to be pro-life.
I pointed out the reality that most late-term abortions are done to end the life of a child with fetal anomalies, so an exception for fetal anomalies would make this bill essentially useless. I was refuted multiple times with cut-and-paste info from Wikipedia, which referenced a very flawed study done in 1987 (there was an addendum which stated the study was reexamined in 2013 and the results were similar, but the parameters were the same, so this study had just as many issues, which I will address later in this post.)
Pro-lifers are using biased research studies to bolster their arguments explaining why it's acceptable to allow certain babies to be aborted.
We have some huge problems within the pro-life movement, and it's killing babies!
Politics has fooled people into believing that exceptions are necessary to pass pro-life laws.
Pro-life organizations and "superstar" activists have fooled people into believing you can still be pro-life and support a woman's right to choose in certain circumstances, for the sake of political expediency.
Wikipedia has fooled people into believing most women choose late-term abortion for financial and social reasons.
All of these claims are false.
First:
There have been a number of significant pieces of state-level legislation which contain no exceptions for late-term abortions (please see footnote if you haven't already).
Alabama, Michigan, Indiana, and Wyoming are just a few states which do not have exceptions in their late-term abortion laws. (Note, link is a pro-choice resource because Americans United For Life which tracks pro-life legislation has made the decision not to track exceptions within abortion legislation.) South Carolina did not have a fetal anomaly exception in it's Partial Birth Abortion ban.
It is simply not true that pro-life persons cannot pass late-term abortion laws without exceptions: even New York, which has some of the most permissive abortion laws in the US, does not have exception clauses in its late-term abortion cut-off (although their cut-off is a bit later than the SC bill, at 24 weeks).
This lie has been perpetuated for too long, and it's time we push back.
We don't need exceptions in abortion limitations to push them through the legislative process.
When we've come to a point where the most pro-choice state in the US recognizes the right-to-life of a late-term unborn child, yet conservative pro-life legislators in conservative states cannot persuade other politicians to support late-term abortion prohibitions without exceptions this is a problem..... we need to find new, more persuasive legislators.
The answer to the "late-term abortion dilemma" is not to continue compromising, it's to make it clear we will not elect representatives who do not take a firm stand against abortion, no matter what the circumstances.
When politicians say, "we won't get support without compromise", who do you think they are compromising with? Pro-choice legislators?
Generally speaking, pro-choice legislators will vote against virtually any pro-life law. They don't care what the parameters of the proposed legislation are.
We aren't compromising with them.
We aren't compromising with them.
When politicians and activists talk about compromise, they are talking about compromise within the pro-life contingent. It's pro-life legislators they are having to make exceptions for, pro-life representatives who are debating the merits of these laws and their proposed exceptions.
And they're arguing the content of pro-life laws based on your potential vote. They don't want to lose you -- their pro-life constituents -- as voters.
It's time to stop this nonsense once and for all. The state has a compelling interest in protecting all of its citizens. Science has proven the humanity of the fetus at all stages of development. Unborn children are citizens, and deserving of the same protections as everyone else. There is no reason for pro-life legislators to hold out on fetal anomaly (or rape or incest) exceptions, unless their constituents have informed them of their opposition to exceptions.
Don't blame officials you've elected for not being capable of compromise. They're only doing what you are asking them to do.
You have the power to end exceptions in laws limiting late-term abortions.
Other states have done it.
Liberal, pro-choice controlled states have done it.
You need to do it.
Second:
Pro-life organizations are wrong. Pro-life means you protect all life, without compromise.
Just because someone is a "leader" in the field doesn't mean they're right -- and oftentimes, when people become leaders they become more enamored of the politics of a movement than the
cause they're fighting for.
There are many pro-life celebrities who are more celebrity than pro-life.
cause they're fighting for.
There are many pro-life celebrities who are more celebrity than pro-life.
As I said before, pro-life laws without exceptions can be passed. And more specifically, late term pro-life laws without exceptions can pass.
Polls show that the majority of Americans, even those who identify as pro-choice, believe there should be limitations to late-term abortions.
Go back and read that last sentence again.
Why do pro-life organizations keep pushing the idea that laws without exceptions are inevitable?
You can't claim to believe all life is equally valuable, but it's ok to kill any certain demographic for expediency 's sake.
Not only is this incredibly biased against the targeted demographic, but it gives ammunition to the pro-choice crowd. Our views regarding the humanity of a pre-born child are seen as inconsistent or emotion-based.
If our morals teach us the value of each life, and science speaks to the fact that a fetus really is a human at all stages of development, how can we codify legislation which states that it's acceptable to kill even one fetus for the benefit of the other?
This is simply a matter of viewing one person as having more value than another. Of telling one group of people: "you are not worth fighting for, because somehow you are less-than".
