Have you noticed the frequent talking point at DU? Abortion is "elective", like "plastic surgery"

madfloridian

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Dec-04-09 07:24 PM
Original message

Have you noticed the frequent talking point at DU? Abortion is "elective", like "plastic surgery"

Edited on Fri Dec-04-09 07:59 PM by madfloridian

That is a fairly new talking point, straight from the religious right. It is popping up daily now since we nervy women spoke up about the rigid Stupak amendment that was done in concert with the Catholic bishops and calls from Rome to Nancy Pelosi.

It's really a clever one, too.

The problem is that those who use it forget that real live humans are involved. .

The way it stands now late term abortion is mostly forbidden legally and/or will not be paid by insurance unless the women is in danger of dying. Her health does not matter, the quality of life of her baby does not matter. All that matters is the demands made mostly by the religious community will be followed.

If anyone who thinks abortion is just like cosmetic surgery, may I suggest you observe a woman giving birth. Then think about the idiocy of what you are saying. It is insulting to compare a mother's life and a baby's life to "cosmetic surgery." I am stunned it is allowed here at a Democratic website.

Read about what some real people and real doctors had to say.

The real victims of Stupak Pitts

When I heard about the Stupak/Pitts amendment, I was in a room with 15 other doctors who shared my anger and disappointment. We had gathered for a board meeting for Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, and we were horrified by the cruelty the amendment has in store for our patients. In examining rooms, we see women in terrible pain, but their suffering doesn�t count in Stupak/Pitts world. By banishing abortion from the reform bill, the amendment punishes women who need to end unwanted or unhealthy pregnancies.

....But the next ultrasound showed that the twins are conjoined, or Siamese. The babies are joined at the head, sharing a brain, and chest, sharing a heart. They have two spines, four arms, and four legs. It would be impossible to separate them. If they survive after birth, it would only be for a few minutes. One heart can�t keep two bodies alive. The risk of stillbirth is also very high.

But because Sherry�s insurance will not pay for her abortion, she has to worry about money on top of her other fears. She is on Medicaid, which will cover the twins� delivery, alive or dead, but not an abortion�fetal abnormality isn�t enough to get around the Hyde amendment. Although the abortion would be less expensive in a clinic, Sherry would have to go to a hospital since she could need surgery. She would be responsible for the entire bill of at least $10,000 to cover the operating room, anesthesia, medication, and other fees. This expense would destroy her family�s financial well-being.

Sherry can carry her babies to term who cannot and will not live, or she can have an abortion and possibly bankrupt her family.

Elective? Such a coldhearted thing to say. A talking point that the extreme right has made mainstream...even made it popular at a Democratic forum.

Another example of a lethal anomaly, a mother forced to carry to term.

From Nancy Stanwood, MD, MPH:

My patient Carol was excited to give birth to her first child. Her husband was a Marine serving in Afghanistan. Sadly, in her second trimester, Carol learned that her baby had a lethal anomaly. She and her husband made the difficult decision to have an abortion.

That�s when they learned that the military health insurance they relied on wouldn�t cover the abortion unless Carol�s life was in danger.

Her husband was outraged. He had just flown back from Afghanistan to be with her, and he angrily asked me, �I�m over there defending my country, and they won�t even take care of my family?�

Some here at DU think Stupak Pitts is simply keeping a woman from choosing to have an abortion and making others pay for it. It is so much deeper and complicated than that. Pitts believes women may sometimes be complicit in their rape, and they should have to prove it was forced. The arrogance reeks.

Pitts of Stupak-Pitts fame even thinks a woman should PROVE her rape was forcible.

"A day before the bill passed out of committee, Stupak co-sponsored, and voted for an amendment written by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA)--distinct from the now notorious "Stupak amendment"--that would have limited the government's ability to include abortions in benefits plans to cases of incest, life of the mother, and forcible rape.

The Pitts amendment actually passed, 31-27, with the support of several Democrats and all Republicans. But the "forcible" language--legally significant--was a bridge too far.

In a parliamentary maneuver, chairman Henry Waxman actually voted "aye", according to a House aide, in order to retain the prerogative of bringing it up for a second, unsuccessful vote. Between votes, Waxman conferred with some of the bill's Democratic supporters to convince them to help shoot it down."

Here is only one story of an insurance company denying payment for an abortion...and Stupak had not even passed. Remember the men in suits who have urged passage of laws forbidding abortion except in the case of the mother's life...do not care about her health or the health of the baby.

Insurance tells woman her life not in danger, abortion not needed...billed $9,000.

Her voice breaking, D.J. Feldman, a Washington, D.C. federal employee, recently spoke to the press about her struggles with her insurance company after she aborted a much-desired pregnancy because of a fetal diagnosis of anencephaly (the absence of a major portion of the brain, skull and scalp). The insurance would only cover abortion in the case of rape, incest or a threat to her life, so the fact that if Feldman had continued the pregnancy, it would have been both physically and emotionally grueling�resulting either in a fetal demise, a stillbirth, or a live birth of a newborn who would quickly die�had no effect on the insurance company�s decision.

The primary culprit in this situation is not really Feldman�s insurance carrier, however, but the U.S. Congress. For decades it has imposed such unconscionable restrictions on abortion coverage for federal employees, as well as on women in the military, Native Americans using government provided health facilities and women on Medicaid in a majority of states.

Let's not forget the woman who was able to save one twin instead having both die, whose selective abortion would not be paid for under Stupak.

At my next doctor appointment when I asked my perinatalogist if the termination we had would be allowed under the abortion ban. He said no. I was outraged and felt violated, how a group of individuals dare think they can make life-altering medical decisions for me. If I hadn�t had the termination, I would have buried two babies instead of only one. I contacted the SDCHF and the next day I was giving my first interview with Newsweek.
RH Reality

To those who think silly women go around demanding abortions on demand, "electing" to have abortions so easily....go look up the word "anencephaly".

Do some research on other lethal anomalies...that would result in the baby being stillborn, or having no quality of life, perhaps dying shortly after birth.

Ask yourself just how much like cosmetic surgery that really is.