I heard a Doctor in an interview say in ten years of practice at a Californis Hospital the procedure had never been done.
The Dr. explained the remote reason it would be done to save the mother undergoing emergency sugury. Typically after a auto accident where both woman and child were traumatized.
The Dr said under the Law now they are required to let the woman die and save the unborn. Is this a little whacky. To reverse priority???
2007-01-16 08:30:00 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I apologize for the wording at the end. priority should have been in a preceeding sentence to make it clear Doctors in emergency rooms do indeed pritorize procedures.
The law now puts the fetus in a higer priority than the woman. This does not in any way suggest Doctors are looking for a chance to let injured women die. Or they do not treat pregnant women.
2007-01-16 09:52:40 · update #1
Our Republican leaders have been having weekly conference calls with a meth head minister that spent his congregations money on gay prostitutes. We apologize for any unusual laws that may have been enacted during this time. We are working on ways to correct the problem. We appreciate your patience.
2007-01-16 08:35:41 · answer #1 · answered by Stop_the_Klan@yahoo.com 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes, it's so rare. The only case I heard of, the fetus didn't have a skull(basically a severe birth defect) and would be born dead anyway. The mother was indeed at risk being pregnant and knowing the baby would be born dead...the only reason Dems have voted against it is because it doesn't include language making an exception to save the mother's life. Let's set the record straight. Americans have been targeted by a campaign of disinformation. The federal abortion ban has nothing to do with late abortions at all — it would ban safe medical procedures as early as 12 to 15 weeks. Third trimester abortions are clearly illegal, unless there is a medical emergency that threatens the heath or life of the woman. We have to be very, very clear about what people really mean when they use provocative non-medical language.
I had to add-women themselves seem to not know their lives can be in danger when they're pregnant. And the more pregnant, the more dangerous. The larger the baby, the more dangerous. The "danger" of birth is nothing compared to the pregnancy itself.
2007-01-16 08:44:17 · answer #2 · answered by Middleclassandnotquiet 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, the way the Republicans frame the question it is a hoax. The Republican version of the bill is ALWAYS unconstitutional in that it excludes exceptions for the life of the mother. The Republican party KNOWS that it will be thrown out of court because of this. The fact is that the Democrats also author the same bill that HAS the exception for the life of the mother, a bill that the Court WILL uphold but the Republicans know that if the Democrats bill were to be passed it would take the issue off of the table, they don't care if lives are saved, they just want the issue so they pass the same unconstitutional version of the bill over and over again and then they blame the Democrats when it is thrown out of court again.
2007-01-16 08:50:54 · answer #3 · answered by egg_zaktly 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
partial birth abortions i'm assuming are rare, but do happen. but it wouldn't save the mother to do one. because the mother would still have to give birth. they deliver the baby until the head is out then stab the baby at the base of it's skull and then finish the delivery. the sad thing is that the baby has a large chance of survival in these cases as premature babies. so it's like murdering a new born baby. so really there's no good reason for doing one. plus in being a mother myself i would die for the children i have so i would undoubtedly die for one where i was that far along in pregnancy to save my baby's life. and if i'm in good enough shape to give birth anyway why not let my baby live. i would definitely want to kill the doctor that killed my baby once i realized what had happened. many people are misinformed of what the procedure actually entails. i don't understand why anyone would even do that procedure. i feel that the trauma of giving birth happens either way so how is it saving the mother by making her partially give birth then kill her baby then let her finish delivering the baby? why not just do a c section or let her deliver and try to save both the mother and the child?
2007-01-16 08:40:35 · answer #4 · answered by butter_cream1981 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
properly, quite your aspect right it truly is basically about partial beginning abortions, or maybe as I believe you, i quite in reality agree previous the 0.33 trimester, previously it truly is iffy. To be frank, developmental methods are puzzling to guage, and for the reason that babies advance in the womb at distinct prices we gained't be fullyyt particular that each and each toddler in this crew is without congnisense. All we would want to be guaranteed of is that those that choose an abortion will be allowed to get them that late in the game. you could talk all you opt for about the human beings that take advantage of it, it doesn't make a huge difference. the very reality of the count number is that for most motives abortion is major. Why am I holding all this? i'm no longer likely to target to take care of Obama, he can do this properly adequate on his own. really, i visit only clarify that the technique of decreasing on abortions is infinitely regressive. once human beings come to a call that one type of abortion previously the 0.33 trimester is determined hostile to, it helps similar movements to take position at different degrees. it truly is a lot less about the very incontrovertible reality that anybody level will be rejected, it truly is that really a lot anybody strains up on a million of both facets of the abortion challenge. both they are fullyyt hostile to it, or fullyyt for it. and through that, there might want to be little or no settlement, and no middle floor.
2016-11-24 21:42:59 · answer #5 · answered by lorrie 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"The Dr said under the Law now they are required to let the woman die and save the unborn."
I've never heard of this and don't think it's true. It's very much against public policy.
2007-01-16 08:35:31 · answer #6 · answered by pinwheelbandit 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
86% of people disagree with late-term abortion. 57% agree with first term abortion. I think it is definitely just a way to inflame voters. It is disgusting. It makes me sick. The baby is no longer a fetus if it is late term.
2007-01-16 08:52:06 · answer #7 · answered by Jamie R 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That would be horrible and just plain diabloical to let the woman die.
2007-01-16 08:35:27 · answer #8 · answered by brian2412 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
really well come down to atlanta and ask them they do it them all the time....i know of two women who have had them...one at 7 months and one at 8 1/2...it wasn't for medical reasons...threat to mother or baby being deformed. the 8 1/2 was upset because her husband of 6 yrs left her and she didn't know how she was going to cope the 7 month one....got sick of being pregnant...no lie that was her excuse.
2007-01-16 08:36:36 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Dr. Tiller performs them regularly. Or as he calls it, "2nd/3rd Trimester Therapeutic Abortion Care."
http://www.drtiller.com/medir.html
Gotta love euphemisms.
Read more on our friend, Dr. Tiller.
2007-01-16 08:37:29 · answer #10 · answered by theearlybirdy 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