What the heck is an "emergency abortion"? And how can they say abortion is a "reproductive" procedure? The "health" of women seeking "medical care"? Abortion is not a medical procedure. It's not even a necessary procedure. Ever. Show me a women who's "gravely ill" and rilly rilly needs to kill her child and I'll show you a pile of [expletive].

I'd like to see them just try. Catholics (and all Christians), unite against this president whom, I am not enitrelu unconvinced, could be the devil.

All pro-lifers, Christian or not, should unite against this. This is worst than forcing vegetarians to eat meat. President Obama is a disgrace. (And this is coming from a leftie.)

Maybe Justice Elena Kagan could write a medical opinion for the case.

So Catholic hospitals won't treat women for ectopic pregnancies? Just let 'em die. That seems to be the Catholic view of women: if they're not going to produce babies, they're not worth much anyway, so why not let them die trying?

If they can force doctors to abort against their conscience, next they'll be forcing doctors to euthanize against their conscience.
The medical field will lose ethical doctors and nurses left and right.

Ashley,
Don't be ridiculous. No doctor will refuse to treat an ectopic pregnancy. When is last time you heard a case of that?? And Catholics respect women. Really.

So Catholic hospitals won't treat women for ectopic pregnancies?

Every Catholic hospital I am familiar with does treat ectopic pregnancies.

Ashley: You obviously are very ignorant of what the Catholic Church teaches and believes. You couldn't be further from the truth. It never ceases to amaze me how people who are not of the Catholic faith brazenly try to spout what Catholics "actually" believe. There is much to gain in consulting authentic Catholic sources thoroughly prior to making such erroneous assertions.

Ectopic pregnancy? That is not what the ACLU is fighting for. Their DC phone number is (202)675-2312. This is being used as a wedge to force Catholic healthcare workers to participate in voluntary abortion. And furthermore, if I had a particular injury and the hospital could not treat it, they would transfer me (sometimes by helicoptor) to another hospital that could. There is no reason to force Catholics to kill babies. If you're pro-choice, choose a different hospital.

BS"D

ACLU = Abortion Coercers and Leftists Union. They have nothing to do with civil liberties or defending the Constitution. What part of the First Amendment (and Thirteenth Amendment, prohibiting involuntary servitude) do they not understand?

Will the ACLU force Jewish hospitals to perform autopsies next? When religious liberty is assaulted for one group, it is threatened for all.

Removal of an ectopic pregnancy is not considered an abortion.

Ashley, you are a foul-mouthed ignoramus, willfully so I might add.

The Catholic Church has no moral issue with treating ectopic pregnancies surgically. This is covered by the Principle of Double-Effect. I posted a excellent brief description of Double Effect by William David Solomon:

http://gerardnadal.com/2010/05/23/the-principle-of-double-effect/

As for the ACLU, they do NOT support civil liberties and the Bill of Rights, or else they would be defending Catholic Hospitals' rights to practice medicine within moral and ethical guidelines that were once the staple of secular medicine as well.

With every action of the Obama administration, they dig liberalism's grave a little deeper. I say bring it on. Let's have this fight now. Let's have the whole war on religion all at once, so people can see how ugly and evil the Democrats truly are. It's been too long since there was a real liberal in the White House, and now we have it all front and center.

Let's have the fight now and wage war in the ballot box. This is political suicide for the Dems.

KM, thing is, Ashley IS Catholic, or at least claims to be. She definitely ought to know better.

Ashley, taking Catholic teaching seriously means that in a pregnancy we believe there are always TWO patients, TWO human beings involved. Treating one of those patients merely as a problem or a disease instead of a human being is the crux of the matter.

To treat the unborn child /fetus as a human being (one that, by the way, has a roughly 50 % of being female) is not devaluing women or the particular pregnant woman in any way at all. It is treating all people, all women, including unborn women, equally. I'm just amazed that so many people make this stupid accusation.

Now do us a favor and go back to catechism class. PLEASE!

All children are precious, and all deserve to be cared for.

Lori:
Thanks for the correction. I hadn't realized Ashley was actually claiming to be Catholic. That's even worse. But obviously we know that claiming to be a Catholic does NOT a Catholic make and I maintain that she needs to really read up on authentic Catholic sources before making erroneous statements. Basing her belief on an assumption or hearsay-no matter what she claims to be is at a minimum embarrassing (for her) and at a maximum very dangerous (for her and many).

New to the site and posting here-hopefully I'll know peoples's backgrounds soon enough. ;-) Nice to "meet" you.

Let's have this fight now.

Yep. The passage of Obamacare guaranteed that this day was going to come sooner or later. The St Joe's publicity in May was just what the progressives and the proaborts needed to start putting pressure on Catholic health care facilities to bend to the will of the government, sell out to secular health care systems, close, or perhaps face government takeover. I know they never like to waste a good crisis, but they really did us a favor by acting now instead of biding their time until the midterms are over.

Our bishops need our prayers now more than ever!

Ashley I worked labor and delivery AT St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix, AZ. They never once refused to treat an ectopic pregnancy! Never once. In fact, in the time I worked there, two of my coworkers had ectopic pregnancies and were rushed by us into the OR to have their lives saved.

Do not spread lies. I know this Sister, I am in shock that this has happened. No truly lifesaving procedure has been denied by this hospital. I know the rules and procedures by which they operate.

Just to follow Ashley's thought....when is an ectopic pregnancy an "emergency" ??

Don't call Ashley names! She just needed to be corrected. A lot of people don't know the facts about ectopic pregnancies. By the way, I was once at a PP waiting room and witnessed with my own eyes & heard with my own ears AS THE STAFF OF THE PP TURNED A WOMAN AWAY WHO HAD BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH ECTOPIC PREGNANCY! She had been referred to the location from another PP that only dispensed condoms, etc. So, pro-choicers, it is PLANNED PARENTHOOD THEMSELVES WHO WOULD LET A WOMAN DIE. Thankfully, other women in the waiting room told the girl to go directly to an emergency room.

Ninek, PP is not qualified medically to handle an ectopic pregnancy. However, rather than turn her away they should have called 911 and gotten her sent straight to an emergency room.

RSD, as soon as it's diagnosed, an ectopic pregnancy poses a danger. Instead of making its way to the uterus, the embryo stays in the fallopian tube and grows there. A fallopian tube is not a uterus and can't accommodate a baby. It will rupture and cause internal bleeding, which can be fatal. "Never let the sun set on an ectopic pregnancy."

You're right Elizabeth, but that's not how the staff handled it. They were turning her away without the most important instruction: go to an emergency room. They were shrugging and acting as if she were the one wrong. The young woman didn't know what to do. She kept asking, but what should I do? And they just kept telling her to go away. That's when the other ladies intervened. Legally, they must give a referral. Anything less endangers the patient and is criminal.

RSD,

About 50% of tubal pregnancies detach on their own.

Many opt to be treated with methotrexate, which is a chemical abortion. This is done to kill the embryo and preserve the structural and functional integrity of the fallopian tube. Under Catholic moral norms, this represents a direct targeting of the embryo for death and does not seek to let nature take its course (Through spontaneous detachment).

If, however, the embryo continues to grow within the tube, then surgical removal of the tube becomes necessary. This is not considered a direct abortion by the Church because the primary intention (and good effect) is the removal of a diseased organ which threatens the mother's life. The unintended (and bad effect) is the death of the baby within.

So the emergency comes when the tube in an ectopic pregnancy progresses to where it may rupture, causing potentially life-threatening bleeding, though embryos can also implant elsewhere in the vaginal and pelvic cavity.

If I ever have an ectopic pregnancy, I'm getting the chemical abortion without a second thought. I'm not having invasive surgery and losing a tube for a blastocyst lodged in there. Hard-core Catholics can suck it. I'm doing what's best for me if the embyo has no chance of surviving anyway.

Okay, the final line of the article at the blog referenced by Jill
is a hoot:

Stop idolatry, because “a mind is a terrible thing to waste.”

http://bioethike.com/2010/07/02/aclu-demands-catholic-hospitals-commit-abortions/

Also, isn't being pro-life supposed to be about The Babies? Why would you want to destroy a woman's fertility by removing a tube? (I'm assuming that's what it does.) Or do fanatical Catholics just like the idea of making women suffer as much as possible?

I think this is the much more likely answer. My great-aunt wrote in her book ("One Nun's Story") about all the weird, sexually charged things priests used to do to them. Like on Easter, forcing her, as the youngest nun at age 19, to dress up like the baby Jesus and sit on the middle-aged priest's lap. CREEPY. These celibate men seem to have an abusive streak and enjoy lording over women.

Ashley, you might want to study and learn before you open your mouth.

Very rarely is ectopic pregnancy found prior to the point where surgical removal is necessary. Also, methotrexate does not always work.

The it's all about me me me thing is immature and gets old quickly.