We are essentially saying that the right of a "typical" fetus to be carried to term overrides the right of a "defective" fetus to be carried to term.
How is this pro-life again?
This would he an equivalent argument:
"All slaves except females who have small hands will be freed. Plantation owners really wanted small-handed females to remain in bondage, because they are docile workers who follow direction well. We feared that if we didn't agree to this demand, we would lose freedom for all the males and the remaining females who have average sized hands. Sometime in the future, when the political climate is favorable to us, we will secure complete emancipation for all slaves. Until then it will be considered divisive to bring up freedom for the small-handed slaves who remain in bondage."
Third:
This Wikipedia entry on late-term abortion was repeatedly cut and pasted into comments under my arguments against this legislation.
This was a very concerning sign. We are relying on arguments which:
A) are being taken from Wikipedia, which anyone can contribute to. I could write that purple sharks like to have abortions, and it would stay until someone noticed it and took it down. Wikipedia is not a valid source of information.
B) come from pro-choice sources
C) are shared in such a way that the article itself omits relevant facts regarding how the study was conducted.
I'll explain in detail here:
I'll explain in detail here:
Most statistical information about abortion comes from them.
Why?
It's not because they are the best authority with the most intelligent researchers.
It's simply because they are in the business of abortions. They have access to women immediately following a procedure, and they have the ability to request follow-ups from willing patients.
Their studies are mostly composed of women who receive abortion services at their clinics.
The problem with this is that women who terminate pregnancies for fetal anomalies generally don't go to abortion clinics. If they do use a clinic it's generally one which specializes in late-term abortions, and many of these are not affiliated with Planned Parenthood. Most go to an out-patient surgical center where their personal physician performs a D&C, or they induce pre-viability at a hospital.
The sample used for the study didn't include information from any OB/GYN offices.
It didn't include information from any hospitals. It included extremely limited information from non-Planned Parenthood clinics.
It also included women well under the 20 week mark.
It also included women well under the 20 week mark.
In essence it didn't focus on information from women who received a diagnosis at 20 weeks, which is when most problems are found, nor did it include information from medical professionals more likely to be treating a woman whose baby was diagnosed with fetal anomalies.
The study should be titled: "Reasons a woman has a late-term abortion, excluding most fetal anomaly cases". The study isn't a study at all -- it's an exit-survey from an abortion clinic, proscribed by the parameters in which its administered: there is a very small control sample, and the control sample they have consists only of women coming from abortion clinics.
Suffice to say: if pro-choice activists didn't believe that women were primarily seeking termination of pregnancy after 19 weeks for fetal anomaly, why do they consistently use fetal anomaly as an argument against late-term abortion at virtually every turn?
They know women generally terminate late due to fetal anomalies. It's just us pro-life persons who refuse to acknowledge reality.
We are addicted to exceptions. It's a habit we need to break -- and we need to go cold turkey. There is no valid reason for laws which contain discriminatory exceptions.
We need to make the next step, and actually be the pro-life activists we are claiming to be.
It's time to let your legislators know you no longer want exceptions in your laws
.
Footnote: Regarding "Health of the Mother Exceptions", pro-life groups have become more savvy regarding the usage of this clause to allow virtually any abortion, and have narrowed the language in state-level bills considerably to protect pre-born children.
This, from Colorado Right to Life, explains how a life of the mother clause could, and often is, written to protect both mother and child. Occasionally there is a real concern for both mother and child -- who have an equal right to life. We do not believe "health of the mother" clauses are a discriminatory exception, under the parameters of most pro-life legislation written today, because they contain measures to help save the life of the child involved.
BIO: Sarah St. Onge is a wife, mother of 4, step-mother of 2, and pro-life blogger for Save The 1. She blogs on grief, loss, and pro-life issues pertaining to continuing a pregnancy after a lethal anomaly has been diagnosed, at www.shebringsjoy.com.
Suffice to say: if pro-choice activists didn't believe that women were primarily seeking termination of pregnancy after 19 weeks for fetal anomaly, why do they consistently use fetal anomaly as an argument against late-term abortion at virtually every turn?
They know women generally terminate late due to fetal anomalies. It's just us pro-life persons who refuse to acknowledge reality.
We are addicted to exceptions. It's a habit we need to break -- and we need to go cold turkey. There is no valid reason for laws which contain discriminatory exceptions.
We need to make the next step, and actually be the pro-life activists we are claiming to be.
It's time to let your legislators know you no longer want exceptions in your laws
.
Footnote: Regarding "Health of the Mother Exceptions", pro-life groups have become more savvy regarding the usage of this clause to allow virtually any abortion, and have narrowed the language in state-level bills considerably to protect pre-born children.
