LAWRENCE, Kan. - Okay, now that that dirtbag Scott Roeder has been put away where he rightfully belongs, can we please, as a country, grow up and discuss this issue out loud? I mean, really discuss it? Because if we leave things as they are, abortion providers are in trouble. Women are in trouble.
I know that abortion is a contentious issue. I know that third term abortion is a particularly disturbing notion. But the U.S. media has been completely remiss about explaining to the public what third term abortion really entails, and it's time we put the facts on the table.
Though Roe V Wade made abortion legal across the land, states still have the right to set a date after the first trimester at which a woman has no right to an abortion. Most states have set that date somewhere in the second trimester. And in most states, that's a hard and fast rule: Once a pregnancy has progressed past a certain point, an abortion is no longer an option, except in the case of the mother's life being in danger.
Here's the problem: while it is fairly rare that a pregnancy puts a mother's life in danger (anti-abortion advocates LOVE to throw that around) the fact is that there are a fair number of pregnancies where, despite all our medical advances, it's not discovered until the third trimester that the baby is not going to be viable at birth.
That means that in most states, a mother who discovers to her horror at some point in her third trimester that her baby has such a horrible defect that the baby will simply not live once the child is disconnected from the mother via the umbilical chord, the mother will have to carry that child to term anyway, give birth to the child and then watch the baby die.
Now, there are just a handful of states that, in their infinite wisdom--Kansas is one--where the law says that a mother may terminate her pregnancy in the third term if the pregnancy will cause great mental harm.
I would say that giving birth to a baby that will die in your arms qualifies as great mental harm. And I would say that any person who tries to dictate that a woman and her partner have no choice but to endure such terror is a self-righteous piece of crap.
Someone may correct me on this point--and please do if you know better--but I don't think that in any state in this great nation a mother may terminate her pregnancy in the third trimester if the baby is not viable.
This is a national tragedy. Laws need to be changed.
Anti-abortion zealots also love to point out that Dr. Tiller was aborting thousands of babies a year. Well, when you look at this matter statistically, with only four or so doctors in the entire country performing third-term abortions, that's a lot of women, having to travel lots of miles, in order to find a doctor compassionate enough to perform such a service.
Please. I beg of the U.S. media: we have to talk about this OUT LOUD. The only news outlet I've ever heard of discussing this publicly is NPR. If we don't talk about this we'll have more dead doctors and more families faced with a gruesome reality and no where to go for help.
While I agree that watching a child die in your arms is unspeakably tragic, there is a distinction between the two scenarios: Late-term abortion actively kills a child, whereas a death after birth is a natural progression of life. Which one is better or worse? I think that question is best left to God to answer for only He knows. I can only offer one perspective: doing what is best for the child is probably the best answer. The mental anguish of the mother is secondary. I wonder if late-term abortion *hurts*?
Just as a matter of cost aborting a non viable fetus is much cheaper than giving birth to a baby that will die within a week,or month. a month's worth of natal ICU can easily cost what a new house costs, most people don't have those kind of resources.
I don't think that it's anyone's right to tell someone else that it's "up to god" and therefore you should give birth to your doomed baby. I do not believe in god, so that line of "logic" means nothing to me. I also happen to believe that people should be able to choose euthanasia if their quality of life stinks.
Depending on the deformity, it's probably pretty painful for a baby to die because its lungs won't allow it take proper breaths or ... I don't know, probably a hundred other medical conditions that are painful to a damaged baby before it dies.
Those are great points but one problem is the question of medical oversight. Who tells the person that there baby has such a severe deformity or problem that they should abort? In Kansas the law required 2 doctors, both not connected, to sign off to terminating the pregnancy. Dr. Tiller got in trouble for using someone who WAS connected financially to his abortion clinic. I think everyone can agree we don't want to see unethical doctors telling a family they should abort because of a medical issue when in truth the baby could be born just fine.
So I *think* you're saying that Tiller and another doctor were possibly purposefully aborting healthy babies to make money? I suppose that could happen, but I seriously doubt it. It's a difficult thing to think about, but there are unfortunately plenty of pregnancies that go medically wrong to keep four or so 3rd term abortion doctors busy. I don't think anybody needs to be making up fake reasons to abort. (Man, I don't even like thinking about that.)
I'm confused by your fourth to last paragraph where you ask for someone to correct you if they know differently. Are you advocating for third term abortion without restrictions ? I'm not understanding what you are trying to say.
hhkansas, what Amber states in that paragraph is that, according to the facts that she has, she believes that no state in the U.S. allows a mother to legally terminate her pregnancy in the third trimester if the baby is viable. I believe she is asking if anyone has any information about state laws that would allow termination of a fetus that would be viable outside the womb.
Whoops! Hit that submit button too quickly! I'm not aware of any states that have those kind of loose restrictions. Would you advocate for or against loosening third term restrictions?
Some people believe in God and some don't. Some people believe in a vindictive, demanding, and cruel God and some believe in a loving and forgiving God. Some folks believe in a god other than the God of Abraham and Father of Jesus. Some people feel compelled to demand civil authority to recognize only their God, god, or gods.
I believe in the God of the Old Testament and Father of Jesus. But, I don't believe my God has commissioned me to declare that every man has to bow down and worship my God according to my interpretation of His laws. I believe my God created man (I don't claim to know just when and how.) with a mind and will of his own. Man can either accept or reject God and it isn't up to me to decide for the final judgment who has and who hasn't accepted. Civil or State law can't do it either.