Ashley:
There is no such thing as a "hard-core Catholic". You are either a Catholic=faithful to all the teachings magesterium or you are not a practicing Catholic. Your callous and childish language shows from which tree you fall. I know you don't care and will be thinking I should "suck it," but I will be praying hard for you. And not because you disagree with me necessarily, but because the way in which you express yourself is very telling of the true peril you are in.

Ok, now she did step up to being foul-mouthed! Ashley, I like most of your comments on this blog, but it seems that "Catholic" is the hot button word for you. Simmer down now.

"That seems to be the Catholic view of women: if they're not going to produce babies, they're not worth much anyway, so why not let them die trying?"

If Catholics thought women who don't have babies were worthless, why would they want nuns? Why would they revere all those virgin martyrs?

Ashley, I'm sorry your aunt had the experience she did, but seeing as my uncle is a priest, it offends me on a personal level when you characterize all priests as having "an abusive streak and enjoy[ing] lording over women." That's like saying people become elementary school teachers so they can prey on young children - while there may be teachers who do that, teachers as a whole don't deserve that characterization.

I don't agree with the Catholic Church on everything, by a long shot. But after fifteen years of Catholic school and a lifetime of church attendance, I've always come away with the impression that the majority of Catholics are good people who try their best to respect everyone as a fellow child of God. (I say "try their best" because we're all human and fall short sometimes.) What I'm curious about is, are you angry at official church doctrines or at Catholics you've personally known? I always think it's really unfortunate when people let flawed members of a religion turn them away from that religion.

Ashley, my sister-in-law went on to have another perfectly healthy pregnancy after her ectopic pregnancy. It isn't like having a tubal ligation.

http://life.familyeducation.com/complications-of-pregnancy/pregnancy/57545.html

From this site: "There are three treatment goals for an ectopic pregnancy:

* Remove the embryo.
* Remove the risk to the mother.
* Preserve her fertility."

Also, when a woman takes a chemical abortion pill, the symptoms can be strikingly similar to tubal pregnancy, and some may not even be aware they are suffering a life-threatening condition. The risk for this will be even higher with the offering of telemed abortions as well as the push toward offering RU-486 over the counter. Does the abortion industry really have the well being of women in mind when they push for things like this to be dispensed without a doctor's exam/prescription?

KM - nice to meet you too!

Ashley I would seriously consider getting your information about the Catholic Church from more than just one source. Your great-aunt may be a really terrific person, and I'm going to assume her experiences are true, but she is no kind of an expert on the whole of Catholic Church practice, or what the Church actually teaches.

And believe me, the Church does teach respect for women. Much more so than the type of feminism in the story up above where the writer admits that her unborn child was indeed a human person, but thinks she had a perfect right to kill her in womb, because feminists should be willing to kill for their beliefs. That woman has degraded herself, as well as degrading the very name of feminism. Then there's that poor fetus-cookie- baking girl, who seems to have barely any humanity left.

Yes, the glorious type of woman today's feminism has brought us!

All of this comes from ignoring what God has so clearly taught *through his Church* about the dignity of each and every person. Ignore this dignity for the unborn, and you can keep it for the rest of humanity only by accident. Eventually you are forced to abandon real human dignity for women as well; lat of all you will abandon your own dignity and humanity. This is becoming all too clear today, as I'm sure you understand.

Your rants full of hateful stereotypes are unworthy of someone as intelligent as you. I really appreciate the fact that you are getting your head together and trying to work your way toward a pro-life position. But you are alienating way too many people who really want to dialogue with you by this type of rant.

Lori, that was beautifully stated. It makes me kind of want to go back to church. *GASP*

Bravo!

Ashley,

Did your Great Aunt (if she exists) write that B.S. about the Priests while she was taking hallucinogenics, or while in the early stages of Alzheimer's?

If you knew anything about women religious in the early-mid 20th Century, then you must know that the Mothers Superior in charge of the convents would have castrated any priest even suggesting that her sisters behave that way, and they would have done it with a butter knife.

The only people who seem to come up with such stories are usually those in the Church who are militating for:

1. Abortion
2. Gay Marriage
3. Women's Ordination
4. Repeal of prohibitions against artificial contraception

That story is right out there with UFO's, unicorns and elves. It's the usual slur that only seems to surface during discussions about the topics listed above.

Ashley, my sister-in-law went on to have another perfectly healthy pregnancy after her ectopic pregnancy.Posted by: Kelli Author Profile Page at July 2, 2010 8:52 PM
___________________________________________________
So did mine, Ashley.

Ashley, my sister-in-law went on to have another perfectly healthy pregnancy after her ectopic pregnancy.Posted by: Kelli Author Profile Page at July 2, 2010 8:52 PM
___________________________________________________
So did mine, Ashley. You can still get pregnant with one tube.

Ninek,

Ashley was dropping F-bombs like rice at a wedding on another thread this week.

And as for Ashley's wanting methotrexate to preserve her tube, many women with tubal pregnancies have them because of scar tissue formation from pelvic inflammatory disease, which is sufficiently large to prevent the embryo's passage, but allow sperm passage.

As was also mentioned, by the time most tubal pregnancies are discovered, it's too late to save the tube with a methotrexate abortion.

Mods..delete the first (incomplete) post. Thanks

Lori, that was beautifully stated. It makes me kind of want to go back to church. *GASP*

Bravo!
Posted by: MaryLee at July 2, 2010 9:44 PM

MaryLee,

Gee, thanks! I really admire your posts as well :)

I am actually praying for you to go back to church!

They can't demand this of Catholic hospitals! They are PRIVATE institutions, run by a RELIGIOUS organization, two of the main freedoms this country was FOUNDED on: religious freedom and private ownership.

If they want to force Catholic hospitals to do their bidding they have to prove criminal actions. Conscientious objection is NOT a crime, it is ALSO a fundamental freedom.

Catholic hospitals are private, and therefore have the freedom to act as they see fit.

If a woman claims she "needs" an abortion, she should go to the local PUBLICLY FUNDED hospital.

"Did your Great Aunt (if she exists) write that B.S. about the Priests while she was taking hallucinogenics, or while in the early stages of Alzheimer's?"

First, I thought your pomposity was kind of funny (like the near-constant reminders that you have a Ph D), but you're just a jerk. Her name's Sister Mary Jane Masterson, she's still a nun, and I guess you'll have to buy her book for more descriptions of some of the WEIRD SHIZZZ the Church put them through.

http://www.amazon.com/One-Nuns-Story-Then-Now/dp/158982475X

Her fellow nuns have read it, and not one has come forward and disputed all the pervy, sexually charged things these priests were doing to young girls (who happened to be nuns). Read it if you want; like I said, no one in the church has contested her validity.

The Catholic church's leadership seems to include quite a few men who are weirdos and perverts. Therefore, I don't need to follow their orders for everything that goes on in and around my reproductive organs.

But to be fair, priests don't do as much weird stuff anymore. Either because they realized it was wrong, or they can't get away with it.

The mothers (head nun? I forget the term) also isolated these very young nuns from the outside world completely, and made them do things like crawl on their knees begging for food if they were in trouble.

So. Weird.

The Orthodox and fundie Catholics who want the Church to be like it was in the 40s? Not any better than the fanatical Muslims dominating Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

"I guess you'll have to buy her book for more descriptions of some of the WEIRD SHIZZZ the Church put them through."

No, Ashley. Not "the Church." IF your aunt's story is true, her experiences were not in any way sanctioned by the Catholic Church as a whole. An apparently whacked-out or oblivious convent head put her through those experiences, NOT the Church.

I have a book recommendation for you. Read "Escape" by Carolyn Jessup. After reading about the monstrous acts committed by the FLDS against women, I don't think you'll have quite the axe to grind about the CC.

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at July 2, 2010 5:06 PM
-------

Ashley - re: ectopic pregnancies: I did a lot of research on this when I understood the principle of double effect applying to ectopics. As I understand it, ectopics are very rare (1 in 18,000) although you might be surprised at how many individual woman I personally know who have claimed ectopic pregnancies. Very strange. (It's an excuse to say they had an abortion, but were justified in doing so... they usually give me a completely baffled look when I ask them if they had a salpingostomy or salpingectomy. )

Anyhow - the procedure which I understand that is the best/most effective and moral solution to the problem is called a salpingostomy - which performs a laparoscopic incision in the side of the fallopian tube using a water jet. The child would then be cut free from the fallopian wall using the same jet. The embryo would have to be small enough to pass freely through the tube. Yes, there would be internal scarring, but I understand it doesn't completely lose the fertility in that side. However, with all medical procedures, there are probabilities involved about successful fertility afterwards.

The salpingectomy (removal of the fallopian tube) may be required given a wide variety of conditions, including when the ectopic is detected, and how far along the child is in development.

Diagnosis and decision making about when and if in such circumstances are really tough medical decisions.

The principle of double effect comes into play as a last resort, which is why Gerard describes the salpingectomy as needed, and most in line with Catholic teaching.

Hope this is informative.

"But to be fair, priests don't do as much weird stuff anymore. Either because they realized it was wrong, or they can't get away with it."

Or because the majority of them never did it in the first place.

