Landmark lawsuit filed: pro-life nurse forced to assist with late-term abortion
On May 24, 2009, pro-life operating room RN Cathy DeCarlo was on call at Mt. Sinai Hospital in New York City, where she had worked for 5 years.
Mt. Sinai gets $200 million in federal funding annually, so even though it commits late-term abortions it is obligated by the Church Amendment not to force pro-life staff to help.
Dr. Michael Silverstein (pictured right) called the OR to schedule an “emergency” abortion of a 22-week pre-eclamptic patient. The patient was not on magnesium sulfate, her blood pressures were not in high risk range, and Silverstein even charted her as “Category II,” not “Category I,” meaning he thought she required surgery not immediately but within 6 hours….
Nevertheless, to make a long story short, DeCarlo was forced to assist with a D&E dismemberment abortion. Read the details of the federal lawsuit, filed yesterday by the Alliance Defense Fund, here.
Explained ADF attorney Matt Bowman, “Requiring a devout, Catholic nurse to participate in a late-term abortion in order to remain employed is illegal, unethical, and violates her rights of conscience.”
DeCarlo is asking the court for an injunction to stop the hospital, where she still works, from punishing her for filing her lawsuit. She also is asking the court to force the hospital to give back a portion of the $200 million it got in federal funding this year for violating the Church Amendment. And she has asked for an unnamed amount in damages.
ADF considers this a strong case. If the court takes no action against Mt. Sinai, it is refusing to enforce federal conscience protections.
Another interesting component: As most know, President Obama’s Department of Health & Human Services, overseen by rabid pro-abort Kathleen Sebelius (pictured left), is trying to stop enforcement of conscience protections, which President Bush enacted at the end of 2008.
This means that in the case of Mt. Sinai, DHHS wouldn’t penalize the hospital by withdrawing funds. It would refuse to enforce federal law.
In that regard, an interesting observation. On DHHS’s web page of laws and regulations it enforces, the Church Amendment – 42 U.S.C. § 300a7(c) – is NOT listed. I think ADF should poke DHHS on this.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
WAIT a minute! Was this nurse really so pro-life?
She did participate in this, did she not? To keep her job? Nurses have pretty good job security, dont they? I’m sorry, but keeping a job pales in comparison to keeping a baby alive anyway. No contest.
I can understand violating your convictions on something else, but not life and death when there was no threat of physical injury to this nurse herself.
This doesn’t make any sense. It would be much quicker and safer to perform an emergency c-section.
Something smells very fishy.
I agree, Lauren. I doubt this mother was informed what an excruciatingly painful death her baby would be subjected to with a D&E. Nurse DeCarlo ended up assisting, then? Does that make her case stronger than if she had refused and been terminated? I mean, her employment terminated. I suppose they could always concoct a story to say she was fired for other reasons had she walked out. This poor little one, he/she was killed two days before my mom died. I trust they are both in Jesus’ presence.
This is awful. Just awful. :(
This doesn’t make any sense. It would be much quicker and safer to perform an emergency c-section.
Posted by: Lauren at July 22, 2009 5:07 PM
The whole pre-eclampsia condition is an irrelevant side story hardly related to the “need” for an abortion. It’s fairly common knowledge that mothers who want their babies and develop pre-eclampsia (example: me) are not treated with abortion, but rather emergency c-section or delivery, like you say. But framing the story in the context of an emergency procedure for a sick woman makes it seem significantly less disturbing than the truth: this was an elective procedure with the intended goal of killing an unborn baby and a pro-life nurse was forced to participate.
While we don’t know the specifics of this woman’s general health outside of the pre-eclampsia, I wonder why no attempt was made to scedule an emergency delivery (vaginal or c-section) instead, as it’s apparent that if the woman carried it this far along, it was very much a wanted and planned pregnancy.
While a child born that premature would have a slim chance of survival, why not attempt to save the life of BOTH the mother and child as this seems more consistant with the medical code of ethics and Hippocratic Oath. I’m betting that doctor didn’t give her that choice and told her she “needed” an abortion.
A precursor to Obama Care.
Rachael, you’re probably right. It’s very sad. When my water broke at 23 weeks, I was given the option to either go ahead with the delivery or try to stop my labor.
I was (and still am) flabergasted that it would even be a question. My response was “Uh..please do everything you can to save my baby!”
I wonder if this women’s doctors even gave her the option of trying to save her baby.