This, from Colorado Right to Life, explains how a life of the mother clause could, and often is, written to protect both mother and child. Occasionally there is a real concern for both mother and child -- who have an equal right to life. We do not believe "health of the mother" clauses are a discriminatory exception, under the parameters of most pro-life legislation written today, because they contain measures to help save the life of the child involved.
Tuesday, January 26, 2016
Exceptions for Fetal Anomalies Encourages Doctors' Coercion to Abort, by Sarah St. Onge
In 2010, I continued a pregnancy after my unborn child was diagnosed with a "lethal birth defect." During my pregnancy with Beatrix, {full story told here} I was repeatedly pressured by medical professionals to "terminate."
Because of the lack of support during my pregnancy, I have dedicated the last five years to supporting families faced with the same diagnosis we were given for our daughter. In addition, I joined support groups for women who choose to continue a pregnancy after a poor diagnosis, hoping to encourage women on their journey. During this time, I have heard the stories of dozens of families who were pressured to "terminate" pregnancies after being given a poor pregnancy diagnosis. Whether the issue was with the child or with the woman carrying the child, these parents' refusal to consider late-term abortion was often met with derision on the part of health care providers.
Those of us who try to encourage women to continue their pregnancies hear these types of stories often. It is tragically common for doctors to present "therapeutic abortion" as the normal course of "care" for a pregnancy in which an adverse diagnosis has been made. Many doctors do not even broach the subject of continuing the pregnancy, simply asking pregnant mothers, “when should we schedule your termination?” after a diagnosis. Most medical professionals assume that every woman wants to -- or should want to -- end a pregnancy where a child has been diagnosed with a lethal birth defect. In fact, when researching different lethal congenital disorders, you will often find "termination" listed as the “treatment” for the disorder! This is not a woman-centered or parent-driven attitude, but a physician-driven attitude.
In terms of parents' decision-making, the carry to term path has flourished with organizations which support the parent(s) continuing their pregnancy. The good news is that many hospitals have now created perinatal hospice programs for those using their facilities to deliver their babies. In terms of women's health -- carry to birth has consistently and unequivocally proven to be a healthier medical treatment for women.
Yet individual physicians seem unable to shake the opinion that prematurely ending the baby's life is best. They often deny patients access to pre-natal treatment due to the concept of "medical futility." These narrow-minded physicians decline to answer questions in layman's terms so that parents understand they have a right to continue the pregnancy. They manipulate parents by telling them that birth will be incredibly traumatic for their child, often giving them horror stories about babies being ripped to pieces in the labor process. This particular tactic has been shared in many parents' recollections of speaking to doctors after deciding to continue a pregnancy. Angie Smith's groundbreaking book about continuing a pregnancy after a poor diagnosis, "I Will Carry You" mentions this phenomenon.
Because of the lack of support during my pregnancy, I have dedicated the last five years to supporting families faced with the same diagnosis we were given for our daughter. In addition, I joined support groups for women who choose to continue a pregnancy after a poor diagnosis, hoping to encourage women on their journey. During this time, I have heard the stories of dozens of families who were pressured to "terminate" pregnancies after being given a poor pregnancy diagnosis. Whether the issue was with the child or with the woman carrying the child, these parents' refusal to consider late-term abortion was often met with derision on the part of health care providers.
A few months ago, I was introduced to a family who was expecting a sweet baby with Limb Body Wall Complex -- the same diagnosis of my daughter Beatrix. Their story of how they were treated by medical professionals is perhaps the worst I have ever heard.
Not only were they pressured to abort their baby, but when they refused, their doctor began a course of minimal care in an obvious effort to punish them for wasting his time.
He refused to spend more than five minutes with them at visits; he explained the medical challenges in a way that was incomprehensible for a layperson, thereby not providing them the information they needed to make a true medically informed decision; and, he was condescending toward them as if they were only making the decision to continue the pregnancy because they weren't smart enough to understand the gravity of the situation. They understood the gravity. They knew this was a lethal diagnosis, but just didn't want to be responsible for ending their baby's life.
As if that treatment wasn't bad enough, he even refused to allow them to look at their baby on the ultrasound screen. They requested to see their baby, and the physician outright refused. The parents went to a mall which offered ultrasound services, paying out of pocket, just so they could have a glimpse of the baby they loved. This may have been the only living picture they would have of their child, and they needed this memory of their child alive -- something others take for granted.
While this physicians was looking at their precious baby's face, he horrified them when he used the offensive term “not like a baby.”
Imagine this for a moment -- you’ve learned your baby will not live for long, if at all, outside of the womb. Your only opportunity to see your child moving and alive may be in your doctor’s office on an ultrasound screen, yet your doctor turns the screen away telling you your child “isn’t like a baby”, -- refusing to allow you a glimpse of that tiny person in your body.Not only were they pressured to abort their baby, but when they refused, their doctor began a course of minimal care in an obvious effort to punish them for wasting his time.