"IF your aunt's story is true, her experiences were not in any way sanctioned by the Catholic Church as a whole. An apparently whacked-out or oblivious convent head put her through those experiences, NOT the Church."

Yeah. It's not like the Pope (any Pope) would read your aunt's book and exclaim, "Wonderful! Exactly as it should be!"

JoAnna: I'm not sure another religion being worse makes one better, but you're right that the FLDS, unlike the Catholic Church, really does condone all sorts of horrific behavior towards women. I read "Escape" - also read "Stolen Innocence" by Elissa Wall, which was especially interesting because she's so much younger than Carolyn Jessop. (Note to Ashley - she's our age.)

Gerard: Just because something is bizarre doesn't mean it didn't happen. You don't have evidence one way or another about whether this happened or not - I think you're just deciding to not believe it because you don't want to believe it and you and Ashley aren't exactly big buddies. I don't know whether it's true or not, but if none of Ashley's aunt's fellow sisters have denied it, I would guess it probably is.

"IF your aunt's story is true, her experiences were not in any way sanctioned by the Catholic Church as a whole."

Um, no. The baby Jesus thing--where my aunt had to wear robes and sit on some middle-aged dude's lap just because he's a Man of God--happened IN church. In front of the Bishop.

And them being forced to do stuff like crawl around on their knees seems pretty tame compared to other stuff I've read about convents back in the day.

If it's so untrue, why is no one disputing her on these things? Not one person has come forward to say they didn't happen.

Ashley,

I believe you, maybe it did happen, and it's awful.

Do you think the Catholic church supports this kind of treatment of women?

"The principle of double effect comes in as a last resort."

This isn't sound public health thinking. It isn't sound medicine. The last thing I would want to do is "wait around and see" if my embryo detached from my fallopian tube and potentially correct the issue with emergency invasive surgery.

Good doctors avoid surgery if they can. They act quickly and prudently. If a man is at risk of heart attack, he's put on an anti-coagulant. Doctors don't wait around for him to suffer a coronary to then perform bypass surgery. This same line of thinking should apply to pregnancy.

I read ACLU's statement. It seems clear that if the child could be viable, they'd induce labor and deliver it. Sounds reasonable. Nobody's asking these hospitals to perform abortions on healthy women and babies. But you'd tell a woman who is suffering from some kind of ecclampsia or hemorrhaging--a woman in a desparate situation, most likely poor--to transfer to another hospital? That's insanity.

Megan,

Your point about doctors not waiting for an emergent situation to develop is a point well made and well taken.

However, the other side of the "choice" coin is the choice of every doctor to follow their conscience and not engage in activities that directly target the baby for death. Mothers also exercise that choice in which interventions they find morally permissible.

Many women would never kill their child, even if it meant their own death. Many would rather lose a fallopian tube than take methotrexate. Catholic medical care provides institutions where parents with this world view can rest assured that the physicians in these hospitals share that world view--that there are two patients of equal moral standing before the physician.

It's the side of choice that never gets recognition from those who hold themselves out as 'pro-choice'. By definition, the choice advocates MUST respect all choice and not seek to limit legitimate choices through administrative or legislative fiat.

To the great extent that they do not respect these legitimate 'choices' makes them less pro-choice and more pro-abortion.

"Catholic hospitals are private, and therefore have the freedom to act as they see fit"
Posted by: Amy at July 3, 2010 2:35 AM

Actually, Catholic hospitals receive government money via reimbursements through Medicaid and Medicare. There are also other federal dollars that make their way to Catholic hospitals. I'm a Jew. Does a Catholic hospital have the right to refuse to admit me based on my religion? Do they have a right to deny treatment to blacks? Do they have the right to not comply with state laws and regulations regarding health care facilities? And if a woman's life depends on getting an emergency abortion and she's in the middle of nowhere, USA, with the only hospital being a Catholic one, what happens then? Please don't tell me "it's God's will."

And BTW, the comparison of emergency abortions to autopsies performed at Jewish hospitals is not quite accurate. First, an "autopsy" would not be an emergency procedure. Second, there is disagreement in the Jewish community:

"As it is the duty of the rabbi to prevent autopsies where no pikku'aḥ nefesh is involved, so is it his duty to insist on it where there is the slightest possibility of it being of benefit" (R. Isaac Arieli, in: Torah she-be-al Peh (1964), 66

Sabra,

A great many OB/GYN's have assured me that there are no medical conditions (outside of those covered by double effect) that warrant abortion before the age of viability at 23-25 weeks of development.

Even if a woman believes she needs one, you must remember that physicians are human beings with the right of conscience and can not be compelled to commit murder. Nor can institutions be compelled to commit murder, even if they are in the middle of nowhere.

Rabbinical quotes and argumentation do well in Jewish hospitals, but have no standing in Catholic hospitals, just as canon law has no standing in Jewish hospitals.

A century from now, people will look back on this time and thank the Catholic Church for being the bioethical anchor that weathered the Culture of Death.

Nobody's asking these hospitals to perform abortions on healthy women and babies. Posted by: Megan at July 3, 2010 10:49 AM

They may be paving the way to make that happen by taking the first step of forcing Catholic hospitals to counsel patients about abortion as an option. Although the ACLU's letter primarily addresses "emergency" abortions, at the bottom of page 3, there is this sentence:

"Indeed, under the COP, physicians must clearly communicate all pregnancy and miscarriage management options to women and their families, and women must have the ability to request a certain course of treatment."

Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but it seems to me they are stating that all pregnant patients and family members accompanying them should be given information about abortion as a pregnancy "management" option in order to comply with COP. This would put Catholic hospitals in a position of counseling and providing information about abortion to every pregnant patient and her family, wouldn't it?

Chanelle Bryant, Chemical Abortion Death
Young woman dies after RU-486 abortion in California
Explore this Site

View a random page from the RealChoice library!

This free script provided by
JavaScript Kit
Related Resources
• Abortion Methods
• Abortion Statistics
• Abortion Laws
• Activism Links
• Analytical Tools
• Cannibalized Fetuses
• Dirty Prochoice Laundry
• Dirty Proabortion Tricks
• Graphic Stuff
• Legal Abortion Advantages
• Live Birth Abortion
• Partial Birth Abortion
• Prenatal Conditions
• Prenatal Diagnoses
• Pro-Abortion Lies
Other RU-486 Deaths
• Holly Patterson
• Cherish Roe
• Tara Roe
• Wanda Roe
• Oriane Shevin
• Vivian Tran
• Brenda Vise
Other Infection Deaths
• Barbara Auerbach
• Chanelle Bryant
• Marla Cardamone
• Margaret Clodfelter
• Andrea Corey
• Betty Damato
• Sharon Davis
• Janet Foster
• Sharon Floyd
• Jammie Garcia
• Carolina Gutierrez
• Angela Hall
• Arnetta Hardaway
• Rhonda Hess
• Rosie Jimenez
• Minnie Lathan
• Susan Levy
• Linda Lovelace
• Michelle Madden
• Sophie McCoy
• Yvonne Mesteth
• Natalie Meyers
• Katherine Morse
• Kathy Murphy
• Germaine Newman
• Joyce Ortenzio
• Linda Padfield
• Amanda Roe
• Andrea Roe
• Julie Roe
• Monica Roe
• Tammy Roe
• Vicki Roe
• Rhonda Rollinson
• Allegra Roseberry
• Tamia Russell
• Stella Saenz
• Oriane Shevin
• Diane Smith
• Vivian Tran
• Maureen Tyke
• Gail Vroman
• Nicey Washington
• Ellen Williams
• Christine Mora
Other California Abortion Deaths
• Jacqueline Bailey
• Cassandra Bleavins
• Belinda Byrd
• Claudia Caventou
• Patricia Chacon
• Colleen Chambers
• Liliana Cortez
• Twila Coulter
• Margaret Davis
• Laniece Dorsey
• Gwendolyn Drummer
• Bonnie Fix
• Janet Forster
• Josefina Garcia
• Maria Gomez
• Doris Grant
• Sharon Hamptlon
• Donna Heim
• Moris Herron
• Betty Hines
• Barbara Hoppert
• Susan Levy
• Cora Lewis
• Sara Lint
• Maria Lira
• Elva Lozada
• Evangeline McKenna
• Natalie Meyers
• Mistue Mohar
• Christina Mora
• Katherine Morse
• Kathy Murphy
• Joyce Ortenzio
• Mary Paredez
• Holly Patterson
• Mary Pena
• Erika Peterson
• Magdalena Rodriguez
• LaSandra Russ
• Stella Saenz
• Angela Sanchez
• Laura Sorrels
• Kathryn Strong
• Jennifer Suddeth
• Tami Suematsu
• Yvonne Tanner
• Michelle Thames
• Elizabeth Tsuji
• Cheryl Tubbs
• Cheryl Vosseler
• Lynette Wallace
Food for Thought
• 19th Century Abortion Cases and Other Self-Injury
• Abortion, Law, and Real Choice
• Abortion, Suffering, and the Chinese Widow
• The Abortion War and Communication
• Another Anti-Choice Fanatic
• Are Abortions Used as Birth Control?
• The Bad Old Days of Abortion
• Botched Abortion Leads to Amputation
• Coathanger Abortion: Powerful image, but how true to life?
• Comparative Safety - Abortion & Stuff Folks Get Riled About
• Diane Sawyer and the Non-Story of Lawson Akpulonu
• Did I Deserve the Death Penaltyh
• Do Rape Victims Really Need Abortions?
• Fetal Diagnoses Leading to Unnecessary Abortions
• Freaks Teaches Pro-Life Lesson
• Is Childbirth Safety Relevant to Abortion?
• Is This the Face of the Enemy?
• Is &quo;Who Decides?&quo; Really the Question?
• The &quo;Koop Report&quo; on Abortion
• LDI and the CDC
• Misplaced Priorities Cost Women's Lives
• A Mother‘s Nightmare
• Pro Child/Pro Choice Rings Hollow
• Question Abortion
• Stress and the Abortion Decision
• Study - Effect of Abortion Legalization on Sexual Behavior: Evidence from Sexually Transmitted Diseases
• Unequal Burden on the Poor?
• Unintended Late Abortions
• Unplanned Pregnancies that Worked Out
• What Real Informed Consent Would Look Like
• What‘s &quo;Adequate Access&quo; to Abortion?
• What‘s the Need for Abortion?
• When the POC Really is Just Tissue
• Where‘s the Pro Choice Movement on Elective Amputations?
• Who is the Enemy?
• Who‘s Putting the Unborn Ahead of the Born?
• Women Who Change Their Minds After the Abortion
• Women‘s Rights are Common Ground
• Your Bedroom, the Government, and Abortion Laws