Something just doesn’t seem right here. This woman had normal blood pressure and was not on magnesium sulfate. Was every effort being made to treat this woman? Exactly how was she being treated and what efforts were made to prevent the “need” for an abortion?
Pre-elampsia does not in and of itself necessitate abortion or c-section. For years these women were treated and monitored, c-section being a preferred method of treatment if necessary. These women could also deliver normally at full term.
Well they wouldn’t do a c-section to try and save a 22wk baby, because they won’t survive outside the womb until at least 24wks gestation. I have had four preemies, my earliest was born at 26wks gestation but my water broke at 24wks and they told me, had I had her at 23wks, they wouldn’t have tried to save her. However, there was no reason not to try and save the pregnancy however. Like they said, the patient wasn’t on magnisium sulfate, and was not an emergent case. The only reason they would decide to terminate a pregnancy at that point would be because the mother wanted to do so. God forgive them all.
They put me in the hospital before my daughter was born and TRIED to treat my pre-ecclampsia. My b/p went back up a few days later, and they put me BACK in the hospital to monitor the baby. They started my labor (at33 weeks),because they decided the baby needed to come out of there. I was in labor for 19 1/2 hours (!) before they decided she was no longer tolerating the contractions, so they did an ’emergency’ c-section. Not ONCE was abortion ever mentioned as an option to ‘treat’ my condition. My daughter was fine, by the way. 4 pounds, 2 ounces, and is STILL perfectly healthy.
I still don’t understand this though. Even if she had REFUSED, and been terminated, there is such a nursing shortage these days(and in Canada, also)that she wouldn’t have been out of a job..so why DIDN’T she? I would have ABSOLUTELY refused to participate in killing an innocent baby…but maybe that’s just me?
time to abort Michael Silverstein…
Pamela, I agree completely and my 14 y/o exclaimed she would not have stayed, that’s why I was questioning if staying for it made the nurse’s case stronger. I just cannot imagine what kind of sadist “dr” Silverstein must be to dismember a 22 week baby to “cure” preeclampsia when so many other roads could have been taken. Even when you merely consider the damage to the mother, a C-section presents much less risk. You’ve got to wonder how much information this mother was given.
I have a question:
Did this “doctor” know the nurse/know this nurse was pro-life/ask specifically for this nurse?
He might just be a sadist.
at “Mount Sinai.” Named after the spot where God said don’t sacrifice your children to Molech. Maybe it is OK to sacrifice children to the almighty dollar.
I see that this comment has passed moderation. Should I then conclude that our host is okay with death threats?
From the statement of facts:
73. Neither the receptionist (according to what he told Mrs. DeCarlo later) nor Mrs. DeCarlo knew that she was being assigned to a second trimester abortion on a live child.
75. While she was in the room, the case cart arrived with instruments that Mrs. DeCarlo recognized as being possibly used for non-miscarriage abortions.
79. She asked Dr. Strong about the case. Dr. Strong explained to her that woman was diagnosed with preeclampsia, and that the preborn child in the case was still alive.
80. Mrs. DeCarlo then knew that she had been assigned to a case where a living 22-week-old preborn child would be dismembered and killed.
So what did this nurse do:
1. She told Dr. Strong that she would not participate in the abortion.
2. She called her nursing supervisor Ms. Fran Carpo and objected.
3. Ms Carpo then called her supervisor Ms. Ella Shapiro to ask that Mrs. DeCarlo be excused.
4. Mrs. DeCarlo contacted the receptionist about other nurses who might take the case.
5. A few minutes later Ms. Carpo phoned Mrs. DeCarlo back and told her she must assist in the D&E abortion.
6. Mrs. DeCarlo was told that Ms. Shapiro had denied her request, that Dr. Silverstein had also insisted she participate because the patient was being compromised by her refusal.
7. Mrs. DeCarlo pleaded, crying but was threatened with being charged with “insubordination and patient abandonment”
The document stated that Mrs. DeCarlo agreed to participate because her family could not afford to loose the income from her job.
After reading the rest of this sad story I have the following observations:
I know Mrs. DeCarlo was under tremendous pressure at the time of the operation but she should have refused. At the least, in times like this, and I’ve had a few of these terrible moral dilemmas myself, one must ask oneself, “Can I live with what I am about to do? Now. In 5 years time?” One must also put into perspective what is being asked, “Am I willing to help kill an unborn baby so that my family can continue to have a comfortable living? Am I willing to sacrifice for my belief that an unborn life is just that – life and sacred?”