Civil or State laws (by authority of our Constitution) are enacted on the basis of good relationship of mankind with mankind, not Mankind with man's perception of God, god, or gods. Thus we have laws that require or restrict and mete out punishment by degree. Abortion laws cannot be constructed on the basis of religious law if we have unrestricted freedom of religion. Freedom of religion also means Freedom from religion, too.
Our laws pertaining to murder are nuanced on premeditated, homicide, etc. There is no argument on whether life has begun at birth. But any determination of life, as we know life, before birth is controversial. Religion plays a big role in that determination for most people. But to determine the absolute point that life begins is even controversial between different followers of most all religions. Some determine that it begins at conception and some contend it's a violation of their God's laws to practice contraception. How then can civil government make a hard and fast law without it being based on a religious canon of law? Whose canon shall we use?
My conscience and theology won't let me support unrestricted abortion, but I'm not sure that makes me the judge of what you can support. It is a matter that has to be decided by the individual (female carrying the fetus). The male lost his control of the situation when he deposited the sperm.
I love your last paragraph, Ken. Well said.
Yikes! That was a COMPLETE mistatment. I meant to write that "I do believe that in no state in this great nation a mother may terminate her pregnancy in the third trimester if the baby is NOT viable." I left out a very important word. I'll see if I can edit that...
Amber, clarification please - it's a double negative so I want to make sure I'm clear on what you're saying.
Are you saying that, to your knowledge, if a baby is no longer alive in the womb (not viable in the womb) that there is no state that will allow a mother to abort the dead baby even though it's already no longer living?
Or, are you saying that instead, that if a baby is not able to survive outside the womb (not viable outside the womb, even though it is still alive in the womb) that there is not a state that will allow a woman to abort that the fetus since it cannot survive outside the womb?
(I'm really asking because I think you are more knowledgeable than many of us about the laws....)
By the way, everybody, this discussion here is very constructive. I think we are fulfilling Amber's wish - that we discuss third trimester abortion out loud. Thanks for starting the discussion Amber!
So, would you advocate for or against more restrictions on third trimester abortions?
Man, I'm having a tough time with this, huh? I think this is correct now: "but I don't think that in any state in this great nation a mother may terminate her pregnancy in the third trimester if the *baby* is not viable."
I am advocating that if it is found in the third trimester that a baby has fatal flaws, a mother should be able to abort for that reason and that reason only. She should not have to work her way around the law by using "mental distress" as a sort of loophole.
In most states, a woman can't abort past the 27th week unless *her* life is in danger. But what if, as in Eloise's example elsewhere on the front page of Kansas Free Press, a mother finds out in the 30th week that her baby's brain is developing on the outside of the body? In most states, she'll have to carry that child for the remaining 10 weeks, while people smile at her, ask her if it's a boy or a girl, ask to rub her stomach ... all the while knowing that she is going to give birth and not come home with a child. To me, this is clearly the definition of "cruel and unusual". In cases like this a woman should not have to travel from New York State to Kansas to get the procedure done. Again, this seem cruel and unecessary. She should have the choice to be able to end the pregnancy on her terms, in her own home state.
Thank you so much for that clarification. I have a much better understanding of what you meant now! I see what you mean now. It seems only common sense that if a baby carried to term is believed to not be able to live outside the womb, then - it is cruel and unnecessary punishment for the mother to be required to carry the baby to term. I actually did not know that women did not have options in those circumstances. Thank you Amber, your article has done much to further public awareness.
Yes thanks Amber. Great article and great discussion.
Women need to maintain sovereignty over their own bodies under all circumstances. Women's bodies do not belong to the state or to the public or anyone else!
We all need to trust women to do what's right with their own bodies and we need to stop trying to legislate what they can or cannot do with their own bodies!
That's Ethel's story I was referring to, not Eloise. Very sorry. And I should have said I am advocating that if it is found in the third trimester that a baby has fatal flaws, a mother should be able to abort for that reason in and of itself.
I was rushing to get out the door to see Leonard Pitts Jr. be presented the William Allen White award at KU. He's my favorite columnist!
I think I'd better quit while I'm behind today.
An anonymous woman was told by doctors that her pregnancy will end in a stillbirth, and that she should have an abortion to save herself from potentially dangerous complications. She decided not to have the abortion as advised by her OB, and instead went though the risky pregnancy and delivery. The woman gave birth to a baby boy in 1987 – both survived. And the same boy, who was suppose to be born dead and cause his mother great harm, went on to win the Heisman Trophy in 2007 as the starting quarterback for the Florida Gators.
Linda - that was her choice. She took a chance, and it ended well. Great for her. I would submit that doctors know better in 2010 about the state of a pregnancy than they did in 1987.
But I fail to see, Linda, how you could condemn a woman to carrying a dying baby to full term if she and her family couldn't handle the mental strain. To me, it's obviously cruel as well as passing judgment.
Amber, you wrote a very clear and well-written article. It was me and my pea-brain that needed the clarification! I've learned something new here and I think many others have as well. Thanks so much for taking the time to write this.
The pregnant woman - and only that woman - should have any decision in the matter. No one else. Not Linda (the commenter above) nor anyone else. It's a woman's decision and should always remain that. If our laws are not allowing women to make these decisions - on their own - and for their own private reasons - then, we must fix our laws. No government should ever tell a woman what to do with her own body - EVER.