Twenty-two-year-old Chanelle Bryant was given the drugs for a safe and legal chemical abortion at a Family Planning Associates Medical Group facility in California. She was instructed to use the prostaglandin as a suppository, rather than take an oral prostaglandin. This off-label use is being investigated by the CDC and FDA after Chanelle and four other US women died of infection after RU-486 abortions.
http://realchoice.0catch.com/library/deaths/bl04cbryant.htm ashleyv read this i saw your post you would want to do a chemical abortion

Posted by: Megan at July 3, 2010 10:49 AM
-------
Posted by: Gerard Nadal at July 3, 2010 11:01 AM
-------

Megan assumes that the pregnancy is not wanted if there is any risk - completely overlooking the other side of a very much wanted child. I'm personally familiar with a situation where the child was desired, complications set in and it came down to a ICU monitoring situation. The outcome was a beautiful child, and a very relieved mother and doctor. I know a beautiful young lady whose mother gave up her life (cancer) that she might live.

So often people who claim they are "pro-choice" consistently prove they are only "pro-abortion".

Chris
I think when when true feminists those who are really concerned about women's issues start seeing lists such as the one you provided that the tide will start to turn. And when people see the real face of the pro-death movement they will awaken to the atrocities committed against women in the name of "choice".

Chris
I think when when true feminists those who are really concerned about women's issues start seeing lists such as the one you provided that the tide will start to turn. And when people see the real face of the pro-death movement they will awaken to the atrocities committed against women in the name of "choice".

Chris-
Unfortunatly, ectopic pregnancies are far more common than you've stated- stats vary from about 1 in 70 to 1 in 100 pregnancies, with about half ending naturally without any medical or surgical intervention, and the vast majority of the remainder requiring surgery to save the life of the mother.

It's very interesting to note that ectopic pregnancy rates have more than quadrupled since Roe v Wade, and continue to rise.

Hooray for the ACLU. The reactionary Catholic blogs are declaring that the woman at St. Joe's in Phoenix should have been passive and hoped God would merely save her baby, but she should have consented to allowing herself to die in the "hope" that just perhaps God would perform a miracle.

Emergencies in pregnancy, at various stages, happen all in the time, even with the best prenatal care of the 21st century. They go way beyond the situation of ectopic pregnancies. The Church refuses to believe that there ever has to be a prudential decision made between two at-risk lives, yet that refusal merely reveals their vast medical ignorance.

Pregnant women of all faiths take note: avoid all Catholic hospitals if you value your own life and don't want to leave your husband a widower and your other children motherless.

Hooray for the ACLU. The reactionary Catholic blogs are declaring that the woman at St. Joe's in Phoenix should have been passive and hoped God would merely save her baby, but she should have consented to allowing herself to die in the "hope" that just perhaps God would perform a miracle.

Emergencies in pregnancy, at various stages, happen all in the time, even with the best prenatal care of the 21st century. They go way beyond the situation of ectopic pregnancies. The Church refuses to believe that there ever has to be a prudential decision made between two at-risk lives, yet that refusal merely reveals their vast medical ignorance.

Pregnant women of all faiths take note: avoid all Catholic hospitals if you value your own life and don't want to leave your husband a widower and your other children motherless.

So when a women's life is truly at risk what places more stress on her body an abortion or a C-Section? Anyone have an answer for that.

Catholic Hospitals can NOT be forced to perform not needed (read: NEVER NEEDED) abortions. There are TWO patients in a pregnancy: the MOTHER AND THE BABY. Every doctor should do everything he or she can to save BOTH LIVES.

To my knowledge, institutions receiving federal funding are prohibited from initiating discussions about abortion (unless, I suppose, there is a grave emergency). But if a woman REQUESTS abortion information, staff must give the woman neutral information and referrals to outside sources.

I truly do not believe this ACLU mandate is an attempt to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions under ORDINARY circumstances. The ACLU's demands are pretty clear: if the woman's health is directly endangered and the child is viable, labor will be induced. In good faith the doctors will TRY TO SAVE THE PREGNANCY. But before 22-23 weeks and based on physician prudence--not simply a woman "claiming" she needs an abortion--the pregnancy will be aborted.

Conscientious objection on religious grounds just doesn't work in this instance. I'm sure some women turn out fine after experiencing pregnancy crises, but the alternative is that nobody does anything and mom dies along with her unviable fetus. Now inaction has become tantamount to murder.

"The reactionary Catholic blogs are declaring that the woman at St. Joe's in Phoenix should have been passive and hoped God would merely save her baby, but she should have consented to allowing herself to die in the "hope" that just perhaps God would perform a miracle."

Posted by: call_ee_fornia at July 4, 2010 7:51 PM

I have not heard even one Catholic blog or blogger ever claiming anything even remotely like this. This is YOUR mis-characterization of the Catholic position.

Can you really not imagine any possible treatment a doctor can give in these case except a) and abortion and b) doing nothing? That only shows how medically ignorant YOU are.

The Catholic Church allows for aggressive treatments to be given, even those that pose a very grave risk to the child. But killing the child outright is not permitted, no more than directly killing the mother would be.

In the Arizona case, we don't know what would have happened if the doctors had pursued other avenues than abortion in trying to stabilize the pregnant woman with a failing heart. We know that she pulled through after the abortion, but we'll never know if she would have pulled through without it. Doctors today are only too willing to declare abortion the "only option" because it is the most convenient one for them, and exposes them to the least danger of a malpractice suit if something goes wrong.

Also in this case, do you have the slightest idea of what the young mother felt? The hospital, as far as I know, has not said anything about this. Given the severity of the pulmonary hyper-tension indicated, however, I tend to think that she must have had the same condition during her earlier pregnancies for it to have developed to the point it did. Perhaps she became pregnant again because she was genuinely willing to take the risk. But again, we don't know.

Not that this is stopped you from imagining things. . .

Lori,

Excellent commentary. Also, it is preposterous to suggest that St. Joseph's was the only choice. If one Googles Phoenix AZ hospitals, a map pops up showing all of the hospitals around St. Joseph's. Map Questing a few, the following hospitals, their distance and travel times from St. Joseph's show the hidden agenda in this case:

Phoenix Children's Hospital 2.23 miles/5 minutes
Banner Good Samaritan 2.22 miles/5 minutes
Phoenix Indian Medical Center 2.97 miles/7 minutes
Maricopa Medical Center 4.56 miles/9 minutes

In less time than it took to make the ethics consult, that lady could have been wheeled onto an ambulance and transported by her husband to a facility that performs abortions.

All across the country, people are told daily that the hospital they are in lacks the equipment or trained personnel to perform a given therapy or surgery. Very sick people are moved about in search of treatments every day.

In a Catholic Hospital, the couple should have been told immediately that direct abortion is simply not a treatment and as such is not an available option. The woman could have been at another facility within 15 minutes.

Sounds to me that the ACLU is saying that if you are taking government money you have to do what the ACLU and the world say to do, whether it is ethical or not. Thus, you become the "world's" hospital instead of a "catholic" hospital.

What do we expect? Afterall, the Lord Himself said to us that we cannot serve both God and mammon.

The only answer on offer, at least at the moment, is a simple one. If you want to truly provide care according to the principles laid out by Holy Mother Church, don't take any government money. Not a dime from any program, even Medicaid or Medicare since the government becomes the controller even when paying secondhand.