He refused to spend more than five minutes with them at visits; he explained the medical challenges in a way that was incomprehensible for a layperson, thereby not providing them the information they needed to make a true medically informed decision; and, he was condescending toward them as if they were only making the decision to continue the pregnancy because they weren't smart enough to understand the gravity of the situation. They understood the gravity. They knew this was a lethal diagnosis, but just didn't want to be responsible for ending their baby's life.
As if that treatment wasn't bad enough, he even refused to allow them to look at their baby on the ultrasound screen. They requested to see their baby, and the physician outright refused. The parents went to a mall which offered ultrasound services, paying out of pocket, just so they could have a glimpse of the baby they loved. This may have been the only living picture they would have of their child, and they needed this memory of their child alive -- something others take for granted.
While this physicians was looking at their precious baby's face, he horrified them when he used the offensive term “not like a baby.”
This was all after they had confirmed their decision to continue the pregnancy, and after they had already named their baby.
This physician’s personal bias didn’t stop at trying to manipulate a family into ending their baby's life, but included attempts to persuade them to travel out of state to procure the abortion, because they had already passed the legal gestational age of 24 weeks for late-term abortion in their own state. Those of us who try to encourage women to continue their pregnancies hear these types of stories often. It is tragically common for doctors to present "therapeutic abortion" as the normal course of "care" for a pregnancy in which an adverse diagnosis has been made. Many doctors do not even broach the subject of continuing the pregnancy, simply asking pregnant mothers, “when should we schedule your termination?” after a diagnosis. Most medical professionals assume that every woman wants to -- or should want to -- end a pregnancy where a child has been diagnosed with a lethal birth defect. In fact, when researching different lethal congenital disorders, you will often find "termination" listed as the “treatment” for the disorder! This is not a woman-centered or parent-driven attitude, but a physician-driven attitude.
In terms of parents' decision-making, the carry to term path has flourished with organizations which support the parent(s) continuing their pregnancy. The good news is that many hospitals have now created perinatal hospice programs for those using their facilities to deliver their babies. In terms of women's health -- carry to birth has consistently and unequivocally proven to be a healthier medical treatment for women.
Yet individual physicians seem unable to shake the opinion that prematurely ending the baby's life is best. They often deny patients access to pre-natal treatment due to the concept of "medical futility." These narrow-minded physicians decline to answer questions in layman's terms so that parents understand they have a right to continue the pregnancy. They manipulate parents by telling them that birth will be incredibly traumatic for their child, often giving them horror stories about babies being ripped to pieces in the labor process. This particular tactic has been shared in many parents' recollections of speaking to doctors after deciding to continue a pregnancy. Angie Smith's groundbreaking book about continuing a pregnancy after a poor diagnosis, "I Will Carry You" mentions this phenomenon.
As a side note -- many parents who "terminated" a pregnancy after a poor diagnosis are often offended by carry to birth families, feeling that our stories somehow imply that they made their decision due to ignorance or medical pressure. But they generally aren't witnesses to the after-affects of those manipulated into "terminations" -- stories which are often shared in post-loss, pro-life leaning on-line groups. These parents also discount the experiences of those of us who did choose to carry to term and who were relentlessly pushed to terminate over our strident refusals.
Studies have shown that when facing a poor pregnancy diagnosis, parents report being unsupported and rushed by their physicians. Studies have further shown the decision to terminate will often culminate in an abortion within three days of a diagnosis -- clearly not sufficient time to research all of the options. Lastly, studies show parents who continue their pregnancy after a poor diagnosis have better mental health outcomes than those who terminate, and some may be surprised to learn that the earlier gestation of the baby, the greater the negative feelings. So those early detection tests are actually harming women's mental health.
Studies have shown that when facing a poor pregnancy diagnosis, parents report being unsupported and rushed by their physicians. Studies have further shown the decision to terminate will often culminate in an abortion within three days of a diagnosis -- clearly not sufficient time to research all of the options. Lastly, studies show parents who continue their pregnancy after a poor diagnosis have better mental health outcomes than those who terminate, and some may be surprised to learn that the earlier gestation of the baby, the greater the negative feelings. So those early detection tests are actually harming women's mental health.
When you allow exceptions for fetal abnormalities, or even for a fatal fetal diagnosis, you are giving your "blessing" to these women to end the lives of their children, and your position directly affects every single child diagnosed in the womb -- including the one whose parents choose not to have an abortion. You give doctors permission to badger patients into abortion. You are telling the medical community that these babies are acceptable targets for killing.
“I think that the greatest sin of all is bringing children into the world – that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be human beings practically.”
This hits at the root of the abortion exceptions argument. Is a baby diagnosed with a lethal birth anomaly somehow less than human? We shout back and forth about a mother's grief, the horror of being forced to carry a baby who will inevitably die, all the while ignoring the fact that neither of these things have any relevance on the rights of the child who is a human being.