It’s also apparent the hospital repeatedly attempted to coerce and force through emotional and financial and professional intimidation, this poor nurse to sign a document saying she would further assist in abortions.
So are these the “reasonable” objections that Obama is speaking of when he means protecting health workers right to refuse abortion participation.
We all know that eventually ALL health care workers will be required to comply with abortion. THere is the increasing view nowadays among politicians if you don’t support abortion, homosexual marriage and adoption rights you have no business working in a relevant field. Christians need not apply.
Jasper: time to abort Michael Silverstein…
I see that this comment has passed moderation. Should I then conclude that our host is okay with death threats?
Posted by: grendelkhan at July 23, 2009 8:10 AM
Not the first time for our friend Jasper, probably not the last. Wonder what the reaction would be if someone said “time to abort Jasper?”
Why am I not surprised? It’s a terrible thing when the government is slowly and quietly working to outlaw our conscience.
So what happens when having a conscience becomes passe? Lawless society and completely depraved people come to mind… oh, wait. We might already have a lot of that.
I remember in the news about a decade ago…a baby born at 20 WEEKS and the baby lived. so 22 weeks….shouldn’t you at least TRY? Or deliver the baby and allow a nurse to hold her as she dies…not rip her arms and legs off!!!! pulease! At least if she had been delivered early and died her mom could have still held her baby’s body…what is this mom supposed to hold, a pile of bloody flesh?
This nurse has no excuse. SHE STILL ASSISTED! I would have told the “doctor” what I really thought of him and refused to help. And if they had fired me I would have filed a lawsuit then. That nurse did the wrong thing. period.
And yes, for the record I completely agree that this nurse made the wrong decision. I feel bad for her considering the pressure they put her under to coerce her to participate, but sometimes you just have to do the right thing no matter what the cost. This was no small matter (the life of a child), and I would have absolutely refused to participate. God provides for those who are persecuted for doing the right thing in His eyes. And it is absolutely correct that there is much demand for nurses. She could have found another job quickly, I’d wager.
That’s what Jesus did. That’s what we’re expected to do.
/agree
Jasper: time to abort Michael Silverstein…
I see that this comment has passed moderation. Should I then conclude that our host is okay with death threats?
Posted by: grendelkhan at July 23, 2009 8:10 AM
Not the first time for our friend Jasper, probably not the last. Wonder what the reaction would be if someone said “time to abort Jasper?”
Posted by: Hal at July 23, 2009 9:17 AM
Fair enough, Hal, but then why is it NOT ok to say “Time to abort Michael Silverstein” or “Time to abort Jasper” and it IS ok for thousands of people to say “Time to abort baby x.”, and then actually go do it?
good point Xalisae!
And yes, for the record I completely agree that this nurse made the wrong decision. I feel bad for her considering the pressure they put her under to coerce her to participate, but sometimes you just have to do the right thing no matter what the cost. This was no small matter (the life of a child), and I would have absolutely refused to participate.
I quite agree with you army_wife. Under no circumstances should this nurse have participated. She has also set a standard for the hospital coercing other prolife nurses into participating.
She would not have lost her job and she’s ended up continuing being treated badly by her employer anyway. So she’s lost everything and gained nothing.
I feel for this nurse and I hope like hell she wins the case. While I might understand the urge of some of the commentary that the nurse had the free will to leave… that’s like telling a post-abortive woman “You could have just walked away.” when in reality, it’s the coercion that has you paralyzed. Your mind and heart are screaming that you know what’s right, but you just can’t seem to make your body do it. It’s SO hard to look at the future when you’re stuck in a position where everyone is demanding and threatening you.
I won’t judge this nurse for what she was forced to do and I do hope that this is an eye opener for all the Obama lovers out there that he’s lying through his ugly face about the Conscience Clause… he KNOWS he’s going to eliminate it.
I won’t judge this nurse for what she was forced to do and I do hope that this is an eye opener for all the Obama lovers out there that he’s lying through his ugly face about the Conscience Clause… he KNOWS he’s going to eliminate it.
Posted by: Dirtdartwife at July 23, 2009 12:47 PM
yes it’s terrible to put someone who is in a profession to heal and ask them to kill!
And all because of some distorted notion about “rights”.
I call BS. This woman wasn’t “forced” to help kill that baby. She had every right to leave that room, that building. There was no gun to her head, and if she truly opposed murdering children, she would have simply quit her job or let them fire her. I’d sooner let people dismember me rather than do that to someone else.