Megan, call_ee and Ashley you do not know what you are talking about. Thanks Elisabeth, Gerard, Chris A., chris and Lori for your post. I worked for a Catholic Hospital, we NEVER "let" a mother die if her life was in jeopardy, not once, ecotpics, severe PIH (Pregnancy Induced Hypertension). Babies were delivered early if necessary, mothers and babies lives were saved. A few times we transferred expectant mothers (if very complex case) before she delivered so she and baby could live. Rare times if baby had to be delivered early, transfered to high level NICU, rarely lost these babies due to their severe prematurity. Every effort was made to SAVE BOTH LIVES but if not possible mother's lives were saved. We never spared any expense, expertise or treatment regardless of the mother's ability to pay, race (black, white, hispanic, Asian), socio-economic status, educational level and even knowing the patient did not have a dime to pay for their medical care. STOP LYING ON CATHOLIC HOSPITALS! If you hate Catholics fine but stop the lying because of your hatred. Get help for your issues. PP LIES TO YOU! We prolifers and Catholic hospitals stand for life.

Not a dime from any program, even Medicaid or Medicare since the government becomes the controller....
Posted by: Steven P. Cornett at July 5, 2010 1:34 PM

That won't happen. It would force the hospital to discriminate against patients with government insurance or it would force the hospital to render even more unreimbursed care than it already does. I think it's more likely that you'd see Catholic L&D units and ERs closing.

One who cannot tell the difference between an ectopic pregnancy and the "health" issues which are broadly defined in Doe has no weight in this debate.

Treat the mother for the illness. If the child dies, it's a sad circumstance. A direct abortion is not health care and I hope Catholic hospitals shut down before committing the murder of innocents.

That won't happen. It would force the hospital to discriminate against patients with government insurance or it would force the hospital to render even more unreimbursed care than it already does.

I can see that. OTOH, it will be necessary to provide ethical care for the sick that we can provide out of our pockets for those that cannot pay. We do not have unlimited resources, but neither does the government; they're broke!

The only reason our leaders can playact as Daddy Warbucks is that the government and the banks jointly engage in massive counterfeiting. That won't last long, and indeed the failure of the intended system is already apparent.

In the meantime, caring for the sick is one of our temporal works of mercy that we are called to do in any circumstance. We should find the way to do what God calls us to do and that no earthly king can stop us from doing.

BTW to the Catholic hospital haters, Catholic hospitals are in the business of saving lives and committed to having 2 living, breathing, healthy patient's (if at all possible) and to having a mother leave with her child in her arms upon discharge. PP and other abortuaries are dedicated to making sure the mother ends up with a dead baby, she leaves with her womb empty and her arms empty, her dead baby ends up being garbage in a medical waste container. I think the prolife saying goes, "One patient dead, the other one wounded". Feel free to never darken the door of a Catholic hospital if you wish but don't trash them because they won't guarantee women a dead baby but will try to save them both. They give excellent care to high risk pregnant women and I highly recommend them. Oh, BTW they give excellent care to dying patients and won't try to kill them as well. I understand one of the best run, most compassionate HIV-AIDS hospice units in the midwest is run by a Catholic hospital.

it will be necessary to provide ethical care for the sick that we can provide out of our pockets for those that cannot pay.

Hi Steven. I don't quibble about the Catholic health care mission. I just don't see how any hospital, religious or secular, can care for Medicare- and Medicaid-eligible patients on a charity basis. We aren't talking about a handful of patients when we're talking about Medicare and Medicaid. We're talking about a large percentage of the patients the hospital cares for. And those percentages will rise dramatically in a few years when Obamacare puts nearly half the uninsured and a chunk who are presently privately insured on Medicaid, further exacerbating the problem. How do we raise that kind of money?

Why are these approaches to ectopic pregnancy not taken:

1. Detach the embryo with the placenta and move him or her into the uterus. If embryos have sometimes reattached in the abdomen after ectopic rupture (rare but there are cases) surely there is some chance they could reattach in the correct place if given the opportunity.

2. Open the tube to avoid a rupture, and position it on the outside of the uterus (the place where an ectopically implanted embryo stands the best chance of surviving to viability) so that the placenta can grow into the rich blood supply there.

Why does it seem the options given are always deciding which way to kill the baby is most moral or waiting until the baby dies on his or her own? If I were diagnosed with ectopic pregnancy I would not consent to any procedure which would take the baby's life. I would find someone who would try to save both of us, or I would die. (And actually, even in the case of a rupture, something like 90% of women survive--not the best odds but not exactly a death sentence. I know a woman who survived a rupture. And these are all ruptures, most of which are discovered on an emergency basis--if the ectopic pregnancy were a known condistion before the rupture, it makes sense that the woman would be in a medical facility or at least monitored, so death would be even less likely.)

But instead of trying to treat the child, doctors are debating which way to kill the child.

Why are these approaches to ectopic pregnancy not taken:

1. Detach the embryo with the placenta and move him or her into the uterus. If embryos have sometimes reattached in the abdomen after ectopic rupture (rare but there are cases) surely there is some chance they could reattach in the correct place if given the opportunity.

2. Open the tube to avoid a rupture, and position it on the outside of the uterus (the place where an ectopically implanted embryo stands the best chance of surviving to viability) so that the placenta can grow into the rich blood supply there.

Why does it seem the options given are always deciding which way to kill the baby is most moral or waiting until the baby dies on his or her own? If I were diagnosed with ectopic pregnancy I would not consent to any procedure which would take the baby's life. I would find someone who would try to save both of us, or I would die. (And actually, even in the case of a rupture, something like 90% of women survive--not the best odds but not exactly a death sentence. I know a woman who survived a rupture. And these are all ruptures, most of which are discovered on an emergency basis--if the ectopic pregnancy were a known condistion before the rupture, it makes sense that the woman would be in a medical facility or at least monitored, so death would be even less likely.)

But instead of trying to treat the child, doctors are debating which way to kill the child.

It's great that you're willing to die in an ectopic pregnancy. I'm sure your family, especially any existing children, will be thrilled that you chose a microscopic "baby" over being there for them.

However, sane women don't want to die. If I ever have an ectopic pregnancy, I want them to do whatever they can to fix it as soon as possible. If the blastocyst has to die, I wouldn't think twice about it.

Once again a pro-choicer reveals scientific ignorance.

1. Unborn children exist.

2. Ectopic pregnancy is confirmed (with present technology) when the embryo is old enough to be detected by ultrasound. When the embryo is microscopic, he or she cannot be detected in the womb or the tube. A microscopic embryo cannot rupture a tube.

3. The blastocyst is an earlier developmental stage. It occurs before implantation. Therefore, there is no such thing as an ectopic pregnancy where a blastocyst is the problem.

I don't want to die. I would aggressively seek medical treatment for my child and myself. However, I doubt I can receive this medical care unless I refuse the other forms of "care" which would undoubtedly be offered.

Are you a Christian, Ashley? Paul says in the Bible that for those who follow Christ, "to die is gain." If I die believing in Christ, I will be with Him in heaven--so death is not to be feared. Yet "to live is Christ"--in life I know suffering and sorrow, as our Savior did, and I know sacrifice (as I daily give up my life and my wants and needs in caring for my children). Life requires sacrifice and hard work, but death offers freedom. I have many little ones in heaven who would be happy to see me too, though I do not doubt those on earth need me more.

My life or death is not in my hands but God's. Like most people I have tried to control everything in my life and I have failed, and by this I know that God's perfect will always is done, but the things I will do not always come to pass. And so I place everything in His hands, because I have no power to wrest it away, and because He knows better what is good for my family than I.

Do I want to live, love my children longer, watch them grow up, see my grandchildren (and further)? Absolutely! But this is a weakness and a foolishness. He who holds on to His life--especially when it means doing wrong--will lose it, while he who lays down his life will gain it. It may seem foolish to you. Good! God tells us that what is wise in His eyes seems foolish to the world, and what seems wise to the world is foolishness to God.

May God bless you, Ashley. He Himself was "foolish" enough to die for the sins of others--including you and me. He was too "foolish" to step off the cross, to testify on His own behalf, to smite those who nailed His hands to the tree--though undoubtedly He had the power. Instead, He died--and what seems foolish was not, for in death He defeated death and sin by rising again. He prayed that there might be another way, but in His "foolishness" He carried out His Father's will, even to the point of dying a criminal's death.

I am not Christ. My name (I'm told) is Mommy. That means that I feed, and clothe, and love my children. I cuddle them and I help them and I teach them. And if (God forbid) it were necessary, I would die for them. Because that's what Mommies do.

You're not dying for your children, you're leaving them motherless for a blastocyst--which, by the way, can't survive either. So you get two deaths instead of just one. You're not even trying to preserve the most life, you're just trying to be some sort of fundie martyr.

You're a terrible mother.

YCW's right, Ashley. It's not a blastocyst that dies. And it isn't microscopic.