When we legislate to allow medical professionals to respond to unborn children as less than human based on disability (or mode of conception), we cannot expect them to suddenly respond as if some unborn babies are human, just because parents choose to continue a pregnancy.
This hits at the root of the abortion exceptions argument. Is a baby diagnosed with a lethal birth anomaly somehow less than human? We shout back and forth about a mother's grief, the horror of being forced to carry a baby who will inevitably die, all the while ignoring the fact that neither of these things have any relevance on the rights of the child who is a human being.
When we legislate to allow medical professionals to respond to unborn children as less than human based on disability (or mode of conception), we cannot expect them to suddenly respond as if some unborn babies are human, just because parents choose to continue a pregnancy.
Let me explain:
While I don't view all medical professionals as cold-hearted, I do believe that for many, a poor pregnancy diagnosis is just another day at work. Termination of pregnancy may be preferable for him/her in terms of liability, time management, and even paperwork. In essence, it's often to the physician's benefit when a parent ends a preborn baby's life prematurely due to fetal anomaly.
When a parent chooses to continue their pregnancy after a diagnosis, it can become an inconvenience to the physicians who have no emotional attachment to the unborn child they have diagnosed, and who often don't even view the child as human. Even worse, for some physicians, continuing care is viewed as a waste of their time and skills. The more patients a physician has who decide to end their pregnancies, the more accustomed the physician becomes to: a) believing his/her recommendation to be the correct recommendation (vs. a personal opinion on care); and b) believing that the patient who continued their pregnancy is the anomaly.
When a parent chooses to continue their pregnancy after a diagnosis, it can become an inconvenience to the physicians who have no emotional attachment to the unborn child they have diagnosed, and who often don't even view the child as human. Even worse, for some physicians, continuing care is viewed as a waste of their time and skills. The more patients a physician has who decide to end their pregnancies, the more accustomed the physician becomes to: a) believing his/her recommendation to be the correct recommendation (vs. a personal opinion on care); and b) believing that the patient who continued their pregnancy is the anomaly.
When even otherwise pro-life individuals state that one person has the right to end the life of another on grounds of disability or imminent death, the door is cracked open to coerced abortion, and dehumanization. Medical professionals efforts to manipulate women into unasked for abortions is affirmed by the willingness to look the other way for the sake of expediency.
When pro-life individuals promote legislation which includes abortion exceptions, we are directly responsible for the pain of this little family whose story I just shared -- the family who delivered their sweet baby alive just a few weeks ago.
As pro-life persons, we are supposed to be champions for families like this. Please don't be a part of the reason they are struggling.
BIO: Sarah St. Onge is a wife, mother of 4, step-mother of 2, and pro-life blogger for Save The 1. She blogs on grief, loss, and pro-life issues pertaining to continuing a pregnancy after a lethal anomaly has been diagnosed, at www.shebringsjoy.com.
BIO: Sarah St. Onge is a wife, mother of 4, step-mother of 2, and pro-life blogger for Save The 1. She blogs on grief, loss, and pro-life issues pertaining to continuing a pregnancy after a lethal anomaly has been diagnosed, at www.shebringsjoy.com.Wednesday, August 5, 2015
Time Magazine Got It Wrong By Sarah St. Onge
Last week, Time magazine featured a commentary
by Katie Lyon, a mother who terminated her pregnancy due to a poor pregnancy diagnosis. She
chose to terminate her pregnancy in the second trimester due to her unborn
daughter's diagnosis of Spina bifida and other issues which she does not expand
upon. The goal of Ms. Lyon's commentary was to explain how fetal tissue donation works as a way of
showing her support for Planned Parenthood. However, her characterization is a grossly inappropriate defense of Planned
Parenthood's tissue procurement and "donation" process.
I am going to begin this by stating clearly -- this is a response to Ms. Lyon's support of fetal tissue donation through Planned Parenthood, not her decision to terminate her pregnancy. I am personally and politically 100% pro-life with no exceptions, and I do not support fetal tissue donation at any gestation. I do understand what it is like to be given a poor pregnancy diagnosis for your unborn child, and I myself am regrettably post-abortive. This confluence of life experience makes my writing this extremely touchy. My empathy towards a grieving mother is too great to create a dynamic where her decision is something to cheaply debate about on social media. My own culpability in ending the life of my unborn child leaves me very little latitude to pass personal judgment against the mother. However, in the interest of being true to my own ethical and moral beliefs I need to clarify that no matter what the gestation, I believe donating "fetal tissue" is terribly wrong.
As the mother of a child who was diagnosed in the womb with a lethal birth defect and who runs a website for families whose children are diagnosed with my daughter's disorder, I do have a unique insight into the donation of fetal tissue for research purpose. I myself have created agreements with researchers to accept donations from our babies, and many of our families have chosen to make both tissue and whole body donations for science.