This woman doesn’t deserve a dime. Rather, she deserves to have dished upon her what she did to that baby, whether she “wanted” to or not.
Jacqueline I agree with you – Mrs DeCarlo should have left. In fact, she should have just walked out and told her supervisor that the hospital is well aware of her views and that they need to come up with another nurse and fast. She should have said, as a Catholic I cannot and I will not participate in killing an unborn baby.
I would also have not participated in ANY way in helping the hospital obtain another nurse for the procedure. She had medical information that led her to believe that the mother’s life was not in danger and that this was simply another later-term abortion. She was under no obligation to find another nurse for a procedure that is morally offensive to her.
My feeling is that Mount Sinai was flying this as a “test” situation. They pushed and she backed down. If we are truly prolife we must learn to stand our ground against this evil, at great personal cost sometimes.
I still believe she should sue the hospital but she has a tough time explaining her eventual capitulation.
The bottom line is that she put her family’s economics before the life of another human being.
The legal part goes back to Bush signing an order to protect the conscience of workers and Obama hussling to revoke it.
This is from what many have not mentioned, as illegal as could be for how personell matters must work.
she should have just walked out and told her supervisor that the hospital is well aware of her views and that they need to come up with another nurse and fast
Posted by: angel at July 23, 2009 2:58 PM
I think it depends on what the patient abandonment statutes are in her state. It’s one thing to refuse an assignment while remaining on duty and another to leave the premesis and cut short a shift one has agreed to work.
The threat of an insubordination charge wouldn’t have bothered me too much. But a threatened patient abandonment charge is something else.
Fair enough, Hal, but then why is it NOT ok to say “Time to abort Michael Silverstein” or “Time to abort Jasper” and it IS ok for thousands of people to say “Time to abort baby x.”, and then actually go do it?
Posted by: xa
xlsiae at July 23, 2009 12:30 PM
Because, perhaps, there is nothing wrong with abortion a fetus.
yes Fed-up I hear what you are saying but it is quite evident that this nurse was called up on false pretenses.
They knew this was an abortion, she did not – until the last moment.
Her employer also knew that she did not assist at abortions and had honoured this request in the past.
Therefore, IMO, the hospital has some explaining to do.
This was a trap, pure and simple. And Mrs. DeCarlo fell right into it either way. If she had refused they would have terminated her and taken a chance legally. If she complied as she did, she’s now set a precedent for prolifers acquiescing.
Having said all this, in today’s climate, Mrs. DeCarlo should have been emotionally, legally and professionally prepared. With some outside support, especially legal, she could have put an end to the coercion very quickly.
Because, perhaps, there is nothing wrong with abortion a fetus.
Posted by: Hal at July 23, 2009 7:49 PM
that’s the best you could come up with. Sheesh Hal, you’re losing your touch. :(
Fair enough, Hal, but then why is it NOT ok to say “Time to abort Michael Silverstein” or “Time to abort Jasper” and it IS ok for thousands of people to say “Time to abort baby x.”, and then actually go do it?
Posted by: xa
xlsiae at July 23, 2009 12:30 PM
Because, perhaps, there is nothing wrong with abortion a fetus.
Posted by: Hal at July 23, 2009 7:49 PM
What kind of fetus, Hal? A fetal what, exactly Hal? It is ok to abort a fetal Jasper or a fetal Michael Silverstein, but NOT an infant Jasper or adult Michael Silverstein? Why, Hal?
The nurse ideally should have refused to participate, but she was given rather strong threats during a stressful situation. With patient abandonment you can lose your license to practice. That’s worse than losing your job.
When I refused to participate, I knew that my license would remain, and that I would only lose my job.
An unemployed person cannot pay a lawyer for a lawsuit, and free representation from a public interest law firm is certainly not a guaranteed thing. It is rather difficult to obtain.. (took two years for me). A lot of nurses are the sole breadwinners for their families.
So while I know that Nurse DeCarlo did not do the Ideal thing, I have an appreciation of her circumstances and the pressure, and I stand up in favor of her subsequent whistle blowing, refusal to further participate, and her lawsuit.
If you would not take a dump on post abortive women, then you should not dump on this nurse. The coercion in her case was very strong.
I agree, Pharmer. I would like to read her own words. I cannot imagine what it must have been like for this nurse. It is easy for us to say I wouldn’t have done that, I guess.