This link has some pretty informative photos: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectopic_pregnancy

And as I mentioned before, the symptoms of a tubal pregnancy listed mimic miscarriage and/or chemical abortion. It could very easily go undiagnosed and be too late for a woman having an RU-486 telemed abortion.

"You're a terrible mother."

Ashley,
Stop projecting how you feel about your 'choice' on innocent people.

ycw, If necessary, I would die for my children too. Your right, that's what Mommies do.

Me too, YCW. I love what you wrote.

I feel a hell of a lot better about my choice than someone who already has kids and wants to be a martyr instead of treating her ectopic pregnancy. Talk about selfish.

And I thought you were a "mommy" to one adult son you had out of wedlock. After your kids reach a certain age, it's weird to call yourself mommy.

I'd say a mom who did that is just as bad as those fundie parents who won't treat their kids for cancer and let them die because "we don't play God," and are proud of themselves for that. Normal people find it appalling.

Oh, and one last thing: let's keep in mind your not dying to save your "child's" (embryo's) life. It can't survive, at least not with the technology we have now. You're just choosing to die because it's dying. If your kid ever has a terminal illness, why not kill yourself? Same basic idea. In either case, you think it's more honorable for two people to die, instead of trying to save as many lives as possible. Talk about a death cult. This is why fundie Christians are no better than fanatical Muslims who relish the idea of dying for their religious beliefs.

You people would be effing hilarious if you weren't so scary.

What do you think of her Ash?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,325458,00.html

Ashley,

Your right, I am a parent to one adult son.

On this day exactly 20 years ago at 3pm I experienced the joy of holding this son in my arms for the first time. All the fears of being a young, poor, single mommy left me in that moment. I have forgiven those who pressured me to abort him because I now realize that they allowed fear to control their lives. Ashley, I truly, truly sympathize and can relate to the pressure you went through by those around you and by our material society. This is why I am so outspoken about abortion and why I pray and believe that you will be a great advocate for unborn babies as well as their moms.

I am now a middle-age, middle-income, married "mommy" to a second son and a daughter as well as a baby who lives with Jesus.

Twenty years ago today is tied with two other days as the absolute best day of my life.

Happy Birthday Son.

That's clearly not the same.

An embryo lodged in a tube has no chance of survival. Period. Whether you remove it, or just refuse to treat it, because it's God's will blah blah blah Jesus talk--it will die. Maybe one day we'll have the technology to move it to the uterus, but we don't.

This baby DID have a chance of survival if the cancer treatment was delayed. This is one of those extremely difficult cases where you really are choosing which life to save. That's a decision that should absolutely be left to the mother, and she chose the baby.

However, if she'd had an abortion so she could start chemo, I wouldn't have faulted her for it.

Ectopic pregnancies are a little more straightforward. Your choices are A) dead embryo, living mother, or B) dead embryo, dead mother. (And I know not all women die from it, but I wouldn't even take the chance.)

That's clearly not the same.

An embryo lodged in a tube has no chance of survival. Period. Whether you remove it, or just refuse to treat it, because it's God's will blah blah blah Jesus talk--it will die. Maybe one day we'll have the technology to move it to the uterus, but we don't.

This baby DID have a chance of survival if the cancer treatment was delayed. This is one of those extremely difficult cases where you really are choosing which life to save. That's a decision that should absolutely be left to the mother, and she chose the baby.

However, if she'd had an abortion so she could start chemo, I wouldn't have faulted her for it.

But it also says she was in the ADVANCED stages of cancer. She probably knew she had very little chance of survival regardless of when she started chemo. In that case, I'd probably make the same decision.

Ectopic pregnancies are a little more straightforward. Your choices are A) dead embryo, living mother, or B) dead embryo, dead mother. (And I know not all women die from it, but I wouldn't even take the chance.)

A mother willing to give her life for her child in either case no matter the outcome.

Anyway, why do you keep bringing religion into everything? :P

Sad Story Carla About The UK woman. my mother had cancer at 5 months & the doctors wanted her to abort me. they also told her she would die. my heart dropped after reading touching story of the love a mother has for a unborn child

"A mother willing to give her life for her child in either case no matter the outcome."

Uh, the outcome is the crucial difference. If you refuse to be treated for an ectopic pregnancy, you're sacrificing your life because your embryo has 0.0% chance of survival. Which might also be called "committing suicide," (Or attempting it, since not all women whose tubes burst die, but many do.) Isn't that a sin?

And what was that about culture of death, again? A mother who does this is asking for maximum death--2 instead of 1.

But we already know fundies like death, as long as there's some martyrdom aspect to it.

Your extremism is frightening. No doubt most of the people spouting off about how a woman should knowingly "give her life" (or as I call it, commit/attempt suicide) just because her embryo is going to die too--want ALL women to risk death.

By the way, what would you all tell a woman in the hospital whose tube is about to rupture? She already has kids and a husband at home. Would you tell her she should be treated and stop the pregnancy, or she should just let the tube burst and die because it's God's will?

I expect lots of dodging and excuse-making while admitting that yes, you think dying is preferable.

My extremism is frightening, Ash? Or were you addressing someone else? I don't know that I have said either way my thoughts about what I would do if I were faced with an ectopic pregnancy.

No, ycw's and whoever else is saying that if your child/embryo/whatever you call it is going to die, you should be willing to die too.

It's one thing for a mother to sacrifice her life so her child can LIVE. It's quite another for a mother to sacrifice her life because some naturally-occuring error means her child has no chance of survival and might kill her, too. I'd say that's suicide and horribly selfish, since you're leaving living people behind because of a dead/dying embryo.

Ashley, just because you can't fathom any mother willing to sacrifice her life for her unborn child doesn't mean the mother is insane or suicidal. It means she values that life as much as her own. I'm sorry you can't identify with that, but it really isn't anyone else's fault that you made a completely different choice (in a non-life threatening situation).

But I guess mommies who love their unborn babies are just like the Muslim martyrs who choose to blow themselves up... in crowded, populated places, so they can take out as many people as possible. Or like the ones who flew the airplanes into the WTC. Uh huh.

Painting mothers as extreme isn't going to help you deal with your abortion. Your anger is palpable, but I don't think it's actually directed at "fundies."

"But I guess mommies who love their unborn babies are just like the Muslim martyrs who choose to blow themselves up"

Pretty much. A fundie is a fundie. You're not saving anyone's life in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, you're choosing to die because someone else can't live. (And no, it's not the same as refusing someone's orders to kill another person, since I'm sure someone will trot out a comically absurd Nazi reference. Ectopic pregnancies are naturally occuring. It's no one's fault, any more than cancer is someone's fault. It's quite different from someone pointing a gun at you and saying "shoot your kid or I'll kill you both.")

Fundies and religious nuts call it martyrdom. I call it suicide. People with extremist religious beliefs are the real "culture of death," since they'll die for their religious beliefs even when it serves no life-saving purpose.

Christian fundies get all butthurt when you point out they're pretty much the same as Muslim fanatics: force your religion on others and die for the cause. I think they're hurt by the comparison because they know it's true.

"mommies who love their unborn babies"

Oh please, get me a barf bucket. In this case, mommy loves her DEAD unborn baby enough to let herself die. (For the thousandth time: an embryo in the tube has 0.0% chance of survival.) Again, suicide. I'm sure her existing children will be thrilled to know she chose to kill herself because their sibling was about to die and was killing her, too.

Oh, and if you read Jamie Glazov's book "United in Hate," you'll find that admiring suicide ("martyrdom") and worshipping death is one common trait among all religious fanatics. That's true whether you're a Muslim blowing yourself up or a cult member drinking poisonous kool-aid--or in this case, a Christian fundie who insists on dying because you're carrying a dying embryo that could kill you. The intent is never to save the most lives, which would actually be "pro-life." The intent is to prove how devout you are by dying for the cause. These are the real "cultures of death."

"But I guess mommies who love their unborn babies are just like the Muslim martyrs who choose to blow themselves up"

Pretty much. A fundie is a fundie.

Ok, Ashley. That's logical. :D

What's an abortion fundamentalist, i wonder? Someone who chooses to abort in order to save her own a**? Would that make you one of those?

Ashley, do you love your dead unborn baby?

Ashley, I stand behind what the Catholic church teaches in regards to ectopic pregnancies. I have never stated anything to the contrary. You are the one who continues to assume others' stances on this topic.

BTW, on a lighter note, when I was your age, the term 'fundies' were crotchless panties given as gifts at bachelorette parties. (:

Stop trying to guilt-trip me over an elective abortion just to feel better about your own nutty, suicidal views on how moms should respond to ectopic pregnancies, which are not elective and can become fatal. Apples and oranges, moron.

And yes, Praxedes is right, not even Catholic doctrine requires mothers to die in ectopic pregnancies. The Church allows termination of the pregnancy in this case, as does every non-cultlike religious sect. So ycw and Kelli are extra-special fundies who like the idea of martyrdom.

Not too far off from the Muslims who blow themselves up because they're sacrificing themselves for Allah.

That's a bunch of hogwash, Ashley.

