28 replies to this topic

[StMichael]

http://www.newser.co...n-oklahoma.html

(AP) � The Oklahoma Senate today overrode Gov. Brad Henry's vetoes and put into law two restrictive measures on abortion. One of the laws requires women to undergo an ultrasound and listen to a detailed description of the fetus before getting an abortion. An anti-abortion group called it one of the most restrictive measures in the country.

The other prohibits pregnant women from seeking damages if physicians fail to tell them their fetus has birth defects. Supporters say it's an attempt to keep pregnant women from discriminating against fetuses with disabilities. "Both laws will be challenged and, in all likelihood, overturned by the courts as unconstitutional," said Gov. Brad Henry.

[SaintOfVirtue]

Woot! Woot!

let's hope pray the laws pass!

[CatherineM]

Oklahoma isn't called the buckle of the bible belt for nothing.

[Ora et Labora]

Best news I've heard all day! Go OK. There's more then just the Clear Creek Monks there!

[CatherineM]

Best news I've heard all day! Go OK. There's more then just the Clear Creek Monks there!

Yeah, lots of Evangelicals and Southern Baptists. Catholics are only 5% of the population.

[KnightofChrist]

Finally a Senate thats full of win, instead of well you know...

[Oik]

Finally a Senate thats full of win, instead of well you know...

It's strange how many complain about being informed of a (so-called) medical decision (although abortion is clearly not a medical decision, but murdering of an innocent life) as a restricition. Most people (myself included) would actually like to know what the doctor is doing BEFORE he does what he needs to when they go for a visit.

[goldenchild17]

The other prohibits pregnant women from seeking damages if physicians fail to tell them their fetus has birth defects.

Very good news. However I don't know that I'm comfortable with this bit.

[ThePenciledOne]

Yeah, lots of Evangelicals and Southern Baptists. Catholics are only 5% of the population.

Well, at least someone is getting the idea here.

[Slappo]

Very good news. However I don't know that I'm comfortable with this bit.

50 years ago no one knew if their child had a birth defect... but now we can sue doctors if the doctor doesn't/forgets to tell us?

[goldenchild17]

50 years ago no one knew if their child had a birth defect... but now we can sue doctors if the doctor doesn't/forgets to tell us?

They didn't know 50 years ago. We have the ability to know now. Will that lead to abortions? Maybe for some. However I think its important. Maybe its just a personal issue for me, having been born with a serious birth defect. Knowing ahead of time can prepare a parent to learn how to properly care for someone with a disability. I think this is information that a doctor should be responsible for sharing, or at the least information that a parent should be responsible for asking for.

I think if a doctor simply forgets, then that is one thing, though I would question the doctor's ability to do his job if he did forget something as important as that. But if he willfully withheld this information then yes, I think one should be able to take some sort of action (although I think lawsuits are grossly overused.)

Edited by goldenchild17, 27 April 2010 - 11:36 PM.

[Archaeology cat]

They didn't know 50 years ago. We have the ability to know now. Will that lead to abortions? Maybe for some. However I think its important. Maybe its just a personal issue for me, having been born with a serious birth defect. Knowing ahead of time can prepare a parent to learn how to properly care for someone with a disability. I think this is information that a doctor should be responsible for sharing, or at the least information that a parent should be responsible for asking for.

I think if a doctor simply forgets, then that is one thing, though I would question the doctor's ability to do his job if he did forget something as important as that. But if he willfully withheld this information then yes, I think one should be able to take some sort of action (although I think lawsuits are grossly overused.)

I can see where you're coming from about being prepared, but I can also see why doctors wouldn't want to inform parents of that in case they then decided to abort. I know when I was pregnant with my son, they asked me if I wanted to have the tests for birth defects. I was unsure, so the next question was if I would "do anything about it" if he had defects (they clarified this to mean aborting him). I was shocked at being asked that, but I can see how, if a woman was unsure or didn't have support from family or whatever, how she might easily be swayed by that. Then there's the time I was waiting for the bus and a lady was telling me that her granddaughter was pregnant, but was going to abort because the child likely had Downs Syndrome. Of course, those tests aren't foolproof. So yes, I'd like to think that any parent receiving that information would simply use it to be informed and be prepared, but I also think it likely that at least some abortions would result from knowing that. Similar in a way to how some doctors won't inform the parents on the gender of the child in order to avoid gender-selective abortions. Different scale, yes, but similar in principle.

[Nihil Obstat]

Are there cases where certain birth defects would necessitate the mother and father making some sorts of changes in their lives (to prepare for whatever challenges might be coming) before the birth of the child? In that case, knowing ahead of time might be necessary.