The first item I would like to address is the most obvious: it is not necessary to end the life of your child in order to donate tissue for medical research-- and if you continue your pregnancy, in some cases, your baby may be able to donate tissue to other babies who are on recipient waiting lists. Heart valves, corneas and cartilage can all be used to enhance or save the life of a baby waiting for transplant. There are even organizations which help families investigate the complexities of neonatal tissue donation. Purposeful Gift is one of the most prominent organizations helping parents navigate this territory.
Secondly, the type of tissue donation of which she is speaking is nothing like what we have seen from the Planned Parenthood videos. As she herself clearly states, she donated to a specific organization specializing in Spina bifida research. The donation was handled by a genetic counselor in her physician’s office. Chances are (and I could be wrong about this because I'm not certain how she specifically handled her "termination,") she had her procedure in an outpatient setting, most likely in a hospital or surgical center -- not an abortion clinic. I also highly doubt Ms. Lyon's physician haggled with the researchers over storage and transport costs, and most likely did not "part out" her unborn baby. Ms. Lyon's donation was similar to the type of {whole body} donation to science which many people choose during their end-of-life planning. Ms. Lyon's contribution was no doubt appreciated by those who received her daughter's remains. I imagine they were treated with dignity and respect, and even reverence, recognized for what they were -- the remains of a human being with a serious congenital birth defect; though the whole body donation of a precious baby carried to term and delivered to {a short} life would be most appreciated, both by scientist researching specific disorders, and families whose children are waiting for life altering and life saving transplants.
Third, and finally -- in the past few weeks many still images have come out along with the Planned Parenthood videos. Two of them which have made their way into my timeline are these: {1} and {2} . Note that they are marked very clearly with the notation "no abnormalities". I do acknowledge these to be older examples of procurement requests, however, it would still be accurate to claim that due to the nature of research done with stem cells, unless someone is actually studying a congenital anomaly they aren't going to accept tissue donations from babies like Ms. Lyon's. Tissue with abnormalities simply isn't usable for general research or curative medicinal purposes.
I end this repeating my statement above -- at this time, I am not intending to
open a debate on whether Ms. Lyon's choice to terminate her pregnancy was the
correct one or not. This is not because I have no opinion on terminations done
for medical reasons -- I have quite strong opinions on this subject. It's
because it would cheapen the life of her precious baby to turn her into nothing
more than an internet debate. My own commentary was only necessary because her
justification of Planned Parenthood's practices was inappropriate, and could be
used to further an agenda which purports to be compassionate, but is instead
avaricious.
Two additional notes:
{For clarification purposes -- when most people think "stem cells" they are thinking of pluripotent embryonic stem cells, which come from discarded IVF blastocysts, and are not the same as the fetal stem cells which are being harvested by Planned Parenthood. Fetal stem cells are used in a similar fashion to adult stem cells, and the utilization of them is both unnecessary and -- some believe -- scientifically inappropriate.}
{All terms used to identify developmental stages of an unborn child's life in the womb are the common scientific terms, and in no way used to imply that an unborn child is anything less than human at any stage of gestation.}
BIO: Sarah St. Onge is a wife, mother of 4,
step-mother of 2, and pro-life blogger for Save The 1. She blogs on grief, loss, and pro-life
issues pertaining to continuing a pregnancy after a lethal anomaly has been
diagnosed, at www.shebringsjoy.com.
I am going to begin this by stating clearly -- this is a response to Ms. Lyon's support of fetal tissue donation through Planned Parenthood, not her decision to terminate her pregnancy. I am personally and politically 100% pro-life with no exceptions, and I do not support fetal tissue donation at any gestation. I do understand what it is like to be given a poor pregnancy diagnosis for your unborn child, and I myself am regrettably post-abortive. This confluence of life experience makes my writing this extremely touchy. My empathy towards a grieving mother is too great to create a dynamic where her decision is something to cheaply debate about on social media. My own culpability in ending the life of my unborn child leaves me very little latitude to pass personal judgment against the mother. However, in the interest of being true to my own ethical and moral beliefs I need to clarify that no matter what the gestation, I believe donating "fetal tissue" is terribly wrong.
As the mother of a child who was diagnosed in the womb with a lethal birth defect and who runs a website for families whose children are diagnosed with my daughter's disorder, I do have a unique insight into the donation of fetal tissue for research purpose. I myself have created agreements with researchers to accept donations from our babies, and many of our families have chosen to make both tissue and whole body donations for science.