Rachel C.
Way up there at the beginning of the thread…how do you know this was a very much wanted and planned pregnancy? This baby was dismembered, not delivered via emergency c-section, wrapped in a blankie and given to mommy to hold until he/she passed away.
I hate to say it, but there are women out there who would rather not give birth to anything but a perfect baby–hence the numbers of children with Down’s Syndrome who are aborted. I have heard a story before of a couple who sought an abortion because their baby was going to be born too early. (In that case, they could not find a provider willing to perform the procedure, and the child was born preterm, given up for adoption, and adopted by the person who had written the story.)
I would not be shocked if this woman (the “mother”) just did not want to deal with bed rest, drugs, and/or having a preemie. Maybe she was only seeking a perfect child, or maybe she was ambivalent about her son or daughter to begin with. Maybe she was misinformed, or not given all her options, or the abortion was pushed on her. But maybe she wasn’t so innocent as everyone here seems to want to believe.
yes, maybe the nurse would’ve been fired…but number one–there are pro-life lawyers who take these kind of cases for free, second–do you think GOD is saying “Well….you were going to lose your license to practice so, its OKAY that you helped dismember a BABY I CREATED”
NO!!!!!! Don’t you think GOD can take care of that nurse? He says He will clothe the lillies of the field so He will also take care of us! the lack of belief in GOD–in His judgement for our sins and His ability to take care of us–is what leads to abortions in the first place!
I also wondered about the mother. How could she allow her child to be ripped from her womb? Did she even TRY to save her baby?
that’s the best you could come up with. Sheesh Hal, you’re losing your touch. :(
Posted by: angel at July 23, 2009 7:51 PM
You’re right. I guess I grow weary.
Maybe we should just outlaw abortion and fight about other things for awhile.
that’s the best you could come up with. Sheesh Hal, you’re losing your touch. :(
Posted by: angel at July 23, 2009 7:51 PM
You’re right. I guess I grow weary.
Maybe we should just outlaw abortion and fight about other things for awhile.
Posted by: Hal at July 24, 2009 10:31 AM
You’re no fun anymore, Hal.
Maybe we should just outlaw abortion and fight about other things for awhile.
Posted by: Hal at July 24, 2009 10:31 AM
What a wonderful idea Hal! Just think of all those babies who now get to grow up, have a birthday cake, get and give gifts, pray, play,laugh, cry, sing, make music, dance, grow old, get sick, get well, go on a trip, learn about their family, go to prom, graduate, have a career, fall in love, have babies, watch their children grow up, help others, discover new things, invent, teach, heal, taste chocolate, enjoy strawberries, see a sunset, feel the wind, smell the salty ocean, watch a butterfly, listen to the birds early in the morning, hear thunder, see a rainbow…….
Angel, don’t overlook the moments of pain, despair and heartbreak. But I get your point.
So while I know that Nurse DeCarlo did not do the Ideal thing, I have an appreciation of her circumstances and the pressure, and I stand up in favor of her subsequent whistle blowing, refusal to further participate, and her lawsuit.
If you would not take a dump on post abortive women, then you should not dump on this nurse. The coercion in her case was very strong.
Posted by: Pharmer at July 23, 2009 10:39 PM
I understand what you are saying Pharmer and I by no means wish or intend to “dump” on this woman. I know she was in a difficult, in fact, hostile situation. In a moment of extreme crisis this poor woman lacked the moral courage to do the right thing.
Believe me, I’ve had situations in my own life where I too have lacked the moral courage to do the right thing. As Christians we need to have the guts to push back when we are being bullied into doing wrong. We need to be prepared spiritually and any other way we can be. Because this is not going to go away. Funny how abortion is no longer a private decision between a woman and her doctor?
To my mind, Mrs. DeCarlo IS a post-abortive woman now. It’s quite evident she was very traumatized by what she participated in. In fact, I’m wondering if she will ever be able to work in D&C’s which are done AFTER miscarriages. I am hopeful that she has found a good priest who will counsel her and help her to heal spiritually and emotionally.
Angel, don’t overlook the moments of pain, despair and heartbreak. But I get your point.
Posted by: Hal at July 24, 2009 12:27 PM
i didn’t Hal, as I did include sickness and crying (and getting old – a trial for many today). But for most people, I like to think that life is generally filled with more happy moments than sad ones. :)
But for most people, I like to think that life is generally filled with more happy moments than sad ones. :)
Posted by: angel at July 24, 2009 12:38 PM
Agreed, for most.