[goldenchild17]

I can see where you're coming from about being prepared, but I can also see why doctors wouldn't want to inform parents of that in case they then decided to abort. I know when I was pregnant with my son, they asked me if I wanted to have the tests for birth defects. I was unsure, so the next question was if I would "do anything about it" if he had defects (they clarified this to mean aborting him). I was shocked at being asked that, but I can see how, if a woman was unsure or didn't have support from family or whatever, how she might easily be swayed by that. Then there's the time I was waiting for the bus and a lady was telling me that her granddaughter was pregnant, but was going to abort because the child likely had Downs Syndrome. Of course, those tests aren't foolproof. So yes, I'd like to think that any parent receiving that information would simply use it to be informed and be prepared, but I also think it likely that at least some abortions would result from knowing that. Similar in a way to how some doctors won't inform the parents on the gender of the child in order to avoid gender-selective abortions. Different scale, yes, but similar in principle.

Like I said, its probably just personal for me. I just can't imagine a baby having some sort of big problem that a doctor would choose not to inform the parents of. Yes they could choose to abort, and that would be a tragedy. But personally I just don't see how that shows the doctor having any compassion for the baby's condition.

I can see your point to an extent and I do see the problems that it could (and probably in many cases, does) lead to abortion. But I don't agree with the gender selection principle. I think they are two different things entirely. It is not crucial to the health of the baby for the parents to know the sex of the baby (My parents have known the sex of some of my siblings, and not known for some of my other siblings and for all practical purposes we turned out no different.) It's also not necessarily important to know if they are going to have a cleft lip or something of that nature. But I do think some conditions need to prepared for, at the very least prepared for mentally by the parents.

that said, you're probably right. Just my opinion based on what I've experienced with my own condition.

Edited by goldenchild17, 28 April 2010 - 02:30 AM.

[Archaeology cat]

Like I said, its probably just personal for me. I just can't imagine a baby having some sort of big problem that a doctor would choose not to inform the parents of. Yes they could choose to abort, and that would be a tragedy. But personally I just don't see how that shows the doctor having any compassion for the baby's condition.

I can see your point to an extent and I do see the problems that it could (and probably in many cases, does) lead to abortion. But I don't agree with the gender selection principle. I think they are two different things entirely. It is not crucial to the health of the baby for the parents to know the sex of the baby (My parents have known the sex of some of my siblings, and not known for some of my other siblings and for all practical purposes we turned out no different.) It's also not necessarily important to know if they are going to have a cleft lip or something of that nature. But I do think some conditions need to prepared for, at the very least prepared for mentally by the parents.

that said, you're probably right. Just my opinion based on what I've experienced with my own condition.

Oh, I agree with you that I can't imagine a doctor keeping that info to himself (if he knew it) or the parents choosing to abort based on that. A lot of the time a definite diagnosis can't be made prior to birth, just likelihoods, I think. Or at least that's what the testing I was offered would have told me. I do agree that gender selection is a different thing, and not at all on the same scale, just that that info is sometimes withheld for the same reasons.

[goldenchild17]

yeah. I think its just a difficult situation. I don't really know what the perfect solution is right now without spending a lot more time studying it (something I might be interested in taking up.) I just know that I'm uncomfortable with the concept of withholding the information, although I know the concerns if the info is shared. I did hear something about some insurance companies not covering children with down's syndrome if the condition is reported before birth. So that would be one reason not to want to know about it. I'm still looking for more on that though.

I guess I just don't like that it was written like that into the law when it's really not such a cut and dry situation.

[goldenchild17]

I do suppose if anything, if a couple didn't want to deal with the concerns of a disabled baby they could always give it up for adoption, which while not perfect would be better than abortion as an alternative. May be better overall just not to know.

Though I do think from a legal standpoint this law (or this part of the law at least) won't probably stand for long.

[CatherineM]

There are some birth defects that require immediate action after birth, so you would need to know so that the birth could happen where there was a good NICU.

Neurosurgeons and OB's carry the highest rates of medical malpractice insurance of any specialties. There's a reason for that, lots of law suits. Now that families are only having one child, it has to be perfect, or else.

[Archaeology cat]

Neurosurgeons and OB's carry the highest rates of medical malpractice insurance of any specialties. There's a reason for that, lots of law suits. Now that families are only having one child, it has to be perfect, or else.

Also why VBACs aren't as common in the US.

[kamiller42]

They didn't know 50 years ago. We have the ability to know now. Will that lead to abortions?

Baby boy survives for nearly two days after abortion
A baby boy abandoned by doctors to die after a botched abortion was found alive nearly two days later.

The 22-week infant later died in intensive care at a hospital in the mother's home town of Rossano in southern Italy.

The mother, pregnant for the first time, had opted for an abortion after prenatal scans suggested that her baby was disabled.

However the infant survived the procedure, carried out on Saturday in the Rossano Calabria hospital, and was left by doctors to die.

He was discovered alive the following day � some 20 hours after the operation � by Father Antonio Martello, the hospital chaplain, who had gone to pray beside his body.

He found that the baby, wrapped in a sheet with his umbilical cord still attached, was moving and breathing.

The priest raised the alarm and doctors immediately arranged for the infant to be taken to a specialist neonatal unit at a neighbouring hospital where he died on Monday morning.

Source