The first item I would like to address is the most obvious: it is not necessary to end the life of your child in order to donate tissue for medical research-- and if you continue your pregnancy, in some cases, your baby may be able to donate tissue to other babies who are on recipient waiting lists. Heart valves, corneas and cartilage can all be used to enhance or save the life of a baby waiting for transplant. There are even organizations which help families investigate the complexities of neonatal tissue donation. Purposeful Gift is one of the most prominent organizations helping parents navigate this territory.
Secondly, the type of tissue donation of which she is speaking is nothing like what we have seen from the Planned Parenthood videos. As she herself clearly states, she donated to a specific organization specializing in Spina bifida research. The donation was handled by a genetic counselor in her physician’s office. Chances are (and I could be wrong about this because I'm not certain how she specifically handled her "termination,") she had her procedure in an outpatient setting, most likely in a hospital or surgical center -- not an abortion clinic. I also highly doubt Ms. Lyon's physician haggled with the researchers over storage and transport costs, and most likely did not "part out" her unborn baby. Ms. Lyon's donation was similar to the type of {whole body} donation to science which many people choose during their end-of-life planning. Ms. Lyon's contribution was no doubt appreciated by those who received her daughter's remains. I imagine they were treated with dignity and respect, and even reverence, recognized for what they were -- the remains of a human being with a serious congenital birth defect; though the whole body donation of a precious baby carried to term and delivered to {a short} life would be most appreciated, both by scientist researching specific disorders, and families whose children are waiting for life altering and life saving transplants.
This is very different than the "tissue donation" for stem cell research we see in the
Planned Parenthood videos. The callousness with which the workers treat the
remains of beings even they identify as humans is appalling. There is no
appreciation, no understanding, and definitely no reverence. These babies are
parted out for indifferent researchers. There is no correlation between the two
circumstances.
Third, and finally -- in the past few weeks many still images have come out along with the Planned Parenthood videos. Two of them which have made their way into my timeline are these: {1} and {2} . Note that they are marked very clearly with the notation "no abnormalities". I do acknowledge these to be older examples of procurement requests, however, it would still be accurate to claim that due to the nature of research done with stem cells, unless someone is actually studying a congenital anomaly they aren't going to accept tissue donations from babies like Ms. Lyon's. Tissue with abnormalities simply isn't usable for general research or curative medicinal purposes.
I end this repeating my statement above -- at this time, I am not intending to
open a debate on whether Ms. Lyon's choice to terminate her pregnancy was the
correct one or not. This is not because I have no opinion on terminations done
for medical reasons -- I have quite strong opinions on this subject. It's
because it would cheapen the life of her precious baby to turn her into nothing
more than an internet debate. My own commentary was only necessary because her
justification of Planned Parenthood's practices was inappropriate, and could be
used to further an agenda which purports to be compassionate, but is instead
avaricious.Two additional notes:
{For clarification purposes -- when most people think "stem cells" they are thinking of pluripotent embryonic stem cells, which come from discarded IVF blastocysts, and are not the same as the fetal stem cells which are being harvested by Planned Parenthood. Fetal stem cells are used in a similar fashion to adult stem cells, and the utilization of them is both unnecessary and -- some believe -- scientifically inappropriate.}
{All terms used to identify developmental stages of an unborn child's life in the womb are the common scientific terms, and in no way used to imply that an unborn child is anything less than human at any stage of gestation.}
BIO: Sarah St. Onge is a wife, mother of 4,
step-mother of 2, and pro-life blogger for Save The 1. She blogs on grief, loss, and pro-life
issues pertaining to continuing a pregnancy after a lethal anomaly has been
diagnosed, at www.shebringsjoy.com.Wednesday, June 24, 2015
My Child is a Fetal Anomaly, Exception, and Medical Decision??? by Brad Smith
The South Carolina legislature is working to pass a 20-week abortion ban that will not include rape or incest exceptions; however it will have an exception. Dr. Robert Ridgeway, democrat representative, said their committee decided to add exceptions only for “fetal anomaly.”
“Ridgeway, a trained medical doctor, said that the fetal anomaly exception should be left on because it’s essentially a medical decision to be made by a doctor.” (quote from a story at www.RHRealityCheck.org)
Let’s stop and think about that for a moment. Here is a doctor referring to a child in the womb as a “fetal anomaly.” He also says “it’s essentially a medical decision.” Dr. Ridgeway, who made you, the doctor, the arbiter of life and death? Why do you refer to a disabled child as a medical decision? Your statement does not even consider the parents in the decision making. For years, I have been telling about doctors who do not want these special needs children to even be born. In one statement, you have confirmed everything about the kind of doctor who pretends to be God.
Well Dr. Ridgeway, I would like to introduce you to one of your “fetal anomaly exceptions.” Kayden is a sweet young man with Trisomy 18 which is considered by most doctors to be “incompatible with life.”