Doctrine says NO DIRECT abortion, like a poison drug deliberately to kill the embryo. The surgery to remove the infected tube which would result in the baby's death, would NOT be an abortion. The poison drug to directly kill the embryo would be.

If I ever have an ectopic pregnancy, bring on the poison drugs! I'm not losing a tube if it's not necessary.

Besides, what's the difference? The baby either dies via drugs or by having nutrients and blood cut off by removing the tube. The outcome for the embryo is exactly the same: death. (Which will occur anyway, even if the ectopic pregnancy is not treated.)

The intent of making this distinction is clearly to inflict maximum pain and suffering on the woman, because if women's lives have to be saved (and most fundies aren't even enthusiastic about doing that), they need to suffer for it.

"Besides, what's the difference?"

As 'liberal' as you state your Catholic education was, I find it very hard to believe that you never once heard the words Respect for Life.

"I'm not losing a tube if it's not necessary."

There is no way you can understand how truly insane your comment is in relationship to the topic we have been discussing or you would have never said this.

So ycw and Kelli are extra-special fundies who like the idea of martyrdom.

Not too far off from the Muslims who blow themselves up because they're sacrificing themselves for Allah.
Posted by: Ashley Herzog at July 7, 2010 2:19 PM
**********************

Actually, Ashley, if you go back and read what I wrote, you'll see I never expressed what my opinion was regarding dealing with an ectopic pregnancy. :)

P.S. - People who blow themselves up for Allah usually do so with the malicious intent of taking out as many other human lives as possible. If you can't see the difference between that sort of terrorism and martyrdom, then I don't think I'm the moron here.

If I ever have an ectopic pregnancy, bring on the poison drugs! I'm not losing a tube if it's not necessary.

And it ISN'T necessary. But as we discussed before (and as you've so wonderfully ignored every single time I've mentioned it) is that if you think you're going to be able to "catch" and avert a tubal pregnancy by using RU-486, you're nuts. By the time you'd KNOW it was a tubal pregnancy, it'd be too LATE to use RU-486, and if you DIDN'T know you had a tubal pregnancy, use of RU-486 would mimic (and mask) the symptoms of the tubal pregnancy.

Five days ago:

"So Catholic hospitals won't treat women for ectopic pregnancies? Just let 'em die. That seems to be the Catholic view of women: if they're not going to produce babies, they're not worth much anyway, so why not let them die trying?"

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at July 2, 2010 3:00 PM

Proof that hyperbole gets us no further to the truth.

Speaking of how much Catholics value women, I found this story today:

"We know that what happened at St. Joseph's was not an isolated incident. Catholic-owned hospitals across the country have refused to provide emergency abortions, as documented in a recent article in the American Journal of Public Health . For example, a doctor in the Northeast decided to leave a Catholic-owned hospital after he was forced by the hospital's ethics committee to risk a pregnant patient's life. The woman was in the process of miscarrying at 19 weeks of pregnancy. She was dying: her temperature was 106 degrees, she had disseminated intravascular coagulopathy, which is a life-threatening condition that prevents a person's blood from clotting normally and causes excessive bleeding. This patient was bleeding so badly that the sclera, the whites of her eyes, were red, filled with blood. Despite the fact that there was no chance the fetus could survive, the ethics committee told the doctor that he could not perform the abortion the woman needed to save her life until the fetus's heartbeat stopped. After the delay, the patient was in the Intensive Care Unit for 10 days, and developed pulmonary disease, resulting in lifetime oxygen dependency."

That's pretty much the last straw for me. I tried to give some Catholics the benefit of the doubt. But you know what? Screw 'em. I want nothing to do with this death cult.

Speaking of how much Catholics value women, I found this story today:

"We know that what happened at St. Joseph's was not an isolated incident. Catholic-owned hospitals across the country have refused to provide emergency abortions, as documented in a recent article in the American Journal of Public Health . For example, a doctor in the Northeast decided to leave a Catholic-owned hospital after he was forced by the hospital's ethics committee to risk a pregnant patient's life. The woman was in the process of miscarrying at 19 weeks of pregnancy. She was dying: her temperature was 106 degrees, she had disseminated intravascular coagulopathy, which is a life-threatening condition that prevents a person's blood from clotting normally and causes excessive bleeding. This patient was bleeding so badly that the sclera, the whites of her eyes, were red, filled with blood. Despite the fact that there was no chance the fetus could survive, the ethics committee told the doctor that he could not perform the abortion the woman needed to save her life until the fetus's heartbeat stopped. After the delay, the patient was in the Intensive Care Unit for 10 days, and developed pulmonary disease, resulting in lifetime oxygen dependency."

That's pretty much the last straw for me. I tried to give some Catholics the benefit of the doubt. But you know what? Screw 'em. I want nothing to do with this death cult.

Ashley, you totally did not read what I actually wrote, which was that I would aggressively seek innovative treatment that had a chance of saving both our lives, while eschewing traditional treatment or "waiting" that guaranteed my child's death.

I suspect that the only way I could do this is to state that I would rather die than have my child killed--which is true. But I don't see that actually being a likely outcome.

Even tubal rupture has only a 10% death rate, and that's got to be mostly unexpected rupture; there are no stats for an anticipated rupture which occurs in a setting where treatment is quickly available--but I bet the rates are not bad there at all.

My approach doesn't lead to a dead mom and dead baby, but to a most likely living mom (almost certainly living if I get the treatment I request) and the chance of a living baby.

I'm sorry YCW, but what kind of treatment would you have requested in the case Ashley posted above?

I'm never again stepping foot in a Catholic hospital. You know, so I don't end up on an oxygen tank because my dying fetus with no chance of survival is much more important than I am. The people writing Catholic hospital's ethics guidelines are cruel and sadistic, which might explain why the same Church has leaders who keep molesting kids.

I sincerely hope the government shuts these places down for refusing to provide emergency care to women.

What a tragic story, Ashley. :( Yes, we are now fully aware of your Catholic hatred. Duly noted.

My four cents.
I would ask that my doctor try to save both of our lives by inducing labor. The intent would not be to kill my child(as in an abortion)but to save us both. The unfortunate result may be the death of my child or my death, but TRYING to save both of our lives is what my doctor would do.

I believe the Hippocratic Oath states FIRST DO NO HARM. or at least it used to state that.

I'm assuming that inducing labor requires the patient to push, which is dangerous if you have extremely high blood pressure. She already had such bad internal bleeding that it was killing her. Major surgery like C-section was obviously out of the question too. Sorry, but these are the cases where abortions are a last-ditch option to save the mother's life: dilate the cervix and pull the baby out. The baby has no chance of survival at 19 weeks, so the doctor repeatedly requested to perform the abortion. But the ethics committee sat back, put their feet up, and got their rocks off watching this woman's temperature soar to 106 and her eyes fill up with blood. What sick freaks.

And I'm not sure why people don't understand the distinction between babies that can survive outside the womb and the ones who have no chance. A 19-week fetus has no chance of survival, so in a medical crisis, claiming you're letting the mother die because you're trying to figure out how to "save both lives" is a farce. You can't save both lives. In a true emergency, accept that the almighty fetus is a goner no matter what you do, and SAVE THE WOMAN.

My only conclusion is that the fetus-worshippers don't really want to save the woman.

Ashley @ 9:23,

Day six and counting....

Could you please provide a link to the story you posted? It would be nice to be able to read the original story instead of a cut- and-paste about a "Catholic-owned hospital in the northeast".

Your dislike for Catholics and Catholic hospitals is duly noted and you made a wise decision. It probably would be best for your blood pressure and that of the hospital employees if you stayed away.

Your comment at 10:01 makes absolutely no sense at all. Please don't ever go into medicine. And calling pro-lifers fetus-worshippers.... that would be a good thing, right? Oh wait, we can't possibly love both the mom and the baby. Never mind.

Please forgive my sarcasm.... it only adds fuel to the fire.

Here ya go.

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/8dm907hm

My definition of "fetus worshipper" is someone who sits back and feels holy while a woman's eyes fill up with blood because no one will abort the non-viable fetus that's killing her. I'm sure they're patting themselves on the back for their pro-life compassion. After all, she did only end up on an oxygen tank for the rest of her life instead of dying.

Needless to say, the precious, precious fetus the Catholic hospital valued more than this woman's life also died. But they knew that would happen from the beginning.

I'm off to work, but feel free to keep making excuses for these sick and sadistic people.

The "almighty fetus" in any scenario involving me would be my child. Thankyouverymuch.

What I have gathered from Jill and her experience with induced labor abortion is a child that premature slips out. A BIG distinction would be that a mommy might actually get to hold her child and say goodbye before he/she dies instead of putting him/her in a soiled utility closet or garbage can to die alone. Hmmmm.

Ashley,
Your emotions are running away with you. Who is making excuses for this hospital? What a sad and tragic story and I too would like to read the whole thing and any others you happen upon.

"What I have gathered from Jill and her experience with induced labor abortion is a child that premature slips out."