(in USA at least)
I think at this point that DeCarlo is repentant of her involvement, and her lawsuit brings the case to light. Who knows what would have happened if DeCarlo walked out? Like, take this scenario: The evil doctor does something to kill the pregnant woman and then blame the death on DeCarlo, and then hear from the pro-abortion media that this is why we need abortion on demand more than ever? No, do not blame Ms. DeCarlo. Dr. Silverstein is to blame and having it as an option to do a 22 week abortion at all is to blame as well. :( We desperately need to make our own communities, our own doctor offices, that are authentically Catholic.
Mary what appalls me here is the level of coercion used on Mrs. DeCarlo. It is simply unacceptable that these nurses forced/badgered/hounded a fellow professional to participate in something she found so morally reprehensible that she was crying and emotionally upset. Ms Carpo and Ms Shapiro
should be held professionally accountable and disciplined to my thinking. Is there some sort of regulatory body for nursing professionals in the United States?
Patient abandonment is a HUGE charge and can strip you of licensure for life. I cannot imagine the pressure that this nurse was under (which is why I refuse to work L&D in anything other than a Catholic hospital that does NOT perform abortions.)
I’m a royal PITA, so I’m pretty sure I’d have been telling them to take the job and shove it… but who knows what else was going on in that room at that time? My heart and prayers are with Mrs. DeCarlo.
This woman DID HAVE HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE AND ALWAYS HAS AND SHE WAS ON MAGNESIUM SULFATE!
A lot of medical ignorance here and on the part of Cenzon-decarlo (to whom I am, by the way, sympathetic).
I do not know anything about the patient other than what Cenzon_Decarlo has asserted herself, but can speak to some comments made here, and in C-D’s pleading reflect a simple and incomplete understanding of the management of maternal hypertensive syndromes.
http://tiny.cc/EsqKB
” It is important to recognize that in women with pre-eclampsia, one or more abnormalities may be present even when blood pressure elevation is minimal. If there is a life-threatening abnormality, such as coagulopathy or abnormal hepatic or renal function, it may be necessary to terminate the pregnancy despite only mild hypertension.”
There are situations where treatment with MgSO4 would be inappropriate – the drug does interact with some other medications, is contraindicated in some cases, has side effect that range into the fatal, and it does not always forstall eclampsia.
Furthermore this patient was remote from term, which makes her prognosis worse, speaking on in general statistical terms, and is , in general, more likely to be associated with thrombophilia or stroke. I do NOT know what happened in this case, but C-D’s observations as listed in her pleading do not rule out urgency in the case.
In her specific case there may have been signs that urgent action was necessary, and that unjustified delay could harm the patient.
a little late..but still my 0.02 cents:
” A lot of nurses are the sole breadwinners for their families.”
Actually, for Philippine nurses working here…the loss of job/income is not confined to just the immediate family but to several close relatives living abroad…
She was ambushed and then pressured to assist.
“She was ambushed and then pressured to assist.”
RSD,
Ambushed seems like a good way to describe her situation. The nurse may have wanted to resist with all of her heart but when faced with the prospect of no job or law suits, the alternative to participating may have not been a choice for her in her mind at that moment. The hospital should be ashamed for putting her in such a compromising position. Are employers allowed to bully?
Kathleen Sebelius could stand up for this woman and support her right to choose. Why is abortion always a CHOICE as long as abortion is what’s chosen? I wonder if there is anything Sebelius could not do in good conscience? Maybe she could try to relate to the woman in this case.
My sister in law had preeclampsia as well, so I know that this can be a life-treatening condition. I also wonder whether the doctor gave this woman adequate information about the possibility of doing an emergency C section or not. My nephew was born at 25 weeks and is now a healthy and happy three year old. The youngest premie ever to survive was 21 and a half weeks old. On the other hand, a baby that is twenty two weeks old has very little chance of surviving outside the womb, which is why a c-section may not have been advised. I think when it comes down to it, the primary problem here was that the nurse was forced to participate. Surely they didn’t have to have her do this.
Nurse DeCarlo’s attorney & a very ill-informed NARAL spokesperson on Laura Ingraham:
“www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji0kpT4lgNw”
The description of nightmares makes me wonder about PTSD? If witnessing an accident or violent crime can cause it, I imagine the dismemberment of an infant could, too.