Let’s stop and think about that for a moment. Here is a doctor referring to a child in the womb as a “fetal anomaly.” He also says “it’s essentially a medical decision.” Dr. Ridgeway, who made you, the doctor, the arbiter of life and death? Why do you refer to a disabled child as a medical decision? Your statement does not even consider the parents in the decision making. For years, I have been telling about doctors who do not want these special needs children to even be born. In one statement, you have confirmed everything about the kind of doctor who pretends to be God.
Well Dr. Ridgeway, I would like to introduce you to one of your “fetal anomaly exceptions.” Kayden is a sweet young man with Trisomy 18 which is considered by most doctors to be “incompatible with life.”
Today I read a post by Kayden’s mom, Marta McClanahan, and I thought that you should read it too.
In this post, Marta expresses so well the struggles, but also the unparalleled joys of parenting a special needs child. Dr. Ridgeway, as a fellow parent of a Trisomy 18 child, I understand exactly how much Marta loves her son and how much Kayden loves his family. Clearly he is not a fetal anomaly, exception, nor medical decision. He is a human being with inalienable rights and deserves his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. No doctor or person has the right to make a “medical decision” to snuff out the life of a child simply because of a disability.
Dr. Ridgeway, after reading this and seeing Kayden, I only have one more question for you. Why do you despise children with disabilities and want to make them an exception to be terminated?
My sweetest Kayden is 14 years old TODAY!! WOW *tears* Tears of JOY and tears of sadness all in one. We are so incredibly BLESSED and thankful that we have Kayden in our lives. Most of you know that we were told Kayden wouldn't live more than a couple weeks or months if we were lucky, but here we are, and he has come so far and is so amazing in so many ways.
As I was walking through the store last night, it HIT me that Kayden is 14 and should be asking for all kinds of stuff for his birthday. He should be playing sports and running around with friends, annoying the heck out of me and crushing on GIRLS! It saddens me that he can't talk or walk and has to eat his food through a tube. I kept thinking of the fact that no matter how old he is, his life is never safe and we truly have no clue how long he will be here with us; especially considering that we have lost a lot of Trisomy friends this year. Kayden is getting so big, and I worry about the fact that I can’t afford an accessible minivan and then wonder how much longer will my back take carrying him? With these things running through my head, I couldn't help crying as I walked through the store. I just couldn't hold it in. I don't think of these things often at all in order to LIVE every day and because Kayden does very well and is so strong. But for some reason, my fears took over my thoughts last night.
Today I SMILE, and quickly I am reminded looking through all his photos just how amazing, happy, strong and HEALTHY he is. I’m THANKFUL that he is smaller for his age so I CAN carry him and love feeling him pat my back and laugh as I do. I wouldn't change that for anything. This smiley boy, whose grin warms everyone's heart just by looking at him, has done so much in his 14 years that most other "able bodied" people have not.
He can say “momma” and sign mom and dad. That in itself is amazing as many Trisomy kids cannot. He has dipped his sweet bootie in the ocean and grazed his feet through the soft sands of Florida and California more than once. He has been to BOTH Disneyland and Disney world; down the water slides at Wisconsin Dells; felt the warmth of Arizona's sun; strolled down the board walk in Chicago; enjoyed camp bonfires in Illinois; had fun on rides at MOA "the biggest mall in America;" has won turtle races; zip lined with his momma; ridden in go karts; has touched so many lives bringing others to the Lord; and helped SAVE other Trisomy babies by his story being shared with doctors and other parents who almost didn't go through with their pregnancy. Because of Kayden, I have started my own non-profit called "Trisomy Families" and have gone to speak at Bioethics conferences to help FIGHT for kids just like him.
YES, there are so many things Kayden can't do but there are so many things he CAN!!! Anyone who knows my adorable amazing son will tell you that even though he can’t talk (well, he does say momma), his eyes and smile say it all. He LOVES life, and he LOVE'S his family, and we LOVE him too, and that's all that matters. HAPPY BIRTHDAY MY SWEET BOY!!!! I pray for many more. Thank you Jesus for my baby boy.
In this post, Marta expresses so well the struggles, but also the unparalleled joys of parenting a special needs child. Dr. Ridgeway, as a fellow parent of a Trisomy 18 child, I understand exactly how much Marta loves her son and how much Kayden loves his family. Clearly he is not a fetal anomaly, exception, nor medical decision. He is a human being with inalienable rights and deserves his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. No doctor or person has the right to make a “medical decision” to snuff out the life of a child simply because of a disability.
Dr. Ridgeway, after reading this and seeing Kayden, I only have one more question for you. Why do you despise children with disabilities and want to make them an exception to be terminated?
Happy BIRTHday Kayden!!
Brad Smith and his wife Jesi are Save The 1 pro-life speakers @ savethe1.com from Rochester Hills, Michigan. Learn more about Brad and Jesi at www.keepingourfaith.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)