If that's true, I have no idea why the hospital didn't just do that. That's not even an abortion. They could have even tried to resuscitate the 19-week baby. (Although the effort would have certainly been futile, since the youngest surviving baby, ever, was 21 weeks.) That's just flat-out medical negligence on the Catholic hospital's part, which is why I'd never step foot in one of these places.

Besides, shouldn't the definition of "abortion" be intent? There's a big difference between someone who simply doesn't want to be pregnant, and those who want to be, but are dying.

I really have to go...I'll be back later, of course.

I have no idea why they didn't do that either, Ashley.

The intent of an abortion is to kill the child. True.

See you later.

"Needless to say, the precious, precious fetus the Catholic hospital valued more than this woman's life also died."

Ashley, Some people believe that all human life is EQUALLY valuable and that none of us is inherantly more valuable than another one of us. For prolifers, this way of thinking extends to all unborn humans as well.

The second paragraph of the one-sided article you quote states: "Catholic-owned hospital ethics committees denied approval of uterine evacuation while fetal heart tones were still present"

To be sure, there are hard and sad cases but as a prolifer, this ethic committee's decision greatly reassures me. Condoning the directly killing of any human who still has a beating heart is a slippery slope.

Janet @ 11:34.
Thanks -- I needed this reminder! (:

"We know that what happened at St. Joseph's was not an isolated incident. Catholic-owned hospitals across the country have refused to provide emergency abortions, as documented in a recent article in the American Journal of Public Health . For example, a doctor in the Northeast decided to leave a Catholic-owned hospital after he was forced by the hospital's ethics committee to risk a pregnant patient's life. The woman was in the process of miscarrying at 19 weeks of pregnancy. She was dying: her temperature was 106 degrees, she had disseminated intravascular coagulopathy, which is a life-threatening condition that prevents a person's blood from clotting normally and causes excessive bleeding. This patient was bleeding so badly that the sclera, the whites of her eyes, were red, filled with blood. Despite the fact that there was no chance the fetus could survive, the ethics committee told the doctor that he could not perform the abortion the woman needed to save her life until the fetus's heartbeat stopped. After the delay, the patient was in the Intensive Care Unit for 10 days, and developed pulmonary disease, resulting in lifetime oxygen dependency."

Ashley,
A theraputic abortion at this stage would of likely been a D&E, with a life-saving measure being an emergency C-section. There are no easy or pat answers. In any case, any major surgery, including the D&E (theraputic abortion) would of posed a a threat to her health, because she was so medically unstable, with disseminated intravascular coagulopathy, she was at risk of hemmorhaging following an abortion as well.

I have a friend who had a blood disease and the pregnancy if it continued would kill her. They induced labor and her son was delivered(16 weeks) and she held him until he died.

Is that what you call what happened medically speaking, Rachael? Therapeutic abortion? She would NEVER consider what happened to her an abortion.
She would slap whoever would say that to her.

Just curious.

"as a prolifer, this ethic committee's decision greatly reassures me. Condoning the directly killing of any human who still has a beating heart is a slippery slope."

Inducing labor to save the mother is not an abortion. You can try to resuscitate the baby, even if there's almost no chance it will work. I don't know why these fanatics can't see the difference in intent: inducing labor to preserve the most life in an emergency vs. inducing labor to end a life in a non-emergency. Yes, these are different.

[Edited by mod]

Enough already, Ashley. You can make your point without the continuous insults and trash talk about Catholics. I know you can.

Your comment's been edited.

I have a friend who had a blood disease and the pregnancy if it continued would kill her. They induced labor and her son was delivered(16 weeks) and she held him until he died.

Is that what you call what happened medically speaking, Rachael? Therapeutic abortion? She would NEVER consider what happened to her an abortion.
She would slap whoever would say that to her.

Just curious.

Not at all, Carla! You should know me by now, that I don't judge women with a poor prenatal diagnosis or adverse maternal health condition:
http://mylifeinreflection.blogspot.com/2005/12/adverse-prenatal-diagnosis-maternal.html

Let me rephrase what I wrote: A theraputic abortion at this stage would of likely been a D&E; however a life saving measurec ould of also been preformed, which could of saved the life of mother and child and lessoned the chance of brain damage, either by preforming an emergency C-section or early induction of labor. However, there are no easy answers and a theraputic abortion wouldn't of been a miracle treatment, any major surgery, including a theraputic abortion would of posed a a threat to her health, because she was so medically unstable, with disseminated intravascular coagulopathy, she was at risk of hemmorhaging following an abortion as well.

I have a friend who had a blood disease and the pregnancy if it continued would kill her. They induced labor and her son was delivered(16 weeks) and she held him until he died.

Is that what you call what happened medically speaking, Rachael? Therapeutic abortion? She would NEVER consider what happened to her an abortion.
She would slap whoever would say that to her.

Just curious.

Not at all, Carla! You should know me by now, that I don't judge women with a poor prenatal diagnosis or adverse maternal health condition, nor do I consider early labor induction an abortion:
http://mylifeinreflection.blogspot.com/2005/12/adverse-prenatal-diagnosis-maternal.html

Let me rephrase what I wrote: A theraputic abortion at this stage would of likely been a D&E; however a life saving measurec ould of also been preformed, which could of saved the life of mother and child and lessoned the chance of brain damage, either by preforming an emergency C-section or early induction of labor (I unintentionally omitted this before). However, there are no easy answers and a theraputic abortion wouldn't of been a miracle treatment, any major surgery, including a theraputic abortion would of posed a a threat to her health, because she was so medically unstable, with disseminated intravascular coagulopathy, she was at risk of hemmorhaging following an abortion as well.

"I'm off to work, but feel free to keep making excuses for these sick and sadistic people."

Here is what these "sick and sadistic people" do:

"Catholic health care combines up-to-date technology and highly trained medical professionals in providing a broad spectrum of services including:

Acute care
Subacute care
Skilled nursing
Adult daycare/assisted living/residential care
Home health
Hospice
Housing programs (including senior, low-income, and special needs housing)
Behavioral health services
Programs for persons with HIV/AIDS
Community-based outreach services
The Catholic health ministry is present in all 50 states and comprises the nation's largest group of not-for-profit health care sponsors, systems, and facilities. Our organizations employ more than 500,000 full-time and more than 200,000 part-time workers. Every day, one in six patients in the United States — more than 5.5 million in one year — receives care in a Catholic hospital."

let's not forget that 98% of abortions are elective.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

I know Rachael!! I have learned so much from you!! :)

I just would hate for the women who really did want their babies lives and their lives to be saved to think they had a therapeutic abortion. I guess I don't usually read that term a lot? When my friend talks about her son she says they did everything they could for them both.

Anyway, I appreciate any and all heroic measures meant to SAVE lives of children and their mothers in life threatening situations. Sometimes the outcome is so heartbreaking.

To all Catholic prolifers and to all who have worked for Catholic hospitals like myself I truly detest the Catholic hospital bashing that has been posted on this thread. It is a disgrace that Catholic healthcare institutions that have provided healthcare and saves the lives of millions of patients every year regardless of their ability to pay, who have donated billions of dollars worldwide to serve the sick and the dying is being maligned in such a horrible way.

Ashley, I continue to pray for your healing and deliverance from the demons of hatred and pain that are tormenting you. To say such despicable things about prolifers who post here you must be in tremendous pain. I have heard that "hurting people hurt people". You indeed are desperately in need of help and I pray you get it. May God help you. I would encourage others to ignore the ranting and irrational accusations, which is what I plan to do. Good night and God help us all.

It's always nice to see people discredited when they offer dissenting opinions. Ashley, you're insane. Duly noted?

The ACLU's statement makes it pretty clear that Catholic hospitals can do whatever they need to do, in good faith, to save a pregnancy in emergency situations. And I'm sure there are women who, at 19 weeks pregnant and newly diagnosed with ovarian cancer, would delay treatment to induce labor at 23 weeks. She absolutely has the right to decide which course of medical action to take.

But this should be a decision she agrees to by choice. It's negligent practice to delay medical action in pregnancy emergencies WITHOUT THE WOMAN'S EXPLICIT CONSENT. Chancing the mother's life also chance's the fetus', but I guess playing Russian Roulettes with people's lives falls below therapeutic abortion on the Catholic moral hierarchy.

Dissenting opinions are one thing.
Continuous bashing of Catholics, Catholicism, and Catholic hospitals is another. Laced with expletives. Can't forget that.

Duly noted? :)

The people writing Catholic hospital's ethics guidelines are cruel and sadistic, which might explain why the same Church has leaders who keep molesting kids.

I sincerely hope the government shuts these places down for refusing to provide emergency care to women.
Posted by: Ashley Herzog
Ashley
their have been other religous faiths beside catholic priests that have molested children so if you're going say something bout priest molesting children you might as well include other religous faiths

The ACLU is making a claim that Catholic hospitals nationwide refusing are abortions for women in very rare instances in which it may somehow be necessary to save their life. But ACLU is coming under fire on its own accord for misrepresenting the situation and trying to force hospitals to do abortions
http://www.lifenews.com/nat6512.html